Criticism of Pollard Decision

Arutz7 News Service - February 7, 2000

Disappointment in Israeli legal circles following the decision yesterday by the Supreme Court to suffice with "believ[ing] in" the government's efforts to free Jonathan Pollard. The Court also said, "from a legal standpoint, [it] does not see fit to intervene in the action being taken or planned by the Government in this case." The Supreme Court did not apply any of its legal or non-legal standards to the case, constitutional lawyer Mordechai Haller told Arutz-7's Yosef Zalmanson today, "whether it be that of reasonableness, fairness, or proportionality.

In addition, the Court, which is known for its judicial activism, is actually employing 'selective activism,' without using any politically-neutral standards." Haller was particularly incensed at the fact that it gave such a general decision in a case that he called "akin to habeus corpus - a person is in jail!" He said that such a case is the classic one for which every judicial system in the world is essentially created, and in which it should step in and review all the information in the most thorough manner.

Atty. Naftali Wurzberger told Arutz-7 that there is disappointment in that "the Court - and not for the first time - too easily gives credit to the government in cases in which it would be expected to carefully review, according to judicial principles, government decisions and policies."