Watchdog calls to fire AG after he gives election plug for Livni
For those of you who have wondered why Prime Minister Netanyahu has not fired extreme Leftist Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, the most likely answer is that he feared media-orchestrated Leftist outrage. That fear is gone tonight.
The Movement for Governability and Democracy, a non-partisan watchdog, has in essence called on Netanyahu to fire Weinstein after Weinstein broke the election laws by campaigning for former 'justice' minister Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu now has the political cover he needs.
The Movement for Governability and Democracy on Thursday wrote to
Netanyahu, who holds the legal portfolio and essentially functions above
the attorney general.
"A reality in which the attorney general of the country allows
himself to act against the law, or even in the gray area of the law,
can't be allowed, especially when we are dealing with invalid
involvement in elections proceedings," wrote the movement.
Yehuda Amrani, head of the movement, wrote to Netanyahu in the letter
"I ask you to act accordingly to your authority as prime minister and
justice minister, and take the steps at your disposal against the
attorney general."
The letter, which was also sent to Central Elections Committee chairperson Judge Salim Joubran, included a clause from the election laws determining that state employees can not take part in election propaganda.
Likewise, the letter noted that Weinstein also breached the
guidelines of the attorney general, which state "a description of
personal achievements of the minister or of a worker in the ministry,"
or an announcement "that has an emphasis and preference for
controversial policy in the public that isn't in the frame of clear
declared policy of the ministry," is forbidden in election periods.
The movement argued that Weinstein's statement that "the public in
Israel can't give up on your skills" is election propaganda, and his
references to Livni as a "guardian of democracy" in context of the
Jewish State Law "are surprising and raise difficulties in context of
the obligation on state workers to avoid propaganda."
Here's hoping Netanyahu has the spine to take the bait from Amrani.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli democracy, Knesset elections 2015, Tzipi Livni, Yehuda Weinstein
Israel's new dictator
Israel has a new dictator.
In an earlier post, I reported on the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by the Knesset to deal with our illegal immigrants, and suggested that
the Knesset ought to overturn the law. Now, our new dictator, unelected attorney general Yehuda Weinstein, has decided that the Knesset cannot overturn the Supreme Court.
Yehuda Weinstein is now the sole arbiter of what laws the Knesset is allowed to pass. This is 'democracy'? Pathetic!
Interior Minister Gidon Sa'ar (Likud) told the committee that he
supports legislation that would enable the Knesset to veto court rulings
that knock down the Knesset's law - like the decisions that
disqualified the Infiltrators Law, twice.
In response, Deputy AG Dina Zilber said that AG Yehuda Weinstein will oppose such legislation.
In Israel, the Attorney General doubles as the Legal Advisor for the
Government and can basically decide the government's policy on
legislation even if a majority of ministers holds the opposite view.
"It is convenient to go to a court that adopts your views,” Zilber
chided Sa'ar. “But it is not a rubber stamp. In is one of the regime's
most valued assets. It is fine to criticize it, and the court is not
monolithic. The body that gave the court the authority to strike down
laws is the Knesset and therefore, there is no reason to be angry about
it.”
Zilber added that the AG “would not lend his hand to diminishing the authority of the High Court.”
So does this mean that the Knesset can take away from the court the authority to strike down laws? Well, no, because Ms. Zilber is incorrect. The court abrogated that authority to itself (in a case in which I played a small role when I worked in the government nearly 20 years ago) by striking down certain provisions of Israel's 1995 Investment Advisers law, which it said conflicted with the Basic Law - Human Dignity and Freedom. By choosing to invalidate only part of the law (the transition provisions) in an area that was not of great concern to the most of the public (the imposition of a licensing requirement for investment advisers), the court managed to establish the precedent of invalidating laws under the country's radar screen - a power it continues to expand to this day. Now, with the help of the country's Leftist Attorney General, the court is assured that it will not even have to deal with laws that challenge its rulings.
What recourse does the Knesset have? The only recourse I can think of is to replace Weinstein with someone more open when his term expires.
