Rule Of Law Suddenly Unimportant At Khan Al-Amar

Of course no one would suggest political considerations really lie at the heart of the rule-of-law arguments.

Jerusalem, September 12 – Legal scholars and political commentators have noticed in recent weeks that despite its supremacy in every other arena, the rule of law appears to have no place in the ongoing controversy over a Bedouin squatter village in the Judean Desert slated for demolition and relocation.

The experts note that unequivocal assertions regarding the primacy of the rule of law over other considerations regarding, for example, demolition orders for Jewish homes with similar illegal status, remain absent vis-à-vis Khan Al-Amar among those who under other circumstances trumpet that ideal as surpassing all competing notions.

“It’s a mystery,” remarked legal scholar Leff Tistajenda. “Over the last several years we have heard dozens, perhaps hundreds, of claims from within certain political circles that everyone must respect the rule of law, and that no individual or group lies above the law – most recently in the case that cleared the way to demolish Jewish homes in the Etzion Bloc that were built partially on disputed land. Many, if not most, of the same proponents of those claims have warned us of the damage to democracy if anyone tampers with the sacrosanct High Court, according to many the last bastion of pure, unbiased interpretation. Yet the same parties now ignore, dismiss, or otherwise explain away the High Court rulings calling for the demolition and relocation of the Bedouin at Khan Al-Amar, and demand the ruling not be implemented. It’s an enigma.”

“Of course no one would suggest political considerations really lie at the heart of the rule-of-law arguments,” insisted Professor Yudah N. Rein of Tel Aviv University. “We must assume the existence of some powerful, as-yet-undefined, principle that applies here, in the case of Khan Al-Amar, but was not in play in the myriad other cases in which these people and institutions placed the rule of law above all else. One could never posit, heaven forbid, that human rights must always trump the rule of law, because that would imply that Jews whose homes get demolished do not have human rights, and no one in Israeli politics would ever say such a thing out loud. Something else must be at work here.”

“Don’t forget compassion,” replied Tistajenda. “I don’t recall the same people calling for compassion toward the Netiv HaAvot residents – but we can’t have anyone thinking only Arabs deserve compassion, at least not in polite company, so we better come up with a reasonable distinction between these cases or people might think there’s hypocrisy afoot. And we can’t have that in politics.”

Please support our work through Patreon.