What the IAEA Closure of Their Iran Investigations Really Meant

Perhaps we should be starting with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Director General Yukiya Amano statements which pertained to the IAEA’s verification of Iranian nuclear research and development including answers to previous questionable activities and current activities including possible secretive research into weapons production.

 

 

 

 

We realize that you played that ten, fifteen, thirty times and still he said almost nothing other than we wash our hands of the Iran issue and give them a clean bill of health and for more read our nice, dry and hard to read report, if he said that much. So, you ask hoping we have read the report and you will not need to read the report, all sixteen pages, what did it all say? Well, we could answer off the top of our heads, as probably all of you could, it will say Iran is clean now though they may not have been completely honest in the past; we believe them completely now and there is almost nothing to worry about unless they are lying; but we don’t think they are lying, like we would admit we did even if we were sure they were lying, but you will have to trust that we trusted them. Oh, you really want us to go through the report and take out the pertinent parts, FINE! We’ll do so! Trust there is more article after the summary which can wait until you have the time and nothing more interesting to do. Scroll down and we’ll put a nice picture separating the final writings there to flag you down, so look for the flags.

 

The following were the actual quotes which may or may not clarify their findings and positions, but we figured that was their intentions.

 

“From 2002 onwards, the Agency became increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. Reports by the Director General identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran to resolve these.”
The information indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicated that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still have been ongoing.
 
There was mention that their information came from a wide number of sources, another way of saying not to blame them, but just in case there was anything brilliant in the report they said that some came from their own efforts, and then another disclaimer which has to be quoted, “from a number of Member States, including Iran itself.” From here on it is quotes unless in {} or obvious commentary by us. And it will be obvious.
“Between January 2012 and May 2013, the Agency and Iran held ten rounds of talks in Vienna and Tehran, aimed at reaching agreement on a ‘structured approach’…no concrete results were achieved during those talks. …”
 
Framework for Cooperation
 
On 11 November 2013, the Agency and Iran signed a ‘Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation.’
{We could now quote a whole load of legalese describing their agreement and all the trust and measures and validations and verifications and our eyes started crossing and glazing over.}
 
Security Council Resolution 2231
 
On 20 July 2015, the Security Council adopted resolution 2231 (2015), in which, inter alia, it reaffirmed that Iran “shall cooperate fully as the IAEA requests to be able to resolve all outstanding issues, as identified in IAEA reports.”
 
Implementation of the Road-map
 
More Gobbled-y-Goop
 
Methodology
 
More Gobbled-y-Goop
 
Area Assessments
 
Gobbled-y-Goop but here it is in case it might be important, like FoR ReAL!
 
As previously reported, the Agency has focused its analysis of Iran’s nuclear programme on an acquisition path involving high enriched uranium (HEU). Based on indicators observed by the Agency in connection with Iran’s nuclear activities, the Agency’s work has concentrated on an analysis pertinent to the development of an HEU implosion device.
 
Past Resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council
 
The United Nations Security Council has affirmed that the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions are binding on Iran. Between 2006 and 2010, six Security Council resolutions… In particular, in its resolution of June 2010…concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme… all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency.
 
Following the issuance of… essential for Iran and the Agency to intensify their dialogue… providing clarifications regarding those issues.
Further to the Director General’s report of August 2012, the Board of Governors, in its resolution of September 2012… restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
 

Efforts to address the Agency’s concerns since November 2011

 
Structured Approach
 
Between January 2012 and May 2013, the Agency and Iran held ten rounds of talks in Vienna and Tehran… a new approach aimed at ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme should be developed.
 
Framework for Cooperation
 
On 11 November 2013, the Agency and Iran signed a ‘Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation’… proceed with such activities in a step by step manner.
 
Within the Framework for Cooperation… practical measures and technical discussions had been held with the Agency concerning the other two.
On 14 July 2015, the Director General and the Vice-President of Iran and President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran… strengthen their cooperation and dialogue aimed at the resolution, by the end of 2015, of all past and present outstanding issues that had not already been resolved by the Agency and Iran. The actions agreed under the Road-map are listed in Annex I. {Great, now we need to read Annex I}
Security Council Resolution 2231
 
On 20 July 2015, the Security Council adopted resolution 2231 (2015), in which, inter alia, it reaffirmed that Iran “shall cooperate fully as the IAEA requests to be able to resolve all outstanding issues, as identified in IAEA reports.”
 
Implementation of the Road-map
 
In the Road-map, the Agency and Iran agreed to aim to…the Agency had assessed to be “overall, credible”, as well as information received…which further contributed to the analysis contained in that Annex.
 