Weinstein has a six-year term. There's a long way to go. He
took office in 2010....
Labels: attorney general, illegal immigration, Israeli Knesset, Supreme Court, Yehuda Weinstein
Moonbat AG: ISIS, Hamas and Hezbullah flags out, but PLO flag in
In a letter to the prosecutors' offices, our moronic attorney general says that if you display an ISIS, Hamas or Hezbullah flag, you will be arrested and prosecuted (unless you're a 'Palestinian' or other non-Israeli citizen, in which case even those flags are okay),
but if an Israeli citizen displays a PLO flag, that's cool with Yehuda Weinstein.
The letter says that, according to Weinstein's opinion, the state is
on clear legal grounds to persecute such actions. “The Palestine
Liberation Organization was declared a terror organization many years
ago, and that designation has never been changed. Technically, flying
the PLO flag is a crime, as that was legislated when the PLO was
declared a terror group.
“Given the new relationship between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority, which represents the PLO, the Attorney General has for many
years overlooked the criminal aspects of flying the PLO flag, and no one
is persecuted [sic - CiJ] for this anymore,” the letter said. “With that, there is
no overall protection for flying the flag of terror groups, which is
still a crime.” That law, the letter said, needed to be enforced against
groups that practice terrorism, including ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
“When such flags and symbols are displayed police must judge if there
is a possibility of public disorder or disturbance, or of danger to the
public. If there is, police should take steps to remove the flags. In appropriate cases, charges may be made against perpetrators,” the letter added.
While the PLO flag could fly, the letter said, action should be taken
as quickly and forcefully as possible against the flags of other terror
groups, the letter said. “We have recently distributed these
instructions to police and security officials and expect them to act
according to these principles,” it added.
'Israeli Arabs' are now officially allowed to fly the 'Palestinian flag' in Israel. What could go wrong?
Labels: Fatah, Hamas, Hezbullah, ISIS, moonbats, morons, Palestinian flag, PLO, Yehuda Weinstein
The real threat to democracy
In a piece that's behind JPost's paywall, but which I received by email, Evelyn Gordon reports that Israel really does have a dictator and that his name is not Netanyahu or Beinish or Grunis. It's the attorney general,
Yehuda Weinstein.
After
years of dismissing leftists’ hyperbolic claims that Israeli democracy
is under threat, I’ve decided they may be right after all. What they’re
wrong about is the source of the threat. It isn’t our “anti-democratic”
elected representatives (whose “anti-democratic” bills usually aren’t
anything of the sort, while the few that are routinely fail); rather,
it’s our unelected legal establishment.
After all, citizens
elect governments primarily to implement specified policies. Thus if
unelected legal officials routinely prevent governments from doing so,
even on the most important issues of the day, what’s the point of having
elections? And as two incidents of the past two weeks make clear,
that’s increasingly becoming the case.
The first was the National Labor Court’s shocking ruling
on July 30 ordering the government to freeze two tenders for
constructing private ports and instead negotiate with the port unions
for permission – thereby potentially killing the most important reform
on the government’s economic agenda.
A 2009 study
by the Antitrust Authority found that Israel’s ports are 30% less
efficient than similar-sized ports elsewhere, costing the economy some
NIS 5 billion a year. The 2011 Trajtenberg Committee on socioeconomic
reform similarly concluded
that “inferior service and low production in Israel's ports cost the
economy, which depends heavily on the ports, hundreds of millions of
shekels a year. This is before taking into consideration the indirect
damage, stemming from the business uncertainty imposed on the economy by
the disruptions [in the ports' work] and delays in developing new port
infrastructures.”
Nobody disputes that the ports’ inefficiency
and high costs stem primarily from their monopoly status. This enables
their unions to extort excess wages
(the average dockworker earns 2.5 times the economy’s average wage),
dictate outrageous perks such as paying “on-call” port pilots full salary to sit at home and do nothing, and shut down the ports on any trivial pretext, including demands for additional meal vouchers, a desire to dictate the identity of the port CEO’s personal assistant, or even a union member’s wedding.
