Have you read the English language version of the Wikipedia entry of you? It says you are a representative of the far-right Religious Zionist Party. The British BBC and the French Le Monde also refer to you as a far-right politician. Is this true?
In the international and the Israeli media, 'far right' essentially means right-wing. The Left as such has ceased to exist. In Israel, for example, there are barely five percent or so who identify as left-wing. The rest of the leftists claim to be centrists. They see everyone else as far right. The five-party coalition of 64 members, a majority, has been labelled 'extremist', which I do not consider myself to be. But I don't particularly care if the left-wing media call me that. I know that it is nothing but political PR. They will do anything to undermine the will of the people.
You are not only a politician, but also a lawyer fighting for democracy and a clearer separation of powers. Why have these issues been appropriated by the Left?
You're right, reading my CV, my education, my work places and my academic work without knowing who I am, I would think I was a typical leftist. Except that so-called human rights are far from the exclusive domain of the Left.
Unfortunately, they have appropriated the concept for their own political purposes.
Meanwhile human rights, or more correctly civil rights, are based on the rule of law, equality and transparency. In Israel, for example, the critics of the proposed judicial reform do not shy away from defying democratic will. In so doing, they are essentially supporting dictatorship. The Right made a mistake by not paying enough attention to this issue in the past, and by leaving the rule of law, freedom of information, data protection, the protection of criminals and so on to the Left. As they use these for their own purposes, even if it goes against the interests of the country.
Following the attack of October 7, you raised a difficult dilemma: the issue of the rights of arrested terrorists. What is the problem?
Israel, and indeed the whole world, is faced with the problem of distinguishing between the legal proceedings against terrorists and those against criminals. At the moment, if someone commits an act of terrorism, they are legally treated as a simple criminal. Where terrorism is not a daily threat, this does not seem to be such a major challenge. In Israel, however, the situation is different, because we battle terror every day. Most of our prisoners are imprisoned for terrorism. In the West, the basic attitude is that a criminal is a social problem. That somebody embarks on a path of crime because of a difficult fate, or perhaps because of a profit motive, or perhaps because of a mental problem. This is why in many places prisons are called 'correctional facilities', offering opportunities for learning and work. This is because of the assumption that there is nothing lower than being a criminal.
No mother prays for her child to become a criminal. No mafioso wants his child to be a mafioso, they want a better life for them. With terrorism, it's a different story.
Some mothers want their children to become 'martyrs', to have streets named after them and to have their photos out on posters as heroes. In their eyes, a terrorist is not a criminal, so there is nothing to 'fix'. Should such a person be assigned a defender, who should convince the court of the background of his actions, or perhaps of his innocence?! And all this is to be financed from the taxes of the victims' relatives? Even though the person being defended would, in fact, happily slaughter his defense lawyer and his entire family, just because they are Jewish? This is not only immoral, it is also dangerous. That is why I have proposed that terrorists not be given legal counsel.
What if arrested terrorists were treated as prisoners of war?
That's out of the question, because prisoners of war have rights under international law. For example, captured soldiers cannot be held responsible for acts of aggression committed. However, these terrorists were not soldiers of an army and they did not respect the rules of war. They committed genocide, rape and murdered innocent people.
- Since the attack, the debate over the death penalty has also been revived in Israel. What is your position?
I would like to point out that there is no need to amend the law to impose the death penalty on the perpetrators of the October 7 attack.
There already exists a law in Israel that states that those who carry out genocide deserve the most severe punishment. And genocide is unquestionably what they have committed. The opportunity is there, the question is whether we want to take it. The general view, and one that I also share, is that we can only decide this after the war is over, because we can still gain valuable information from the Gaza operation. The time for negotiations has not yet come.
From the Arab states to the United States and from the European Union to South Africa and the International Criminal Court, everyone has an opinion on Israel. What can all this attention be attributed to?
Israel has always been at the center of attention. As a person of faith, I see religion as one reason for this, since Jerusalem is one of the most important places in the world for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. On the other hand, the long-standing anti-Semitism which, unfortunately, is still with us may also play a role. And last but not least, Israel's strategic location is also relevant.
After all, the country is in a matter of speaking the first "outpost" of the West in the Middle East.
And it's convenient for the many dictatorships in the region that they can blame us for everything, and divert attention from their own corrupt systems.
Israel has been widely criticized for breaching international law. The International Criminal Court has even issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Is there no justification to these?
In principle, you can talk about international law, and I have certainly worked a lot on it myself, but when we talk about its practical application, we run into serious problems. After all, it lacks a legislative body, an independent court and equality. Indeed, in the international arena, not everyone is equal for there are countries that for one reason or another have veto rights, or those that can violate international law, without anyone holding them to account. Are others talking about the crimes and genocide against Israel?
When it is now safer to be a civilian in certain Israeli-controlled parts of Gaza than in some of the big cities in the West?! Currently in Gaza, if you are not involved with terrorists, if you are not hiding weapons in your home or tunnels under your carpet, then you can basically live in utter safety.
In fact, if it does break them, but you are not specifically a member of Hamas, you will be warned in advance of the strike. No other army does this. An organization wants to pass judgement on Israel, whose president comes from a country that is currently raining down rockets on us? (The President of the International Court of Justice [ICJ] is Najaf Salam of Lebanon - the author.) Then there is something seriously wrong with the system. We appreciate the Prime Minister's Office chief Gergely Gulyas's statement that Hungary will not execute the arrest warrant issued against Benjamin Netanyahu. I urge everyone to go even further and leave these organizations.
