High Court rules out 30km stretch in separation fence route [Archive]

Mediocrates

06-30-2004, 05:11 AM

The role of supreme court in a democracy (e.g. in Israel, USA, etc.) is to allow the citizens to stop the gov't in case its actions violate their rights.

e.g. the gov't may decide to build a nuclear waste dump site in your backyard - that may be in line with gov't policy, but you can take your case to the supreme court and it can order the gov't to change its decision.

same with military/political/ int'l policy. gov't decisions may incure human rights violations in the name of national security. It is the job of the supreme court to decide if the vilations are reasonable for the purpose of security or not. of course there maybe opposing opinions, sometimes the judges themselves are divided on the issue, and there is bound to be someone on either side who will be displeased with the court ruling, but nevertheless, there is no quetion about the authority of the court in these matters. it is a basic and crucial balance in the democratic system.

Interesting, that's more or less the role of political parties in one-party dictatorships too. The ability to usurp any law any ruling on any basis, asked or not is generally a sign of an out of control activist court. Would you be so proud if your SC one day decided that for example the law of return was void or that religious courts could trump civil courts on any matter, at will? Would you crow about judicial activism if your SC decided that direct proportioal electoral representation was broken and had to be done away with in lieu of indirect voting districts? Would you be all that happy if, unasked, your SC instituted a 5% threshold proviso for the Knesset, without any public debate?

Maybe these are silly examples but in fact, Supreme Courts are not generally put in place to insure first and foremost some vague, trendy politically effusive opinion of liberal civil rights. They are generally there to insure that the system of governance and justice is more or less equitable. If you had a Constitution your SC would be embroiled in Constitutional Issues and not political arguments about specific laws.

I thought you Israelis treasured democracy?

Mediocrates

06-30-2004, 05:12 AM

BTW that is NOT the role of the SC in the USA as you allude to.

Oh Jerusalem

06-30-2004, 05:22 AM

I thought you Israelis treasured democracy?
Keep in mind that this country is a whopping 56 years old. Picture the United States in 1832 (Bret Stephens did this in the JPost a couple of weeks ago).

However, indeed there is a major problem of an elitist group of people in high places who have shut out others from competing for their political and especially judicial positions.

This will continue to damage Israel both locally and internationally in the immediate and long term.

sharonbn

06-30-2004, 06:20 AM

Interesting, that's more or less the role of political parties in one-party dictatorships too. The ability to usurp any law any ruling on any basis, asked or not is generally a sign of an out of control activist court.
There is absolutely NO comparison between one-party regime and Supreme Court ruling.
First and foremost, the court does not make the law. if it says a given law or gov't decision is wrong - it cannot "correct" the gov't decision. In simple terms Supreme Court cannot directly change the law book. In fact, there were cases where the Knesset (the only body that makes laws in Israel) put laws in place with the sole purpose to overturn court ruling (e.g. the 'Arie Deri' law)
Second, Supreme Court cannot do ANYTHING what-so-ever, until someone decides to sue. its function is entirely responsive and non-initiative. the misleading term 'activist' describes the court's motto, led by its current head, Aharon Barak that "everything is judge-able". but nevertheless, the court cannot initiate any ruling on its own initiative.
Third, even under the abovementioned motto, the Supreme Court turned down cases with the reason that the subject matter is beyond the court's jurisdiction. for example, there was one such case in operation defensive shield in Jenin when the press was forbidden to enter the war zone.

Would you be so proud if your SC one day decided that for example the law of return was void or that religious courts could trump civil courts on any matter, at will? Would you crow about judicial activism if your SC decided that direct proportioal electoral representation was broken and had to be done away with in lieu of indirect voting districts? Would you be all that happy if, unasked, your SC instituted a 5% threshold proviso for the Knesset, without any public debate?

Maybe these are silly examples but in fact, Supreme Courts are not generally put in place to insure first and foremost some vague, trendy politically effusive opinion of liberal civil rights. They are generally there to insure that the system of governance and justice is more or less equitable. If you had a Constitution your SC would be embroiled in Constitutional Issues and not political arguments about specific laws.
To say these examples are silly is a gross understatement. They are on the same level with the example that the court "one day" decides that the law of property is void is stealing is legal.
and again, "unasked" is an irrelevant term for this discussion. if the court is ruling on an issue - it was asked to do so by the prosecutor.

I thought you Israelis treasured democracy?
we do. That is why a hideous law such as the Patriot act would never pass in Israel. We don't have a secret police like the FBI. The name J Edgar Hoover rings any "democratic" bell?

Mediocrates

06-30-2004, 07:39 AM

There is absolutely NO comparison between one-party regime and Supreme Court ruling.
First and foremost, the court does not make the law. if it says a given law or gov't decision is wrong - it cannot "correct" the gov't decision. In simple terms Supreme Court cannot directly change the law book.

Sure it can. There are basically 3 kinds of laws in any country: Statutes, regulations and case law. Statutes are legislated laws passed by some body. Regulations are laws that typically written by the executive branch without legislation and case law is formed by judicial process on its own. Overturning a regulation or an executive order is such a law-making power the courts have. Overturning a statute reverts the underlying legal question back to an earlier law which is also making or reinstating a law. And supporting or overturning case law results in new judicial procedures which are laws in their own right. Otherwise what courts do is simply an irrelevant opinion.

In fact, there were cases where the Knesset (the only body that makes laws in Israel) put laws in place with the sole purpose to overturn court ruling (e.g. the 'Arie Deri' law)
Second, Supreme Court cannot do ANYTHING what-so-ever, until someone decides to sue. its function is entirely responsive and non-initiative.

You yourself said the SCs folio is openended. It can review whatever it wishes, or as the case may be, not. This leaves it wide open to charges of political motivation since it has the ability to shape law by not acting as well. See below â€œeverything is â€˜judgeableâ€™. We would call that a pocket veto

the misleading term 'activist' describes the court's motto, led by its current head, Aharon Barak that "everything is judge-able". but nevertheless, the court cannot initiate any ruling on its own initiative.

