Alan Dershowitz warns: If rules of engagement are changed, Israel will be indicted and convicted

By Ted Belman

Alan Dershowitz, in a special interview with i24NEWS on Thursday, criticized the initiative by Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben Gvir to change the rules of engagement for IDF soldiers.

Ben Gvir, is pushing for open-fire regulations to be relaxed to allow soldiers to shoot anyone representing a “potential threat.” Currently, they can only shoot after the threat is acted upon.

Dershowitz said, “If Ben Gvir’s rule ever came into effect, Israel would be indicted and convicted, and its soldiers would be indicted and convicted by the international court for applying a different set of standards and principles based on race and ethnicity. Very few people can defend that argument, I can certainly not defend that argument,”

“It’s just basically wrong,” he added, echoing fears that the initiative will be used mostly against Palestinian Arabs who attack Israeli soldiers.

Alan should have held his fire, pardon the pun, until the rules were articulated. Rather than advising Ben Gvir how best to word the new rules he is applying pressure on him not to change them.

So far Ben Gvir intends to allow “soldiers to shoot anyone representing a potential threat.” So the intended rules is not discriminatory i.e., has different standards or principles based on “race and ethnicity”.

So what if most of the people shot are Palestinian Arabs who attack Israeli soldiers. They are the only ones doing it.

Ever hear of a policeman or soldier in Iran or China being prosecuted by the international court for shooting peaceful demonstrators let alone those who pose a threat?

December 9, 2022 | 8 Comments »

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/notwithstanding-clause-explained-ford-1.6641293

    What is Canadas’s notwithstanding clause?

    The notwithstanding clause, or Section 33 of the charter, gives parliaments in Canada the power to override certain portions of the charter for five-year terms when passing legislation.

    The clause can only override certain sections of the charter — including Section 2 and sections 7 to 15, which deal with fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights — but can’t be used to override democratic rights.

    Once invoked, Section 33 prevents any judicial review of the legislation in question. After five years, the clause ceases to have any effect — unless it is re-enacted.

    Why do we have it?
    In the early 1980s, the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau wanted Canada to have its own constitution with an entrenched bill of rights. But negotiations stalled over concerns that the proposed Charter of Rights would be too powerful.

    “There were a number of people, including several provincial premiers at the time, who were concerned that that would upset the balance of power between the federal and provincial governments and would put too much power in the hands of the courts,” said Carissima Mathen, professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

    “A number of premiers argued that there should be … a sort of escape hatch from certain rights in the charter.”

    Ontario’s use of notwithstanding clause in dispute with union a ‘Pandora’s box,’ expert says
    Trudeau condemns Ontario government’s intent to use notwithstanding clause in worker legislation
    To ensure that federal and provincial parliaments maintained supremacy over the courts, the clause was included in the charter, accompanied by certain expectations regarding how it would be used.

    Why did the Ford government invoke the clause?
    [..]

    Ontario introduced back-to-work legislation imposing a four-year deal giving 2.5 per cent annual raises to workers making less than $43,000 and 1.5 per cent raises for all others.

    In introducing that legislation, the Ford government invoked the notwithstanding clause.

    Did the Ford government use the clause properly?
    That is very much a matter of debate.

    Lametti this week described Ontario’s use of the clause as “pre-emptive.”

    “It was meant to be a last word for a legislature to exercise parliamentary sovereignty,” he said. “If it’s used at the beginning, it guts Canadian democracy and means the charter doesn’t exist.”

    On that point, experts who spoke to CBC said they agreed that the clause was used pre-emptively — but that doesn’t mean the Charter of Rights ceased to exist.

    “I consider that that use is premature. I consider that it’s untimely. But I do not deny the legitimacy of the use of the notwithstanding clause, and I certainly do not deny the constitutionality of the use of that clause,” said Benoit Pelletier, law professor at the University of Ottawa and a former intergovernmental affairs minister in the Quebec government of Jean Charest.

    [..]

    What does Ford’s use of the clause mean going forward?
    The repeated use of the clause in recent years has some warning that it could become a commonplace tool for governments.

    In June 2021, Ontario invoked the clause for the first time in the province’s history to limit third-party election financing. The Ford government threatened to use it in 2018 to uphold his plan to reduce the number of seats on Toronto City Council, before the courts sided with his government on the cut.

    Francois Legault’s government in Quebec pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to support Bill 21 — which bans the wearing of religious symbols by workers in the public sector — and Bill 96, the government’s new language law.

    Ontario passes bill to ban CUPE education workers’ strike after talks end with no deal
    Ford government ‘taking away the Charter rights of workers,’ says NDP MPP kicked out of legislature
    Experts told CBC News that Canadians should expect to see governments use the clause again.

    “Once you breach that norm, once you cross that bridge and you look to see what are the political consequences, and if the political consequences don’t seem to be very strong for the government, then unfortunately I think what you start to see is a temptation to use it,” Mathen said.

