Prof. Einhorn and Dr. Sharki warned here yesterday against Israel joining the Istanbul Convention. It is an international convention to combat and prevent violence against women and domestic violence, to which more than 40 countries are signatories. Their hind legs and warn against the progressive treaty, which - you guessed it - jeopardizes the Jewish character and character of the State of Israel. .
MK Smutrich warned: "Quietly, and without a majority in the Knesset, Saar and Shaked are promoting a dangerous revolution in the demographic field, in Jewish identity and in the family institution." Ecclesiastes Forum for Discussion on the "Curse of Istanbul" chaired by MK Rotman.
The fact that only three articles, out of more than 60 in the Convention, deal with immigration, does not matter to the opponents.
Nor is the fact that Israel has the right to join the treaty, with reservations about specific clauses or to attach interpretative statements.
So in effect, joining the treaty will not change immigration policy in any way.
It is no coincidence that Minister Shaked, who is hard to blame for abandoning the entrance gate into the country, was convinced when she was the Minister of Justice that the morally required step does not come with a tax that threatens the nation state.
Accession to an international treaty does not make the treaty legal in the country, and Israel has already signed a series of treaties, and its sovereignty is not harmed by this.
Behind this position are the leading experts in Israel on international law.
But it is not the concern for the Jewish identity of the state that drives the opponents of the treaty, but the concern for its patriarchal identity.
The sad truth is that almost no effort is required to get the anesthetist out of the patriarchal economy.
"The Istanbul Convention - a war on patriarchy and not on violence," the title of one article tells us.
And another petition warns that the purpose of the convention is "to take over the character of Israel while creating a privileged sex - the women."
It does not seem necessary to go as far as the Supreme Court in the United States to realize that some see the protection of women's rights as dangerous agendas.
It is permissible, of course, to have conservative worldviews.
Every person has the right to the education of his children according to his world of values and personal identity.
But even those who warn against the convention know that it does not seek to promote a particular family structure or framework.
And they also know that striving for family life without violence can not contradict the values of the Jewish family.
A country celebrating 74 years of independence, sending aid missions around the world, serving as a global mediator and marking significant achievements in a number of international issues, can not turn its back on a global struggle against such a cruel phenomenon, even if it takes some courage to stand upright. If they are blowing from the direction of the house.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