No its dead on, see above. The drivers are not really questions of law or even policy but differences in politics. And thatâ€™s how things get to your SC.

Third, even under the abovementioned motto, the Supreme Court turned down cases with the reason that the subject matter is beyond the court's jurisdiction. for example, there was one such case in operation defensive shield in Jenin when the press was forbidden to enter the war zone.

This is really a side effect of your bizarre electoral politics and lack of a constitution isnâ€™t it? All the same whereas in the US it is usually states or federal court advocates or the Federal government itself which is usually one party in a SC case in Israel, itâ€™s quite different. But that difference comes out of the paltry influence non national local governments have in Israel, You really donâ€™t have any notion of a complex web of states and state laws subsumed under the 10th amendment.

To say these examples are silly is a gross understatement. They are on the same level with the example that the court "one day" decides that the law of property is void is stealing is legal.

No not really. What would think for example of a court that demanded a voice in how wars are prosecuted. Is not the wall a case of that? At its heart itâ€™s a tactical method that the court has decided it needs to decide on. What about other military decisions? What if the SC at some point had declared that the Lebanon war was illegal on the basis that it was unfair to the Lebanese? You might say that the court would never make foreign policyâ€¦â€¦.be careful before you answer that point when you think of the west bankâ€¦â€¦.

For the Law of Ingathering no one would directly assault it but what would you think of a court that countermanded existing law which defines who a Jew is, or what a Jewish family is and thereby altered the complexion of who could make aliyah? All sorts of exceptions and legal hoop jumping has been made before on these questions all to serve whatever political agenda the courts and government had at that time. What for example might have happened if the SC decided that all the Russian olim back then could not be considered Jews? Oh a few might have come in but your entire country would look different today wouldnâ€™t it.

and again, "unasked" is an irrelevant term for this discussion. if the court is ruling on an issue - it was asked to do so by the prosecutor.

In fact it should be one of two parties not just prosecutors. We in the the US as individuals have the right to bring an issue to the SC within the guidelines the courts and constitutional law set.

we do. That is why a hideous law such as the Patriot act would never pass in Israel. We don't have a secret police like the FBI. The name J Edgar Hoover rings any "democratic" bell?

First off the FBI is not the secret police. And their charter is domestic security. If you think your domestic security services donâ€™t keep tabs on people you are mistaken.

But you have incarcerated people w/o charge and/or habeus corpus for years under the rubric of national security. You simply donâ€™t apply any law at all and leave it up to whatever security apparatus does that sort of thing. We on the other hand have constitutional rights that at least guaranty that some legal fight will result.

RichardP

06-30-2004, 08:55 AM

Not being the most informed with Israel law, especially, their Supreme Court; I do, nonetheless, find this debate very enlightening. This being whole point of my joining the IF. My reaction to the Supreme Court was a gut reaction, as opposed to an intellectual oneâ€¦ Wow, has the Israeli SC a death-wish for its citizens?
Although, I do agree with Oh Jerusalem and Mediocrates, in this case and most other discussions; nevertheless, I still appreciate and respect Sharonbnâ€™s perspective of the decision, albeit, I believe he is mistaken.

Mediocrates

06-30-2004, 09:24 AM

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. It simply a question of how political the court is and whether its agenda is transparent or not. Here in the US no one could with a straight face say that the trio of Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas do not have a political agenda. Clearly they do and we accept that as much as we accept the activist laws of the Burger court of the past that helped get the voter registration act, civil rights, Roe V. Wade, and other critical decisions ennacted. I mean Brown v. Board of Ed on its own is a huge activist decision and there are few people today, exept for maybe Trent Lott who think that it was a mistake.

We understand that there is an agenda in play. The difference is that we think we can see a direction that activism is heading in, in the US. We think we can plot where the Rehnquist lead court wants to go. These are not earthshattering decisions we've seen recently nothing really that shapes the Constitution. But they are critical none the less in that they are political. The difference I suspect with the Israeli SC is that in Israel the SC seems to operate at a much more mundane level like a lower court. They seem to operate without context and they seem to be judging actions not [/i]law. And when courts judge actions then they are corrupting their own purpose and they expose themselves to the same kind of demagoguery that can make rule of law laughable.

sharonbn

06-30-2004, 09:57 AM

But you have incarcerated people w/o charge and/or habeus corpus for years under the rubric of national security. You simply donâ€™t apply any law at all and leave it up to whatever security apparatus does that sort of thing. We on the other hand have constitutional rights that at least guaranty that some legal fight will result.

tell that to the men in Guantanamo Bay...

Oh Jerusalem

06-30-2004, 10:05 AM

tell that to the men in Guantanamo Bay...
On the contrary. They are not US citizens and or not considered legitimate combatants under the US's acceptance of international law.

Here, Israeli citizen Noah Federman was thrown into jail, with Shaul Mofaz signing an administrative detention order, with no charges being made. There he stayed for 8 months, until the Supreme Court very belatedly insisted he be released.

And he's still under house arrest, with no explanation given.

Mediocrates

06-30-2004, 11:02 AM

Well we did and they apparently had their day in court this week where it was determined that all detainees are entitled to due process. The wheels of justice may be slow. The fact remains that we have real laws and precepts that guide that process which don't rely on vague and trendy notions of 'human rights' whatever the hell those are. The reason Camp X-Ray exists at all is because the US Justice department opined, however badly, that is was "The legal equivalent of outerspace" (actual quote). Now we see that that was an incorrect conclusion and however most Americans feel about it, which is I'd have to guess, somewhere between "Don't care" and "Fry Them all", those miserable detainees get due process. Clearly the SC, could have agendized and politicized themselves into whatever tortured logic they wanted, if they wanted to. But since we have basic precidents, laws and constitutional limits on what can be done, the conclusions are clear. This is really what's meant in the US when we talk about an activist court, one that look back sometimes decades and see a problem that needs correction over the long run. After all, Brown v Board of Ed (1954) was a decision that was meant to overturn a doctrine formed by an earlier decision Plessy V. Ferguson (1896) which created 'Seperate But Equal". It took 5 decades and an activist court to overturn that - and make no mistake about it - it wasn't creating integration in New York or Boston. It was creating integration in Little Rock and Birmingham and Jackson and Memphis..where it was needed the most.

