Destroying Jewish and democratic values in one easy step - by Evelyn Gordon

The left’s subversion of language has thus wreaked long-lasting harm on both Israel and the Jewish people. And all of us will be paying the price for many years to come.

Evelyn Gordon..
JNS.org..
10 April '19..

Distorting the meaning of language is a seductive but dangerous game. It’s seductive because it provides enormous short-term benefits. It’s dangerous because, as two recent examples show, it can ultimately eviscerate fundamental values.

One example comes from this week’s Israeli election, in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party actually gained seats despite multiple corruption cases against him. A survey published in February by a Haifa University political scientist explains why: Most voters for Likud and allied parties don’t believe the allegations because they don’t trust the legal system. Fully 65 percent of Likud voters and 75 percent of haredi voters think law-enforcement agencies are simply trying to oust Netanyahu.

On one level, this is shocking. But on another, it’s not shocking at all because the Israeli left has spent decades successfully subverting the concept of “the rule of law” for its own political benefit.

For instance, Israel’s Supreme Court repeatedly overturns government policies not because they violate any law, but because the justices deem them “unreasonable.” Whether or not a policy is reasonable is a question other democracies leave to the voters. But the left has successfully branded all efforts to curb such judicial policy interventions as “contrary to the rule of law,” and thereby managed to stymie proposed reforms: Most legislators don’t want to “sabotage the rule of law.”

Moreover, in almost every Western democracy, the executive and legislative branches choose Supreme Court justices; only in Israel do sitting justices have veto power over the choice of their successors. Yet the left has branded every attempt to align Israel’s judicial appointments system with this Western norm as “contrary to the rule of law,” and thereby successfully staved off change.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Israel, Gatekeepers and Tunnel Vision - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

...Ironically, the people screaming "PROTECT DEMOCRACY" are the ones arguing that the "gate keepers" should have the final say on what serves the public interest. That somehow it is not "democratic" for the political process to serve as the expression of the public interest.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
02 March '19..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=73466

Years ago, before she was an MK, Shulamit "Shuli" Mualem-Rafaeli lobbied for IDF widows to continue to receive their pensions after remarrying (her own first husband Moshe was killed in the 1997 IDF helicopter disaster).

The proposed change to the rules was supported by all the decision makers who held their positions as a result of the democratic process - including the Minister of Defense.

The proposal was quashed by the legal counsel of the Ministry of Defense at a meeting she attended.

What legal grounds did the legal counsel of the Ministry of Defense cite for quashing the proposal?

He said if was a budget buster.

That's right.

The lawyer serving as legal counsel of the Ministry of Defense couldn't actually cite a legal issue with the proposal.

He just felt that he knew better what was in the public interest than a bunch of decision makers who held their positions as a result of the democratic process - including the Minister of Defense.

This, in a nutshell, is the fierce dispute over the proper role of the so-called "gate keepers".

The Conviction Rate in IDF Military Court Tribunals: Is it Too High? - by Karen Bekker

What does a commonly cited statistic about Israeli military courts really tell us?

Karen Bekker..
CAMERA Middle East Issues..
21 June '17..


One anti-Israel talking point that has been cropping up recently is the claim that nearly 100 percent of trials of Palestinians in Israeli military courts in the West Bank end in convictions. This statistic has been repeated in Newsweek and in the Washington Post.

The main source for this claim is a 2011 report from Haaretz, which cites “data in the military courts' annual report, which has been obtained by Haaretz.” There is no link to the report, nor any title given to identify it, and it does not appear to be publicly available.

Haaretz tells us that

According to the report, 9,542 cases were wrapped up in 2010, of which 2,016 involved hostile terror activity, 763 disorderly conduct and the rest Palestinians staying illegally in Israel, traffic offenses and criminal activity.

The report states that 25 cases ended in full acquittal, meaning that the conviction rate is 99.74 percent.

