By Ted Belman
In the wake of Netanyahu strong-arming the By-pass Bill’s defeat, it is fashionable to bitterly attack him.
One of the arguments that Netanyahu made for his actions was that by-passing the High Court would hurt the settlement enterprise. I totally rejected this argument yesterday, but today, I accept it.
If Israel were to by-pass the Court we would be seen as not being governed by the rule of law and therefore everything we would do to promote the settlements would be suspect.
But if we demonstrate that the rule of law is supreme, by not circumventing it, then we can argue that whatever we do in Yesha has the approval of our very liberal High Court.
This is a good thing.
In matters of law, not only must the Court be right, it must be seen to be right.
If Bibi makes good on his promises, all of them, and this is far from certain, then the destruction of five buildings will be seen as a small price to pay for the advancement of the settlement enterprise.
One step back, two steps forward.
Oh. Look at how much Obama cut down the foreign aid for Israel, and how he refused to sponsor the Jews in building the Dome defense system, how he never told the Jews he had their backs, and how much he has mistreated the Jews in the United States, and how he never sent submarines and battleships to watch guard off Israel and Iran… What a stinker!
There is a new golden couple in New York City. His name is Boaz Weinstein and he is a hedge fund manager who just happened to notice some strange doings at the J.P. Morgan investment office in London. He made a lot from JPM’s mistakes, I thought I understood he had already brought in $90M in profit this year. His wife I believe is Tali, a very attractive woman who is a federal prosecutor.
Anyway, he brought the penthouse for $25M on Central Park that once belonged to Huguette Clark, the mining heiress who died last year at 104. It’s large, very large, but it still has kitchen appliances that date to 1915, but it also has some lovely features such as plastered ceilings done as the French did them during that era. It needs new electrical wiring and plumbing installed and has several bedrooms for the hired help. Can someone please tell me how Jews pronounce Boaz?
A couple of floors down Huguette owned the entire 12th floor consisting of two huge apartments. The Prime Minister of Qatar wanted to buy both for his two wives, 15 children and assorted family members and his entourage that consisted of many more people. The building condo board would not even give him an interview, they just said no.
I was thinking the arrangement with an extremely wealthy Jew and an extremely wealthy Arab living a floor apart would have made a great sitcom. You know, with the kids running up and down the halls and making noises…
@ dweller:
No dweller it wasn’t what you said, I was just making a point and you count on me repeating myself.
I guess I believe if it said enough the obama kool-aid drinkers will finally get the message.
“obama cannot be trusted”
@ rongrand:
If anything I’ve said suggests to you that I might disagree with this statement (either half of it), then rest assured that I don’t.
@ Robert S Barnes:
robert,
i am not disputing with you the fact that indeed there ARE some peaceable arabs. (in fact, one of the most cherished and unbelieveable adventures that i have lived, was visiting egypt many many years ago and being helped by a total stranger named muhamad, after we have lost my wallet and were left somewhere between cairo and alexandria with only a few egyptian liras….)
i do realize that my post may sound strident.
believe it or not, i am a very mathematically rational individual, and what i say is not necessarily the ravings of a madman foaming at the mouth..
i am saying it very cool calm and collected and almost with a sad resignation:
it is a zero sum game robert, and there is no such thing as coming in second.
all you have to do is open your eyes and sadly accept the fact that being infected with ‘islam’ from birth…has only one outcome and that is a lethal and savage quest for killing,maiming and any and all vicious barbarism beyond description.
the fact that you and i can come up with a personal annecdote of a ‘peaceful arab’ does not change the equation…
it is sooooooo diluted in the sea of islam so as to be TOTALLY insignificant statistically.
at the end of the day, robert, it is going to come to this:
will you choose to defend your FAMILY AND LOVED ONES (for it will come down to that, and your ‘peaceful yusuf’ and my ‘peaceful muhamad’ will be irrelevant in this situation, since they alone will not be able to stop a blood frienzied ‘allahu akbar screaming mob’)
OR
will you choose to ‘take the high road’ and be ‘better than they are’ and be the ‘defender of the peaceful muhamada and yusuf’.
it really is a choice.
I for one choose family and friends, and should someone call me a bigot or racist…..
shrug…
so be it!
You’re wrong Phoenix. I was a card carrying member of Moledet for many years, and I still support the idea of voluntary transfer in peace time. But even I recognize that there are allot of peaceable Arabs, both Christian and Muslim who could care less about anything other than just going about their daily lives and being left alone. Reality is complex and being blindly racist doesn’t help solve anything.