Anyway the point really is this - absent a real Constitutional construct, an agendized court becomes a politicized court and a politicized court often ends the way of People's Revolutionary Councils, Kangaroo Trials and such.

Binyamin

06-30-2004, 11:22 AM

The function of a court should be limited to interpreting laws. The SC here also very liberaly created a human-rights sort of law, which allows them to overturn any law that they think is not nice.
They also decided that certain "Basic Laws" (passed by a minority of the Knesset without any special importance being attached to them,) are a constitution, and that they give the SC the power of Judicial Review.

What Israeli law was the basis for today's decision?
What about my right to not get blown up?

Another major problem with the court is that they are appointed for life, and they have complete immunity. If a judge sentences someone to jail, in a clearly irresponsible decision, where he clearly did not pay attention to the case, this judge will not have to answer for what he did. He will not be removed, and he cannot be sued. Israel's laws for a judges immunity are among the most liberal in the world.

The Left-wing parties which set up Israel government created the courts in such a way that they would be able to safegaurd the Left agenda. They are therefore not chosen democratically, and they do not answer to anyone. This allows them to impose their viewpoint on the country, knowing that no one can stop them.
The Left is overall not very democratic. They see democracy as a burden when it opposes their ideas, and only appeal to it after they managed to convince enough people of their position. The more to the Left someone drifts, the less respect they have for public opinion. The Left sees itself as being above the non-enlightened masses, and therefore it is allowed to control them, as moch as it is able.
(I do not know why this happens, but it shows up everywhere.)

Mediocrates

06-30-2004, 11:38 AM

Supreme Court and Federal Circuit judges should be appointed for life or for very long terms [like the Federal Reserve Chairman] so as to avoid politicization. In the US the SC DOES NOT determine innocence or guilt. Any criminal case that makes to the SC is NEVER going to be overturned on the basis of innocence or guilt. What the SC can do is determine if any laws or constitutional constructs were violated in that procedure, if anyone's rights or due process were violated or if any law related to that case was improper or illegal. You cannot present new evidence to the SC - they are not there to try cases just the law itself.

Judicial in and of itself is not bad. It didn't exist in the US until chief justice John Marshall created that power on his own in the first quarter of the 19th century. The Constitution views the SC as little more than a body that decides interstate commerce law and a regulatory body that manages interstate tariffs and contracts. Marshall created the idea that Judicial Review should be used to refine and expand on the Constitution itself. It's a sound approach and where the Israeli SC errs is in overreaching and deciding things that aren't really infront of it or deciding them on the basis of law that doesn't really exist. This was the criticism levelled against FDRs New Deal era court - that it was creating legislation w/o the authority to do so. But of course it overturned many of FDRs own policies and programs so no one was innocent.

Binyamin

06-30-2004, 12:11 PM

I do not have a problem with Judicial Review. I have a problem where it is based on an imaginary constitution, and it is used to review laws against a non-existent standard. It is essentially used to overturn any law that does not sit well with the judges.

RichardP

06-30-2004, 12:15 PM

Well said Binyamin and Mediocrates. The attitudes of the leftists is the same worldwide, moreover, they truly believe anyone a smidgen to the right-of-centre is intellectually and morally challenged. It is endemic throughout our institutions, be they educational, government and so forth.
This mindset isnâ€™t monopolized by the French; it has permeated all of the western democracies. Canada, for example, feebly attempts to emulate the European intellectual and moral smugness. Hence, crapping on all positions, which are taken and or developed by those right-of-centre.
It will be the leftist who will be handing the game-ball to Islamist-Terrorism; moreover, they donâ€™t give a damn. As Binyamin mentioned; they see democracy as a burden.

alexbmn

06-30-2004, 06:29 PM

alexbmn

06-30-2004, 06:36 PM

how many lives have been lost because of the rulings of those scumbags? And he defends them. I think Begin said it best " the Arabs are our problem, the leftists are our curse."

RichardP

06-30-2004, 06:44 PM

Well stated, Alexbm; sans the smoke and mirrors, that's what it comes down to; Israeli lives don't count one iota... only the 'comfort' of the Arabs. Thanks for being so succinct.

Oh Jerusalem

06-30-2004, 10:20 PM

The sages said: Le'Olam yehei adam medaber b'lashon ketzara - A person should always say the fewest words possible.

I feel obliged to express my appreciation to Alex for that most informative post that analyzed the subject so perfectly and extracted just what was needed to understand the gravity of the decision made by Israel's erroneously lead Supreme Court justices, who placed their tuchases on their high horses all by themselves, with outside influencers assisting them in their dastardly plot to dictate to our society their moral norms in negation to the concensus of the people of this land. :D

sharonbn

06-30-2004, 11:00 PM

how many lives have been lost because of the rulings of those scumbags? And he defends them. I think Begin said it best " the Arabs are our problem, the leftists are our curse."

maybe we need to issue "din rodef" on lefties...
This nice and useful tool is making a comeback from 95, due to the separation plan.

Oh Jerusalem

06-30-2004, 11:27 PM

maybe we need to issue "din rodef" on lefties...
What's your mother's Hebrew name? :cool: :eek: :rolleyes:

Oh Jerusalem

06-30-2004, 11:29 PM

maybe we need to issue "din rodef" on lefties...
This nice and useful tool is making a comeback from 95, due to the separation plan.
Actually what needs to be done is already on many a bumber sticker:

Posh'ei Oslo LaDin - The Oslo criminals to trial!

sharonbn

07-01-2004, 12:32 AM

to trial???
I thought the whole point was that you didn't believe in the Israeli judicial system...

Oh Jerusalem

07-01-2004, 12:39 AM

to trial???
I thought the whole point was that you didn't believe in the Israeli judicial system...
I don't. But if and when they do go to trial, my faith will be strengthened.

