Defense Minister Katz Criticizes Supreme Court Over BALAD Party
Translated & summarized from Mignews by baba
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Defense Minister Katz criticized the Supreme Court's decision regarding the BALAD party.
- Katz accused the court of failing to prevent parties supporting armed struggle from running in elections.
- He recalled a past effort to ban the BALAD party and its leader, Azmi Bishara.
- Katz believes the court should issue principled rulings against such activities.
- The BALAD party is accused of maintaining its previous anti-Israel stance.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has sharply criticized the Supreme Court (BAGATS), accusing it of failing to prevent parties that support armed struggle against the state from participating in elections. Katz stated that the court's decision regarding the BALAD party demonstrates a reluctance to take decisive action against such groups.
Katz recalled that years ago, as an opposition Knesset member, he initiated a law amendment that prohibited candidates and political factions from running for parliament if they directly or indirectly supported terrorist activities or armed conflict against Israel. He mentioned that this amendment led to the disqualification of the BALAD party, then led by Azmi Bishara, who had openly called for attacks on IDF soldiers. At the time, the then-Legal Advisor to the Government, Eliakim Rubinstein, supported the initiative, and the Central Elections Committee made a corresponding decision. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision by a majority vote.
Azmi Bishara later left Israel amid treason accusations and fled to Qatar. Katz asserted that the BALAD party has maintained its previous stance, and the Supreme Court's position has remained unchanged. The Defense Minister also commented on a situation where the judicial system allegedly waited for a politician named Shhade to withdraw voluntarily, rather than issuing a principled ruling to ban his activities, suggesting this protected the interests of a specific political bloc during elections.
Katz believes that the court should have made a precedent-setting decision to ban such activities instead of allowing political maneuvering.
Read the original at MignewsMentioned