The implication of those who repeat the statistic in the context of anti-Israel articles is that the high conviction rate is evidence that the Israeli military courts are lacking in due process, and that the Palestinian defendants who are tried in them are not being treated fairly. A closer look at the facts, however, reveals that this is not so.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Concerning the Azaria Verdict: A Letter To Armchair Quarterbacks/Backseat Drivers - by Sheri Oz

Will we let the Elor Azaria verdict tear apart our social fabric? We are struggling to define ourselves as a modern nation built on the ashes of our ancient homeland and how we come out from this latest challenge will play a part in that, for better or for worse.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
08 January '17..




Dear Armchair Quarterback / Backseat Driver:

My chest aches when I see Elor Azaria and his parents, or even when I just think about them. I can imagine (or maybe I cannot imagine) the overwhelming burden of carrying an entire nation on their shoulders. That is what has become of their ordeal, an ordeal that should never, in my opinion, have reached the dimensions that it has.

Rightly or wrongly, three judges unanimously determined that Elor Azaria is guilty of manslaughter. There is now only one thing that can overturn that verdict and that is an appeal and it has nothing to do with the noise you are making in the streets or on the social media. Send in your petitions and demonstrate in the streets – I doubt this will have much, if any, effect; but if it makes you feel good, then at least be careful you do not add coal to the emotional fires of our aching nation as I promise to be careful myself.

There is nobody who is unaffected by seeing a young man handed down a harsh verdict for having killed a terrorist. I wish he had been there earlier and could have taken out his anger when the act was still in progress, something that everyone from top to bottom, right to left and front to back would have agreed was justified. I think we have mostly, if not all, reached the point where we prefer terrorists to be killed in action rather than wounded and taken in for questioning and imprisonment. But even that depends on the circumstances.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

To a Large Extent, the IDF’s Wound Was Self-Inflicted - by Evelyn Gordon

...But from the start, Eisenkot and Ya’alon created the appearance of injustice by routinely speaking out against Azaria when they should simply have kept silent and let the military justice system do its work. The result is that now, many Israelis still aren’t certain Azaria was convicted fairly, and that has translated into overwhelming support for an early pardon. This case has sowed devastating distrust of both the army’s leadership and its justice system among a large section of the Israeli public. Yet much of that distrust could have been avoided had Ya’alon and Eisenkot simply kept their mouths shut. That neither man proved capable of doing so is a damning indictment of them, and a tragedy for Israel.

Evelyn Gordon..
Analysis from Israel..
05 January '17..
Link: http://evelyncgordon.com/the-idfs-self-inflicted-wound/

The massive support in Israel for soldier Elor Azaria, who was convicted of manslaughter on Wednesday for killing a wounded Palestinian terrorist, has confounded some of its friends and supplied ammunition for its enemies. So it’s important to understand why that support is so widespread. Jonathan Tobin correctly explained some of the reasons yesterday, including the fact that most Israelis have limited sympathy for terrorists. But to a large extent, this is also a self-inflicted wound by the two people at the top of the military chain of command, who forgot the most basic principle of justice: Not only must it be done, but it must be seen to be done. By their own actions, they managed to create an appearance of injustice in a case where I believe none actually occurred.

The shooting occurred at about 8:30 A.M. on March 24. Five hours later, B’Tselem released videotaped footage of it. By that evening–at a time when the Military Police investigation had barely begun, and long before the video could have been examined to ensure it hadn’t been doctored–both then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot had already unequivocally condemned Azaria’s behavior. Ya’alon said it “completely contradicts” IDF values, while an IDF spokesman termed it a “grave breach” of IDF standards. Such condemnations continued in the coming days. On March 28, for instance, three weeks before the military prosecution decided to file charges, Ya’alon told the Knesset that Azaria was “a soldier who has transgressed, and not a hero.” In other words, both Ya’alon and the army had declared Azaria guilty even before he was charged.

