Monday, Sept. 16,  was a historic day for Israel’s democracy and respect for human rights. The Israeli Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Knesset law that allows for the detention of migrants for three years without trial. Ruling that this law was unconstitutional, the justices argued that the Knesset’s provision contradicted the basic law guaranteeing “human dignity and freedom” to all. Unfortunately, instead of celebrating the Supreme Court’s brave stance to protect the rule of law, many right-wing Knesset members attacked the court for its compassion toward society’s weakest members.

In the landmark ruling, Justice Uzi Fogelman said that while the ruling will create a difficult task, “We must remember that those who come to our shores … are entitled to the right to liberty and the right to dignity that the Basic Law grants to any person as a human being.” These tolerant words demonstrate the court and Israel’s commitment to ensuring that the African migrants' rights are protected.

Nonetheless, many Israeli Knesset members oppose this courageous decision. Yariv Levin, a senior Likud legislator, wrote on his Facebook page that the court made a “mad decision to turn Israel from a Jewish state into one of all its immigrants.” Ayelet Shaked, a prominent legislator in the Bayit Hayehudi Party, criticized the ruling for harming Israel’s democracy and said, “The high court canceled the wall of defense the Knesset established and once again opened the country’s borders.”

Levin, Shaked and the many other Knesset members who criticize the ruling failed to respond to the contention that holding a migrant for three years without a trial is inhumane. Such an act hardly appears to be a proportional response to the “crime” of entering Israel from war-torn Sudan. Although Shaked claims that the court’s ruling is an assault on Israel’s democratic body, the Knesset, she fails to realize that as in all democracies, the Supreme Court has an obligation to intervene and strike down laws that curtail the rights of minorities and are unconstitutional. The court was justified in preventing the “tyranny of the majority.”