Apparently Very Few Know the Actual Laws

 

We just read a fantastic article from Israeli National News Editorial Page titled “The myth of ‘land for peace’” written by Eli E. Hertz. Of course, we loved what he had to say as it mirrored much of what we state on a regular basis. He made one point which we would like to expound even further upon, namely, why does the world consistently use the Arabist terminology all the while ignoring the reality of international laws and much research which is readily available. Mr. Hertz specifically called out the world for their use of the phrase, “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” which he correctly identifies as a disingenuous term that misleads the international and every other community finding and worming its way into the lexicon used by all too many NGOs who rant against Israel. Mr. Hertz went through the actual documents from which international law is based, and as we have stated any number of times, all the lands between the Jordan River west to the Mediterranean Sea belong to the Jewish State of Israel. The sole means by which this can be altered is by having the Israeli government actually submit paperwork quitting claim to lands and gifting them to another legal governance. This is the reason that the Europeans, the NGOs, the United Nations, the Arab League, Mahmoud Abbas and all the rest of those opposed to the existence of the Jewish State press the Israeli government to formally recognize statehood of an Arab state carved out of parts of Israel. Some of their logic is breathtaking in its audacity and its unbelievably loose attachment to reality.

 

The first test of Arab claims comes from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The General Assembly voted urging of the Palestinian Authority observer to request from the International Court of Justice a ruling on the legality of the Israeli terror wall, the wall which reduced suicide bombings to none within three years, with the hope of gaining a ruling which would lead to its dismantling such that the terrorist operations would not be hindered by the barrier. The barrier was cleared as being perfectly legal and within the rights of Israel as the sovereign over the region, but that was just the initial good news for Israel. In addition to being cleared of any wrongdoing, there was an advisory opinion issued as a cautionary warning by Egyptian Judge, Justice El Araby, from the ICJ and who sat in judgement as part of the panel which heard the case from the United Nations General Assembly in 2003 on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel. The Honorable Justice El Araby warned the UNGA and others that filing further challenges of the legal claims to these lands ran some risks, as he stated,

 

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.” 

 

The straight forward wording of the Honorable Justice El Araby is refreshing in that it plainly lays out as a warning that the Arab arguments against Israel do not have a leg to stand on and if brought before the world courts, Israel is going to win every time. As he so succinctly put it, no judgment for the future can be reached without coming from a solid legal background set by precedent and the stated applicable laws, which when it comes to the Israeli claim to the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, all the cards are held by Israel based on the League of Nations, the Mandate System and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter which all taken together give Israel claim to the lands in question. His advisory basically warned the Arabs not to come knocking on the court’s door expecting to waltz in and leave with being granted whatever they present as their demands, but those do not carry any legal weight. His warnings are specific and make a demonstrative statement and warning against any future of such actions.

 

The insistence by the world in adopting the Arabist terminology that there exists “Occupied Palestinian Territories” only serves to muddy the waters of the debate and do so in a misleading and erroneous manner. The truth of the situation would be more accurately conveyed by terms along the line that these are “Territories Occupied by the Palestinians” of legally Israeli lands. But then, the world has currently adopted almost every Arabist position in their discussions of virtually every subject where the Arab World conflicts with the remainder of the world. Another example of this misuse and twisting of realities is found in claims that Islamophobia is a greater problem than anti-Semitism. This can be proven very easily simply by researching the actual reported cases of these two forms of hatred. The table below shows the actual hate crimes statistics between anti-Semitism and Islamophobic rates over a five-year period from 2012 through 2016 clearly showing that anti-Semitic hate crimes outnumber Islamophobic hate crimes by a factor anywhere from two-to-one to as high as over five-to-one. By repeating the false data as if it were gospel does not serve either population but simply further feeds the mischaracterizing of the Muslims being targeted with greater frequency than Jews are targeted. But apparently the Arabs have adopted the methodology of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, who postulated, “the principle and which is quite true in itself and that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,” often misquoted or paraphrased as: “The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.” But there are other claims made which also fit this paradigm.