Nor does anyone dispute that numerous past attempts to bribe the unions
into better behavior have produced nothing but higher government wage
bills.
Consequently, the government concluded that the only
solution is to introduce competition by building new, private ports that
the existing unions won’t control. This has become a top priority for
three senior ministers: Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, Economy
and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett and Finance Minister Yair Lapid.
Moreover, it’s clearly within the government’s prerogative: On what
conceivable grounds should the government need the unions’ permission to
build a new port, or any other vital bit of public infrastructure?
After all, it’s the government – not the unions – that’s responsible for
meeting the country’s infrastructure needs, and for coming up with the
necessary funds.
But the labor court thought otherwise: It
ordered the government to negotiate with the Histadrut labor federation.
And that decision, if not overturned (Katz vowed to appeal to the
Supreme Court), will sound the death knell for the government’s flagship
economic policy. Even if the court’s interference doesn’t scare off the
eight foreign companies that have expressed interest in the tenders,
the new ports will be pointless if they require the Histadrut’s consent.
The labor federation has already said it will agree only if these
ports, too, are under the unions’ thumb.
The second incident was
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein’s equally shocking ruling last week
ordering the Knesset to finish enacting new legislation on drafting
Haredim by August 20. This legislation, which passed its first Knesset
reading only on July 23, is one of the most important bills the current
parliament is likely to consider. A good law could spur Haredi
integration into the army and workforce; a bad one could set this goal
back decades.
Consequently, the committee charged with preparing
the bill scheduled multiple hearings at which outside experts and
interested parties could present arguments pro and con and propose
changes. Moreover, several MKs are demanding major revisions – which in
fact are sorely needed, as David Weinberg aptly explained
in this paper last week. But Weinstein’s ruling, by allotting a mere
four weeks for these discussions, would make this impossible. Knesset
committees typically spend months on major legislation when it requires
significant changes; bills can be rushed through only when they’re left
virtually unchanged.
To his credit, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein bluntly told Weinstein
that parliament’s legislative timetable is none of his business.
Indeed, as Edelstein’s letter correctly noted, the Knesset would be
neglecting its duty if it didn’t give such an important bill thorough
consideration: “The job of the Knesset and its committees is to examine
bills the government submits, hold a public discussion and listen to the
people involved in the matter, including those the government did not
hear, and use its judgment.”
But given the Supreme Court’s long-standing position
that the attorney general’s legal opinions are binding on the
executive, Weinstein has enormous power to extort Knesset compliance by
pressuring the executive even if he lacks the power to dictate directly
to parliament (which, incidentally, isn’t guaranteed; the court has
never fully addressed this issue). In this case, for instance, existing
law technically mandates drafting some 60,000 Haredim immediately. The
government deemed this untenable, so the defense minister issued
deferrals until the new law (which ostensibly stipulates a gradual
phase-in) passes. But court petitions have been filed against these
deferrals. Hence Weinstein could simply threaten to issue a legal
opinion backing the petitioners unless the Knesset meets his legislative
timetable.
Thus we have a labor court seeking to stymie one of
the government’s flagship reforms, and an attorney general seeking to
prevent MKs from influencing one of the term’s flagship pieces of
legislation. And in both cases, they may yet succeed.
Under these
circumstances, why should citizens even bother voting? And why should
anyone with a desire to effect change want to run for office? After all,
you don’t need any kind of elected government – much less one staffed
by talented people with good ideas – merely to rubber-stamp the whims of
unelected legal officials. For that, an automatic stamping machine
would suffice.
Indeed.
Labels: Ashdod port, Haifa port, Haredim, IDF, Israeli democracy, Israeli Knesset, Labor court, Yehuda Weinstein
Two and a half years too late, Harpaz to be indicted
Two and a half years
too late, JPost reports that Boaz Harpaz is to be indicted for forging a document that prevented Yoav Galant (pictured above) from being appointed IDF Chief of Staff by then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak. What's more interesting is that
Gabi Ashkenazi, who was the outgoing chief of staff at the time, may also be indicted.