In conversations with friends shortly after the incident, it was this that most infuriated them and aroused their sympathy for Azaria: They felt that the men in charge of the army, whose job was to ensure that any soldier suspected of wrongdoing receives a fair hearing, had instead rushed to judgment against him in order to appease a hostile world after B’Tselem made its video public. Moreover, they wondered whether Azaria could even receive a fair trial when the two men who must sign off on promotions for every senior military police officer, prosecutor and judge had already made it clear that they expected a conviction. Under those circumstances, would military justice officials risk their careers by exonerating Azaria if the evidence justified it?

In the context of the ongoing war on the Jewish state - by Jonathan Tobin

...In a conflict in which Palestinian leaders and official media not only preach hate for Jews but honor those who act on their urgings as heroes, is it any surprise that most Israelis have little sympathy for those, like al-Sharif, whose only goal was to kill any Jew he met? Nor can we be shocked that parents of other young soldiers identify with the mental anguish of a teenager who has just seen one of his friends bleeding after a terrorist attack. Israel is a country where their enemies mark its entire people for murder. If some see the death of one of those foes—even if it was the result of a blatantly illegal act—as less grievous than the possibility that a young man who was serving his country will have his life ruined for acting impulsively, that just shows they are human and justifiably angry about the violence that is directed at their children.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
04 January '17..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/not-a-simple-case-of-manslaughter-elor-azaria/

The trial and today’s conviction of Israeli soldier Elor Azaria is being celebrated by some as an example of how Israel’s justice system has vindicated the honor of the nation. That’s true. Sergeant Azaria was convicted of killing a terrorist who had already been captured and disabled. A video of the shooting appears to prove Azaria is guilty of manslaughter and the court rejected the attempts of his defenders to claim that his actions were appropriate or an effort to save his comrades from a danger that not longer existed.

And yet it must be said that, contrary to the arguments of Israel’s critics, a wave of support inside Israel for the defendant among the general public and many politicians is not an indication that 50 years of “occupation” has destroyed the country’s moral compass. If, despite the evidence that compelled the court to convict Azaria, so many Israelis on both the right and the left view this as more than a simple case of manslaughter, it is not because they are immoral or indifferent to Arab suffering. Rather, it is because the context of this controversy is a brutal war in which Israel’s youth is placed in harm’s way by their country’s foes; not an ordinary criminal case.

The truly anti-democratic revolution that has occurred in Israel - by Evelyn Gordon

...however, The Purse and the Sword offers vital insight into a powerful institution that has been disfiguring Israeli politics and society for the last three decades and is still at it today. If you want to understand one of the most egregious and deeply embedded threats to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, Friedmann’s book is a good place to start.

Evelyn Gordon..
Analysis from Israel..
08 December '16..

In 2015, following lengthy negotiations, President Barack Obama concluded an executive agreement marking the accomplishment of a cherished policy goal: the nuclear deal with Iran known as the JCPOA. Also in 2015, after similarly lengthy negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concluded an agreement realizing a long-cherished policy goal of his own: a deal enabling development of Israel’s largest natural-gas field by a private American company and its Israeli partner. Both agreements included a commitment by the respective governments to refrain from adverse legislative action over the next ten to fifteen years: in Obama’s case, action to reinstate nuclear sanctions against Iran; in Netanyahu’s case, action to alter the regulatory regime for natural gas to the disadvantage of the private energy companies.

As it happens, neither country’s executive branch has the authority to bind the legislature without the latter’s consent. But this didn’t trouble either the Iranians or the energy companies; they took it for granted that both executives would use all of the considerable power at their disposal to prevent such legislation, and that sufficed.

But what about the role of the third branch of democratic government, namely, the judiciary? That is where the two stories diverge. The Iran deal was never challenged in an American court. But in Israel, two left-wing opposition parties (Zionist Union and Meretz) and two nongovernmental organizations, alarmed by the encroaching specter of capitalist development, immediately petitioned the country’s supreme court (also known for some purposes as the High Court of Justice) over the gas deal—and won. The court struck down the agreement, saying the government either had to procure legislation enacting the prime minister’s commitment to regulatory stability or renegotiate the deal to exclude the commitment altogether.