@ the phoenix:
Maybe the obama liberal left kool-aid is wearing off, to be followed by a sever hangover (much deserved).
@ dweller:
You can’t trust obama and you can’t trust the Arabs.
Forget what they say, watch what they do.
@ the phoenix:
No.
You’re just seeing that there is more to her than you thought. . . .
Since I recognize the terrain, phoenix, I’m not uncomfortable with your statement.
Bear in mind, however, how such a crack must SOUND to somebody who is not only unfamiliar with (and far removed from) that terrain
— but also subjected, virtually 24/7/365, to bombardment by a left-bound media matrix that compulsively cries “racist!” (a time-honored & reliable deck-reshuffling device) whenever it senses it is losing control of the direction of discourse.
Catarin Said:
ok.
you start showing signs of improvement…:)
there is NO SUCH THING catarin. there is NO peaceful arab any more than there is a harmless yersinia pestis bacteria…
Western Civilization is built on three mighty foundations: Greek, Jewish and Roman (for their Latin language.) One is long gone, another is down and the Jews march on.
Earlier in the week I learned the history of Egypt refusing to return to Jews the records of all the Jews who have lived in Egypt over the centuries because they are afraid the Jews will ask for reparations. Other Muslim countries have treated the Jews in the same manner, killing them and stealing their property. It doesn’t seem like Muslims have any intention of making things right.
I think Israel should take all the land they want in the West Bank. Peaceful Arabs can stay. The rest have to go. This is a task the UN, EU should tackle as soon as possible. Who is it that thought bullying the Jews, then moving an enemy next to them was a good idea?
@ Michael Chenkin:
Yes the lower courts always determine the facts. The High Court or Court of Appeal just deal with the law. In this case as I understand the Copurt allowed Affidavit evidence. But I don’t know if there was a cross examination of the Affidavits. Also the Government asked the Court to order demolition. The tenants were not a party to the proceedings.
Because the tenants were not a party and the AG asked for the order, the question of good faith never came up.
The Courts in the US and in Israel are supposed to apply the law as it is. But activist courts often put a spin on the law. There is nothing to prevent the Government from passing a new law but it would not be retroactive.
Ted,
You’re an attorney.
1. Isn’t it the normal rule of procedural law that an appellate court does not decide a case until after a trial court has established the facts?
2. Suppose that subsequently it was established that the Ulpana community bought the land from the wrong grandson. Isn’t it customary law that in the absence of bad faith, the aggrieved grandson would get compensation, and that the houses would not be torn down. Particularly in this case where the grandson would not have access to the land anyway.
3. Isn’t it law that an elected body actually establishes what law is, and not a court. Courts offer an opinion as to what a law means or how it applies in a particular case, but the fnal say on what law is belongs to the legislature. For instance, in the recent Ledbetter case, the US Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations had expired preventing Ms. Ledbetter from filing a discrimination claim. The legisltation then rewrote the relevant law to change the determination of the statute of limitations.
Obviously if Bibi can do what he promised,he should have anyway and not just in response to the anger coming his way from settlers. One should have nothing to do with the other.
He didn’t have to come out with such initiatives after he won. He had already won. So why did he bother if he didn’t intend to follow through?
The problem is that the court is already discredited as having a strong political bias and according to polls has the trust of less than 50% of the population. Until the perceived and actual political bias of the court is rectified via a significant change to the process of nominating and approving justices your point is basically moot. People won’t respect the rule of law until such a time as the overwhelming majority of the citizens perceive the courts as impartial and fair.
Ted Belman Said:
May I add to that sentiment: It appears to me that it never matters what Israel does as international positions regarding Israel have no logic or basis in law, history or current reality. I think it is a false hope to believe that Israel the following Israel’s law will affect international opinion. International opinion has no problem “rationalizing” its postiions regarding Israel. Also, creating smoke and mirrors to appease international opinions is what got Israel into its current predicament. Creating false appearances has denied world Jewry of its rights under the UN charter, league of nations mandate and San Remo treaties to be encouraged to settle west of the Jordan river. Isnt this the law being broken? Isn’t it the responsibility of GOI to fulfill that international law? If not then why would anyone else? The GOI is breaking the international law and its fiduciary trust as agent of the Jewish people by not encouraging settlement west of Jordan river. I suggest a US style Homestead Act/Land rush giving free land to all who settle west of Jordan River as the US did in the 1800’s. The first choice should be to the descendants of the Jews cleansed from arab lands. Now that would really be a lawful observance that would knock everyone’s socks off and it could be accomplished within a few months. Remember that those rights to settle predated Israel as a modern state and inure to global Jewry. I never understand why GOI does not demand and unilaterally implement the already internationally guaranteed rights of Jews. It should act as China did in Tibet.