And while I believe that the system here is corrupt and morally bankrupt, I do not advocate taking the law into my own hands, just in case you were thinking of asking.

golani

07-01-2004, 01:06 AM

Guys, do not forget that jews are often jews worst enemies

When Jerusalem was besieged by roman legions, 2 jewish factions succeeded to fight each other behind the walls ...

short joke: a jewish shipwrecked man is found by a boat

The captain comes to visit the different man made buildings

captain: how come 2 synagogues??

Shipwrecked man with much despise: aaahh, to THAT one, I never go...
:rolleyes:

sharonbn

07-01-2004, 03:16 AM

ok lets put this into plain english so that some rather thickheaded individuals can understand what the Supreme Court did here. It ruled that the lives of Israeli citizens aren't as important as the comfort of the enemy. I hope all three and only three of them take that next bus.

Maybe the supreme court ruled that an alternative route of the fence will retain the same security level, while lessening the impact on Pals? Why do these two factors have to collide? Maybe the supreme court ruled that a better compromise between the two factors is achievable?

Maybe what the supreme court "did here" was to say to the gov't that it cannot bluntly and blindly trample over human rights of civilians, all under the pretext of national security. national security cannot be the justification for EVERYTHING. If it was, we could just shoot the Pals and be done with it. However, no one believes that national security justifies shooting the entire Palestinian people (I sincerely hope no one believes so).

So there is a red line of counter action and defense measurements that even national security cannot justify. The supreme court did not cancel the entire fence. Moreover, the supreme court accepted the fence as a legitimate solution to terrorism. However, the supreme court said that a certain segment of the fence crossed the red line of violation of human rights and the route needs to be altered. The red line is of course, a subjective matter. The judges ruled according to their understanding and opinion.

sharonbn

07-01-2004, 03:21 AM

Guys, do not forget that jews are often jews worst enemies

Yes it is true. the only Israeli head of state to be assasinated, was killed by a Jew...

Oh Jerusalem

07-01-2004, 03:35 AM

Maybe what the supreme court "did here" was to say to the gov't that it cannot bluntly and blindly trample over human rights of civilians, all under the pretext of national security.
Pretext, a favorite word of the left, used to turn facts into lies.

pre-text (pree'tekst) n.
1. something put forward to conceal a true
purpose or object; ostensible reason;
excuse.
2. the misleading appearance or behavior
assumed with this intention; subterfuge.

National secuirty is not a pretext. The fence works.

Now, Sharon, calculate a formula for us. One Israeli live for 2 Arab fields, half a field or 5 olive trees perhaps? Name your price.

national security cannot be the justification for EVERYTHING.
It isn't. I does justify, however, trampling on the boor Balestinian enemy when it's the best solution at hand and the most immediate path to take to get this fence up and in place.

If it was, we could just shoot the Pals and be done with it.
If they were equivalent, then you're right. We're wasting our money. Lead is cheaper.

But they're not equivalent. And the reason why the fence is going up is because of their shooting us - not us shooting them.

However, no one believes that national security justifies shooting the entire Palestinian people (I sincerely hope no one believes so).
See the left's idea of moral equivalence? defend yourself, chop their property in half to do so and it's like mowing thousands of them down with machine guns.

So there is a red line of counter action and defense measurements that even national security cannot justify. The supreme court did not cancel the entire fence.
According to numerous military analysts that all of us could watch last night on TV, this is a setback to Israel's security and an endangerment to Israel's population from the ongoing Oslo war which the Arabs started 4 years ago.

Moreover, the supreme court accepted the fence as a legitimate solution to terrorism.
Whoopee!

However, the supreme court said that a certain segment of the fence crossed the red line of violation of human rights and the route needs to be altered. The red line is of course, a subjective matter. The judges ruled according to their understanding and opinion.
And their ignorance in security matters.

Watch what this precedent will lead to. Appeals for every 20 meters of fence line and more dead and wounded - all courtesy of the humanity of our supreme wisemen.

And what do you know! .................... This just in.........................

High Court Orders Halt to Fence Around Har Homa (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64955)
13:30 Jul 01, '04 / 12 Tammuz 5764

(IsraelNN.com) The High Court of Justice issued a temporary restraining order today against continued construction of Israel's security fence in the area around Har Homa, in Jerusalem. The order was issued in response to a petition filed by Arab residents of a village to be on the side of the fence included with Har Homa. The residents said that they did not want to be on the "Jewish" side of the fence, which, they claimed cut them off from their families on the opposite side.

And this in earlier in the day:

High Alert in Jerusalem (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64946)
10:55 Jul 01, '04 / 12 Tammuz 5764

(IsraelNN.com) Jerusalem police have raised the alert level in response to intelligence indicating terrorists are on their way to carry out an attack on Jews in one of Israel's cities.

The checkpoints around Jerusalem are closed and more checkpoints have been added at the entrances to the capital. Police and soldiers are out in force in areas that may be potential targets.

Kol hamerachem al haachzarim, besofo yachzer al harachamim - whoever will have mercy upon the cruel in the end will be cruel to the merciful.

Stupid Jewish judges and their admirers.

Oh Jerusalem

07-01-2004, 03:36 AM

Yes it is true. the only Israeli head of state to be assasinated,
... who was one of our worst enemies.

Chad Gadya.

Binyamin

07-01-2004, 11:20 AM

golani

07-01-2004, 11:24 AM

... who was one of our worst enemies.

Chad Gadya.

Oh jerusalem,I do not agree

If you think that Rabin was our worst enemy,that is overeacted
He was a war hero, a great general and he wanted peace
He was fooled and tricked by Arafat but still, he was a great guy

Oh Jerusalem

07-01-2004, 12:05 PM

If you think that Rabin was our worst enemy,that is overeacted
I said he was one of our worst enemies. I will clarify that by restating that he was one of our own worst enemies.

He was a war hero, a great general
Are you sure?

Exploding the myth of Yitzhak Rabin (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20031105.shtml)
Ben Shapiro
November 5, 2003

Eight years ago this week, the fate of Israel was sealed. On Nov. 4, 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir. The murder was tragic, not just because Rabin suffered an untimely death but because Rabin became sacrosanct. The illusory image of Rabin as the tough sabra willing to negotiate with the Arabs, as the invincible general turned peacemaker, as the tolerant, wise leader of the Jewish state, was forever enshrined in the public consciousness. Rabin's political inheritance, the Oslo Accords, became unassailable.

