If you want to truly understand the deep affliction that exists in the justice system, take the case of Muhammad Bakri's film, "Jenin Jenin," which finally ended about a week ago. While the final chord was successful, the Supreme Court president rejected Bakri's request for another hearing. This followed the decision of the majority of the panel, in the third round of the Supreme Court, to permanently ban the screening of the film and to charge Bakri NIS 175,21 in damages. But by the time we did, Bakri had shattered the reputations of the soldiers, the IDF and the State of Israel, during <> years of legal abuse.
These are fighters of the 5th Brigade, who fought in Jenin in Operation Defensive Shield, who lost 23 of their comrades, some of whom fell only because they strictly adhered to the so-called purity of arms. During these years, the legal system, led by the legal advisors and a series of judges, failed to protect the good name of the fighters, the IDF and the State of Israel as a whole. They left the brigade's fighters and bereaved families feeling betrayed by the state and its judicial system. At the same time, they illustrated the fundamental flaw inherent in the way the attorney generals think and act, along with many Supreme Court justices. These are jurists who have forgotten what the Supreme Court justices ruled in the past, for example in the case of the hostile organization Al-Arad, how a state that desires life must defend itself.
Muhammad Bakri in court, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
The saga began when Muhammad Bakri, a Muhammad actor and director of the Israeli left, published an anti-Semitic incitement film that was all lies and libels against IDF soldiers. There is hardly a crime against humanity that he did not invent there: from deliberately running over civilians with bulldozers to looting the savings of the elderly. All the judges who watched the film were shocked and ruled that it was a mask of falsehoods.
Nevertheless, it was only the unimaginable determination of a handful of fighters led by Israel Caspi, along with the pro bono legal defense of attorney Navot Tel Tzur, that finally succeeded in causing a ban on the distribution of the film and the payment of significant compensation.
The scandal began with the fact that the High Court of Justice allowed the film to be distributed, because freedom of expression is more important than the murder of the character and name of the fighters and the IDF. The High Court justices – among them Dalia Dorner and Ayala Procaccia – hardly allowed the combatants' representative to speak at the hearing, and allowed Bakri to distribute this explosive indictment against us.
The attorney generals refused to use the elementary means provided by law and file a criminal libel suit or prosecute the inciting director Bakri. The consultants, from Rubinstein to Mandelblit, claimed that this was "not customary."
It continued with the fact that the attorneys general refused to use an elementary measure afforded them by law – to file a criminal libel suit or to prosecute Bakri. The consultants, from Rubinstein to Mazuz, from Weinstein to Mandelblit, argued that it is not customary to use these means. Why did the legislature grant us the explicit law, if not for these extreme circumstances? - The solutions for consultants and the legal atmosphere of the last generation.
Later, a group of fighters filed a defamation suit in the Central District Court, with the judge ruling that Bakri lied, libeled and had no defense. But she mistakenly believed that he could not be held accountable because he had defamed a certain group of people. This erroneous approach was also adopted in an appeal to the Supreme Court, ignoring the fact that anyone who has seen the film and knows someone who fought in Jenin immediately links it to the atrocities invented by Bakri.
Third Round
Thus, the affair reached a third round, when one of the officers, Nissim Magnaji, filed a defamation suit because his image was implanted for a few seconds in the film, in one of the horror scenes invented by Bakri. Now a judge in the Central District, Halit Silash, has made a decision that has saved the honor of the system and the entire country. It overcame a series of legal obstacles, as should have been done in the first place.
There are those who claim that Supreme Court President Esther Hayut also sought to end the affair in the spirit of the district court ruling, and therefore originally assigned Justices Solberg, Mintz and Stein to hear the appeal, in order to ensure the outcome.
Justice Sohlberg disqualified himself, and Justice Yitzhak Amit was assigned in his place, and thus we received a disagreement that demonstrates a fundamental problem in the system. The two conservative judges, Stein and Mintz, rejected the appeal outright and ruled that Bakri would compensate the plaintiff and would not be able to show the film. Justice Amit, who is considered progressive, ruled that the film should be allowed if only the prosecutor's image is cut from it, as Bakri requested.
Only the majority has decided, and therefore it is forbidden from now on to spread Bakri's despicable libel. For the first time, bereaved soldiers and parents can raise their heads without fear. But it is hard to comprehend how, for 21 years, the IDF, the legal advisers and most of the Supreme Court justices did not immediately stop the character assassination committed against the combatants and all of us. This is an indicative affair that should concern us all.
And what about the responsibility of the Arabs themselves?
Without derogating from the justified claims directed at the government and the law enforcement system, a small and pecking question arises: What about the responsibility of Israeli Arabs themselves? Let's put aside for a moment the confrontation with criminal organizations, and what about the other acts of violence and crime that are so ingrained.
Tira Mayor on the murder of CEO Kashua // Archive photo: Moshe Ben Simhon
So, for example, the so-called clan disputes, or honor killings. Look at the exhaustive indictment filed this week against the brother of poor Sarit Ahmad, only 18 years old, who is accused of inviting assassins to shoot his sister just because she was a lesbian. Not to mention the evasive and shameful response of Arab mayors to this murder.
And what about shooting at weddings, the rampage on the roads, the intolerance of anyone who moves badly in their eyes? And what about violence due to so-called honor, or religious fanaticism? And what about the daily conflicts that arise between perfectly normal people, and for some reason routinely reach severe violence and even murder?
So please note that citizens who band together have power, even against murderous criminals, especially if the police and the authorities are on their side. But when it comes to norms that have nothing to do with criminal organizations, violence, revenge, distortion of the concepts of honor and family, here there is certainly responsibility for everyone.
Every Arab citizen who criticizes the government can do a lot in his family, neighborhood, and community. He can try to restrain precisely those who want revenge or break the rules from among his associates. It can create a social boycott of the violent and murderous, it can educate and initiate social initiatives. All in order to uproot the norms, the mentality, the very violation of the law that has become an accepted method.
This struggle has a simple name – civic courage. It obliges every person, every family, every social circle, to unite and eradicate the normative basis of violation of rules and violence, the darkness of revenge and perverted honor. What begins with each individual will eventually permeate society as a whole. All this, of course, does not exempt the government and authorities from declaring a state of emergency and a holistic assault on the plague of this country. But please point the finger of blame inward first, and from there start correcting.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us