Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
Never forget that support for Judicial Reform in this past election came from the grassroots rather than from the parties. In fact the parties have been toying with the issue of Judicial Reform for over a decade and Caroline and others have been talking about it for two decades. It is only in this recent election when it went from being a non campaign topic to THE campaign topic. This was because of the gross overreach displayed before the people with the absurd Bibi trials where the prosecution have used coerced testimony which falls apart while testifying about charges which have selectively been used to bring down a single candidate for political purposes. It was further pushed to the fore with the outrageous ruling by the Court to certify a lame duck govt to pay terrorists a ransom of Israeli owned gas fields while having no basis in law or reason to do so. The politicians involved have always wanted Judicial Reform, but it is only now that the people too have demanded that this reform be pursued simply so that the interest of the Israeli people rather than the interests of the International Liberal Consensus, ie Globalism, is served. The Israeli people have certain rights, but those rights are in fact being violated to the benefit foreign interests. Put an end to this Internationalization of Israeli justice. Bring the goals of Israeli justice back home to benefit the Israeli people whom the court is suppose to serve, and this should not include Brussels or Washington.
Direct Polls: 78% of Israelis Support Judicial Reform
IDI Poll Pulls Israelis by the Nose on Judicial Reform
@Seymour
Thanks for the correction. “rule of Law” first came to mind but I was uncomfortable with it as I didn’t think I got it right.
With respect Ted it is not called the rule of law, but rather the “rules based international order” (RBO). Rule of law as you undoubtedly know is what we in democracies are supposed to be living under already. Instead we actually have the rule of lawyers particularly in Israel it would appear. And contrary to the conventional wisdom of the left even authoritarian regimes abide in many cases by rule of law in contrast to rule of man which these days we are more likely to be subjected to in the US and Canada, so called democracy notwithstanding.
There is some question whether RBO is symmetrical with international law. Here’s a link to a lengthy article on point:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/choice-before-us-international-law-or-a-rulesbased-international-order/7BEDE2312FDF9D6225E16988FD18BAF0
Beyond that I would suggest we could all profit from reading Hazonys book Conservatism: A Rediscovery.
[Peloni’s comment is very well written I have to admit that he did a much better job it it than I did. Kudos to him. I hadn’t read it when I composed my take on the video which is as follows.]
Dr Yoram Hazony explains at about 27 minutes the transformation of the world beginning with Pres G W Bush in 1990 the NWO. Since then the center-left and center-right in America embraced the idea that power would be given by nationalist governments to international bodies who would guarantee human rights and peace and prosperity. This is referred to as the rule of Law.
Margaret Thatcher refused to give up British independence and join the EU because England would no longer be in control of her borders and values etc. As a result she was removed from government.
Oslo was agreed upon a few years later in which it envisaged that the lion, PLO, could lay down with the lamb and be peaceful. It was believed that Arabs and Jews could live in peace and prosperity. Shimon Peres wrote a new book, The New Middle East promoting the idea. In other words Utopia was at hand. The Abraham Accords is an iteration of that.
China was admitted into the World Trade Organization in the belief their new found prosperity would move them towards democracy. This didn’t happen. Instead it was America that adopted totalitarian methods of Government.
What we see in Israel today is a rejection of democracy by the left in favour of this utopian vision. The left still believe that we can live in peace with the Arabs but still insist that we separate from them. Thus they support the TSS.
In a democracy it is fundamental that both sides must respect the results of the election and serve as the loyal opposition when they lose. In 2016 in the US, Clinton and her fellow Democrats did not accept Trump’s victory and have harassed him ever since.
In Israel, the Right won but the left refused to accept the result and go into the loyal opposition. Instead they went into the streets. They are not participating in Knesset debates. They are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to deny the Right from exercising its majority.
This discussion is priceless. Be sure to listen to it.
Highly recommended video by Glick and Yoran Hazony.
In her opening statement, Glick explains the coercive manipulation which has been used by the legal fraternity to control the govt over the years and shares that she suspects the same type of coersion likely caused Herzog to completely collapse his negotiations on the Judicial reforms, completely capitulating to the Left.
During the interview with Hazony, they discuss the evaporation of the sense of a loyal opposition which exists across the globe. Hazony suggests that following the end of the cold war, there was an International Liberal Consensus which decided that borders would be eliminated, and that concepts of identity and heritage would be dropped, and in exchange human rights would be guaranteed. He continues by stating that nations which failed to accept this credo voluntarily would invaded and forced to accept this globalist agenda. He goes on to explain that this model was accepted by both Center Left and Center Right alike as the only way to bring peace and prosperity to the world.
Hazony explains that there was no real opposition to this model which had the backing of Left and Right, until 2016 when Brexit and Trump pushed back against this gradually progressing globalist vision with their respective call for a return to nationalism and established borders. He explains further that the International Liberal Consensus responded by adopting a binary paradigm, that you are either with us (International Liberal Consensus ) or you are with them (the world’s dictators) and thereby redefined any nationalist resistance to the International Liberal Consensus as being aligned with the world’s authoritarian rulers which needed to be, not just opposed, but made to be anathema.
Hazony and Glick go on to explain that the Oslo Accords (the peace wing) and the Barach legal revolution (the social contract wing) were in fact two halves of the Israeli contributions to the International Liberal Consensus. Glick continues by explaining that the rise of nationalism, however, has been an explicit consequence to the failure of the International Liberal Consensus to actually work, and that this translated in Israel to be a rejection of both Oslo, due to it resulting in terror wars, as well as the failure of the rule by the self enlightened legal fraternity to support the interests of the Israeli people.
They explain that the Barach Revolution led the judiciary to seize power over the govt, but that they were influenced to rule, not by Israeli law, but by the influence of the International Liberal Consensus as expressed by judges and lawyers in Europe who were in fact designing the International Liberal Consensus. As such, the Israeli Judiciary stood as a check on the conservative govts which were largely chosen by the people to rule in Israel.
Consequently from 1992 to 2018, the status quo established was to have a mostly conservative govt which was held in check by an over-ruling Supreme Court, but in 2018 that status quo was overturned with the constitutional rebellion by the majority with passage of the Jewish State Law, something which Hazeny states that the judges have never accepted as being truly a legitimate aspect of the constitution – because as they define it the constitution is liberalism. Following passage of the Jewish State Law, there were a series of 5 elections before a clear majority was able to actually form a govt, but that it is this majority which once again stands as representative of a majority of the people in challenging to the authority of the judges and return that authority back to the people. As such, this govt stands as a challenge, not just to the Israeli judiciary, but to the established globalist order as designed by the International Liberal Consensus, and that this is the context in which millions of foreign dollars are being used to obstruct and counter the reforms desired by the Israeli people.
Much more than this discussed in the video, so please watch it.