On one side of the table, we have citizens who willingly and non-violently broke the law to fight against a law they felt was morally wrong and even evil.

On the other side of the table, we have a government and government representatives who willingly and violently broke the law to allegedly protect the Rule of Law.

Let’s compare.

One group is being hurt by what they see as an abuse of the legal system and the Rule of Law by a few influential individuals in key positions and then chooses to civilly and non-violently protest something they are sure is morally wrong.

The other group claims to represent the Rule of Law but then willing and violently breaks and ignores all the inconvenient sections of the laws they claim to uphold.

I raise this subject because a bill just passed a preliminary reading in the Knesset and the second may end up being included too.

The original bill grants amnesty to citizens who non-violently protested what has proven to have been a morally evil decision.

A counter-bill (or amendment) has been proposed to grant amnesty to policemen who used violence against non-violent protesters.

Hardly seems fair.

>Arutz-7 shows even more hypocrisy from the left:

MK Yossi Beilin (Meretz) objected to the bill, saying that from a judicial standpoint, "it is unacceptable to legitimize violence against soldiers merely because it was done for ideological reasons." MK Benny Elon called out, "You have no judicial problem with pardoning convicted terrorists and setting them free - but to pardon a young boy who protested against the expuslion - that's a problem?!" Beilin said the two cases should not be compared.

Of course they shouldn’t be compared. Beilin’s position is morally reprehensible and evil, but it advances his distorted political worldview and therefore it is OK. But protesting to keep your home, or perhaps even defending yourself against a violent policeman who has stepped outside the boundaries of Rule of Law is wrong.

A clear example of what is wrong with this country.

In related news, the court decided that a policeman who was caught on film (and therefore it couldn’t be denied or ignored) harming non-violent protesters, should not be fired. Instead it was decided he should be given a job away from protesters. The only aspect of this that is punishment to the sadistic police officer involved is that he won’t be able to relieve his internal torment on innocent people for a little while.