By Ted Belman
Both the Orlov bill and the Katz bill calling solutions which would avoid demomolitions in Ulpana and Migron were withdraw for two weeks to give Netanyahu time to come up with another solution. The good news is that Netanya offered a free vote for not only rank and file Likud MK/s but also for the Cabinet Ministers. Netanyahu obviously believes that the MK’s will prefer his solution to the one’s inherent in the withdrawn bills. Or does he mean that he will allow a free vote only if he doesn’t propose another solution.
Perhaps Netanyahu was also influenced by the belief that said Cabinet Ministers would support the bills even if he tried to impose Party discipline on them
Barack argued:
-
“In an advanced democratic country, there is no possibility of passing legislation that cancels a standing court order. Beit El is a large and important community that in the future will remain a part of the State of Israel in any future arrangement [with the Palestinian Authority). We must find a solution to carry out the court order while strengthening Beit El,”
He spoke out against the proposed legislation, and the precedent of “bypassing” a Supreme Court ruling. “It would harm the country, the government and the settlers,” he said, and serve as “an effective weapon in the hands of our enemies.”
I do not believe Barak when he says “In an advanced democratic country, there is no possibility of passing legislation that cancels a standing court order.” For instance if a Court sentences a criminal to be hanged, government can commute the sentence. The Court has no vested interest in seeing the man hung of the buildings demolished,
This is cowardly on Barak’s part and to think he is our Defense Minister.
Minister Benny Begin (Likud) said respect for the Supreme Court ruling had to take precedence and “The repercussions of this type of legislation on land ownership rights would be far-reaching.””
Yes they are far reaching. Basically it provides a Knesset approved solution to houses build on “private Palestinian land” as opposed the the solution laid down by the Court, without a hearing of the merits based on government policy. So why can’t the government change its policy.
Also it seems to me that ordering demolition is an executive function not a legal function. This demolition order started with the Court following government policy and so I see noting wrong in the government changing its policy.
Annexation of Judea and Samaria would solve the problem. Then the settlers could get judicial process instead only of military process by Barak which qualifies as due process. But even military process must not be arbitrary or capricious. The military could justify its removing the Jews without first determining who owns the private property, because, by way of example, that they would have difficulty keeping public order in Judea or Samaria if the Jews stayed in place while the question of title was being examined. But they gave no such justification for their action. Therefore it seems there military process was not due process but was arbitrary and capricious.
It would help also if the method for selection of Judges were to be changed so they were not all left wing judges.
A good friend and member of our group for years adds to each of his emails.
“There are no antecedents of dictatorships releasing control voluntarily.”
The Israeli power grab by the “elites” aka “combina” will only be removed by direct confrontation by alternative and FREELY elected new government structures and people.
It’s past time the people through their elected representatives take back control of the country from the near absolute dictatorship of the Israeli Supreme Court whose loyalty is to not to the state, Not the people and Not any law they disagree with based on their post Zionist world view.
In Israel it is the Knesset that is the supreme authority not the court. We do not have American checks and balances and the court only was allowed to usurp extraordinary powers though self definition and the abrogation of the Knesset of their authority do to laziness of the members and the political avoidance of not wanting to be seen as supporting positions and policies the majority of the public or certain members constituencies, who would view their voting positions unfavorably. Therefore the Court got them off the hook and they would blame their impotence and lack of legislative fidelity to their constituencies on the court.
I have seen the Knesset when they wanted to pass legislation in a single session all three readings in order to avoid a crisis. I have seen the court modify their decisions when they felt threatened by Knesset legislation that would reduce their authority power and prestige. It is the Knesset in Israel that have in our system the real power it is only due to political exigencies and lack of will in asserting their power that both the court and the executive has assumed the greater functions of power. BB and Sharon by expansion of government where almost 40% of the MK’s were appointed as ministers or deputy ministers, the MK’s have sold their obligations for jobs and caused the Knesset to be non functional and virtually irrelevant.