The Rabbi’s Opinion on the Legal Revolution
From what I see in your posts on the matter, it seems that you oppose a revolution in the judicial system. You also called for a protest against it.
But the spirit of your words in general doesn’t suit you. I’ll explain..
Look at the Supreme Court rulings, what evil comes out of them, such as charging payments to the family of a terrorist. Charging an award for BDS supporters.
Cancellation of demolition orders for terrorists and many other endless injustices against the people living in Zion. I’m sure all these facts haven’t escaped you.
And so I’m really surprised that in everything you say you always make sure to bring things up in good taste in the ways of the truth. How is it possible for a person like you to accept or oppose the move that the coalition is taking to correct this situation? What’s wrong? Maybe the way they did it, maybe a constitution is needed. But to oppose includes a demonstration?
I have explained this clearly in several places. As is the custom of reform advocates, you point out the difficulties and failures that necessitate reform. I agree. But the question is whether the proposed reform is the right one, or whether another solution should be adopted. What is important for this question is the consequences of the reform, not the problems that require reform. The move the coalition is leading is atrocious, as is its path on almost all issues. Not because there are no problems in the judicial system. There are, and I have written about them more than once. But their reform shows that they are not really interested in the judicial system or the state. It’s like killing a fly with a cannon. You will kill the fly, but you will create much more serious problems.
And as for the list of problems you raised, you were wrong there too. A demolition order is not always justified, and each case needs to be examined on its own merits. A demolition order can also be issued against you, and you wouldn’t want there to be no system to review these decisions. People have rights and it’s important to protect them even if it’s necessary to create deterrence and punishment. And there’s more to discuss about that.
In general, it is very convenient for the coalition to throw everything at the High Court of Justice. But no reform is needed to solve all these problems. Let them enact a law not to pay the family of a terrorist, and that’s it. They don’t legislate, but they come to the High Court with claims. It’s a shame that people are being led astray by their demagogy.
This does not mean that every decision they make is reasonable and logical. But there are many decisions that people make without reading and without hearing the reasoning that these are wrong and unfortunate decisions. This is not always the case.
But that's the problem – If they enact a law – it's not worth much, because the Supreme Court is very likely to overturn or interpret it differently, and eliminate it.
Like they make news every day that the government approves the demolition of terrorists' homes and they overturn it (one example of many)
By the way, I'm not sure that in the extreme situation we live in, you can go into detail, for example what you said that a demolition order is not always justified, there is a situation of threat to citizens here that is probably not the case in the whole world, and there is probably no choice in order to reach a state of fear and loathing, to do such extreme things.. Each case should be examined on its own merits, that's a correct rule I agree, but there is another rule, that in extreme situations it wears down the warning to behave like that, obviously I wouldn't want my house to be demolished but I'm not a terrorist, my family are not terrorists and neither is the vast majority of our people.
With my uncles, the situation is completely different, unfortunately.
This is hysteria that has no real justification. Politics fuels it. Try to leave the atmosphere you live in for a moment and think coldly.
There are many more victims in traffic accidents, and no one thinks of restricting civil rights regarding traffic on the roads. Taxes on sugary drinks could save many more lives than preventing terrorist attacks, and for some reason there is a debate here about whether it is appropriate or not. Legal control allows us to demolish houses because in the world we are not criticized by international legal institutions because we trust our internal controls. Everyone who understands anything says this, including the most experienced and right-wing security personnel (Yorem Cohen, Alsheich). But the right ignores and classifies everyone as brainwashed leftists.
And beyond all, no one has proven how many terrorist attacks would have been prevented if they had demolished houses on a more massive scale. It is possible that the opposite is true. Controlled demolition is indeed a deterrent (although not entirely). Deprivation of rights and uncontrolled demolition is harmful because it creates hatred and excessive motivation to harm. The assumption that more force will always work better should be abandoned after the age of 20 (in the military, they say that what doesn't work with force goes with more force). It's childish and not suitable for a young man, not for serious people. The arsonists who dance on blood and every time there's a terrorist attack explain to us that we should loosen all restrictions and go wild, these are destructive factors. Don't forget that if the restrictions are loosened, they will also loosen them with respect to Jews who break the law, and certainly with respect to hillbilly boys and the like. Then of course everyone will cry about the violation of civil rights. You're not a terrorist, but a policeman or soldier could decide tomorrow that you are. Either you or your cousin who is a hillbilly boy. Who will restrict this? Maintaining the framework of the law and rights is very important, even when we're angry. Institutions without controls and without restrictions are very dangerous. By the way, this is a distinctly right-wing position. The right advocates for rights and freedom, a strong court and a weak government. The left advocates the opposite. But as usual, we say that the left is right and the right is left.