Boaz Harpaz forged the Harpaz Document and will be indicted,
according to Ran Nizri, a top aide to Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein,
in statements made to the Knesset Control Committee on Tuesday.
Nizri
said the indictment was mostly prepared already and that the only
reasons for the delay in indicting him two-and-a-half years after the
affair exploded onto the public agenda was to allow the continuing
investigations to be completed and to add all additional leads to the
indictment.
Magistrate Advocate General Maj.-Gen. Danny Efroni reported to the
Committee that he could not give an exact timeline for a decision on
whether he would indict former IDF chief-of-staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Gabi
Ashkenazi and his former top aid Col. (res.) Ezer Viner.
Pressed
by Committee Chairman (Shas) MK Amnon Cohen on whether a decision would
be made within two to four months, Efroni demurred, but said that
investigators would work as hard as they could to come to a decision as
soon as possible.
Ashkenazi and Viner are under investigation for the military law violation of conduct unbecoming during their IDF service.
Benny Gantz was eventually appointed chief of staff.
What's missing here is the explanation of why Ashkenazi didn't want Galant appointed chief of staff. No,
it wasn't just about Ashkenazi's rivalry with Ehud Barak.
Caroline Glick reports how former Mossad director Meir Dagan and former IDF chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi may be weakening Israel's defenses against Iran.
Since
the beginning of his first term as prime minister 15 years ago,
Binyamin Netanyahu has consistently warned that the greatest dangers
Israel faces stem from the forces of global jihad generally and the
Iranian regime and its nuclear program specifically. After taking office
for the second time in 2009, Netanyahu made blocking Iran’s rise to
nuclear power his top priority. He ordered the heads of the Mossad and
the IDF to prepare plans to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.
Last
Friday, Haaretz reported that former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former
IDF chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi refused to obey his
order. Rather than prepare strike plans, Dagan and Ashkenazi warned that
such a strike would foment a regional war. That is, rather than do
their jobs, they made excuses for failing to fulfill their duty to obey
Israel’s elected leadership.
Not wanting to take them on
directly, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak decided to wait them
out. Dagan and Ashkenazi were both set to finish their terms at the
beginning of the year, and Netanyahu and Barak figured they could
replace them with commanders who would abide by the government’s wishes.
Specifically, Barak and Netanyahu believed that by replacing Ashkenazi
with his deputy Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant, they would have a military leader
willing and able to take on the central challenge of preventing Iran
from becoming a nuclear power.
Barak announced last August that
Galant would replace Ashkenazi as IDF chief in January. Galant’s
appointment was approved by the government and by the Senior
Appointments Commission. But in late January, the government was forced
to cancel it. And this week we received new indications that Galant’s
appointment fell victim to what has been likened to a palace coup. That
is, the government was denied its right to choose its military leader by
a group of senior officials who deliberately usurped that power from
the government.
In January, we learned that Ashkenazi’s close
associate Lt.-Col. (ret.) Boaz Harpaz had forged a document that was
transferred by Ashkenazi’s office to Channel 2. The forgery purported to
be a memo written for Galant by the public relations firm owned by Eyal
Arad – Kadima’s public relations guru. The forged memo detailed a
public relations campaign that would discredit Galant’s rivals and
Ashkenazi, and so pave the way for Galant’s appointment as chief of
General Staff. Channel 2’s broadcast of the memo seriously harmed
Galant’s public image.
The police opened an investigation, and
Harpaz admitted to forging the document. Despite revelations that Harpaz
was in intensive, continuous contact with Ashkenazi’s wife Ronit and
had a longstanding close friendship with Ashkenazi himself, the Military
Advocate- General decided not to investigate Ashkenazi or any other
officer about their ties to Harpaz and his forged document.
Well, at least they're now (apparently) investigating Ashkenazi. But
read the whole thing. Should Weinstein be indicted too?
