Interview with Hassan Jabareen, Radio Alshams, 21 June 2012

The main case being discussing in this interview is HCJ 5478/11, MK Ahmad Tibi v. The Speaker of the Knesset, MK Reuven Rivlin. In this case, Adalah General Director Attorney Hassan Jabareen is representing MK Tibi in a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court against the Knesset Presidium's decision to disqualify a legislative bill that MK Tibi proposed prohibiting Nakba denial, following the enactment of the new “Nakba Law”. The interview also discusses several other cases pending several Arab members of Knesset, and the implications of these cases.

Interview with Hassan Jabareen
Radio Al-Shams, 21 June 2012

The main case being discussed in this interview is HCJ 5478/11, MK Ahmad Tibi v. The Speaker of the Knesset, MK Reuven Rivlin. In this case, Adalah General Director, Attorney Hassan Jabareen, is representing MK Tibi on a petition before the Israeli Supreme Court against the Knesset Presidency’s decision to disqualify a bill that MK Tibi proposed prohibiting denial of the Nakba, following the enactment of the new “Nakba Law”. The interview also discusses several other cases concerning Arab members of the Knesset, and the implications of these cases.  

Jackie Khoury, Radio Al-Shams: [In this case] the Jewish state is before the Supreme Court, [a court] which has always defended the state.

Hassan Jabareen: This case marks the first time that the issue [of the Jewish state and Nakba denial] was brought in this way before the Supreme Court. It has been raised because of an internal regulation of the Knesset, which allow the Speaker and his seven deputies [the Presidency] to block any proposed law from coming up for discussion if it is racist or denies that Israel is a state for the Jewish people. 

Before this case, the regulation was always used only to block racist bills. This is the first time it has been used since 1985, during [Meir] Kahane’s time. This is the first time that the Speaker has used it to block a proposed bill from discussion on the Knesset floor, based on identity of the Jewish state.

We are arguing that this action [to block the bill] is illegal because there is no law giving [the Speaker and his deputies] this power, only an internal regulation of the Knesset. The Knesset [Presidency] cannot become a High Constitutional Court and, as you said, turn the issue into one of principle  deciding upon the constitutionality and legality of the bill.

Jackie: The question is whether the Supreme Court is able to rule that the bill must be put on the Knesset floor, where of course it will be roundly defeated.  How do you explain the Court’s decision to review the case when the majority government coalition is so large? Is there fear from the Knesset in regards to this issue, or to decide favorably only for the future?

Hassan: Both are correct. It is difficult today for the Court to dictate to the Knesset majority, especially to the Speaker of the Knesset, who the Court does not consider especially right wing. He supported blocking the bill. So any decision against the Speaker of the Knesset will be politically difficult.

The second aspect, the legal difficulty, is the use of the regulation this way for the first time. The Supreme Court must give standards on this first use of the regulation. If there are no legal standards, there will be petitions filed daily on the subject, and the Court will suffer.

Jackie: Another question: the Court did not reject the petition yesterday, early in proceedings. Is this a positive sign for you?

Hassan: Yes it is positive. Practically, the Court showed that it thinks that this case raises a fundamental issue and that the petition is based on serious legal claims. But this does not mean that they will accept the petition. What we obtained was an order to show cause, an interim order, but at this stage all a lawyer wants is such an order. 

Jackie: I’ll ask in general, from watching the events of the past month… in the last week [MK] Haneen [Zoabi], yesterday [MK Ahmad] Tibi, next week [MK Said] Naffaa. It seems that all the [Arab] political parties are before the court.

Hassan: In Adalah we are calling this the “Month of the Arab MKs”. The month began with MK [Mohammed] Barakeh, [on trial for anti-War, anti-Wall demonstrations] with two charges against him dropped in Tel Aviv, then with [a hearing on MK] Haneen Zoabi’s case before seven justices about the revocation of her parliamentary privileges [for her participation in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in 2010], and yesterday the petition of MK Tibi. This week [28 June], with perhaps the hardest issue, we have the criminal charge of contact with a foreign agent, punishable by 15 years in prison, against MK Naffaa.

Notice that this is the first time that all of these charges are being brought in this way. It is the first time that there are indictments against Members of Knesset for demonstrating, as in MK Barakeh’s case; on account of the flotilla against MK Haneen Zoabi stemming from her participation in political actions; the petition by a member of Knesset, MK Tibi, in regards to the Jewish identity of the state being used prevent the proposal of a law; and the first time a charge of contact with a foreign agent has been brought, against MK Naffaa. All these cases suggest that there will be strong attempts to remove the [Arab political] parties’ lists from the upcoming elections [in 2013].

We have worked for 15 years and have become specialists in this area. We understand the exceptions, and there is little in this field that we have not seen before. There have been times when charges were brought against an MK or two, such as in MK Azmi Bishara’s case, but not like this, against all [Arab] Knesset members in all parties.