A week later, speaking at a conference of the Israeli bar association, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked accused the court of wielding its power “irresponsibly” by intervening in “political and macroeconomic questions” that were better left to the elected branches. She also reiterated a longstanding pledge, in her role as head of the judicial-appointments committee, to seek the appointment of justices to the court who would respect the government’s “authority to act on political matters that don’t violate human rights.” For this effrontery, opposition members of the Knesset promptly accused her of undermining democracy and demanded her dismissal. MK Shelly Yachimovich of the Zionist Union, for instance, charged Shaked with “trying to destroy the legal system’s independence, intimidate judges, and threaten them,” adding that if this sort of behavior continued, “Netanyahu would no longer be able to boast that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.”

This was hardly the first time in recent years that domestic critics of Israel’s government have accused it of “anti-democratic” behavior that wasn’t actually anti-democratic at all. But such accusations have served to obscure the real anti-democratic revolution that has occurred in Israel over the last few decades: the judiciary’s steady usurpation of policy-making powers that were once reserved—as they still are in other democracies—for Israel’s executive and legislative branches.

(Continue to Full Essay)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

The court’s authority and Israel’s democratic collapse - by Caroline Glick

...If Netanyahu acts, he can restore Israeli democracy. If he fails to act, he will go down in history as a full accomplice in the legal fraternity’s destruction of freedom in the Jewish state.

Caroline Glick..
Our World/JPost..
29 March '16..

Israeli democracy is in critical condition.

Sunday, the High Court of Justice ruled that the government’s natural gas policy is unlawful. The policy, which was negotiated with foreign energy companies, was to be the basis for developing the massive offshore Leviathan gas field. It was supposed to anchor future gas prices, ensure gas revenues for the government and energy security for the country in the coming decades. On the basis of this policy outline, the government negotiated deals to supply natural gas to Egypt, Turkey and Jordan.

Given the enormous cost of developing offshore gas fields, the policy, which was determined in close consultations with legal experts and regulators, determined a base price for natural gas that would be frozen for 10 years. The point of the price freeze was to encourage investors to take the financial risk of exploring and developing Israeli fields. The price freeze guaranteed them a minimal profit on their investment.

In a healthy democracy, the court would never have agreed to adjudicate the populist petition against the government’s gas policy submitted by a consortium of radical NGOs.

Under normal rules of standing that apply in every other mature democracy in the world, the petitioners would have had no right to submit their petition.

In states not controlled by a legal junta, as the people’s elected representative it is the government’s sole prerogative to determine the state’s energy policy and to sign deals with foreign governments and investors.

But in Israel, the court gives standing to whoever it wants. Given the radical pedigree of our justices – who have engineered a process where they appoint themselves – it was not surprising that the court permitted a group of unelected radicals to petition to destroy Israel’s energy sector, and to cause the loss of hundreds of billions of shekels in future revenue to Israeli society.

Recognizing what was at stake, last month Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the unprecedented step of testifying before the High Court of Justice in defense of his government’s gas policy.

Rather than rise to the occasion, led by Justice Elyakim Rubinstein the justices acted like spoiled teenagers.

After Netanyahu finished speaking, Rubinstein whined that the justices already knew Netanyahu’s arguments by heart. Netanyahu, he clearly implied, was wasting their time defending a policy it had taken him months to negotiate and to which Israel’s economic future is tied.

Although the justices intimated a month ago that they would reject the price freeze clause and so scupper the entire policy outline, many refused to take their threat seriously. The notion that the court would reject the government’s right to determine Israel’s energy policy and rule in a manner that endangered energy supply agreements the government negotiated with three foreign governments was so mindboggling that commentators assumed that the justices were bluffing.

