I disagree. The police should let the mourning tent stay, in the spirit of freedom of expression. In the same vein, Olmert should publicly condemn the shooter (the same way that the US president publicly condemns people who carry out similar atrocities in the US, such as in Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.).

The government should also grant the same freedom of expression to those people who espouse views which are anti-Arab, anti-government, etc. (They also could have shown ujp or sent some sort of representation to the funeral, but that's a separate matter.)

RAFI:

we wrote the same post!

note that the jordanians did not a let the local branch of the the family erect a mourning tent.

YONI R.

"spirit of freedom of expression"

i think there is room to debate the merits of your point from an idealistic perspective. but the fact is that israel is not america and does not have freedom of expression. so i really no reason to make this particular instance a litmus case.

I am just angry right now. I did not want to write about anything else, so I wrote this. We have allowed terror to reign for too long. In a country where terror increases unless it is actively stopped, we have to finally show them we will not put up with it. Take your freedom of expression to guantanamo bay or somewhere it is really appreciated.

LOZ - very good point, which my wife told me I should have added to the post. We Jews are so liberal and open to giving freedom to the Muslims (freedom that we do not give to Jews), that we are afraid to take down a mourning tent for a terrorist, while in Jordan they immediately deem it illegal and disallow anything like it.

While normally I would not advocate taking example from Jordan, in this case I think they were right. I think they only did it because of being overly sensitive to terror - if they allowed the tent there, Israel would have gotten upset that it looks like they support terror. But they still did the right thing.

LoZ/Rafi,

If you read the second paragraph in my original comment, you'd understand my point, which is that once the government starts selectively allowing groups to express themselves (even when there is a clear right and wrong), then it can selectively apply that freedom among all groups (as it already does). By using this case, not as a "litmus case", but as a precedent (which is what I think LoZ meant, especially since there is no such term as "litmus case", but rather "litmus test") then any kind of speech, no matter how much the government opposes it, should be allowed, unless it presents an imminent danger. Otherwise, right-leaning groups can be silenced (as they already are). If the terrorists family can publicly mourn and praise him, it provides some legal ammunition against the government the next time it tries to stop some right-wing demonstration (or other form of expression) that they disagree with. The fact that it is such an outrageous display, which is clearly against public decency and can be argued calls for further bloodshed, only makes the precedent stronger. If you want me to shove my freedom of expression where the sun don't shine, then that's where you're going to be asked to shove it the next time you (or someone you agree with) wants to say something.

Also, there's no real harm letting the family praise him - it's not really going to make the situation any worse.

ahhh, but right wing protests and the like have always been quashed, despite the freedom of expression claim. Nobody, except for a few right wingers, even cares anymore when that happens.

So to defend the freedom of expression of the family of terrorists saying that they will do it to others after that precedent, is mistaken, because they have already been doing it to others.

I have no problem with them mourning their martyr. One cannot legislate emotions (despite the fact that a mitzva in the Torah is to love Hashem). Just they should be only allowed to do it in their house. Not in public.

Rafi,

My point exactly (or maybe you missed my point entirely, I'm not really sure). The next time the government wants to quash right wing protests, all they (i.e., the right-wing would-be-protesters) need to do is throw this back in the government's face. It will be a powerful example, and will put the government in a situation where they will look ridiculous trying to silence the right wing, in view of the fact that they let supporters of terrorists (not even the left wing, but people openly in favor of terror) have their say.

technically yes, but we both know that such a comparison holds no water, because no matter what the government does in reaction to any group, setting whatever precedent they might be setting, they still allow themselves, and will allow themselves, the right to not give those rights to the right wing protesters.

Rafi,

I completely agree. But you have to do what you can; you never know when it may come in handy. (Maybe a subsequent government more sympathetic to the right wing can use the example in their own defense.)

yoni,

the israeli government doesn't need this as an example of its commitment to the arabs' freedom of expression and the right wing doesn't need to throw in the government's face. there are a gazillion other examples already. just read, for example, the statements of arab MKs made from the floor of the kenesset itself.

also, there is a difference between mourning and political activity. once the family permitted the hamas/hezbollah flags and gave media interviews praising the mamzer, it stopped being about mourning. there is a fine line between freedom of legitimate expression and violent sedition, and even a democracy is not obligated to tolerate the latter.

thanks for making me think about this. as opposed to my willingness above to permit debate over the idealism of the matter, now i think they should just tear down the tent.

"Also, there's no real harm letting the family praise him - it's not really going to make the situation any worse."

you're probably right about this particular example as an isolated incident, but it once you start looking at every once of these incidents/events as isolated . . . now that's a dangerous precedent (thanks for the correction).

"His body should not have been returned for proper burial, rather it should be held "hostage" to exchange for Israelis held by Hamas (Gilad Shalit) or others held by others."

Not quite to this extent, but at least they are holding it (the body) back to make a point. - They aren't giving the body back until the family agrees to hold a low key funeral. It seems they want a full martyrs parade with hamas flags and rifles.

Oh, and it seems that at least the gov't isn't going to pay for his burial (I guess as they regularly do.