On the anniversary of his death, it is now more necessary than ever to explode the myth of Yitzhak Rabin. As long as Rabin's myth exists, it will be impossible to move beyond his failed policies: negotiation with terror, persecution of the Israeli right wing, apologies for Jewish existence.

Rabin was no "great general." As Uri Milstein's "The Rabin File" explains, Yitzhak Rabin bears responsibility for many of the most fouled-up military operations in Israeli history. On Dec. 9, 1947, during the War of Independence, Rabin took charge of the Jerusalem sector of the Palmach (the elite striking force of the Haganah, precursor to the Israeli Defense Force). Rabin's task was to secure Jerusalem and access to the city. Under his watch, Israeli forces met with disaster after disaster. The substantial losses incurred by Rabin's soldiers led the United States to withdraw support for the establishment of the Jewish state on March 19.

Rabin's military record extends beyond incompetence. The celebrated soldier actually fled the field of battle in 1948. On April 20, a food and supply convoy set out for Jerusalem. The area fell under Rabin's jurisdiction. His forces failed to secure the road, and the convoy was ambushed. When the ambush occurred, several officers attempted to lead counterattacks; Rabin did not. Instead, he personally drove away for reinforcements. After requesting reinforcements, Rabin did not return to fight with his men -- he went to sleep.

One of Rabin's proudest military moments came on June 22, 1948. Menachem Begin's Irgun, another Israeli military group, was in the midst of negotiating a pact with David Ben-Gurion under which Irgun would join the new Israeli Defense Force. Meanwhile, the Irgun had loaded a ship, the Altalena, with weapons and Jewish fighters (many of them Holocaust survivors) to join the IDF. Ben-Gurion ordered that the Altalena be fired upon. Rabin carried out his orders to the letter. Later, Rabin bragged how he had "bumped them off on the deck of the burning ship and while they were trying to swim to safety." Sixteen Jews were killed, many shot while swimming to shore.

So much for the "great general." More importantly, however, Rabin's true political legacy -- the diabolical "peace process" -- must be exposed. Before his election in 1992, Rabin promised the Israeli public that he would never negotiate with arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat or his murderous Palestine Liberation Organization. Yet before the Israeli elections, in May 1992, eight Labor Party members, led by master-appeaser Yossi Beilin, met with Abu Mazen (then the head of the PLO "political wing") in Cairo. This was against Israeli law. According to Yehoshua HaMe'iri, a journalist then stationed in Cairo, "what was discussed was an attempt to ensure a Labor Party victory in the elections." A quid pro quo was made: Labor would work on behalf of "Palestinians" if the PLO influenced Israeli Arabs to vote Labor.

After the election, the Rabin government immediately cracked down on Israelis opposing the Oslo Accords. Moshe Feiglin, now the head of the Manhigut Yehudit block within Likud, organized peaceful mass protests. Rabin retaliated by putting Feiglin on trial for "raising fear among the public." At future protests, the Israeli police were used as a political organization, blocking protesters and sometimes assaulting them.

It is vital to remember that before Rabin's murder, his peace program had been overwhelmingly rejected by the Israeli public. By April 1994, Rabin's approval rating had dropped to 41 percent. Before his assassination, Rabin was trailing anti-Oslo Likud candidate Benjamin Netanyahu by a wide margin. Only after his murder did the public glorify Rabin.

After Rabin's death, the witch hunt shifted into high gear. The Israeli right wing found itself in a position akin to that of the American right wing after the Oklahoma City bombing. Eight years later, the madness has not ceased. The government has shut down the radio station Arutz Sheva, a right-wing news service; actions are underway to shut down Arutz Sheva's Internet site as well.

Yitzhak Rabin did not deserve to be murdered. He simply deserved to lose the public trust. He deserved to live out his life in obscurity rather than dying a martyr for a detestable cause.

and he wanted peace
We all do.

He was fooled and tricked by Arafat
He tried to fool an entire country and succeeded for the most part. Spare me the mushy stuff! :o He totally lied during his election campaign, painting himself as a moderate dove. Once in office, he stuck Oslo on all of us, proposed returning the Golan, entered the disasterous Oslo accords, brought in Arafat's army from Tunisia and gave them automatic weapons.

He wasn't fooled. He was a fool.

but still, he was a great guy
The myth lives on. Light a candle.

RichardP

07-01-2004, 12:09 PM

Yes, Rabin was all those things mentioned and yes, he was a great man. Nonetheless, he, like many was duped by Arafat, but the repercussions of his short-sightedness are still felt today. Then of course thereâ€™s Barak, but letâ€™s not go there.

Gilgamesh

07-01-2004, 12:28 PM

Maybe the supreme court ruled that an alternative route of the fence will retain the same security level, while lessening the impact on Pals? Why do these two factors have to collide? Maybe the supreme court ruled that a better compromise between the two factors is achievable? And what made the honorble judge, a judge of military matters? Can the laws of science can be changed by law? Can mountains be leveled overnight, by court rulling? Who said a "compromise" is practicle? The high court?

The promblem, the issue of the debate, is not the best route for the fence. But on the high court of justice execive intervention into areas outside his jurastiction. There is no more 3 seperate branches of goverment, but only one: The high court. The people are no directly electing the judges, and so it should be, but the judges do not undertake responsibility for their misdoings, and are not limited to their own field.

Arabs who feel "harmed" by the fence, are fully entitled for compansation. This is the only high courts ONLY democratic job, in the fence issue. The court must not have any say about where to build the fence.

According to the law, the goverment has a right to seize any property the goverment thinks it needs for the security of the people. The police can even pull you out of the car or take over your apartment in short notice. The only provision is that you are entitled to compansation.

This is the difference between a democratic country and Israel, where the high court physicly dictates goverment policy. As from now, Israel is no longer a real democracy, since Judge Aharon Barak named himself in practice, a sole dictator.