But they weren’t. In response to Sunday’s ruling, Netanyahu said, “The Supreme Court’s decision is a grave threat to the development of Israel’s gas reserves.” Netanyahu noted, “Israel is seen as a country with exaggerated judicial involvement in which it is difficult to do business. Certainly, no one should celebrate that the gas may remain deep under the sea and that hundreds of billions of dollars will not reach Israel’s citizens.”

Actually, the opposite of the truth - by MK Yoav Kisch

...We must not let lies propagated by radical leftist groups affect our relationship with the U.S. And the U.S. ambassador, who is a good friend of ours, must not act as a spokesman for an extreme leftist ideology that Israeli society has justly rejected in an outright manner.

MK Yoav Kisch..
Israel Hayom..
20 January '16..

In a speech on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro claimed that Israel applies "two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians." In fact, Israel uses a very heavy hand against Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria who commit crimes. When it comes to acts of terrorism and murder, Israeli security forces exert great effort to catch the culprits, whether they be Arabs or Jews. Shapiro acknowledged this regarding the Duma arson case, but it also goes for the Muhammad Abu Khdeir murder case, as well as all other murder and terrorism cases.

Yet, in some realms, the law is not applied equally and this is done in a way that actually favors the Palestinians. Take, for example, illegal construction in Judea and Samaria. The Palestinian have constructed thousands upon thousands of illegal buildings in Judea and Samaria, some funded by the European Union for the purpose of creating facts on the ground. Very few of these illegal buildings end up being demolished by Israel.

On the other hand, the Israeli legal system makes sure that Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is conducted in strict accordance with the law. This is also true when it comes to traffic violations in Judea and Samaria. For Jews, there is strict police enforcement of traffic laws. Yet Israeli law enforcement officials are often helpless in the face of Palestinian violations of the same traffic laws. This has been detailed in reports issued by the state comptroller on law enforcement in Judea and Samaria.

It may be that Shapiro was misled by radical leftist nongovernmental organizations which regularly publish false reports about supposed Israeli "apartheid" practices. If this is the case, I recommend that Shapiro examine the credibility of the sources of these reports. Recently, it has become ever more clear that members of these NGOs are self-righteous fools driven by an extreme anti-Israel ideology. They will let nothing stand in the way of them achieving their goals, even if this means harming Palestinians. This is one of the reasons I initiated the bill regarding the funding of NGOs by foreign governments.

How Israel Passed the Justice Test - by Jonathan Tobin

...Israel neither seeks nor deserves any special honors for enforcing the law. But there is nothing ordinary about this case. By putting the full resources of the state behind an effort to punish a Jew for killing Arabs in the midst of a bloody national conflict testifies to the resilience and the integrity of Israeli democracy and the rule of law. This is important not because those points are really in question but because the ongoing ideological war to destroy Israel is, at least in part, predicated on the notion that it does not seek to extend the protection of the rule to those who are not Jews or even citizens.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
05 January '16..

The announcement by the Israeli government of indictments in the shocking arson murder of an Arab family in a West Bank village last summer is, in a very real sense, not a big deal. In decent nations, those who commit murder shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it no matter what the circumstances. That it took several months of investigations and interrogations of suspects was regrettable but, assuming that the case has been solved, the final result in which the guilty are punished is the main thing. Israel neither seeks nor deserves any special honors for enforcing the law. But there is nothing ordinary about this case. By putting the full resources of the state behind an effort to punish a Jew for killing Arabs in the midst of a bloody national conflict testifies to the resilience and the integrity of Israeli democracy and the rule of law.

This is important not because those points are really in question but because the ongoing ideological war to destroy Israel is, at least in part, predicated on the notion that it does not seek to extend the protection of the rule to those who are not Jews or even citizens. Moreover, by having a so-called right-wing government take the threat of Jewish terrorism seriously, the country has once again reaffirmed its commitment to principle against pressure from those of its citizens who would have it descend to the level of its enemies.

