Ben Gvir blasts the opposition: The people are tired of terrorism, violence and bullying

T. Belman. Public Security Minister Omer Barlev replied, “This is a bill whose essence is one thing – to harm the independence of the Israel Police and turn it into a tool to be used by politicians. It is not intended to correct, but rather to destroy the independence of the Israel Police and seriously damage Israeli democracy. This is a real coup. This law will turn the State of Israel into a police state.”

He could not be more wrong. The police are not the protector of democracy.  The Knesset is. The police must do what the government tells them to do.

Did you know that the Supreme Court held that Jews have the right to pray on the Temple Mount, if the police say its OK. The police said its too provocative and forbade Jewish Prayer. Ben Gvitr will instruct the police to let them pray there and to contain the violence it provokes. Case in point.

Knesset approves in preliminary reading a bill that increases the powers of the Minister of National Security.

Dec 14, 2022, 1:58 AM

MK Itamar Ben GvirIsrael National News

The Knesset plenum on Tuesday evening approved, in a preliminary reading, a bill submitted by MK Itamar Ben Gvir which aims to increase the powers granted to the Minister for National Security.

The proposal was supported by 62 Knesset members compared to 53 who voted against it, and it will be forwarded to the Knesset Regulatory Committee which will, in turn, determine the committee which will prepare the bill for its first reading.

The explanation for the bill states, “A fundamental principle in modern democracy is that the political echelon, i.e., the elected officials, outline and guide policy, and the executive level implements this policy. Indeed, it can be seen that in the regime structure of the State of Israel, the IDF carries out the government’s policy and the policy of the minister in charge and is subject to their instructions. In accordance with this, and in order to create a coherent legislative framework, which is in line with the fundamental principle mentioned above, it is proposed to apply a similar arrangement in the police, with regard to the relations between the Israel Police and the government and the minister in charge.”

MK Ben Gvir attacked the opposition in his speech in which he presented the bill, saying, “The people are tired of the terrorism, the violence on the roads, the bullying – it happened on your watch. With God’s help, when we restore peace to the streets – the left, the Arabs and the entire people of Israel will be happy too.”

He added, “The police order is an old order that cannot exist in a democratic country. We are the defenders of democracy and we will fight for it. In a democracy, a minister can determine the policy of his ministry. So it is true that there were ministers like Omer Barlev who did things in the dark, but the way to go is to determine the policy of the ministry, that’s what we were elected for. This is the goal of democracy. Only in third world countries is the chief of police the one who sets the policy.”

Public Security Minister Omer Barlev replied, “This is a bill whose essence is one thing – to harm the independence of the Israel Police and turn it into a tool to be used by politicians. It is not intended to correct, but rather to destroy the independence of the Israel Police and seriously damage Israeli democracy. This is a real coup. This law will turn the State of Israel into a police state.”

December 14, 2022 | 12 Comments »

Leave a Reply

12 Comments / 12 Comments

  1. @leanmarc But not to worry, the Court will always protect the most basic human rights.

    Israel: Supreme Court Authorizes Surrogacy Arrangements for Gay Men
    https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-29/israel-supreme-court-authorizes-surrogacy-arrangements-for-gay-men/

    “Israeli Supreme Court rules unconstitutional a law denying social benefits to Palestinian families whose children are convicted of stone-throwing”

    https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/10382

  2. @leanmarc But not to worry, the Court will always protect the most basic human rights.

    Israel: Supreme Court Authorizes Surrogacy Arrangements for Gay Men

    https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-29/israel-supreme-court-authorizes-surrogacy-arrangements-for-gay-men/

    “Israeli Supreme Court rules unconstitutional a law denying social benefits to Palestinian families whose children are convicted of stone-throwing”

    https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/10382

  3. @ leanmarc You said:

    Courts are important to protect these ‘rights’ and not allow any elected government take away these rights like we see today in America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.
    Israeli People need to be Free in the Land otherwise we are just a number.

    If you are referring to the recent Covid tyranny, the surveillance, lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, etc. did the Israeli Supreme Court do anything to stop them or did they facilitate them?

    Well, I googled:

    Israel court covid

    and judging from the articles that came up, my answer is: both.

    And, seemingly, arbitrarily.

  4. Here”s the main culprit and at the same time as Oslo:

    “In the course of his service on the Supreme Court Barak greatly expanded the range of issues with which the court dealt.[3] He canceled the standing test which Israel’s Supreme Court had used frequently, and greatly expanded the scope of justiciability by allowing petitions on a range of matters. Professor Daphna Barak-Erez commented that:

    One of the most significant impacts of Judge Barak on Israeli law is found in the change which he led with regard to all matters of justiciability. Judge Barak was the instigator and leader of the outlook which regards the traditional doctrine of justiciability as inappropriately and unnecessarily limiting the matters which the court deals with. Under the leadership of Judge Barak, the Supreme Court significantly increased the [range of] fields in which it is [willing to intervene].[4]
    Simultaneously, he advanced a number of standards, both for public administration (mainly, the standard of the reasonableness of the administrative decision) and in the private sector (the standard of good faith), while blurring the distinction between the two. Barak’s critics have argued that, in doing so, the Supreme Court under his leadership harmed judicial consistency and stability, particularly in the private sector.[5]

    Since 1992, much of his judicial work was focused on advancing and shaping Israel’s Constitutional Revolution (a phrase which he coined), which he believed was brought about by the adoption of Basic Laws in the Israeli Knesset dealing with human rights. According to Barak’s approach, which was adopted by the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Revolution brought values such as the Right to Equality, Freedom of Employment and Freedom of Speech to a position of normative supremacy, and thereby granted the courts (not just the Supreme Court) the ability to strike down legislation which is inconsistent with the rights embodied in the Basic Laws. Consequently, Barak held that the State of Israel has been transformed from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional parliamentary democracy, in that its Basic Laws were to be interpreted as its constitution.[6]

    During his time as President of the Supreme Court, Barak advanced a judicial activist approach, whereby the court was not required to limit itself to judicial interpretation, but rather was permitted to fill the gaps in the law through judicial legislation at common law. This approach was highly controversial and was met with much opposition, including by some politicians. The Israeli legal commentator Ze’ev Segal wrote in a 2004 article, “Barak sees the Supreme Court as a [force for societal change], far beyond the primary role as a decisor in disputes. The Supreme Court under his leadership is fulfilling a central role in the shaping of Israeli law, not much less than [the role of] the Knesset. Barak is the leading power in the court, as a key judge in it for a quarter of a century, and as the number 1 judge for some 10 years now.”

