For a few days it has become clear: Omar Shakir has to leave Israel. He currently heads the Human Rights Watch office for Israel and Palestine. Last year, Israel's Interior Minister Arie Deri ordered the expulsion of Shakir.
The reason: He called for a boycott of Israeli companies that are active in the occupied territories - in the Palestinian West Bank and on the Golan Heights on the border with Syria. Shakir, who is a US citizen, denies the allegation.
His employer filed a lawsuit. The Supreme Court of Israel confirmed the decision but now. Mordechai Kremnitzer, constitutional law expert at the independent research institute "The Israel Democracy Institute", explains what the verdict means.
SPIEGEL: How did the Supreme Court justify its verdict?
Kremnitzer: Israeli law banning boycott calls does not distinguish between the state of Israel and the occupied territories. Therefore, the court has not made this distinction. In the eyes of the judges, Shakir's boycott call is an illegal position. Israel refuses to listen to it and denies entry to people who say it.
SPIEGEL: Did you surprise the verdict?
Kremnitzer: To a certain extent, yes. The court treats the state of Israel within its internationally recognized borders and the occupied territories as if they were a unit, although there are differences from a legal perspective. The judgment runs contrary to the wording of the anti-boycott law. This calls for boycott prohibitions, which concern enterprises or people in settlements, a particularly specific action motive of the offender.
SPIEGEL: What does this decision mean for Israel?
Kremnitzer: I am very worried, because Israel is my country. This decision is incompatible with democratic principles. Government policy is always the subject of criticism in a democracy and boycott calls are a particularly harsh form of criticism. Government policy on the occupation of the Palestinian territories is arguably one of Israel's most important issues. It is not justifiable to restrict freedom of expression in this regard - unlike calls for boycott of the State of Israel. Such calls express resistance to Israel's right to exist and can be banned.
SPIEGEL: Can human rights organizations still send representatives to Israel?
Kremnitzer: I do not believe that Israel will deport someone who criticizes government policies, but it will deport those who say they are calling for a boycott of Israeli interests in the Occupied Territories because of Israel's violation of international law. This means for international organizations that they can not send every employee they trust to Israel. They must send representatives who are also acceptable to the Israeli government. This can severely limit the work of human rights organizations and activists.
SPIEGEL: Is Israel's immigration law constitutional at all?
Kremnitzer: The decision of the Supreme Court is still pending. But the law on boycotting itself, which also implies that Israelis can be sued for damages when calling for a boycott of Israel or Israeli interests in the Occupied Territories, was reviewed by the Supreme Court a few years ago and the majority of judges ruled that it is constitutional.
SPIEGEL: Why did the court decide that?
Kremnitzer: The Supreme Court does not do its job particularly well with regard to the occupied territories. By choosing to place its citizens in the occupied territories, Israel has created an untenable situation in which two populations in the same area live under different legal systems. The idea of equality before the law becomes totally unrealistic. The Israeli Supreme Court identifies naturally with the Jewish settlers, not with the Palestinian residents. The result is a distortion of the rule of law. The only solution would be to settle the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and create a new situation.