Israel - What the Rule of Law Looks Like - by Jonathan Tobin

...American justice is generally the envy of the world, and we know that of Israel is imperfect. But the sight of Olmert heading to jail where he’ll share a cellblock with Katzav is a reminder of the Jewish state’s high standards and ability to treat the mighty as being just as accountable as the marginal. When the dust settles on the Clinton email scandal, let’s hope Americans can say as much of their justice system.

Image by © DEBBIE HILL/POOL/epa/Corbis

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
17 February '16..

On Monday, Israelis were treated to the awful spectacle of a former prime minister starting a jail sentence. After a drawn out appeals process, Ehud Olmert, who served as Israel’s leader from 2006 to 2009, began serving a 19-month sentence on corruption charges. He’ll be housed in a special wing of one of the country’s largest prisons along with the other white-collar criminals that can be trusted to live with a man that was privy to the country’s national security secrets. Among the few prisoners who fit into that category is Moshe Katzav, who is serving out a sentence for rape.

The idea that a former prime minister and president are currently doing time is a discouraging one for the Jewish state and its friends. But though the crimes committed by both Olmert and Katzav provide a not very attractive portrait of some members of the country’s leading politicians, Israel’s supporters should actually take some grim satisfaction from their humiliation. Say what you want about the intemperate and sometimes downright crazy nature of Israeli politics, as well as the unfortunate tone of much of its discourse or the not particularly elevated nature of its popular culture. What happened to Olmert proves that, for all of its flaws, Israel is a country where the rule of law still reigns supreme.

Olmert is a product of the generation that came just after Israel’s founders and the contrast between his behavior and his predecessors speaks volumes. Whereas men like David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin lived simply, if not as ascetics, Olmert always lived large. And in contrast to many of his colleagues who spent their formative years in senior military positions (or his successor Benjamin Netanyahu, who had been a commando as a young man and then served in diplomatic posts until getting elected to the Knesset), Olmert was a hotshot lawyer and political fixer. Like other American journalists who met and interviewed him, I always thought that unlike most top Israeli politicians, Olmert seemed to be a very familiar type and would have fit in nicely in any urban political machine in the United States.

It is interesting that, even as he entered jail, Olmert was not only still denying his guilt but also claiming that his downfall was a political conspiracy. His intention is to muddy the waters of public opinion to rebuild his tarnished legacy. That is, of course, nonsense. If anything, the pace of the investigation of his crimes while serving as mayor of Jerusalem was slowed by the fact that he was pushing ahead with the peace process and some in the judicial establishment were loath to disrupt his administration because of ethical lapses. Indeed, there were many in Israel that thought the investigations of Ariel Sharon’s sons’ dubious ethical behavior (which eventually led to a corruption conviction for one of them) was also held back because of his decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as he began his journey from the right to the center.

No Excuses. Period

The irony? If the Palestinians are the uncontrollable savages that their leadership makes them out to be, how can they possibly expect to ever be able to have their own state?

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
02 July '14..





People who engage in criminal activity are just that.

Criminals.

And they remain criminals even if they are spurred to engage in this criminal activity by frustration, desire for revenge, or the "occupation".

Yes.

It is criminal activity to murder.

It is criminal activity to assault someone.

It is criminal activity to throw rocks at people and vehicles.

It is criminal activity to wantonly destroy public property.

People who engage in criminal activity are criminals.

And they should be prosecuted and punished for that criminal activity.

There is no place for a free pass on this.

To repeat: they remain criminals even if they are spurred to engage in this criminal activity by frustration, desire for revenge, or the "occupation".

And that. Unfortunately. Is the chasm between how we and how the Palestinian leadership sees the world.

Outposts And The Law

Moshe Dann
Ynet
19 August 09

The author, a former asst professor of History, is a journalist living in Jerusalem

Conventional wisdom says that “Israel promised (the US) to destroy all ‘unauthorized outposts,’ and, therefore, must fulfill its obligations.” If the government is looking for an excuse, this is a poor one.

The "promise" is based on a letter in April, 2004 from Dov Weissglass, Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Although submitted "on behalf of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," the letter was not signed by Sharon, nor was it affirmed by the cabinet. It was, simply, "diplomatic correspondence."

Moreover, the letter contains conditions. "The Israeli government believes that further steps by it, even if consistent with the Roadmap, cannot be taken absent the emergence of a Palestinian partner committed to peace, democratic reform, and the fight against terror."

Using this letter to justify destruction of Jewish "unauthorized outposts" raises serious questions:

Does Weissglass' letter obligate Israel to carry out its provisions now while ignoring its conditions? Does this letter obligate future governments? Was the letter approved by the full cabinet (since it mentions only the PM)? Why didn't Prime Minister Sharon sign it? Other than Weissglass' letter is there any other binding agreement to destroy Jewish "unauthorized outposts"?

Asked to respond, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office avoided direct specific answers. "This government is committed to the rule of law, and abiding by the law is paramount to maintaining a civil society." They refused to elaborate.
This begs the questions and shifts the argument to Israeli law and, vaguely, "rule of law."

What, in fact, is Israeli law? If Arabs are entitled to acquire property rights by settlement, why can't Jews? Why do Israeli authorities refuse to give permission to develop new neighborhoods, hilltops and outposts? If the application of law discriminates against Jews, what's the meaning of "rule of law"?

What about the real issues?

The Supreme Court has demanded that "unauthorized outposts" built by Jews be destroyed immediately, but has given over 100,000 illegal Arab homes a pass. And what about the vast "unrecognized" illegal Bedouin villages throughout the Galilee and Negev?

"Rule of law" means impartiality above all; it also must make reasonable common sense. Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" built on unoccupied, unclaimed land are examples of Zionist enterprise and idealism.

They offer inexpensive places to live. Most received tacit approval from government ministries, including the prime and defense ministers, which provided infrastructure and utilities. They tried to fulfill the necessary requirements. They are citizens and members of Israeli society. How does destroying them demonstrate the "rule of law" instead of offering legal recognition?

If providing legal status to Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" provides more taxes and fees and serves the interests of the State, why not allow it? How is denying the right of Jews to build assert the "rule of law?"

If the Israeli government is afraid of American opposition, then what does that say about "rule of law?" And, if the "rule of law" is important, why should it be sacrificed on the altar of American opposition?

Focusing on outposts and Jewish building in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem diverts attention from the real issues: the threat of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan's disintegration, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah – to name only a few. Where Jews can or can't live in their homeland hardly seems to be of such importance, unless, of course, the question is if they should have one at all.
But then, there are other, more ancient and sacred promises to keep.
.