Israels marxistiska domstol förlorar sin självpåtagna makt.

Israels Högsta Domstol har alltför länge spelat parallellregering - ovalda domare ha tagit på sej att ändra domar uppsatta av de folkvalda, och konsekvent följt extremvänstern.  Till vissa individers förtjusning.

.

New law aims to give Knesset full authority

Allmänhetens tro på Högsta Domstolens arlighet, har försvunnit.

Läs http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19942

Indeed the dire need for change was succinctly expressed by Caroline Glick this week when, commenting on Amona, she aptly remarked that “the existing legal system is incapable of protecting the civil and legal rights of either the Israelis or the Palestinians living under it.”

In Israel, the negative impact of the judicialization of politics on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is already beginning to show its mark. Over the past decade, the public image of the Supreme Court as an autonomous and impartial arbiter has been increasingly eroded as political representatives of minority groups have come to realize that political arrangements and public policies agreed upon in majoritarian decision-making arenas are likely to be reviewed by an often hostile Supreme Court. As a result, the court and its judges are increasingly viewed by a considerable portion of the Israeli public as pushing forward their own political agenda... – Prof. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, Harvard University Press, 2004.

Har du något följt med hur Israels Marxistiska Högsta domstol kämpat hårt på att hitta på lagar i stället för att följa de som Knesset stiftat, de enda som har rätt att göra det, så fyller denna artikel några hål av beskrivningen av den långa kampen.

.




.

†kristna<.. ...

Israels marxistiska Högsta Domstol försöker stifta lagar - ett jobb för Knesset enbart.

Supreme Court (Högsta Domstolen) i Israel - har helt missat sitt jobb som uppehållande av lagarna det valda Knesset stiftar, de är valda av sig själva och har länge levt sitt vänsterliv, upprätthållande av de stiftade lagarna mindre intressant än att skapa egna, vilket bl.a. resulterat i många anmälanden från Lagrådet Honenu (länk). Uppfattningen av den nya allmänne åklagaren, som traditionellt varit lika vänster, se länk.

Detta fallet handlar om Högsta Domstolens desperata kamp FÖR vänsterorganisarioner/-partier och gamla ogiltiga Jordanska lagar MOT staten Israel, 

Ett uttalande från juridiska experter kopierat från meddelande från IMRA: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71816

Friday, December 2, 2016

The Erroneous Judicial Ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court

The Erroneous Judicial Ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court Attorney Irving Gendelman 2 December 2016 1. This relates to the contentious issue of Amona and the erroneous judicial ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court. 2. The touchstone of this issue relates to the question of the ownership of the land on which the Jewish community of Amona resides. Based upon the erroneous ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court, this community is to be destroyed without any consideration of the adverse impact on these Jewish residents. The specter of Judenrein is apparent. Madam Justice Naor and the Court are indifferent to the human suffering which will thus engulf these Jewish residents. 3. Among the various legal issues reported on the question of ownership of this area, it is important to note the comments of Professor Moshe Dann in this regard. He notes the following: “Chief Justice Beinish declared that land which was not designated as State Land was automatically ‘private Palestinian land,’ regardless of whether it was claimed and used by Arabs and properly evaluated or not.” This follows Jordanian law but unilaterally the former Chief Justice made it Israeli law.….Therefore, simply recognizing that land grants had been registered are ‘privately owned ‘ is sufficient to prevent Jews from using and claiming it. Jews were and could be expelled from their homes, their property destroyed-even when there was no legitimate Arab claimant or no claimant at all…” Justice Edna Arbel and Miriam Naor were participants in this decision. Basically, Justices Beinish (länk1, länk2), Arbel and Naor unilaterally and gratuitously conveyed ownership of this land to Jordan as against the interests of Israel. One wonders from legal considerations how the Court empowered itself to convey this land to Jordan. Was it a lack of judicial acumen or essentially a derogation of Israeli interests? 4. But there is a more compelling legal consideration which discredits the Court’s opinion whereby the Court unilaterally acts a grantor of land. In this context, the Court was not aware of the scholarly legal paper, “ The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria,” Israel Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, April 1968 by Professor Yehuda Blum of International Law, Hebrew University and former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations. In part, Professor Blum writes: “…the areas of Judea and Samaria prior to 1948 were under the British Mandate. As such, it has been held that the doctrine of sovereignty has no application to the mandate system or such sovereignty is held in abeyance if and when such inhabitants obtain recognition as an independent State. Thus, upon the abrogation of mandate responsibility by Great Britain, sovereignty was not created nor gained by the inhabitants of that territory… “ It is submitted that the external military intervention that took place on the termination of the British mandate…across the frontiers of the former Mandatory Palestine-including the armed intervention of the Kingdom of Transjordan constituted a use of force in violation of the rule embodied in Article 2 (4) of the Charter….It must be concluded that the armed intervention of the various Arab States…was a violation of international law…the illegality of the presence of the invading force…was not removed by the Armistice Agreements. “Article 2(2) of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement stipulates…’no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement dictated exclusively by military considerations… “The purported annexation of the ‘West Bank’ in April 1950, was therefore from the point of international law, devoid of any legal effect… Thus the Kingdom of Jordan never acquired the status of a legitimate sovereign over Judea and Samaria and enjoyed at most the rights of a belligerent occupant there (during the period under its military jurisdiction from 1948-1967… “After Israel secured the territories after the Egyptian and Jordanian aggression, ‘the legal standing of Israel in the territories in question is that of a State which is lawfully in control of territory in respect of which no other State can show better title. Or if it is preferred to state the matter in terms of belligerent occupation, then the legal standing of Israel in the territories in question is at the very least that of a belligerent occupant in respect of which Jordan is not entitled to the reversionary rights of a legitimate sovereign… “The conclusion reached here, according to which Israel is more that a belligerent occupant with regard to Judea and Samaria, while Jordan could be regarded during the period of 1948-1967, has ,of course, far-reaching implications. It must be remembered that title to territory is based not on a claim of absolute validity…but rather on one of relative validity. Since in the present view no State can make out a legal claim that is equal to Israel, this relative superiority may be sufficient, under international law, to make Israeli possession of Judea and Samaria virtually indistinguishable from absolute title.” 5. Thus, it is abundantly clear , based on the foregoing, that Supreme Court decisions awarding property to Jordan and subsequently to Arabs is erroneous and is fraught with a lack of judicial knowledge and acumen. The Court did not have the power nor the right to convey the land in question to Jordan and to Arab ownership. The Court decision of Madam Justice Naor derogates and adversely impacts on the sovereignty of the State of Israel and her citizens and concomitantly causes undue suffering on the Jewish residents of Amona to which the Madam Justice Naor and the Court are totally indifferent! This is a singular failure of Madam Justice Naor and the Court in not applying the proper legal principles in its judicial-making process. Regrettably, Madam Justice Naor and the Court did not apply the basic democratic constitutional principle of “equal justice under the law.” 6. Et tu Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court! ============= Irving Gendelman is a Jerusalem-based Human Rights Activist Attorney