We shouldn’t be soo concerned about what other people might think of us…they will always condamn us anyways. We should instead concentrate on and enforce our historic, moral, spiritual and indeed legal on the land. This is not the Supreme Court’s business.
@ Ted Belman:
🙂 I know you enjoyed that.
I am so sure that nothing will be built as the gentlemen speechster promised that I am prepared to take bets on the contrary. In fact I expect that the criminals in robes will press on to try to destroy the whole of Y & S and then some…
There is no basis at all on the “by passing” claim. Others commentators mentioned that as well. The self elected courtiers assume that they control the country not the context and compliance to KNESSET passed laws. That must be brought under control.
@ NormanF:
Well, yes, but not “like Abraham Lincoln.”
I don’t mean to get into the middle of this exchange; for the moment, I’m just taking it all in.
As a point of information, however, you should know that the speaker of the remark you cited was not Lincoln — who wouldn’t become president till 3 decades later.
The speaker in question was, rather, then-Pres. Andrew Jackson: in reply to Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v Georgia 31 US 515 (1832) — in which SCOTUS, under the leadership of Marshall, declared that the Cherokees (native to the state of Georgia) had a right to federal protection against enforcement of unconstitutional state laws.
Supposedly, Jackson said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”
Jackson’s meaning — IF, in fact he actually said it (there’s some dispute over whether it was, like so many famous remarks, apocryphal, merely attributed to him after the fact) — the statement’s meaning was that the Court’s opinion was moot
— because SCOTUS (not being a legislative body) had no power to enforce its edict.
And indeed it didn’t. Congress proceeded to seize the Cherokee tribal lands in Georgia, and the ultimate consequence was “Indian Removal” and the Trail-of-Tears tragedy.
@ NormanF:
What is very alarming is how the boycott, strongly supported by the liberal left -jewish and gentile has been gaining traction, during the last year. the drop in consumer exports is dramatic and something will have to be done about it. What exactly is beyond my economic background. Any constructive suggestions?
@ Danny Hershtal:
Israel’s judicial system is atrocious. It should have been scrapped years ago.
I wanted the law to pass its first reading so that the government could go back to the court and say “let people stay till ownership is determined or else” but the law itself was a bad law for a couple of reasons: (1)It applied retroactively and (2)It imposed a time limit that had already passed. More importantly, the law conceded the fact that an Arab did in fact own the land (but the law would remove his right to possess it, and instead receive compensation). While the SCJ sort of implied that these buildings were on Arab land, the Knesset should have highlighted that the court had not put a rigorous enough burden of proof on the plaintiff.
If I would still like to see such a law pass applying only to future claims, as it would undermine the PA death sentence for selling to Jews, which would REALLY jump start the settlement process. If Bibi is held to his word AND the evicted families are treated properly at the government’s expense, then, as Ted says, Gam Zu L’Tovah.
Dahlia Scheindlin and the radical anti-Zionist Left at 972+ Mag are angry:
http://972mag.com/nyt-got-it-wrong-netanyahu-opposed-bill-in-order-to-expand-settlements/47687/
If they are that upset at a New York Times editorial, its dawning on them their effort to de-legitimize the revanant movement one building, one acre at a time may have backfired and resulted in the exact opposite of what they wanted.
Let’s not by any means look at this gift horse in the mouth but if Scheindlin & Co are unhappy, I am happy!
On the other side of the coin, while I would have liked the regulation law to pass – I can see the revanant fate extends far beyond five stone buildings. Here is my devil’s advocate take on the future:
Maybe its possible to satisfy both the Supreme Court and expand the revanants across Judea and Samaria. Time will tell if BB was being stupid or if he really wanted to save the Jewish settlement enterprise.
I don’t ever see peace with the Arabs happening and nothing Israel does will ever satisfy them. I see it of greater importance to settle Judea and Samaria with more Jews than to make empty declarations.
The Arabs don’t like Zionism. Fine – whether they cooperate or not is of no consequence. Jews are going to grow and develop and the revanants will be around long after BB is gone from office.
Rule of Law in Israel is a Euphemism used by the establishment to enforce unpopular policies by the courts and the government. When the law does not serve the purposes of the government or the ideological POV of the court it’s ignored, decisions delayed, (sometimes for years) or interpreted or reinterpreted to attain a predetermined political result.