Labels: Benny Gantz, Binyamin Netanyahu, Boaz Harpaz, Ehud Barak, Gabi Ashkenazi, government corruption, IDF, Meir Dagan, Yehuda Weinstein, Yoav Galant
Livni wants to call vandalism terrorism
Hot off her attempt to 'get' the Haredim by declaring
discrimination against women to be a crime, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni now wants to go after her other favorite group, the 'settlers.' Livni wants to declare 'price tag attacks,' which in other countries would be termed vandalism, to be
terror attacks.
In a statement issued by Livni and Aharonovitch’s offices
Thursday night, the ministries said that in regards to price-tag attacks,
Aharonovitch, Livni and Weinstein “see eye to eye on the need for more serious
steps to be taken, including making sure law enforcement have the tools at hand
to deal with the criminals responsible.”
They also said that they “see
with severity the seeping of price-tag attacks into Israel, and the danger
inherent in damaging relations with Arab Israelis.”
Participants at the
meeting discussed harsher steps to deter such incidents, including legally
defining “price-tag” incidents as acts of terror, according to political
sources.
In the past, Weinstein has opposed such a legal definition, but
according to sources, he is weighing shifting that opinion, given that the legal
tools available have not been able to halt the price-tag incidents.
Livni
and Aharonovitch will hold a follow-up meeting on the matter in the near
future.
Morons. Declaring vandalism to be terrorism in Israel is a sure way to ensure that no one takes our claims about terrorism seriously.
Labels: price tag attacks, terrorism, Tzipi Livni, vandalism, Yehuda Weinstein
Head of National Religious yeshiva decries Justice ministry malice against Haredim
Rabbi Yaakov Medan, one of the Roshei Yeshiva (heads) of the Har Etzion yeshiva, a national religious yeshiva that combines Torah study with army service (hesder) has attacked the Justice ministry for its
malice against Haredim. The triggers for the attack are the Attorney General's and the Justice Minister's calls last week for
criminalizing discrimination against women. This is from the first link.
Rav Medan explains that the decision to declare these areas of life
illegal is no accident, but “malice”. In his column in the weekly Makor
Rishon the rav states “I posit the attorney general would not take the
same measures against Muslims or Druse which are also careful to
maintain a standard of modesty between men and women. I believe it is
being done against the chareidim davka at this time, because he now
feels the blood of the chareidi tzibur is hefker as a result of
statements from Finance Minister Yair Lapid and his assistant, Mickey
Levi.”
“The attorney general at present permits himself to set guidelines
for people brushing against one another in a line, on a bus or
elsewhere, and this is no mistake – it is malice. Chareidim already view
themselves persecuted for their beliefs vis-à-vis the government, and
they are already entrenched in their homes, and we are now in danger of
losing the achievements, the integration seen to date in the IDF and
society at large.”
Rav Medan adds “We are the ones who should be shouting, not the
chareidim for after they are taken out of the picture we will be next in
line.”
Indeed. Too bad much of the national religious public is so mired in their seats in the government that they cannot recognize what is coming next.
Labels: discrimination, hesder, National Religious, Tzipi Livni, Yehuda Weinstein
Zoabi won't be disqualified, AG refuses to defend elections committee
I must have gone to law school in a very strange place. When I took my course in 'professional responsibility' (i.e. ethics), I was taught that a lawyer is not a bus, he's a taxi, and that in private practice one had the right to refuse to take cases. But the same didn't apply to someone who was a public servant. I was taught that you didn't have to agree with a client in order to take their case - only to vigorously defend them.
But the rules are different here in Israel. Most of the organized bar - especially in the public sector - is extremely Leftist. And when they don't like something, or when something is not politically correct, they refuse to take the case. That's why
no one could find a lawyer to vigorously defend Yigal Amir when he was charged with assassinating the Prince of Peace in 1995, and that's why Rabbi Meir Kahane HY"D's (May God Avenge his blood) Kach party will once again remain the only party ever disqualified from running in an Israeli election.
The beneficiary of the Left's control of the legal system this time will be the
seditious Hanin Zoabi and her Balad party.