.

†Högsta Domstolen †Judeenn  †Samarien
.
.
.
..

Israels extremt vänstervinklade Högsta Domstol river synagogor, inte illegala moskeer.

Knesset är folkvalt, Högsta Domstolen väljs när en domare avgår, så han ska säja vad han tycker. Vänsterinriktningen har pågått länge utan nån hänsyn till de demokratiska valens inriktning. Ett antal försök har gjort för att ändra dessa missförhållanden.
Länk1, länk2, länk3

High Court: Destroy synagogue within two weeks

Judges dismiss police request for more time in evacuation to avoid clashes - despite choosing to leave illegal mosques nationwide.

By Nitsan Keidar
First Publish: 11/4/2015, 6:24 PM

High Court judges ruled on Wednesday afternoon to delay the demolition of the Ayelet Hashahar Synagogue in Givat Ze'ev, northwest of Jerusalem, ordering that it be destroyed within two weeks by November 17.

"We are working under the assumption that the certified authorities will not wait this time with the execution (of the order) to the last minute," said the judges.

The synagogue, which has been in use for over 20 years, was slated to be demolished after far-left group Yesh Din filed a petition with the High Court, claiming the structure was built on privately-owned Arab land. Synagogue members argue that the land was legally purchased, but offered the land's alleged owners a high price for the purchase or rental of the land - however, the owners and their lawyers have insisted that the synagogue be torn down.

High Court judges announced that the decision not to order an immediate evacuation of the synagogue was meant "to allow the certified authorities to execute the ruling at a time chosen according to operational needs" and avoid "inflexibility" - namely the protests at the site by concerned residents.

The judges said that they do not belittle the police estimations that the demolition of the place of worship will bring "riots by extremist sources," but said that the outraged reaction does not justify the postponement of executing the ruling.

They expressed their surprise that the police asked for three weeks to conduct the evacuation, saying that if they had accepted the police request, the evacuation could potentially be delayed for a long time.

"We can't accept a result like this in a law-abiding state," claimed the judges.

Many may view the ruling, and the judges' talk of potential riots not justifying a postponement, as ironic given the fact that there has been practically no enforcement against rampant illegal Arab building throughout Israel, including numerous illegally constructed mosques that have been left standing for many long years.

As of January, no fewer than 57 illegal mosques stood in Jerusalem alone.

The discriminatory situation was also highlighted in the case of Yeshivat Od Yosef Chai in Yitzhar, which was occupied and damaged by Border Police for nearly a year over unfounded allegations of "incitement" at the institution.

Staff noted back in April 2014 when the yeshiva was first occupied that the building looks out on a mosque that has long called to destroy the state of Israel. The mosque has had a destruction order against it from the Supreme Court for many years, although no action has been taken against it.

†vänsterextremism †domstol †Knesset †Antisemitism †Israel. .........