The last Jewish settlement authorized and built by Israel was in 1999. The State Dept with help from their friends here in Israel monitors all construction in Y&S and Jerusalem. The estimated value in $$$$ is deducted from Israels aid package.
I had high hopes that Obama would really divest from Israel because it’s more apparent today then ever before it won’t be initiated by BB his predecessors or his probable replacement. It’s also obvious that it pays better to be an enemy or unfriend of America than to be a loyal ally.
If a half million Israelis went to the streets and ranted ‘DEATH TO AMERICA’, we would probably be offered another billion or two. The value of the dollar is so depreciated that it’s worth today in purchasing power a third of what it was in 1981. It’s obvious for a little over a billion dollars in aid that it’s not the aid or money that locks us to the Apron Strings of America. It’s probably corruption in high places and a psychological crutch our politician believe they need.
Why would BB fear Obama more than Iran and the Bomb? Obama is even a weaker president than Cater was. Why the fear and what’s Obama’s Hold over BB and Israel?
The term “the rule of law” is used very selectively in Israel. There is no equal protection under the law for Jews and Arabs. Illegal Arab structures are not removed and there are few demanding the law be enforced for Arabs as it is for Jews. We need to work on changing the laws so that they are fair and reasonable which is precisely what the By-pass bill was trying to do. Netanyahu should have also demanded that for every Jewish home destroyed we will also destroy 10 Arab illegal structures. Then we would see how the the term the “rule of law” is used by the press and the Left.
I wanted the By-pass Bill to pass. The settlers may have lost the five buildings but they may have gained much more. Time will tell.
Geez and I thought you guys would really beat me up.
yamit82 Said:
yamit82 Said:
yamit82 Said:
BB gave us nothing of substance. It will be years and years before any new homes are built. And in democratic nations like America, the legislature can override a wrong-headed Supreme Court decision by drafting a law in response to that decision or by amending the constitution to overturn it. Contra BB & Co, judges are not gods. They are fallible human beings and even the wisest of judges will not always be right. The real question is not whether the revanants are on the chopping block. That is a sideshow – no, the real issue is whether the judges rule or the people do. Unlike BB, like Abraham Lincoln, I would have said to Israel’s judicial tyrants: “they have issued their decision. Now let them enforce it.”
The principle may be correct if it relates to we Israelis but to the World? What nations courts issue rulings to please other nations?
You seem to ignore that whatever the government builds they can also destroy and have. Every building slated for destruction by the government must be defended as if the whole of the settlements were on the block which they are.
Of-course I disagree with Ted, a long time believer in BB and compromise. There was no law involved only political policy of the government and the Political world View of the Court. Everyone of the 300 units should have already been built and if my instincts about BB are correct few if any will be built. It will be years before they are approved and built under the best of conditions.
In the Israeli world of Chelm the court asked what the government policy was re: such situations and the government responded. The Court ruled according to the governments stated policies on settlement. After the decision, the Government sought ways to ameliorate their own stated policies, without a direct challenge to the court. It’s the government and their stated policy on settlement that should be attacked as they are the ones who caused the whole situation to reach the point we now see before us and it may yet not be a closed chapter.
All the Government needed to do was to submit to the court before their decision a settlement policy in line with the desired results. Was it intentional or myopically careless? With the current idiots in charge it’s hard to know.
1) If the government is so concerned with enforcing the law, why is it so reluctant to demolish illegal Arab and Bedouin housing? Worse. They protect them. They send the IDF to declare “closed military zones” to prevent the implementation of demolition orders.
“Activists charged senior IDF and police officials systemically refused to carry out demolition orders in eastern Jerusalem, or even allow inspectors access, frequently citing security concerns as the reason for inaction.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153297
2) The government blames the Supreme Court for many policies detrimental to Jews and Israel. However, PM Netanyahu is strongly opposed to judicial reform. The government likes it this way!
“Netanyahu Vows to Block Judicial Reform Bills”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153257
Nonesense. Laws are MADE in the knesset, not by-passed. The High Court is not charged with making laws, but with ensuring that they are properly carried out. Saying the knesset was trying to “by-pass the Court” by passing a law, is like saying Arnold Palmer repeatedly by-passed his score by hitting the golf ball. It is the knesset’s JOB to pass laws, to protect the best interests of Israel’s citizens. When they refuse to do this, Israel is indeed “not being governed by the rule of law”.