"It is the opinion of the attorney-general that there is no room for the
esteemed High Court of Justice to authorize the Central Elections
Committee decision to bar MK Zoabi from running in the 19th Knesset,"
the attorney-general stated.
The court is set to hear Zoabi's petition on Thursday with a panel of
nine justices, presided over by Supreme Court President Asher D.
Grunis.
Zoabi has been one of the most controversial people in Israeli politics, following her participation aboard the Mavi Marmara
ship sailing in the 2010 flotilla trying to break Israel’s blockade of
Gaza. Sailors trying to commandeer the ship clashes with Turkish
activists on board, and killed nine of them in the ensuing
confrontations.
The state, as represented by Attorney-General
Yehuda Weinstein, has consistently opposed the ban on Zoabi, and indeed
bans on any political parties in Israel. Last week, Weinstein
recommended to the Election Committee not to disqualify MK Zoabi
(Balad) or the United Arab List-Ta’al, Balad and Strong Israel parties,
and to allow them all to run in the upcoming January 22 Knesset
election.
The attorney-general said he deemed the evidence gathered against
Zoabi to be “disturbing and substantial” and “close to the level of
being prohibited,” but ultimately did not reach the “critical mass”
necessary for disqualifying her.
Article 7A of the Basic Law: The
Knesset says that a party list or an individual candidate cannot reject
Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, incite to violence or support
armed combat by an enemy state or terror organization against the State
of Israel.
The point isn't what the Supreme Court will or will not decide. The point is that a politically incorrect point of view stands no chance of getting a fair hearing in this country.
And some people still call it democracy.
Labels: Hanin Zoabi, Knesset elections 2013, Yehuda Weinstein
Ayalon denies testifying against Lieberman
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (right) is
denying a
report that he testified against his former boss, Avigdor Lieberman (left). This is from the first link.
A short time
after the programs were aired, Ayalon denied in a written statement that he was
even questioned by police, and Liberman maintained his innocence on all
charges.
What gives these reports a soap-opera feel is that earlier this
month Liberman, in a complete surprise, left Ayalon off his party’s list of
candidates for the next Knesset as part of the merged Likud- Beytenu list.
According to the Channel 2 report, the Yisrael Beytenu party leader is expected
to try to defend himself by saying Ayalon was taking revenge.
Liberman is
also expected, according to Channel 2, to point to an earlier interview by
Ayalon in which he supposedly said he did not remember the events surrounding
the allegations against Liberman.
The prosecution and the police both
refused to confirm or deny whether Ayalon was recently
questioned.
According to the broadcasts, the deputy foreign minister was
questioned only recently about the affair, which until then had only involved
allegations that former ambassador Ze’ev Ben- Aryeh leaked investigative
material to Liberman, after which Liberman passively withheld information on
this from a Foreign Ministry committee that was considering Ben-Aryeh for a new
posting in Latvia.
The new allegations against Liberman, which started to
surface last week, are that he did not just passively withhold information, but
actively interfered in the appointment process on Ben-Aryeh’s behalf.
The
reports also said that 10 candidates originally had sought the Latvia position,
but most dropped out when promised other promotions – possibly by Liberman
through other Foreign Ministry officials speaking on his behalf.
Other
media reports have alleged that Liberman concealed negative reports about
Ben-Aryeh from the appointments committee. Yediot Aharonot quoted sources who
said that “the influence of Liberman” was pervasive throughout the
process.
Liberman maintains that Ben-Aryeh was an able diplomat who was
well-suited for the job.
But the State Prosecutor's office (surprise) doesn't exactly have clean hands either.
Also on Monday, the State Comptroller’s Office formally
confirmed that it had received requests to investigate Attorney-General Yehuda
Weinstein’s handling of the Liberman case.
Liberman and many other
politicians have questioned Weinstein’s decision to delay an indictment so he
could investigate the new charges after the attorney-general announced he would
file the indictment last week, and after Liberman had already resigned as
foreign minister.
A spokeswoman for the YAHBAL serious and international crimes unit, which investigated the Liberman
case, on Monday refused to explain why the case was reopened – when just last
week she had said the unit considered the matter closed.
