AHRON SHAPIRO

ISRAELI law doesn’t differentiate between Jewish and Arab terrorism, according to Justice Eliezer Rivlin, deputy president of the Israeli Supreme Court, who is visiting Australia.

Rivlin was guest speaker at an event in Melbourne on November 2 sponsored by Monash and Deakin universities. He made his remarks in the wake of news from Israel regarding the arrest of Israeli immigrant Ya’acov Teitel on charges of committing numerous acts of terrorism.

While Rivlin said he was not aware of the particulars of the case, which had only been made public that day, he declared unequivocally that the religion or nationality of a terror suspect would not affect the outcome of any judge’s potential verdict.

“[Terror suspects] are judged equally and by the same rules,” Justice Rivlin said, noting that Israel’s anti-terror laws are based on British emergency regulations drafted before Israeli independence.

These British regulations, he said, “refer equally to anyone, and when we are tried according to this regulation, it is the same whether they are Jewish or Arab — totally equal”.

During his address, Rivlin examined the special challenges faced by the Israeli Supreme Court.

“The court in Israel decides on questions which I think no other court in the world has to decide,” Rivlin told the audience.

He gave as an example the petitions that the court has heard on the matter of exchanging hundreds of convicted terrorists for the remains of an Israeli soldier.

Rivlin detailed the complex nature of Israeli law as it draws upon Turkish, British and Israeli codes, as well as borrowing from United States and Canadian law.

He enumerated some of the unique contradictions the Israeli courts must contemplate, including what it means to be a Jewish democratic state and matters of separation between synagogue and state.

He talked at length about the constitutional aspects of Israeli law that have been adopted “piecemeal”, and as such have left broad swaths of rights unstated.

Consequently, Rivlin said, a large number of rulings in recent years have relied upon a liberal interpretation of existing laws in order to deliver justice.

Rivlin noted the High Court lacks the barriers for approaching the court that exist in other countries, and that has increased its workload and exposed it to criticism by people who claim it has overstepped its boundaries.

This is especially evident, he said, over matters of national security, such as in the case of its rulings on the security wall.

However, Rivlin said that given the court’s wide responsibilities, including the ability to invalidate Knesset laws, such criticism is inevitable.

Quoting the American statesman Alexander Hamilton, Rivlin said the greatest resource the court has is public confidence, and what is most important is that it not squander it.

“[The courts] have no money, no army — only public confidence, and we should use it very carefully,” he said.