| << Prev || עברית || Français || Русский || Next >> |
Part Six - The Freedom of the Citizen and Internal and External Security
Part One
Civil liberties and internal security (3/4)
Eliminating police violence
The role of the police is not to judge or punish, but to prevent violations of the law. But in Israel, even if you have not committed any offense, if you are falsely arrested and released, you will be required to give fingerprints, if necessary by force, contrary to what was done in the past. You will be required to sign a guarantee, and if you refuse, your arrest will be extended under various and sundry pretexts, even though there is no reason for this.
In fact, the police are in a constant struggle against the citizen and his freedom. The Israeli citizen prefers not to encounter a policeman and chooses not to turn to one for help. A citizen whom the police do not like can easily find himself the object of severe police violence, followed by charges of assaulting a policeman, and then at trial, having to prove that the opposite is true. The system has all the time in the world - it is the citizen who pays for it. The small citizen has no real power before it, and few are the cases in which he is proven to be in the right[8].
The policeman should see himself as a public servant. When the commanders of local police stations are elected by the residents, a change will occur in the consciousness of the police. Unlawful police violence against civilians should be punished very severely - including substantial compensation taken out of the policeman's salary.
The attitude toward non-violent civil disobedience
The developed free countries recognize that there are situations that justify a formal violation of the law. Norms and rules of conduct in such cases have become one of the foundations of modern democracy. When it comes to individuals, it is ideological refusal; But when it comes to an entire community, it is "polite civil disobedience," or according to the inaccurate translation that has taken root in Israel: "non-violent civil disobedience." Mass civil disobedience carries a far more significant message than the refusal of a few individuals. Large groups that are no longer able to accept the injustices of the government and are willing to violate the law passively, while paying the price involved, point out the extreme injustice that an insensitive regime is leading its subjects into.
A widespread outbreak of civil disobedience is an excellent test of the democratic nature of the government. The common man is not naturally interested in violating the law, but rather in taking care of his normal life, his family, and his livelihood. The small citizen is naturally interested in being led by a clear leadership, and obeying it. Obedience is human nature, and breaking the barrier of obedience is an act that is contrary to human nature. An entire public that goes to the streets in a restrained manner (unlike a mob), with the willingness to break the law and pay the price, should be a red light for every democratic government, a bulb that screams in white letters: You broke the rules of the game - not the formal rules, but the the rules that are more important, the basic framework upon which the values of the nation are based. A regime that ignores such protest - even if the law is on its side - cannot boast of its "democracy". The clear line between the obligation to uphold law and order, and the rare but essential need to violate it in certain situations, enables both the principles of the law as well as the moral principle to exist.
It is now accepted that in all cases where civil disobedience has broken out in Western democracies, this act of rebellion promoted the rule of law and democracy in those countries and prevented severe moral distortions in their institutions. This is an invaluable balancing tool against the arbitrariness of the ruling class, a tool that has always been good for the countries that have accepted it, and has never led to anarchy[9].
In Israel, since its establishment, no such attitude has developed towards the concept of civil disobedience, and every time this tool has been tried by civilians in an attempt to protest non-violently while breaking the law against a policy they considered a fundamental injustice, the state's response has been to suppress the phenomenon with violence, along with a constant attempt to paint the demonstrators as the violent side, with the violent response above reproach.
The Zehut Party, which grew out of the roots of the "Zo Artzeinu" movement, where passive demonstrators experienced on their flesh, on their backs, and on their boons the harsh violence of the police, who were sent for this purpose and therefore by the Israeli government, sees this reality as a moral blight that must be eliminated from the Israeli landscape.
Moreover, it is precisely this attitude of the state that is responsible for the growth of violent marginal groups across the political spectrum. When the government cannot deal with passive demonstrators in a determined but non-violent manner, thereby allowing the public to express its opposition to its policy, and instead chooses the path of forceful intimidation, it invites direct violent resistance from those who may despair of influencing the public by non-violent means.
Zehut is committed to bringing about a policy that distinguishes between violent protests and non-violent protests, and undertakes to refrain from using violence against non-violent struggles, even if they violate the law. There are more than enough legal tools in the hands of the state to deal with violations of the law, and a government that is confident in its policy should not be afraid to prosecute demonstrators who are willing to break the law with the full force of the law for their crimes. Police use of violence should be limited to dealing with truly violent demonstrations.
We believe that when the government recognizes the fundamental difference between a violent disobedience and non-violent disobedience, its ability to deal with violent demonstrations will indeed increase greatly, because when the police are violent against everyone, it has no legitimacy in the eyes of the public to be violent towards anyone. When it is known that the police are exercising force only against those who exercise it themselves, they will have the full legitimacy needed to act with full force against anyone who tries to violently force himself onto society.
[8] The reader is invited to read Moshe Feiglin's book, Where There Are No Men..., which illustrates the material in this chapter with many examples.
[9] Up until here, the section on civil disobedience is quoted from Moshe Feiglin's book, pp. 98-99.
| << Prev || עברית || Français || Русский || Next >> |