    On 14 September 2006, upon reaching the mandatory age, Barak retired from the Supreme Court. Three months later he published his final judgments, among them a number of precedents regarding damages in tort for residents of the Palestinian territories, Israel’s policy of targeted killing, and preferential treatment for IDF veterans.

    Parallel to his service in the Supreme Court, Barak also served as the head of a committee which, for some twenty years, drafted the Israeli Civil Codex, which worked to unite the 24 main civil law statutes in Israeli law under a single comprehensive law.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharon_Barak

  5. from 2018

    The second goal is to address what Shaked views as the discrimination that settlers face in the High Court. The justice minister argued that the burden of proof in High Court petitions is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff — a hierarchy that would be flipped in cases heard before a district court.

    Speaking to The Times of Israel, a Justice Ministry official explained that Shaked views the High Court as “overly concerned with international law and with protecting the rights of the ‘occupied’ population in Judea and Samaria.”

    The Jerusalem District Court, however, is often more concerned with the testimonies of the specific case at hand, focusing less on broader geopolitical implications, the official explained.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-seizing-high-courts-power-to-adjudicate-west-bank-land-disputes-advances/

  6. @leanmarc “Article 7A: Prevention of Participation of Candidates’ list

    7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: 1.Negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; 2.Incitement to racism; 3.support for armed struggle by a hostile state or a terrorist organization against the State of Israel.”

    https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstP2_eng.htm

    Well, that lets out all the Arab and far left parties in the Knesset. Has the Supreme Court removed them?

  7. @ leanmarc “Gantz: Releasing Jews under administrative detention will inspire terrorism”
    Dec 13, 2022

    “Responding to a submission by 40 Knesset members demanding the release from administrative detention of two Jews, Avraham Yair Yered and Elichai Carmeli, Defense Minister Benny Gantz said that their release would inspire terrorist attacks.

    “There are a thousand Palestinians currently in administrative detention and just a small number of Jews,” Gantz said. “Those few Jews are considered to be high-risk, and the message we’re sending if we release them will inspire fresh acts of terrorism.”

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/flashes/594176/?utmd_source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=1671028232603

    “Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security …”

    Wikipedia

  8. @leanmarc

    “The Parliament should make the laws but this should include BASIC LAWS – RIGHTS that protect human rights, dignity”.

    “Israeli Court Reverses Ruling That Allowed Jews ‘Quiet’ Prayer on Temple Mount
    The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court had ruled that prayer ‘by itself is not enough to violate the police’s instructions’ at the holy site”

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-10-08/ty-article/flagrant-violation-palestinians-denounce-israeli-court-ruling-on-temple-mount/0000017f-dc31-df62-a9ff-dcf7433a0000

    “Jews blocked from drinking water on Temple Mount”

    https://youtu.be/SLWYGlN0zWc

  9. @leanmarc

    “There’s a longstanding complaint among the Israeli right that the Israeli Supreme Court is perceived to be left-leaning — the mirror image of what we have here in the United States. Secondly, the Supreme Court is perceived by many Israelis to be an undemocratic institution, because it is an appointed body. In Israel, you have a selection committee for the Supreme Court that is actually composed mostly of sitting Supreme Court justices and members of the Israeli Bar Association. A common complaint is that the Knesset is a democratic body selected by the people and it’s hampered by this undemocratic body that gets to dictate to the Knesset what is legal and what is not.”

    https://www.jta.org/2022/12/08/opinion/an-israel-analysts-best-and-worst-case-scenarios-for-the-new-right-wing-government

  10. The Parliament should make the laws but this should include BASIC LAWS – RIGHTS that protect human rights, dignity.
    Courts are important to protect these ‘rights’ and not allow any elected government take away these rights like we see today in America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.
    Israeli People need to be Free in the Land otherwise we are just a number.
    Security, Pandemics, Climate Change, should not be allowed to cancel out basic G’d given rights.

  11. How do you define, “democracy,” Minister Barlev? I looked it up:

    de·moc·ra·cy
    /d??mäkr?s?/
    noun
    a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
    “capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world”
    Similar:
    representative government
    elective government
    constitutional government
    popular government
    self-government
    government by the people
    autonomy
    republic
    commonwealth
    Opposite:
    tyranny
    dictatorship
    a state governed by a democracy.
    plural noun: democracies
    “a multiparty democracy”
    control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
    “the intended extension of industrial democracy”

    An independent police (and for that matter, judiciary, though that’s irrelevant – even antithetical here since the court deferred to the police in this matter) would seem to be elements of tyranny or dictatorship then according to the dictionary definition.

    I’m reminded of the scene in the film, “UN Me,” in which he buys a used copy of Webster’s Unabridged English Dictionary at Upper West Sider Books and says, “see there’s the definition of terrorism” and is told, at that august “democratic” institution, “That’s propaganda.”

    https://youtu.be/FIzDt5NPYfI