“The State of Israel vs. Dr. Azmi Bishara: Democracy in Israel and Palestinian Citizenship.”
Report from a Palestine Center briefing by Hassan Jabareen

On 7 November 2001 an Israeli Parliament (Knesset) House Committee for the first time in its history voted to lift the parliamentary immunity of one of its members, making it possible to put him on trial. The vote to remove Member of Knesset (MK) Dr. Azmi Bishara’s immunity came after a recommendation by Israeli Attorney General, Elyakim Rubinstein, who is also Ariel Sharon’s legal advisor.

Bishara, founder of the National Democratic Assembly (Balad) and an MK since 1996, is one of only nine Arabs in the 120-member Knesset. He stands charged with delivering two public speeches in which he expressed support for resistance to the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories as well as in southern Lebanon, and with helping Palestinian citizens of Israel to visit Syria, which Israel classifies as an enemy state. Most of those he helped were elderly and they wanted to visit relatives whom they had not seen in 50 years and who were living as refugees.

Hassan Jabareen, founder and general director of Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, discussed the political aspects and consequences of the case against Azmi Bishara and its implications for Palestinian citizens of Israel at a 4 January 2002 Center briefing.

Jabareen spoke on Adalah’s participation in the case, maintaining that the indictments reflect a legal and political perspective damaging to the status of the Palestinian minority as citizens of Israel. “We see the case against Azmi Bishara as very important,” Jabareen reported, “not because it is a case against an Arab intellectual, not because it is a case against an Arab philosopher, not because it is a case against an Arab leader. We view this as a case that represents the [citizenship] status of the Palestinian citizens of Israel.”

Adalah has previously released statements demanding that the political freedom of the minorities’ elected officials must be protected so that their leaders can effectively represent their constituents, expressing the minorities’ positions and criticisms of the state.

In one of the speeches in question, Bishara stated that “[t]he government of Israel is trying to shrink the realm [of resistance], by putting forth a choice: either accept IsraelŐs dictates, or face full-scale war. Thus, it is impossible to continue with a third way, that of resistance, without expanding this realm once again so that the people can struggle and resist. Nor is it possible to expand this realm without a unified and internationally effective Arab political position. This is precisely the time for such a stance.”

A political speech made by an MK, regardless of its message, is protected under the “Law of Immunity of MKs, Their Rights and Their Duties.” Jabareen pointed out that it is the responsibility and duty of an elected MK to exercise his freedom of speech and express political opinions. Adalah has issued a legal opinion stating that “Israeli Supreme Court precedent and Israeli law clearly bar legal action, such as opening a criminal investigation, against an MK for his political statements. The action taken against Bishara represents a political decision that aims to satisfy those parties that oppose his opinion.”

Jabareen believes that Bishara was singled out for prosecution, despite the political cost of putting him on trial, for purely political motives because he seriously challenged the state. Describing the climate within which charges were brought, Jabareen stated that “many, even Arab MKs, are harsher than Azmi Bishara and no one was indicted. Why did they choose this man, knowing the price of putting him on trial? Since October 2000 Azmi Bishara has been perceived as a danger, because of his national perspective, to the Jewish character of the state, challenging the constitution and structure of the state, as well as the Zionist ideology of the state.” By refusing to acquiesce in the rights assigned to an Israeli-Arab, as well as arguing for the rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel, Bishara called into question the state’s ideology and authority.

The distinction between a Palestinian citizen of Israel and an Israeli-Arab is a key point in the legal argument. According to Jabareen, the difference in the two perceptions lies in “how the official bodies of Israel want the Arabs in Israel, the Palestinian citizens, to behave politically, how they view their status as citizens: full Palestinians in Israel or Israeli Arabs in Israel.” Spelling out the difference, Jabareen explained that “the intention is to perceive that a Palestinian in Israel must behave as an Israeli-Arab … Arab in nationality and Zionist in their ideological perception.” By refusing to act as an Israeli-Arab, Bishara opened himself up to attack.

“The case of Azmi Bishara is a case about a man who refuses to be an Israeli-Arab, meaning that he is just an individual by chance speaking Arabic, but it doesn’t mean anything that he speaks Arabic,” Jabareen said. “When we speak about Palestinian citizens of Israel, we belong to a people, we belong to history, we belong to a nation. This Israel does not want to accept … This is the case of Azmi Bishara and this is why we view it as an important case about the Palestinian citizens of Israel and this is also important for the people who … want Israel to be a democratic state and not just a Jewish state.”

Palestinians in Israel, despite making up 20 percent of the population, are still not recognized as a national minority, but rather as separate religious groups. “Based on international law and also in liberal concepts,” argued Jabareen, “in this situation the status of the indigenous groups must not be changed drastically just because the new state came to them … Self-determination does not mean to have two separate states. Self-determination for a group means to recognize their group rights. The group rights of the Palestinians in the Galilee include the right to visit their families. The group rights of the Palestinians in the Galilee and in the Triangle include to recognize their historical relation with their nation.”