She added that
the case was, from the unit’s point of view, complete, and as it had been handed
over to the prosecutor, it was his office that was responsible for providing
answers about the recent developments.
Media reports indicated that there
may have been disagreements between the prosecution and the police about
reopening the case for more questioning, but it is Weinstein who ultimately will
make the final decision.
On Sunday, the state explained its decision to
reopen the case for further questioning based on a Channel 10 news report from
last week indicating that the fraud allegations against Liberman could be
amended to include active fraud instead of mere passive fraud.
One
ministry source said that while it was not unusual for foreign ministers to
indicate their preferences for ministerial posts, what made this case different
was the allegation that Liberman received something from Ben-Aryeh beforehand.
Furthermore, the source said, Ben-Aryeh did not distinguish himself as a
diplomat worthy of such a posting after having just recently returned from
Belarus.
The level of corruption in this country is worthy of a third world banana republic despite the fact that we supposedly have so many safeguards in place. It's blatant, open and shameless (see "Olmert, Ehud"). And it's all an outgrowth of the days when the state was the party and the party was the state and all the animals were equal except for the ones who were more equal. Will we ever root out this country's socialist past? Don't bet on it.
Labels: Avigdor Lieberman, corruption, Danny Ayalon, government corruption, Yehuda Weinstein, Yisrael Beiteinu
Pigs fly: Supreme Court orders uber-Leftist AG to disclose why he didn't prosecute Mavi Marmara MK
This is a flying pigs moment.
The Supreme Court has ordered uber-Leftist Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (the same guy who refused to defend the government's position on Migron last week) to disclose to the court why he
decided not to prosecute MK Hanin Zoabi (Balad) and Islamic Movement leader Raed Sallah for their participation in the Mavi Marmara attempted terrorist attack in May 2010.
The decision was made following Monday’s hearing on a petition filed by MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union), activist Itamar Ben-Gvir and the Movement for Our Land of Israel.
The petition had demanded a full accounting of the state’s decision to close the case against Zoabi and Salah as a first step toward compelling the state to file the case.
The petitioners hoped that once a fuller version of the state’s reasons for closing the case was put forward that they would be able to point out defects in the decision.
Previously, the state had only released a brief press release regarding the decision to close the case with no significant detailed explanation as to why.
However, there was nothing remarkable in and of itself about the fact that the press release was short on details.
In the separation of powers scheme between the executive and judicial branches, the court mostly defers to the state prosecutor when it comes to closing cases, reasoning that as the official body which litigates criminal cases for the state, its professional judgment about how good a case it has should not be second-guessed.
Most cases which are closed do not even have a press release, let alone a public explanation in detail of the reasons the case was considered weak by the state.
The fact that the courts do not normally interfere with the state’s decisions to close cases makes the court’s decision all the more surprising.
Further, the court wrote an extremely short two page opinion, citing no legal precedents for its decision, also an unusual step.
That said, putting matters in perspective, even as the petitioners have won an initial victory in that the state must produce a more detailed explanation within 30 days, their battle is far from won.
The article goes on to discount the possibility that Ben Ari and Gvir might actually win (and that might just be media bias), but for now at least, we can celebrate.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Hanin Zoabi, Itamar Ben Gvir, leftists, Mavi Marmara, Michael Ben Ari, Raed Sallah, Supreme Court, Yehuda Weinstein
How Migron was lost
Caroline Glick describes the shocking (unless you live in Israel and understand how the system works) story of
how Migron was lost.
On the face of it, Weinstein's defiance of a legally binding government decision was unlawful. Certainly it would appear to be grounds for his immediate firing. But while shocking, Weinstein's rank insubordination was not unique.
As relates to Israel's legal rights in Judea and Samaria, Weinstein is guided not by the law but by the ideology of the far Left. This ideology received formal expression in a 2005 report on unauthorized Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria authored by former assistant state attorney Talia Sasson. The Sasson Report represented a wholesale renunciation of all Israeli claims to legal rights over Judea and Samaria. It was unhinged from both Israeli and international law.