It is unfortunate that a few Israelis and Jews believe the mere fact that Israel’s enemies have seized on this case is reason enough to doubt the government’s position. Others have raised the issue of context in a manner so as to potentially justify or rationalize Jewish terrorism as an “understandable” response to the far more prevalent Palestinian terror attacks on Jews. Fortunately, the Israeli government has rejected such impulses. This was important not just because it is the right thing to do but because it makes a vital point about the conflict in which Israel still finds itself mired.

Can a country be held hostage by lawyers?

...Weinstein's job is to advise the government, not to decide for it. He is not a policy-maker, and it is neither the right nor the mandate of legal advisers to meddle in such an unabashed manner. By swatting down Weinstein, the prime minister reasserted the authority of the executive branch to craft policy. He struck an important blow against those who wish to see Israel become a country whose policy-making apparatus is held hostage by lawyers. And in so doing, he not only made Israelis safer from Palestinian rock-throwing terrorists, but he bolstered our democracy too.

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/JPost..
24 September '15..

An important constitutional drama played out this past week behind closed doors, one that may prove pivotal in safeguarding Israel's democratic system.

According to various media reports, Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein brazenly sought to undermine the government's initiative to implement a firmer hand against Palestinians hurling stones and firebombs.

Fortunately for all of us, it appears that Weinstein was put in his place by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reminded him that it is the government, and not the lawyers, who make policy.

Weinstein's opposition to imposing tougher sentencing guidelines on those who hurl rocks and Molotov cocktails, as well as his hostility towards a relaxation of the rules on the use of live fire against them, is so remarkably detached from reality that it raises serious questions about his judgment.

Consider the following.

According to figures compiled by the IDF, there were 7,886 stone-throwing incidents in Judea and Samaria in 2013. In 2014, the number more than doubled, to 18,726. That averages out to 51 attacks per day, or more than two per hour, every hour, over the course of an entire year. And projections are that the number of such incidents recorded by the end of 2015 will prove even higher.

In Jerusalem, as veteran journalist Nadav Shragai reported last week, the number of stone-throwing attacks has ballooned to the point that the security forces have ceased counting them. But data indicates there have been over 5,000 such incidents in the capital just since the start of the year.

And then there are the Molotov cocktails and other homemade incendiary devices that Palestinians use to attack Israeli vehicles and even homes. From January through August of this year, nearly 300 such attacks have been recorded.

This is terrorism, pure and simple. No bullets or bombs may have been employed, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or destructive.

We Want Democracy - Like Israel

"How many Arab leaders would be left if they went on trial of similar cases of bribery and corruption?" — Zuhear al-Karim, Arabic CNN.

"If Olmert were in Kuwait, his case would have been shelved and he would have received a senior position in government." — Yasalam, Al-Aan.

"Law is above all and this is real democracy. Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East." — Saad Sayad, Arabic CNN.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
16 May '14..

The Tel Aviv District Court's decision to send former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to six years in prison for corruption has prompted calls in the Arab world for endorsing Israel's standards of accountability, transparency and justice.

Reacting to the sentencing of Olmert, many Arabs expressed hope that the day would come when their countries would learn from Israel that no one is above the law, even if he or she is a president or prime minister.

Sufian Abu Zayda, a leading Fatah official and former Palestinian Authority minister, praised the court verdict; he said it shows that in Israel, no one is above the law.

"This verdict provides further evidence that the judicial system in Israel is fully independent in the wake of the separation between the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, as well as total freedom of the media," said Abu Zayda, who is considered an expert on Israeli affairs.[1]

The praise for Israel's democratic system does not mean that Abu Zayda and other Arabs have become pro-Israel and are willing to recognize Israel's right to exist.

But while they continue to hate Israel and seek its destruction, many Arabs do not hesitate to express their admiration for the independence of Israel's judicial system.