 

 

Next, we would like to draw attention to the next misstatement. This is the claim that Israel is threatening to take over the Arab World. That is what they claim, that little old Israel is threatening the entirety of the Arab World. The complete insanity of this claim is immediately and easily recognized by simply looking at a map of the Arab World and Israel. In that map below, Israel is the tiny little red strip of land along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean. The reason why this fabrication is believed by so many is due to ignorance and an inflated view of the size of Israel. Many people believe that Israel is a fairly good-sized nation. When people are told that Israel is approximately the size of New Jersey, the usual and often immediate reply is something along the lines of, “No way.” Such disbelief comes from their view of Israel as one of the world’s great powers and as such it must be large. Well, some good things actually do come in small packages. People read about the inventions coming from Israel, the applications for their phones and computers coming from Israel, agricultural developments coming from Israel, medical advancements coming from Israel and the latest being Beresheet, the little spacecraft which made it all the way to the Moon only to suffer the catastrophic failure to fire its main thruster and slow its decent resulting in it striking the Moon far harder than she was designed to absorb. Still Israel became the seventh nations to orbit the Moon and the forth to actually hit the Moon. Then there is the fact that Israel is often the first nation to set up a field hospital anywhere in the world when there is any large disaster be it a storm, hurricane, earthquake or manmade disaster. These are all things one expects from the United States and thus, as Israel appears to be a match for the mighty America, people mistake Israel for being far larger than she is. There is one advantage to Israel’s diminutive size, one can reach anywhere in Israel from any other point in Israel in under one day driving.

 

Israel and the Arab World

 

The readiness with which the Western World has taken to adopting the Arabist and Islamic references and points of view only serves to assist advancing their narrative giving it preference over all traditional Western beliefs. The willingness, eagerness would possibly be a more accurate term, with which the Western World has come to throw out all of the Judeo-Christian ethos upon which much of the basis for the superiority attained by the Western World has been nothing short of appalling. Despite reluctance shown at times by the Church, the Judeo-Christian ethic is still the basis of common law, the basis for the English and American legal systems, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance and virtually all the advances made by the Western World over the past millennium. One of the reasons given by the progressives for the abandonment of the root of their culture is because of the dogmatic views of sexuality, marriage and numerous other items which largely fall under the classification of morality. Their decision to instead adopt the Islamic agenda is two-fold, first Islam allies with them in their attempts to rid the culture of all things Judeo-Christian and second they are accepting sight-unseen the Islamic Sharia taking the presentation they have been provided by the advance guard of an Islamic infiltration which will eventually become an invasion, just ask Belgium.

 

What will happen when Islamic forces, allied by the far left and other progressives, takes a strong enough foothold that the honest presentation will be made of exactly how Islamic jurisprudence treats such things as homosexuality, marriage, religious freedom and so many other items. When that day arrives, the sad and sorry state that their discarded Judeo-Christian basis for the society with a far more accepting and universal structure cannot be retrieved as once Sharia has been implemented, any attempt at restoring what once was the basis for Western society will now carry a death sentence as once one adopts Islam, there can be no leaving Islam. Anyone leaving Islam after once accepting Islam into their lives becomes an apostate, possibly the only thing more detestable by Islam than being a Jew. There are a number of other minor infractions which carry a death sentence of a variety under Islam. Homosexuals are treated by either being thrown from a tall building, having a wall brought down upon them or hanging, all of which are designed to end with the accused person’s death. Adultery also is punishable by death. The easiest way of putting this is that Islam is not the warm and fuzzy lovable faith which is accepting of all kinds of behavior and aligning perfectly with the leftist progressive agenda, it is as close as in total and complete opposition with the leftist and progressive principles. While we understand that the same can be stated about Judeo-Christianity, at least with Judeo-Christianity we are not being ruled by the Church. When Islam takes hold, there will be only Islam in its most rigid and strict form one can imagine. Everything you may have come to believe about Islam will come crashing down with a finality which will become the most frightening action the Western World will have ever experienced.

 

Take anywhere from two to four hours or so, depending on your reading speed, and read a copy of the Quran. Try and find one which lists the Hadiths in chronological order. To make life easier, we have an introductory piece on the Quran and in the comments are numerous links including some to such copies of the Quran. There is a rule of thumb when it comes to the Quran as some of the verses contradict or even state the opposite of other verses. The later verses supersede the earlier verses which usually means the verses written in Medina supersede the verse written in Mecca where Muhammad originally began his journey. The reasoning for this is called abrogation. Just for your information, the idea of abrogation came after the death of Muhammad, well after his passing, and was in response to a crisis in Islam and is the Islamic version of their reformation. Islam had suffered setbacks and defeats and sought out where they had gone wrong. This was at the end of the “Golden Age of Islam” when the West began to assert themselves. They went back and studied the life of Muhammad and realized that he was rejected and scorned in Mecca but flourished once established in Medina. This mean that the Quranic verse from Medina were superior to the weakness shown in Mecca. The Meccan verses still have their place, they are utilized whenever the Muslims are in the minority as they are currently throughout the West, though this is changing. The calming and acceptance oriented verses of the Mecca Quran are used to quiet any reluctance or pushback against Islam in the early stages of their conquest when they are not powerful enough to force their Sharia upon an unsuspecting public. There is an actual series of steps which the Islamic forces utilize in their takeover of any new lands. We have it in diagram form below. Currently the United States is largely in the first opening stage while European nations span anywhere from the first to as far as the third with some teetering on the forth stage. Once any society reaches the forth stage, their chances at regaining their society and the best hope is to flee or convert now.

