The good news is that the Israeli government includes a responsible adult – Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The bad news is it’s unlikely that he has any influence. Lieberman’s statement last week, in favor of limiting construction to the settlement blocs and against the illusions the Right had been presenting to the residents of Amona, should have been adopted by the Zionist Right, and there is such a right. Because the Likud faction is deteriorating to the margins of the margins.
The Likud leaders are wrong. At least one-third of Likud voters belong to the national-liberal stream and not to the rightist-nationalist stream. They are being orphaned. In the past, they had Michael Eitan, for example. Avi Dichter and Tzachi Hanegbi could have been there too. But they are afraid. The fear of the majority has hit them too. Likud’s radicalization and Lieberman’s moderation may announce a new political alignment. It’s just the beginning. To be continued.The outpost report authored by Talia Sasson, a former senior employee at the State Attorney’s Office, is a pivotal document. Every word in it should turn on a red light in regards to the conduct of government officials, who helped bypass the law to get Israel entangled in the great state vision. The Amona outpost is perhaps the most important outpost. The battle against the High Court ruling on Amona presents one of the hardest tests for the rule of law. Sasson has become president of the New Israel Fund (NIF). It can and should be assumed that regardless of her political opinions, she will make sure that the NIF protects the rule of law. But reality is slightly different, because bodies supported by the NIF are leading the campaign to crush repeated judicial decisions on the Bedouin Amona, which is also known as al-Araqib. This is not a case of legitimate criticism against judicial decisions. This is a case of disregard of the rule of law. These organizations’ activists are repeatedly erecting buildings in the community, after it is repeatedly demolished in accordance with court rulings. How has the fund led by Sasson become a serial crusher of the law? In response to my question, the NIF spokeswoman argued that “without going into the comparison between the two cases, the Fund believes it is permitted to disagree with High Court rulings and even to protest them. Nonetheless, we accept the High Court’s authority and are not undermining its legitimacy in any way.” But reality presents a different picture. Here’s what the NIF website states: “The battle against the village’s demolition”—which has already been demolished thrice—”is being led by many organizations operating with the Fund’s help – Amnesty, Agenda, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Society for the Support and Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel, the Citizens Accord Forum between Jews and Arabs in Israel, the Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages of Negev, the Abraham Fund Initiatives, the Institute for the Advancement of Shared Citizenship in Israel, the Forum for Arab-Bedouin Women’s Organizations of the Negev, Mossawa, Community Advocacy, Sikkuy, Tsofen and Shatil (Initiative for Social Change).” Clearly, ideology overrides the law. When the Right does it, it gives rise to claims of the end of democracy, fascism, etc. The NIF’s Left is doing it in public. Last week, I heard Talia Sasson giving an interview in the capacity of a well-informed person. She is of course preaching and teaching law. The next time she goes on the air, she should receive a bit more difficult questions from her interviewers. Because no violation of the law on the left justifies a similar violation on the right. But that’s exactly what the NIF organizations are doing. They are legitimizing right-wing hooligans. The bill to limit muezzins’ calls to prayer is turning into another religious war, in which the Israeli Left is, as usual, joining the opponents of the law, especially since it was initiated by the Right.
On this basis, Sheikh Tawfeeq As-Sayegh ruled that “it is forbidden to increase the sound coming from loudspeakers beyond an acceptable level.” Sheikh Mohammed al-Othaiman, an Islamic scholar, is against using loudspeakers during prayer so as not to harm residents. Yes, the Saudis are human too. When the volume is intensified in the middle of the night, they suffer.
I can go on. Egypt, Indonesia, India and many cities in Europe have limited the muezzin calls’ decibel level, or banned them altogether, in order to prevent environmental damage. Many places have not settled for the existing legislation against excessive noises and have initiated special legislation focused on the muezzin calls.
But to hell with the facts. After all, we are in the post-factual era. When distinguished historian Ahmad Tibi rules that before the al-Aqsa Mosque “there was nothing there,” one can also claim that Prophet Muhammad had ordered his worshippers to turn loudspeakers on at 4 am. Tibi’s trainees are still arguing whether the loudspeakers were produced by Sony or Panasonic. It’s a shame, because Tibi can be a serious person too. But he is insisting on making a fool of himself.Circles close to the historian raised the claim that the Shabbat siren was bothersome too. Representatives of the ultra-Orthodox parties panicked and rushed to undermine the law, fearing that the Shabbat siren would also be banned. Well, this comparison is a mockery, as this is not the same noise, it is not every day and not in the early hours of the day.