Maybe what the supreme court "did here" was to say to the gov't that it cannot bluntly and blindly trample over human rights of civilians, all under the pretext of national security. national security cannot be the justification for EVERYTHING. I thought leftis value life and human rights above everything and with full equality among men. I guess I was wrong. Jews are not entitled, by court rulling for human right, aspecialy the right to live. No doubt, Arab comfort out weighs Jews right for life. How disgusting. Again, the court has a right to call the ammount of conpansation, not intervine in national security.

It is true, that the worst crimes in human history, were made under the false "national security" mentale. Is the fence, one of those crimes?

Again, the problem is not "natioanl security", but the reality. The left, can't deal with reality and don't have the intelectual intergrity to admit it. Pity. So they hurle absured charges at the messures and decision. They hate our situation the same like us, normal people, but are afraid to admit the consequances for this situation, the things that have to be done in REALITY.

If it was, we could just shoot the Pals and be done with it. However, no one believes that national security justifies shooting the entire Palestinian people (I sincerely hope no one believes so). There you go! You admit that Israel's actions are not arbitary but derived from certain logic.

If every Arab you insist on calling "palestinians" would lift his arm against a Jew, he should be shot and killed. Against leftist theoris, most Arabs do not do so, and live. You see? This is the defenition between reaction to a given situation we did not chose, like war, and abusing national security as an excuse for crimes.

So there is a red line of counter action and defense measurements that even national security cannot justify. The supreme court did not cancel the entire fence. Moreover, the supreme court accepted the fence as a legitimate solution to terrorism. However, the supreme court said that a certain segment of the fence crossed the red line of violation of human rights and the route needs to be altered. When the court had not right or authority, in the first place, to pass any judgement of this sort.

The red line is of course, a subjective matter. The judges ruled according to their understanding and opinion. The problem has nothign to do with the fence, and all to do with the danger to democracy posed by the high court for justice, who constantly disrupting the fine line the seperate the branches of goverment. This is a clear and present danger to Israel's democacy, that one man thinks he has the last word in anything, and the other branches are totally expandable.

alexbmn

07-01-2004, 09:48 PM

the comfort of the enemy should be absolutely of no matter to Israel. I'm 100 percent sure that no other court in any other country in the world would make a similar decision. The fense is a purely defensive measure. Any delay in its completion directly endangers Israeli lives. Its so far away from " a red line " its not funny. Its not even worthy of discussion.

alexbmn

07-01-2004, 10:01 PM

NEW YORKâ€”At a press conference Monday, American Civil Liberties Union officials announced that the organization will go to court to defend a neo-Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters(with ACLU memebers inside)

Ok this is from the Onion. But that's what happens in Israel every day multiplied by factor of a thousand.

Binyamin

07-02-2004, 01:09 AM

Exploding the myth of Yitzhak Rabin (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20031105.shtml)
Ben Shapiro
November 5, 2003

One of Rabin's proudest military moments came on June 22, 1948. Menachem Begin's Irgun, another Israeli military group, was in the midst of negotiating a pact with David Ben-Gurion under which Irgun would join the new Israeli Defense Force. Meanwhile, the Irgun had loaded a ship, the Altalena, with weapons and Jewish fighters (many of them Holocaust survivors) to join the IDF. Ben-Gurion ordered that the Altalena be fired upon. Rabin carried out his orders to the letter. Later, Rabin bragged how he had "bumped them off on the deck of the burning ship and while they were trying to swim to safety." Sixteen Jews were killed, many shot while swimming to shore.

And then when he is killed, the left is in total shock that a JEW can kill another JEW for political reasons!

[The real reason for their shock is because they thought they could force anything on the country and be safe because they were also Jewish, after all. It was a terrible shock when they found out that it wasn't true.]

alexbmn

07-02-2004, 10:38 AM

sharonbn

07-04-2004, 02:09 AM

PM Sharon: Supreme Court ruling will help in Hague

Ynet - July 4th. - The supreme court ruling which ordered the gov't to change the route of the defensive wall will help Israel in its legal battle in Int'l court in Hague, said Israeli PM, Sharon, this Morning (Sunday) at the beginning of the gov't weekly meeting.

Four days after the ruling, in which the court acknowledged the importance of the fence as a security measurement, but disqualified the route in the Jerusalem area, PM finds positive aspects in the decision, in preparation for the upcoming int'l court's ruling.

Sharon: "In view of the position and reputation of the Israeli Supreme Court and its head, Aharaon Barak in the world, the court's decision will help to strengthen Israel legal claim and to fend off accusations in Hague int'l court." Sharon added that he ordered the ministry of defense and IDF to devise a new route for the fence.

In contrast to the PM, the ministry of defense and IDF found mostly negative aspects to the court's ruling and stressed that the decision will set the progress back three months and will cost the Israeli tax payer. The head of the fence administration Colonel (reserve) Dani Tirza declared the day of the ruling "black day" and was disciplined by the attorney general, Mazuz.

* translated from Ynet

Oh Jerusalem

07-04-2004, 03:19 AM

here's a shocker. Sharon apparently was quite angry after the attack and demanded an artillery response, and of course (only in this one country which occupies a different dimension) the MILITARY USED POLITICAL arguments to talk him out of it.
A kinder, gentler military response.

We live in a nuthouse!

IDF won't use artillery against Kassams - senior officer (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088650999662&p=1078027574121)
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

"There is no reason or need to fire artillery into urban areas," said Brig.-Gen. Dani Kassif, the IDF's chief artillery officer. "It doesn't matter how bad the situation deteriorates, as long as it is not a total war, there is not need to use cannons."

Kassif spoke to The Jerusalem Post about the role of the artillery in the conflict with the Palestinians.

Following the lethal Kassam rocket attack on Sderot this week, a number of readers and other voices called for the IDF to reply in kind with artillery or mortar barrages.

"People are always asking the question why has the IDF decided not to use artillery. I think there is no reason to decide otherwise," Kassif said. "I know if we fired artillery we wouldn't hit just the mortar [firing at Israel], but also hit other people in the area."

