Freedom of speech is essential in any democracy and
stretching it to the limits is legitimate and perhaps even
required in a country that holds high the banner of
democracy.
Yet freedom of expression does not mean freedom to incite.
And above all, in this matter wartime and peace time are not
one and the same. With civilians huddling in bomb shelters
day after day and thousands suffering from the conflict,
critics of the war effort cannot be allowed to decry the
state and the IDF as if they were Hizbullah spokesmen.
Left-wing protesters calling for a halt to the fighting are
not the problem in this case, for they have the right to
believe this war is unjustified. Gezunte heit. Those
who feel a greater affinity for Nasrallah and his cohorts
than for their own brethren have a psychological problem and
need professional help.
But it is wholly unreasonable for people to sit in TV studios
in the State of Israel, speaking in fluent English and
present fiery opposition, against the present military
operations and the officers in the field.
Take Israeli Air Force pilot Yonaton Shapira, for instance. A
veteran leftist who signed the infamous pilots' letter three
years ago, he was interviewed by CNN during peak viewing
hours in the US, claiming that Israel is unnecessarily
murdering Lebanese children, is not a democratic country and
all of the world's allegations against it are correct.
If this is not considered aiding and abetting the enemy, what
is? Security officials and proponents of the rule of law
restrict it to right-wing extremists, saying that they pose a
threat to the security of the state and its citizens. If
remarks that pose a threat to the nation's leaders justify
intervention by security and legal entities, why should Arab
MKs whose remarks threaten all of the citizens of the State
of Israel enjoy legal immunity?
Like all recent wars, the current campaign against Hizbullah
is under the eye of the electronic media. Every event is
broadcast live around the world and the war over
international public opinion is a tough fight that is no less
important than the one being waged on the battlefield. So why
is the attitude toward those who aid the enemy in the fight
over world opinion difference from the attitude toward those
who aid the enemy on the battlefield? Doesn't undermining
Israel's PR stance undermine the IDF soldier serving in
Lebanon?
Any normal country would display a very different approach
toward citizens who stab it in the back during wartime. But
as in so many other matters, the State of Israel is not a
normal country.
Rewritten Protocols
Public organizations large and small keep protocols of every
meeting to record what each of the participants said, what
decisions were proposed and which were accepted. Thus
certainly the Knesset — perhaps Israel's central public
organization alongside the government — must keep
precise protocols of discussions in the plenum, the
committees and every other forum.
At Knesset plenum meetings, stenographers carefully record
every word said from the podium, and most of the heckling as
well (sometimes remarks go unheard because of the cacophony
of shouting or because the remarks are made quietly at a
distance).
Since the protocols are complete and unedited, speakers know
they must weigh every word, for once the word leaves their
mouths it is no longer theirs, but will appear in the
protocols — like it or not.
Committee meetings are also recorded, but not with the same
accuracy. Surprisingly, committee protocols are subject to
editing and deleting by the stenographers and protocol
writers. But don't think this is illegal, for as strange as
it may sound, they have instructions to edit the protocols.
Who oversees this task? No one.
Opher Minreb, president of the Accountants' Bureau, was among
those surprised to find the protocols of Knesset committee
meetings are edited and rewritten. After taking part in a
meeting of the Constitutional Committee he was astonished to
discover several sentences of an exchange between him and one
of the Knesset legal advisors had been deleted. He considered
the remarks important, but apparently the protocol writer
felt otherwise.
