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
.
.
.
..