Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked last week announced the decision to grant visas to 20,000 non-Jewish illegal migrants from Ukraine who are already in Israel. In addition, Israel is willing to grant entry visas to 5,000 more non-Jewish Ukrainians. These Ukrainians who arrive in Israel for humanitarian reasons will be expected to sign an agreement to leave as soon as the state of emergency in their own country ends. This is a responsible and reasonable humanitarian policy.
But Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel, Yevgen Kornivychuk, was not pleased, and decided to appeal to Israeli courts in an effort to overturn this decision, a decision made by a sovereign country. In a letter addressed to the Tomer Warsha Law firm, the ambassador says that “due to the exhaustive diplomatic possibilities the Embassy has no other option than to ask Tomer Warsha Law firm to submit an appeal to Israeli courts in order to protect the rights of Ukrainian citizens.” Though possible, it is unlikely that this law firm acted on its own initiative. More likely it was approached by the embassy, which has no legal standing before an Israeli court, or before any court in any other sovereign country. In other words, Tomer Warsha Law firm is, allegedly, being used as a proxy.
If and when submitted, the appeal by the Tomer Warsha Law firm – which being an Israeli firm can appeal to the Supreme Court – rests on the assumption that Shaked’s decision violates “the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.” The “guests” policy also “violates bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Israel on the waiver of visa requirements.”
This open challenge by Ukraine on Israel sparked commotion in the media, prompting the Embassy of Ukraine to issue a clarification stating that “the Embassy did not submitted [sic] an appeal to the Israeli court” but “supports the core of the appeal.” Ukraine is also hoping that the court will overturn Shaked’s decision.
Given that Israel’s Supreme Court acts as an independent sovereign, hence not bound by the state’s laws, it can both grant standing to Ukraine’s proxy, and overrule Shaked’s decision. If this were to happen, it will be another nail in the Jewish State’s coffin.
That is because, as Shaked herself well stated, no one has the right to criticize Israel on this matter. “It can be determined with certainty,” she said, “that no other country is expected to deal with an event of this magnitude. For example, in terms of population size (the absorption of 100,000 Ukrainian Jews and 25,000 non-Jews), it is equivalent to granting citizenship to three-and-a-half million people in the US, or over 700,000 new citizens in England.”
This justifies the claim I have made in my previous article, that the plea to open wide Israel’s gates to refugees is not coming from humanitarian concern. It is part of a masterplan to put an end to the Jewish state.