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

 

There are some leftist progressives who are familiar with Sharia and the entire methodology of Islam. But they have a plan of their own, and it actually includes utilizing Islam for their own ends. Their belief is that once they have rid themselves and the Western World of what they consider a disease, Judeo-Christianity, then they will simply redefine Islam to match their secular-humanist and eco-friendly leftist progressive politics. They will supplant the Quran with the Democrat Party platform, or at least the one Bernie will be running on as well as many of their other Presidential hopefuls. This is the level of their contempt for even Islam that they believe they can simply alter the precepts of Islam replacing Quranic verses with leftist-progressive polity. This is how much they have disdain for Islam and are simply planning on using Islam and then discarding it once they have their desired death of Judeo-Christianity. There is only one small problem with their plans, Islam is not that easily overthrown. Once Islam reaches the point where they are ready to challenge everything the people thought was the basis for their society, there will be no alterations made to the Quran as the Islamic plan brings in Imams who will decide what Islam means and what good Muslims are called upon to perform. Just for your information, the top of the list is to perform Jihad followed by assisting those who are Jihadists and next are those who finance the Jihadists and on down the line to the lower ranks such as providing shelter for the Jihadists both before and after their attacks have been executed. There is no room in Islam for a competing set of principles and those attempting such an alteration to Islam would be accused of heresy and potentially be considered to be apostates, neither is a desirable end. But the West in now too comfortable in their belief of their superiority, especially the progressives as was proven by their continued disbelief that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Imagine their absolute unraveling should President Trump be reelected beating, choose your favorite Democrat here. But not to fret, President Trump cannot remain in the White House beyond either two or six years depending on the 2020 elections. Eventually the leftist Progressive wing of the Democrat Party will win the White House and very possibly both houses of Congress along with it. Then the real leftist-progressive policies will get their chance to prove that the Democrats really are the people who know how to implement socialism and make it work. If they are able to do so, they will be the first and we do not hold out high hopes that they will succeed. Do not get us wrong, they will attempt to implement socialism and may even go the full route and decide that their superior knowledge and political beliefs are reason enough for them remaining in power until they get that socialist thing perfected. That is providing that Islam has not taken control of the United States, as they will also bring on a socialist form of governance. Their form of socialism is that the elite get everything and the rest get next to nothing, picture Gaza or Iran, Syria, Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and all of the Islamic run nations which have little if any oil wealth. Under Islam it is difficult to tell if it is Islam or socialism which drives their levels of poverty and the great disparity in wealth between those connected to the power and everyone else. We can imagine a day when Americans remember fondly the days when President Trump sat in the White House, but this claim will raise the ire of most leftists who strayed in their journey and landed here. Perhaps this might serve as a warning for them, though we highly doubt such would be the case. But be warned, as forewarned is forearmed.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Courts Cannot be Completely Independent

 

Recently, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked expressed her dismay and disdain for the attacks which have been leveled against her from those in the opposition. This immediately led to their slamming her conduct regarding the appointment of the next police commissioner, and her approach towards the court system. If you wish to read the bile spouted by the likes of Yair Lapid, never at a loss for self-congratulatory rhetoric; Shelly Yachimovich, still believes she should be leader of the Zionist Union and Prime Minister; and Meretz Chairman Tamar Zandberg, it’s Meretz which speaks for itself; an article can be found here. The actual dispute can be put in much clearer and more succinct language, they are upset because they are not, have not been and probably will not be in power for a while. They are especially upset with the Justice Minister because she is not appointing far leftists to the courts and does not agree with their choice for the new police chief. That is their complaint, why are you not running the government how we demand and instead following the mandate of the people who make up the coalition and in particular are from your party. (We must be honest here and report that Jewish Home is the party in which we belong.) Somehow, we are willing to bet this does not surprise many of our readers. We would like to actually discuss one point which was brought forward to refute the disgruntled leftists, where Ayelet Shaked stated, “You have never been fans of the court, you really want it to be a submissive body rather than an independent and strong one. As long as it serves you, it is the center of justice, the minute it rules in a slightly different way; you are ready to burn the place, no less.” She hit the nail on the head and pounded it home, which is probably why they attempted to savage her on social media. Well, at least they played to their ever shrinking base.