    Can the clause be scrapped?
    The Canadian Civil Liberties Association told CBC News it wants to see the clause dumped.

    “The notwithstanding clause needs to be repealed to protect the fundamental rights of all people, whether it’s the right of people to protest and dissent, whether it’s the right of people to ask for decent working conditions, whether it’s the right of people to equality,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director of the CCLA.

    Repeal is unlikely, experts said, because it would require provincial consent to a constitutional amendment. No government is eager to reopen the Constitution and the provinces aren’t likely to surrender the leverage the notwithstanding clause gives them.

    “There’s no way the provinces will agree to it. Why would they agree to their only tool to resist judicial activism?” said Sigalet. “That’s not going to happen.”

    As you can see, this clause is intended to protect against judicial activism. That’s the same reason Israel wants to pass it. And the reason is the same. In Canada, the provinces wanted to be the last arbiter of rights. They didn’t want the Canadian Charter of Rights to be the last word. They wanted the provincial parliaments to be the last word. Is Israel, the Knesset also wants the last word, thus the override law.

  4. @Ted

    Alan should have held his fire

    Indeed, he should have.

    Dershowitz describes the Supreme Court to be “a real gem”, but to whom is he referring to when describing the Court as such? Certainly it is not the Israeli public, with whom the support of the Court has been failing for decades. Towards the end of his commentary, he addresses to whom the Israeli Supreme Court is held is such high regard when he states that

    Every country is different and Israel has a wonderful system of justice. Canada isn’t hauled before the criminal court the way Israel is. It isn’t attacked in the court all of public opinion. Israel has a unique situation and the Supreme Court of Israel plays a unique role in protecting Israel from both international intrusions and also protecting the rights of citizens Arab and Jewish alike.

    Hence, it seems that Dershowitz’ focus on maintaining the Israeli judicial system in its present form is fueled by his reflection for how popular the anti-Israel actions of this Leftist Israeli Supreme Court play amongst the international court of public opinion. In fact the Supreme Court has been acting upon a similar notion, that the Court’s concern for their reputation does not lie with the Israeli people, but with the non-Israeli interests of the international community which are quite contrary to Israel’s own national interests. It is well within Israel’s right to restrain the court from continuing to act contrary to the national will in concordance with nations such as Canada, and it would be quite hypocritical for someone to describe themselves as an honest defender of Israel while proscribing Israel’s right to exercise the wisdom and judgment to pursue the interests of her own people, well before that right is even exercised.

    Dershowitz was well out of line when he chose to chastise Israel’s right to act in accordance with other nations due to “Israel’s unique situation”. It does appear that he is calling on Israel to maintain this anti-Israel Court’s position to leverage against the antisemitic vilification of Israel on the international stage. Honestly, I would expect Dershowitz to have been among the first to have challenged the argument he himself has made to Israel when arguing to maintain this gem of a court.

    Indeed, if Canada can manage to judiciously exercise an override law, then certainly Israel has the right to consider doing so as well. Are the Jews not the source from which G_d passed laws and morality to share amongst the world? And, we might add, that this took place well before any notion of the Supreme Court acted to provide diplomatic cover for them to do so.

  5. I find Mr Dershowitz’s argument most intriguing. First: no one asked him to defend anything. Second: let’s see what he found it possible to defend or assist: in 1995 he was advisor to O.J. Simpson’s defence. In 2006, he helped negotiate a non – prosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein and in 2018, he was involved in the defence mounted by Harvey Epstein. So, he has no problem making arguments for a murderer and two sex offenders, but finds it impossible to argue for the right of self defence for Israeli soldiers. Truly, a most puzzling attitude, especially for a Jew.

  6. Dershowitz is an expert on the U.S.Constitution and criminal law. Why is he pontificating about Israel’s laws and regulations and rules of engagement of Palestinian terrorists on Israeli soil? — better he should go back home and pontificate to his fellow democrats about how the democrats’ radical policies are destroying America’s economy, its energy independence, its southern border, its military resolve, while enabling rampant criminal activity and violating America’s laws and the Constitution.

  7. I just couldn’t be bothered to listen to Dershowitz droning on about Israel’s l.iability. He is too hidebound by his perception of the Law. He voted Democrat.

    But I assume he means the ICC. My understanding is that Israel did not sign on for membership, and could not care less about it’s decisions ,IN PRACTICAL TERMS. They have condemned Israel and/or IDF before.

    They are a foreign, intrusive, body, a creature of the EU, and Israel has a properly functioning legal system (as far as outsiders can see) with all the appurtenances of Democracy, and needs no interference from outsiders.

    1

  8. Alan Dershowitz is a big famos lawyer who is mostly ignored at home. Why should Israel employ him as a second Supreme Court instance. As in the article, he should first wait and see. He might even be called in as an advisor if he can hold it in long enough.