LONDON -

The British government is facing a legal battle that has reached the last details of the Supreme Court, due to the successive decisions of the British Ministry of Education aimed at restricting the discussion of the Palestinian file within British schools.

The concern of a number of jurists and academics increased, after Education Minister Gavin Williamson - who submitted his resignation today, Wednesday - issued a number of decisions aimed at placing restrictions on the discussion of what is happening in Palestine, especially after the recent Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and the Battle of Saif al-Quds.

The step of reaching the Supreme Court to know its decision is a crucial step, because it constitutes the last stage of litigation, and the decisions of the Supreme Court are not subject to appeal, which indicates that it will be a legal battle, in which each party will try to present its legal point of view.

The resigned minister, Gavin Williamson, sparked widespread controversy in Britain due to the politicization of the educational process (social networking sites)

manipulation of terminology

The CAGE Foundation, which is leading this legal challenge against the British government, says it decided to take this fight after a speech by the former British Minister of Education in which he announced a ban on discussing the right to recognize Israel in schools.

Not only did the human rights body enter this challenge, but the Palestinian Return Center as well as the Palestinian Club in Britain and a number of other British institutions that defend the Palestinian cause participated with it, supported by the opinions of legal experts, including the famous legal jurist John Dugard and Professor Avi Shlaim, an honorary professor at Oxford University .

Regarding the motives for submitting this case, the institution asserts that there is no requirement in international law “that individuals or groups should not discuss the recognition of any state or not,” adding that “the idea of ​​Israel’s right to recognition and the legitimacy of its existence is a political and biased viewpoint and is forbidden to the Minister of Education. to defend it under the Education Act 1996.”

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Muhammad Rabbani, managing director of the Cage Foundation, confirmed that "for a very long time, the political phrase Israel's right to exist and recognition has been used as a weapon to silence any discussion about the legitimacy of its establishment, the right of return of Palestinian refugees who have been displaced, and the nature of the racial structure in Israel," stressing However, the British Minister of Education "has no right to prevent children from accessing organizations and resources that provide a balanced view of these issues."

These statements are in response to the correspondences of the resigned British Education Minister, Cavin Williamson, to the heads of departments responsible for teachers, reminding them of their “legal duty to ensure that no political bias is shown,” and also after the British “Middle East Eye” website revealed that a number of students were subjected to disciplinary sanctions because of Wearing the keffiyeh or raising the flag of Palestine.

Britain is witnessing increasing solidarity with the Palestinian cause thanks to the activity of civil society institutions in support of Palestine (Al-Jazeera)

Law opinion

According to what Al Jazeera Net has seen from the views of the legal jurists who filed the lawsuit, the jurist in international law, John Dugard, says that "the idea that Israel is recognized and relies on international legitimacy, this is legally wrong, because the conditions of its establishment are still a matter of discussion and dispute." .

Dugard adds that Israel, in order to "confirm its legitimacy as a state and the legality of its establishment, affirms its right to exist while this right is not affirmed in international law when any state performs its functions as a state", concluding that all this controversy and warnings "are appeals of a determined political nature." To give a moral and political dimension to the establishment of Israel,” he said, warning at the same time that “excluding this topic from the academic and educational debate would be a serious violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression.”

Among the arguments was made by Professor Avi Shlaim, a member of the Honorary Fellowship of the University of Oxford, who asserted that “talking about the right to exist and recognition is not a legal right and is not provided for by any bill of international law, but is an ideologically and emotionally charged phrase, whose purpose is to divert attention from The growing international opposition to its illegal occupation."

As for lawyer Fahd Al-Ansari, who leads the legal team for this lawsuit, he asserts that their primary goal in all legal defenses submitted to the Supreme Court is to show that the Minister of Education has violated the Education Law of 1996, which prevents the minister or the school from being politically biased, and said: We will show that the minister is trying to impose a political view on children."

The British lawyer stressed that the minister has the right to adhere to his opinion of Israel's right to recognize it, but from a legal point of view he cannot prevent or deny discussing the legality of its establishment and the legitimacy of its current status "because schools should be safe spaces for healthy discussion, not institutions for indoctrination of political positions."