Kassif sardonically bemoaned the loss of the Lebanon front four years ago since it was the last place the corps could show off its firepower. Artillery is still being used there during periodic exchanges of fire with Hizbullah, but on a much smaller scale than before.

"In the Lebanon period we knew how to cope with the Katyusha rockets. It wasn't 100 percent, but we developed methods of striking them and getting warnings," Kassif said.

"But with the Kassam rockets, even if I locate them and can hit them, I don't want to reach a situation where I use this kind of weaponry. It's not worth it and don't forget that [a Kassam] is really nothing but a pipe," he said.

He said that the main problem was not locating where the Kassam's were launched, but developing ways of striking them quickly. That, he claimed, was where the IDF has made great leaps forward in the past few years.

There is nothing available in the world that could shoot down Kassam rockets, Kassif said. This is mainly because they are too primitive and do not reach the altitude in which sophisticated defense systems developed to shoot down incoming missiles operated.

The focus is now to close the loop between detection and offensive action, like tank fire and attack helicopters to hit the Kassams on the ground before they can be launched.

A senior officer briefing military reporters in the Gaza Strip Wednesday said that it took about 15 minutes for a Kassam team to set up a rocket with a timer.

On the heights west of Sderot are surveillance radar systems like the TPQ, which tracks incoming mortar and Kassam rockets, as well as the "Nagmapoop," a modified APC that lifts a thermal camera high into the sky that gazes non-stop into the Gaza Strip to hunt for Kassam rocket crews and other guerrillas.

Kassif is aware of the need to justify the artillery corps in an age when many believe warfare is changing and the classic battles involving heavy artillery barrages may be a thing of the past.

The army has retrained its artillery units for fighting low intensity warfare in the territories. Now a typical unit will have snipers and machine gunners and be trained in infantry warfare, something unheard of in the past.

"This has not been simple," Kassif said in an interview at the Tze'elim training grounds. "There is a difference between being taught to fire a cannon and then being put into a situation where their entire mission is to use their personal weapon... We have to be able to get off of our cannons and perform as an infantry battalion, and then when called upon return to the cannons. The Americans are finding that this is not so simple. We are already there," he said.

"The Americans have understood that to prepare a force for service in Iraq they have to train them in the same things we have been dealing with, like manning roadblocks and policing actions," Kassif said.

The way the IDF artillery corps operates now is for its forces to be deployed in the territories, but be able to be choppered up to the Hermon if needed.

Just last week, that was the scenario that took place when tensions rose with Hizbullah.

Looking to the future role of the artillery corps in low-intensity conflicts, Kassif said artillery rounds have to be made more accurate and even less deadly.

"We have to look for non-lethal artillery shells that can be used in urban areas that causes different kinds of damage but doesn't kill anyone," Kassif said. "I'll leave that concept up to your imagination."

Gilgamesh

07-04-2004, 05:02 AM

PM Sharon: Supreme Court ruling will help in Hague

What an idoticy!

The court ruling apporved that:
1. The fence's route is not needed for our security, since the route can be adjusted according to non-security reasons.

2. The original route causes discomfort to Arabs. No more need to prove that anymore.

3. Arabs comfort outweighs Jews right to live. New moral standards, that proves that Jews are inferior people to Arabs. Two standards, two kind of people. Racial discrimination in action.

4. Jews are ready to secrifice their own lives for Arab matirial comfort. So Israelis, aspecialy Israeli leagal system, will collaborate in any anti Israeli and anti semetic, initiative.

5. The last word belongs to the high court. Bush wastes his time talking to Sharon. He shoul invite the real man in Israel who has a say. The only politician who has the last word on anything and the only politician in Israel who can make things done: Professor Aharon Barak, chief justice in the high court for justice.

According to Sharon he is either blackmailed by the courts and the conspiracy of the judges and their supporter, or Sharon lost his mind entirely.

Gilgamesh

07-04-2004, 05:13 AM

A kinder, gentler military response.

We live in a nuthouse!

[i]IDF won't use artillery against Kassams - senior officer (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088650999662&p=1078027574121)
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

Tell me about it.

I wouldn't mind using other kind of weapons or methods for ending Kassam terrorism. As long as such method are taken!

I'd expect the Army, for example to dedicte several hellicopters (other then Apachies or Cobras) or light attack planes to end the Kassam scurge.

But no, the politicians are more afraid to kill Arabs then of Israelis being killed. You see, we are going to vote for them what ever their wrongdoings are, and blame only the Arabs for our dead. We free our politicians from any responsibility for fighting terrorism. Same like in Lebanon... Doing nothing is rewarded in elections, rather then actions who become "contraversial" almost automaticly.

When killing Arabs, btw, might really ruin a politician's political career. It turns a military action into "failur" immdiately, causes a majore raw all over, mass demonstrations and stupid explainations in BBC.

But most importantly, the politician might be less welcomed in foreign launges and invited to speack less often. Not to mention rewards, honors and prizes, politicians all over the world like to give each other. Now, THAT hurts !!!. I hurts, of cours in a politicians softest place: his pocket.

Binyamin

07-04-2004, 08:40 AM

[i]"But with the Kassam rockets, even if I locate them and can hit them, I don't want to reach a situation where I use this kind of weaponry. It's not worth it and don't forget that [a Kassam] is really nothing but a pipe," he said.
And why would anyone mind getting killed by a pipe?? And to think that we should respond with deadly artillery shells because someone threw a pipe at us!

Does anyone know when the ICJ is supposed to give its ruling on the fence?

Ahava

07-04-2004, 09:02 AM

Does anyone know when the ICJ is supposed to give its ruling on the fence?

9 july I believe. Ooh, exciting, almost the long expected verdict of the very important ICJ!
Seriously, keep building.

Mediocrates

07-04-2004, 07:12 PM

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=65055

Former Mossad agent Gad Shimron reports that while the European Union attacks Israel mercilessly for the partition fence it's building to protect Jewish lives, the EU itself funds and operates a similar fence designed only to protect itself from illegal immigrants.