 

The left in Israel in particular and the Western World generally, believe that especially the highest court of the land should be the most powerful arm of government and the arena of all final battles. They desire that the court be able to strike down any law even Constitutional Amendments, or Basic Laws in Israel, and even beyond. Their hopes is that the court can change the intent of any law, write new laws and put them into action, change anything in the legal system and they must always be of the most liberal of justices it is possible to appoint. You are seeing examples of their acts in the United States with Justice Kavanaugh. They want the courts to supercede the law, to act above the law and be supreme with the power of a god. I am sure that if they were to get their wildest dreams, they would desire that the Supreme Court could summarily change who won the election simply because they desired the other candidate. This is another reason that Judges must always be from the left. This had been the case for years in Israel as the left ruled undaunted and unchallenged in Israel from 1948 until the election of Menachem Begin in 1977. The means by which replacement Justices were chosen for the Supreme Court were also slanted such that the court itself had a generous influence over who was chosen to such a point that opinion articles often claimed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court basically named his own Justices. Well, it eventually had to happen, a conservative became Chief Justice and there was a conservative Justice Minister and between them, the face of the court has been altered. The Justice Minister also was responsible for some alterations by which some of the unilateral power of the court was transferred to lower courts where proof was required to be presented rather than a complaint filed and a ruling made out of thin air. No longer can an NGO simply present a claim that Jews are residing on Arab land and have their homes destroyed without showing any proof. These were necessary changes but the latest brouhaha was over Justice Minister Shaked politely informing the Supreme Court that she did not care how many people filed complaints against the new Nationality Law, they were not to overturn this law because it was enacted as a Basic Law, the closest thing that Israel has to a Constitution. Again, the left desired a court which had unlimited and unfettered power.

 

Let us discuss what power courts should and should not have. Interpret the law is within the boundaries of a Supreme Court, but lower courts should be restricted to the application of the law as currently interpreted. Even the Supreme Court should take care when altering the meaning of a law from its original intent, this is partially why the debate with Kavanaugh over how he would interpret intent of the law. The courts cannot be above the law; no branch of the government should be above the law. Courts should never be permitted to make law out of their own desires simply because they see the need for such a law. A court with such power could completely alter a society with highly unpredictable results. There is a reason that the branch of the government which is assigned the power to make laws has the greatest numbers of people from the widest representation of the people, the people must have the greatest influence on the laws, as they must live within them. Courts should have stringent and defined limits on altering or ordering a new election such as signs of tampering with the way the ballots were cast or in the way they were counted. They should need proof beyond any doubt and this would include such tampering such as having more votes cast than there are registered voters, an area where there is a sizeable population with some definable variety in affiliations resulting in 100% of the votes falling to one candidate, verified proof that additional ballots were injected into the count or additional votes were used to replace actual votes and other provable reasons. Courts actually should have limited or no influence beyond recommendations upon request as to whom will be chosen to replace a retiring justice. Courts should, over time, change with the variations in public opinion though their lagging such changes is to be expected when their justices are chosen to serve lifetime on the bench, or until a mandatory retirement age if such is the law. Courts are not the law but the application of the law. Legislatures write the laws, Prime Minister or Presidents sign them into the books and then and only then the courts get to apply the law as written. The courts do not get the power alter the wording, alter the punctuation nor add or omit words as they believe the law should have been written.