Comments posted by Arabs and Muslims on the Internet this week revealed how eager they are for their countries to endorse Israeli democracy. Similar reactions were also published when an Israeli court sentenced former Israeli President Moshe Katzav to seven years in prison for sex-related offenses.

Following are some of the comments posted on Arab media and social websites in response to the Olmert verdict:

“Blessed is God – I got off cheap!”

...The latest sentence imposed on Salah is a joke and he straightforwardly told us so in our faces. ...Salah has again managed make mockery of our legal system and law enforcement. Unfortunately, this isn’t just between him and the judiciary. It impacts us all.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
09 March '14..

It’s not often that when a defendant is sentenced to do time behind bars he exclaims jubilantly. But that’s precisely what happened last week when Islamic Movement Northern Branch leader Sheikh Raed Salah – an Israeli-Arab, former mayor of Umm el-Fahm and a convicted Hamas collaborator – was handed down an eight-month term for inciting to violence in 2007.

Salah had then orchestrated riots against archeological rescue-digs and a new pedestrian bridge near the Temple Mount. He accused Jews of “eating bread dipped in children’s blood.” He praised and eulogized terrorist murderers. He threatened anyone who claims any Jewish connection to the Western Wall, “even to just one stone.” Thereafter, Salah has been regularly holding “Save al-Aksa” rallies dedicated to the incendiary calumny that Israel is out to demolish the Muslim compound atop Temple Mount.

His ultra-light sentence inspired him to shout insolently in open court: “Blessed is God – I got off cheap!”

He certainly did and therefore his rejoicing. It wasn’t a sarcastic pose. Salah had cause for celebration. Considering his history, he rightly expected far worse.

Yishai Fleisher - Comments on the Rabbi Dov Lior Arrest by the Israeli police

Yishai Fleisher
EyeOnZionTV
01 July '11

Yishai Feisher on Israel Broadcasting Authority English News TV, June 28th

(Background: Approximately a year ago, Rabbi Dov Lior, venerated Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Arba, gave his approbation on a book on the Jewish laws of war written by Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira. Among other issues, the book deals with the legal ramifications of the Israeli army taking action to kill terrorists even when enemy civilians may also be killed as a result. Rabbi Shapira cites numerous Jewish law sources to prove that this is permissible. The Left immediately accused Rabbi Shapira and the rabbis who gave their approbation on his book of incitement to murder. On Monday, Rabbi Lior was arrested and questioned. Heated demonstrations by the Rabbi's students ensued. Sheli K.)



If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Something’s Rotten in the State of Israel’s Legal System

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
13 January '10

Something is deeply wrong with a justice system when mainstream journalists and politicians take it for granted that a suspect’s political views will affect the legal proceedings against him.

Consider the following sentence from a column that appeared Monday in Israel’s left-wing daily Haaretz: “If the attorney general decides to bring charges against Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister may decide that, in his bid to reach a plea bargain that will keep him out of prison, he is better off bringing down the government, and possibly even the Knesset, and disguising himself as a moderate in a government that has Kadima and Labor [two left-of-center parties] at its center.”

The author, Amir Oren, is no right-wing conspiracy theorist; he’s a veteran, left-of-center journalist and star columnist for a respected highbrow daily. And he considers it patently obvious that if Lieberman wants prosecutors to treat him leniently, he would be wise to swerve Left.

Nor is Oren alone in this belief. In 2007, after then prime minister Ehud Olmert appointed Daniel Friedmann, a well-known critic of the Supreme Court’s judicial activism, as justice minister, Yossi Verter wrote in Haaretz: “The justice system … has two alternatives for coping with this blow: hunkering down in its bunker and waiting for the government to change, or speeding up criminal proceedings against Olmert and working with greater vigor to topple him, which would also bring about Friedmann’s departure.”

Like Oren, Verter is a veteran left-of-center journalist and a star Haaretz columnist. And like Oren, he considers it self-evident that legal officials could and would use their prosecutorial powers to oust a politician whose policies they oppose.

(Read full post)
.