And it was embraced by the legal fraternity.
After Sasson finished her report, she joined the post-Zionist Meretz Party. In 2009 she ran unsuccessfully for Knesset.
In an attempt to mitigate the damage Sasson's report caused to Israel's legal position in Judea and Samaria, in February Netanyahu commissioned retired Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy to lead a task force of distinguished jurists and present the government with a report setting out Israel's legal rights to Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu asked Levy to also offer recommendations for implementing those rights in relation to the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
Weinstein didn't even wait for the Levy Commission to begin its work before he sent Netanyahu a letter informing him that the commission's report would have no impact on his handling of issues related to Israel's rights to the areas. And as his decision to ignore the legally constituted ministerial committee's position on Migron made clear, Weinstein continues to behave as though he and his colleagues sit above Israel's democratically elected representatives.
Many on the Right are urging Netanyahu to adopt the findings of the Levy Commission as official government policy. While such a move certainly can't hurt, it is hard to see what difference it would make in practice. Weinstein has already pledged to defy the government. So even if the report is adopted, the government's lawyers will refuse to defend its positions.
Weinstein is only able to behave as he does because he operates in an environment where the Supreme Court has usurped the power of Israel's elected governments to determine state policy.
One of my regular readers often calls for a land registry that would provide evidence of claims to property rights, particularly in Judea and Samaria. After you read this article, you might conclude that won't help.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Migron, standing and justiciability, Supreme Court, Yehuda Weinstein
Throw the traitors out!
'Israeli Arab' MK's Ahmad Tibi, Taleb a-Sanaa and Mohamed Barakeh (pictured) attended Wednesday's signing ceremony between Hamas and Fatah in Cairo and were pictured with Hamas' leaders. Now, lots of Israelis would like to see them
thrown out of the Knesset.
National Union Chairman MK Yaacov Katz called on Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin to intervene and “throw out the traitors and the murderers and the collaborators with those who want to destroy” the very Knesset in which they serve.”
Almagor, a terror victims’ advocacy organization called on Attorney-General Yehudah Weinstein to open a criminal investigation into the participation of Ahmed Tibi, Mohammed Barakeh and Taleb a-Sanaa in the ceremony.
The organization argued that because Hamas is officially recognized as a terror organization, anyone participating in an event involving Hamas has violated an law prohibiting attending a meeting of a terror group.
“Public support of a unity agreement with a terror organization is the peak of expressing support of the organization and renders useless all attempts by legislators to differentiate between legitimate organizations and organizations that should not exist at all,” wrote Almagor in the letter to Weinstein.
Indeed.
Labels: Ahmed Tibi, Almagor, Fatah, Hamas, Mohamed Barakeh, Taleb a-Sana, Yaakov Katz, Yehuda Weinstein
Who will be the IDF's Chief of Staff?
In an earlier post, I reported that Israel may not have an IDF Chief of Staff on
February 14 when current Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi is scheduled to resign.
And in Israel, the IDF may not have a Chief of Staff in two weeks, because Defense Minister Barak's candidate for the position has been accused of perjury.
Israel Radio is now reporting that the Attorney General will inform the government on Tuesday that he
refuses to defend Galant's appointment from a High Court of Justice challenge.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will now have to decide whether to hand the issue back to the Turkel Committee, which examines senior civil service appointments.
Weinstein made the decision several hours before the deadline set by the High Court to respond to a petition aimed at preventing the appointment. According to the petition, which sparked a public row in recent weeks, Galant allegedly seized state lands and annexed them to his home in Moshav Amikam.
A new appointment would require starting the entire process over and could not be completed by February 14. Defense Minister Ehud Barak and current Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi are not on speaking terms, making it unlikely that Ashkenazi would agree to extend his term for another candidate to be found. Another possibility is for the government to hire a private attorney to defend Galant. Or we have no Chief of Staff in 13 days.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Gabi Ashkenazi, Yehuda Weinstein, Yoav Galant
