Earlier today I read a very good diary by Jay Elias called,
We Should All Support the Rule of Law in Israel
http://www.dailykos.com/...
But then I found myself confused by one statement. That one thing I found confusing is that it discussed the rule of law in Israel and Israelis living in the West Bank, now under military occupation, but it also referred to the actions of Palestinians in a protest. And as I read it, Palestinians should also follow the rule of law instead of protesting. I don’t know if that actually was intended, since most of the essay described Israelis on the West Bank.
But an incident was quoted from a newspaper. It read,
22 wounded in weekly Bil'in anti-separation fence protest
It was reported that "two Border Policemen and 20 protestors were wounded Friday during the course of a demonstration against the construction of the West Bank separation fence held in village of Bil'in, west of Ramallah."
If I read correctly, it was implied that the protesters should obey the military police who were trying to enforce the rule of law and put down this "lawless" protest. Should they? Aren’t these protesters just asking that the military occupation be stopped? Hasn’t the occupation been ruled illegal by international courts?
Another rule of law that Israel imposed in the West Bank is troubling.
Being a Palestinian in the West Bank is probably not easy. The worst thing that can happen is death by the military police, who can kill you on sight. That’s not easy to take as a rule of law, but a few months ago the Israel High Court found a way to make assassinations permissible.
I read a story several weeks ago about a Palestinian man, whose brother was involved in the Palestinian resistance. The man let his brother into his home for a visit. That seemed enough for the Israeli forces to assassinate him.
This article tells why the rule of law in Israel permits murder of Palestinian resisters on sight without trial.
High Court: Targeted killing permissible
Petitioners claim State of Israel has no right to take human life, asks judges to prohibit IDF's 'assassination policy.' Court rejects petition, rules 'it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law, just as it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is permissible according to customary international law'
http://www.ynetnews.com/...
It is odd to find the Israel High Court quoting international law, since Israel and even the High Court has ignored international law about the military occupation.
More,
Justice Barak wrote in the ruling that "at times democracy fights with one hand tied behind her back. Despite that, democracy has the upper hand, since preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitute an important component of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her and her spirit, and allow her to overcome her difficulties."
This is an unbelievable application of the rule of law. In a democracy, in other words, a military occupier can kill at will because it cannot be determined beforehand if the killing will be justified. This is like, kill then ask questions later. Nothing is said about the illegality of the occupation, which was determined so by international law.
According to the High Court, the decision was democratic because it preserves "the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties." But just whose individual liberties are they talking about?
And whose democracy is this justice talking about? If there is democracy in the West Bank, just how can it be under military occupation? That’s what makes for even more confusion. There is a government in the West Bank elected by a democratic vote. Does its parliament have anything to say about killings or protests in the West Bank? If there is such a thing as Palestinian law, laws made by elected Palestinians, and they pass a law saying it is impermissible for anyone to kill another person then what laws prevail. Israel’s law, military law, or Palestinian law?
I hope I am making my point. I am very confused about the application of the rule of law when it applies outside of Israel, like in the West Bank, or when these places are mixed. Mixing Israel and the West Bank with law leads to some awkward circumstances. Maybe some laws should not be obeyed.