                  Israeli High Court of Justice
               Closes its Eyes to Expert Testimony
                         July 12, 1993
                      by Gary M. Cooperberg

     Sunday, July 11, 1993 the Israeli high court of justice met in Jerusalem to hear the final
appeal of Robert Manning to block his extradition on the grounds that he is likely to be denied
his basic religious rights in an American prison.
     In the previous hearing, chief justice Barak, quoted a United States Supreme Court
decision which interpreted the first amendment to the constitution as guaranteeing religious rights
(such as kosher food, tfillin, etc).  What Barak failed to recognize is the fact that this particular
decision has been overturned twice in subsequent decisions and that current United States law is
no longer the same as it was when the decision he quoted was in effect.
     An affidavit to that affect was presented to the court.  Ruth Rabin, the state prosecutor,
stood up before the court, admitted that she herself did not read the affidavit, but that her
colleague had and briefed her on it.  She then began issuing off the cuff statements alleging that
the affidavit was irrelevant and refuting what she felt the points in it were.
     The author of the affidavit, himself an authority on United States constitutional law,
attorney Nathan Lewin, was an invited guest of the defense attorney and was seated at his side
as Mrs. Rabin vented her blustery disapproval to admitting the document into evidence.
     When the portly Mrs. Rabin finished her diatribe and took her seat, Mr. Lewin rose and
requested permission to rebut her accusations.  Justice Barak sharply and emphatically refused to
hear anything Mr. Lewin had to say and demanded that he be seated.
     After listening to the statements of the two attorneys, the court left the room for about
twenty minutes to deliberate.  When they returned they brought an easily predictable decision. 
They emphasized their faith in the court system of the United States; they recognized their
obligation to honor the extradition agreement with that country; and they accepted the written
letter of assurance by the American authorities that Mr. Manning would be entitled to practice his
religion in an American prison.
     One cannot help but wonder, considering the allegations on the part of Mr. Manning that
his life would be endangered should the extradition be carried out; and considering that this case
has lingered in the Israeli courts for nearly three years already; what possible harm could there
have been to allow an expert witness, who was seated next to the defense attorney, to at least
present his testimony.
     The most likely conclusion is that the members of the court were afraid to hear testimony
which they could not refute.  The decision to extradite is not so much a legal one as a political
one.  As long as the court can justify its political decision in legal terms it doesn't feel threatened. 
But, should that legal justification be clearly shown to be false, such a situation would place the
court in a very difficult position, forcing it to choose between legal or political considerations. 
Rather than take a chance on placing itself in such a position, the court simply refused to look at
expert testimony which would have proved that Jewish observance in American prisons is no
longer protected 
under the first amendment of the constitution. 