The Ministry of Defense ordered the lawyers of three Palestinian organizations defined by Israel as terrorist organizations to ask him for permission to represent them.
This is according to Hagar Shizaf in Haaretz.
It turns out that there is a section in the law that will probably never be enforced, which requires special approval to receive funds from terrorist organizations.
Lawyers resented, of course, saying they had never received a similar instruction in the past.
Almost pavlovily, I tend to side with the Department of Defense.
Take, for example, al-Haq, one of the three organizations in question.
Allegedly, this is a human rights organization documenting "violations of the collective and individual rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories."
In practice, apart from the fact that the organization is embittering our lives - which is unfortunately legal - al-Haq CEO Shawan Jabarin is "one of the senior operatives in the Popular Front terrorist organization," according to the Supreme Court. DNA apparently acts under the scrutiny of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: in some of his activities he is the director of a rights organization, and in another he is active in a terrorist organization that has not resorted to murders and attempted murders, which have nothing to do with rights. MasterCard and American Express have closed online credit card donations to al-Haq due to the group's ties to this terrorist organization.
The DCI-P organization, whose lawyers also received a similar letter, supports the boycott movement, exploits children to promote the demonization of Israel and calls on it to take responsibility for the "crimes of the Nakba."
This organization is also linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and many of its leaders are ostensibly associated with it.
Just what, there's a circle here, a catch.
Imagine a situation where the state defines an organization as a terrorist organization, but it is not at all.
How can she defend herself?
To oppose this claim?
She can hire a lawyer to represent her in the High Court. The problem is that according to this section of the law - she can not, because she is a terrorist organization. Do you understand?
That is, if the State of Israel rises tomorrow and defines La Familia, Lehavah or for that matter, Akim, as a terrorist organization - how can they change this definition?
The fact that the Ministry of Defense is the defining party and therefore a party to the debate, but it is the one that prevents the funding of the defense - is problematic.
Indeed, from the logical aspect there is an interesting question here.
so what are we doing?
After Pavlov and his instinct calmed down and we turned to discuss the issue with a clear mind, we can say that two options are open for us to get out of the trap: one, to amend the law so that this justified clause, which prohibits receiving money from a terrorist organization, does not apply to legal representation;
The second is to expropriate the permit for receiving these funds from the Ministry of Defense, which, as stated, is a party to the matter.
It is possible to let the court itself decide the matter.
And there is another possibility: the lawyers of these organizations are driven by a burning ideology, otherwise they cannot represent them with such fervor.
Then they will do some pro-bono work, and from heaven they will be paid for the future to come.
or not.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we would love for you to share it with us