 

Israeli Supreme Court building

 

Back we return to the situation in Israel. The left is becoming downright dejected and forlorn. Their biggest upset is with Justice Minister Ayelet Shaken as she apparently has, in their opinions, broken their favorite toy. They and the Supreme Court for seemingly nearly forever had ruled over Israel as they pleased often to the chagrin of the elected officials, but because of concessions to seemingly moderate parties in the coalition being granted Justice Minister, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, ruled supreme. Along came Ms. Shaked and things began to slowly change. The tide of change started to escalate, but was still quite leisurely. Things really did not appear to be all that different and there had been no explosive volcanic upheavals but suddenly they realized that there had been a seismic shift and they had apparently been asleep. It was probably easy for them to sleep through the changes as things had been going their way pretty much from 1948, so after a while it appeared that things would never change. Things have this way of sneaking up on people and once they notice, it is often far too late to do much about the changes. This is where the frustration and anger originates and the left is furious that Ms. Shaked broke their Supreme Court Muppet Puppets. Their Supreme Court Muppet Puppets were no longer a complete set and the new replacements were not going to just rubber stamp the leftist agenda, and this must not be tolerated. The fact that they are this upset is close to real joy over here but we refuse to get complacent because, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Of course, he was also purported to have written, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” While we have little problem with the first quote, the second is a bit extreme, but Barry Goldwater had something to say about that as well, stating, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Perhaps that is sufficient wisdom for one writing.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Israeli Supreme Court and the Arab Test

A small storm brewed over the swearing in ceremony of the new Israeli Supreme Court President, Judge Asher Grunis, when at the conclusion of the ceremony one of the Supreme Court Justices refused to sing the Israeli National Anthem, Hatikvah. The judge in question is the sole Arab justice in the Israeli Supreme Court, Judge Salim Jubran. This sparked sharp reactions both calling for Judge Salim Jubran’s head to the other extreme insisting it was within his rights under freedom of speech. Israel does not have an actual constitution and uses a core set referred to as the basic laws as a theoretical framework for governance. This means that in Israel free speech is not codified within the law but has been an accepted right by the majority of the people and government, though there have been occasional debates on exactly how far free speech should be allowed before something is truly out of bounds. The refusal of a Supreme Court Judge to participate in the singing of the Israeli National Anthem sparked exactly this debate.

 

What was somewhat peculiar about this particular case was the divide between those who supported the right of Judge Jubran and those calling for his resignation did not follow any particular political lines. Where there were the expected nationalist and some religious politicians who called for censure or demanded resignation, one also found others from these same camps joining with the voices of the liberal camp in vociferously protecting the right for him to not sing the National Anthem. One point which was central to the argument is the fact that Hatikvah is, in part, themed about the hope of the Jewish people to return to their homeland after a lengthy exile. While this is expressed, no part of Hatikvah suggests in any way, shape, or form to belittle or restrict any others from sharing in the freedoms and rights of an Israeli citizen. Hatikvah is an expression of hope and rejoicing in the coming of the promised return which the sages have always held would come and had been the central hope of prayers over the centuries spent in the Diaspora. The song specifically mentions Zion and Jerusalem as being the promised lands where the Jews were returning to practice their Judaism as had been the Jewish heritage before the Roman conquest and scattering of the Jews.

 

What was of particular note in this entire affair was the complete lack of coverage by the mainstream press outside of Israel. This was peculiar as usually anything which stirs even the slightest controversy, especially if it is between the Jews and the Arabs, is immediately spread across the front pages of the news in Europe and the United States and it drives complete hours and often days of debate over what the significance of the controversy could have on the “Peace Process”. Yet, here we have a debate over the rights of an Arab to conscientiously decline to sing Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem, as part of an official event where the person in question is a member of the Israeli Supreme court. What could be a better set of circumstances than to have an Arab who is a sitting Justice of the Israeli Supreme court in a discourse over whether or not he has the right to refuse to sing the county’s National Anthem when it is part of an official function of the Supreme Court. I have my theories on why this was not covered throughout the world and instead completely and utterly ignored by the mainstream press. To cover this story one would be forced to admit and even emphasize that the Israeli Supreme Court has as one of its Justices an Arab Judge sitting on the bench. To give such coverage to an Arab Supreme Court Justice on the Israeli Supreme Court might become a significant story in a completely separate way, namely that the Arab Israelis truly do have the same rights and privileges as a Jewish Israeli even to the point of serving on the Israeli Supreme Court. A story such as this would put to lie to all the previous stories which were slanted in order to give the impression that Israel was an apartheid state which refused to give their Arab citizens equal rights and treatment under the law. The entire apartheid myth would come crashing down and the truth would have been exposed had this story reached the general public, and when it comes to Israel the press cannot allow the truth to get in the way of their continuous damnation of the Jewish State. Maybe this case of the rights being upheld for an Arab Justice who sits on the Israeli Supreme Court not being covered is not so mysterious after all.

 

Beyond the Cusp