The fence is located in a Spanish enclave in northwestern Africa, the coastal city of Ceuta just across the Straits of Gibraltar from Spain. Unknown to most of the world, when Spain handed over most of northern Morocco to the newly independent kingdom in 1956, Spain retained Ceuta and Melilla (about 250 kilometers further east) - thus that the European Union is present in Africa as well. Poverty-stricken Moroccans attempting to cross into Ceuta, from where they will then be able to work anywhere in Europe because of the EU's no-checkpoints policy, are stopped in their tracks by the eight-meter-high, double layer fence. Funding for the fence, some 60 million Euros, came from European Union coffers.

Frequent Spanish patrols, together with policemen who do not hesitate to beat potential infiltrators, render crossing the partition a nearly impossible mission - but the needy say they will continue to try. One of the many who are determined to immigrate to Europe said, "Whoever came all this difficult way and reaches the mountains of northern Morocco, opposite the fence of Ceuta, will not give up. You see the lights of Ceuta? As far as we're concerned, that's the Promised Land. The people here are in despair and will do anything to pass over that fence, enter Spain, and from there continue northward and blend in with the other millions of immigrants in Europe."

The EU continues to oppose Israel's fence, constructed to protect against murderous terrorists and suicide bombs - even as it plans to build another fence of its own around Spain's second enclave in northern Africa, the Moroccan town of Melilla. "It appears," concludes Gad Shimron in Maariv today, "that from a European point of view, the ethical aspects of a separation fence are sometimes a matter of geography."

Mediocrates

07-06-2004, 05:28 AM

Fence Rulings: Democracy in Action

Washington Post and AP relate only part of landmark Israeli Supreme Court rulings.

The legality of the Israeli security fence remains in the media spotlight, with two binding rulings issued by the Israeli Supreme Court last week, and an upcoming (July 9) 'advisory opinion' expected from the World Court at The Hague. At stake are two questions:

● Is the proposed route of the fence fair to both Israelis and Palestinians?
● More fundamentally, is the very construction of the security fence justified under international law?

Addressing the first question, the Supreme Court ruled that the fence should be re-routed in certain regions around Jerusalem to address humanitarian concerns. The army immediately complied.

Media reports were quick to convey this portion of the ruling. The Washington Post granted it front-page status, and the Associated Press issued a broadly-published report.

But these same media outlets were remiss in bringing to readers' attention the much more fundamental, second ruling of the high court ― upholding the fence's legal justification as a security measure.

AP sets the tone for their article with the opening phrase:

Israel's Supreme Court sided with the Palestinians in a precedent-setting decision Wednesday, ordering the government to reroute part of its West Bank separation barrier near Jerusalem because it causes too much suffering.

And the Washington Post mentions the court's fundamental acceptance of the fence only as an afterthought ― in paragraph 18 of a 19-paragraph article ― stating that the court "did not find that the barrier was being constructed for political reasons, as Palestinians have alleged."

Indeed, the court went far beyond that, issuing a landmark ruling that upholds the security fence's essential validity, and denies Palestinian claims that

[t]he security arguments guiding respondents disguise the real objective: the annexation of areas to Israel. As such, there is no legal basis for the construction of the Fence.

This was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court:

We examined petitioners' arguments, and have come to the conclusion, based upon the facts before us, that the Fence is motivated by security concerns ... Petitioners, by pointing to the route of the Fence, attempt to prove that the construction of the Fence is not motivated by security considerations, but by political ones. They argue that if the Fence was primarily motivated by security considerations, it would be constructed on the "Green Line," that is to say, on the armistice line between Israel and Jordan after the War of Independence. We cannot accept this argument. The opposite is the case: it is the security perspective ― and not the political one ― which must examine a route based on its security merits alone, without regard for the location of the Green Line.

Yet the Washington Post downplays, and the Associated Press completely omits, this crucial part of the court's ruling.

Comments to Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Comments to AP: feedback@ap.org
[The New York Times' Joseph Berger, on the other hand, should be commended for accurately representing the court's full ruling by his second sentence: "The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel asserted that Israel has a genuine security reason for building the barrier and can expropriate land in the West Bank for it."]

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN ACTION

Last week's Supreme Court ruling demonstrated, perhaps better than any event in the recent past, the power of Israeli democratic process to address security vs. human rights concerns. The judges themselves emphasized the dilemma they faced:

Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli society...We are aware of the killing and destruction wrought by terror against the state and its citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state's struggle against those rising up against it easier.

This Israeli democratic process was in sharp contrast to a development on the Palestinian side last week. A Palestinian Authority organ called the 'Supreme National Committee for the Protection of the Right of Return' determined that Palestinians living in refugee camps should not have the right to vote in local elections. The PA daily paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida explained why:

The committee justified its objection as protecting the unique status of the refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank, considering them testimony to the crime that the occupation state made against our nation for 56 years. The committee warned of the dangers of integrating the refugee camps into the urban housing units. [via PMW]

That is, the PA plans to deny democratic voting rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, so that this impoverished population can continue to be used by the Arab ruling class as a weapon to fight against Israel, as 'testimony to a crime.'

Consider the irony: The Israeli court issues a ruling out of concern for Palestinian human rights, while the PA's own ruling sets back Palestinian human rights.

This is the same Fatah-led P.A. under whose authority a public lynching of an alleged 'collaborator' occurred on a Qabatiya street last week (pictured at right).

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen compares the Israeli Supreme Court decision with the U.S. Declaration of Independence's assertion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Writes Cohen:

The Israeli Supreme Court did something similar, although with more explicit language. "There is no security without law," it wrote.
Bear this decision in mind, please, when next someone refers to the Israelis as "Nazis" or otherwise talks about the nation as if it were a thuggish dictatorship ...

The early Zionists wanted Israel to be a light unto other nations. The other day, it was.

As legal issues surrounding the Israeli security fence continue to make headlines, HonestReporting encourages subscribers to write letters to your local media outlets, emphasizing Israel's democratic struggle to balance security needs with human rights.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Fence_Rulings_Democracy_in_Action.asp