I'm not saying that there is no room for discussing security policy and legal restrictions, but the situation is far from what you describe. It is worth stopping for a moment and being prepared to think calmly and with common sense and not let emotion and (justified) anger manage us.
It doesn't matter. In practice, we see that the hilltop boys really don't have any human rights from the legal system. There's nothing we can do. It seems that the legal system is really filled with settler haters (Aharon Barak's students) who are hiding (quite pathetically, there's humor) under an objective cloak of law-abidingness. (Especially after what Mordechai brought in one of the columns here). This is a simple impression. The right knows this very well, so it doesn't matter how they get them out of there, the main thing is that they get them out.
Regardless, the houses should be demolished, at least from the standpoint of simple justice. Not just from the standpoint of deterrence. There's no point in establishing a state if we take international law into account. Control takes too long. And the Arabs hate us anyway and are just afraid. There's no need to look for reasons for them why they would hate us. As a collective (residents of the village from which the attacker or clan came) they are guilty of every nationalist attack (especially the Palestinians).
And indeed, all the "rightists" These people are not right-wing at all. They are just greedy for power. Apart from being in power, they don't believe in anything like Gallant (and Dichter and Barkat). They will do anything to be in power and their environment is indeed left-wing and since they are not people with a developed sense of criticism (they are not philosophers to say the least), then indeed at the moment of truth they will be left-wing. To keep things quiet they will do anything and they are not at all interested in justice (see Gallant's administrative arrests).
I don't know why we should consider the human rights of people who don't consider our human rights (our blood is permissible in their eyes).
B, it's hard to miss that you're resentful and angry and it disrupts your arguments. Endless conspiracies that can't be refuted, and you keep pestering us with the same clichés. Please spare us this preaching. It gives you catharsis but I don't think anyone really learns anything from it.
And yes, I know I didn't make any arguments here. Simply because in my opinion there's no point in it. Talking to a wall is not one of my hobbies. It's hard to argue with trolls.
Sorry for the bluntness, but the quantity and repetition are already bordering on trolling (from the wrong side of the border).
Regarding what you wrote in the initial answer, on a principle level you are right that a significant percentage of the problems that the High Court is accused of are also the fault of politicians (although in my opinion not to a level that completely absolves the High Court of responsibility but only imposes it additionally on politicians, including those on the right), but the specific analogy you brought is wrong. The Knesset did enact a law to revoke citizenship from terrorists, the purpose of which is to prevent them and their families from receiving National Insurance payments, but the High Court decided that the revocation of citizenship is merely declaratory and that National Insurance payments should continue despite the law.
I have not been resentful or angry for a long time (I went through this phase two years ago. I no longer expect any decency from the left). It is indeed a shame for me for the Jewish people (which the left does not exactly belong to at the moment), but it does not concern me in a narrow personal sense, since I have not been in the army for a long time, do not pay taxes at all, and do not live in the settlements. It is the problem of those on the right who do and are slaves to the left. In any case, I say my words as I see them and that is it and the voter will choose. At least it is my duty to present things as they are. I do not know why you call it conspiracies. That is how I really see things (and I am not the only one). I look at the person behind the words. When someone makes an argument to me, the first thing I care to know is whether they are deceiving me (and themselves) and do not really believe in what they are saying. That comes first. There is no point in discussing human rights with someone if I am convinced that the person talking about them does not believe in them at all. The fact that it cannot be refuted means nothing, as stated, because it is an immediate impression (like an axiom). And permission was given to the dissenter to dissent, but I am writing this to – again – make other people look at things and see for themselves. The problem is in not turning their gaze at all. Not at what they see. You have no faith in politicians. Your right. Did I come to you with claims about this? So I have even more faith in officials.
I am also not offended by the bluntness (what you said is not so blunt). I don't know why you call it preaching. There is no problem with repeating things many times if it is from different angles that illuminate new aspects of the subject. And preaching is not a dirty word either. Sometimes you have to repeat things to make people look at it whether it is shouting or not. Preaching arouses such interest.
Let people read and be impressed. I don't know why you are so excited about it.
I ask,
In this example too, the Knesset could have amended the law and clarified that it is not declaratory. It always has the last word.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