As agreed in the Road-map, on 15 August 2015, Iran provided to the Agency its explanations in writing and related documents, on past and present outstanding issues. On 8 September 2015, the Agency submitted questions to Iran on ambiguities regarding the information provided…as a basis for seeking clarification; the Agency’s review of information available…any implications regarding the indicators; and the Agency’s questions.
To remove the ambiguities regarding the information…particular locations of interest to the Agency…15 October 2015.
 
On 20 September 2015, the Director General and Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Safeguards visited the particular location at the Parchin site of interest to the Agency.
 
All the activities in the Road-map were implemented in accordance with the agreed schedule and, on 24 November 2015, the Agency and Iran held a “wrap up technical meeting” in Vienna.
 
Methodology
 
In November 2011, the Agency provided its “analysis of the information available to it in the context of relevant indicators of the existence or development of processes associated with nuclear-related activities, including weaponization.” Since November 2011, the Agency has acquired more information through activities under the Framework for cooperation, including the Road-map and the JPA, through the Agency’s own efforts, and from Member States, including Iran. As additional information has become available to the Agency, the Agency has been able to refine its analysis of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.
 
In order to perform the final assessment, the Agency has analyzed all the information available to it in relation to each of the 12 areas, as set out in the 2011 Annex. The Agency has also used the same information to gain an understanding of the whole picture through consideration of the nature, amount and coherence of the information over time.
 
Area Assessments
 
As previously reported…concentrated on an analysis pertinent to the development of an HEU implosion device.
 
Programme management structure
 
{Iran was using multiple agencies and departments and other subterfuges to conceal their real purposes which we recognized sort of; spread over four tedious paragraphs}
 
Procurement activities
 
As previously reported, Iran has stated that the AEOI encountered difficulties with procurement… {poor babies} …Ministry of Defence Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL), thereby disguising the final user.
 
The Agency also had indications of instances of procurements and attempted procurements of items with relevance, inter alia, to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The Agency does not have information regarding any such procurement attempts after 2007.
 
During discussions with the Agency…Iran confirmed its earlier statements that…made a procurement enquiry about a specific high speed camera, the camera had been for a conventional purpose and, ultimately, Iran had not purchased it. Iran also reiterated its earlier denial that a named company had attempted to acquire high-speed switches.
 
The Agency has not received additional information on this topic since the 2011 Annex.
 
Nuclear material acquisition
 
{Technical garbles which is too rich to summarize as the claims and counters are simply beyond belief and other beyond credulity and the rest far too technical}
 
Nuclear components for an explosive device
 
{More technical garbles}
 
Detonator development
 
{More technical garbles}
 
Initiation of high explosives and associated experiments
 
{More technical garbles which only one of us understands}
 
Hydrodynamic experiments
 
{More technical garbles}
 
Modelling and calculations
 
{More technical garbles}
 
Neutron initiator
 
{Technical garbles but you have to love discussions about nuclear physics}
 
Conducting a test
 
{Technical garbles and as it said, it’s just a test, a physics test}
 
Integration into a missile delivery vehicle
 
{Technical garbles all about miniaturization and the rest is nuts and bolts}
 
Fuzing, arming and firing system
 
{Technical garbles and no there is nothing about detonation-cord}
 
Overall Assessment
 
This overall assessment results from the analysis of all the information available to the Agency in relation to each of the 12 areas, as set out in the 2011 Annex.
 
{More technical garbles}
 
Summary
 
Political and technical Gobbled-y-Goop

 

 

 

Let’s Run Them Up Any Flag Pole
and See Who Salutes Them Smartly
Showing Your Love of Freedom
and Feel Free to Add Your Flag
if the Moment Grabs You as You
See This Pair of the Flags for Freedom

 

 

Much of the reports have centered on that the IAEA has found no indications of diversions or of extraordinary mining in or near known uranium mines and that there probably has been no developmental steps taken beyond feasibility and assuring of having acquired the technical ability to produce nuclear weaponry of the nature and suitability the Iranians desired, whatever all that really means. Anyone who expected an arm of the United Nations run largely by third world officials and nuclear physicists whose highest desire was to travel around the world either inspecting third world nuclear sites or attempting to inspect nuclear weapons programs of nations who would just as soon kill as look upon their own people, so you can guess what the worth of an IAEA inspector is worth. The IAEA is also heavily political and not exactly all that enamored with the Western States or Israel and likely more guided by the membership of the General Assembly than the five permanent members in the Security Council. Further, if the people working for the average large city are fairly incompetent and state officials make the city workers look like geniuses, while Federal employees are legendary for their lack of ability, of course all of these have exceptions such as any government worker reading BTC, so you can imagine what any world employees can be in the competence department. The one thing which can be said is the United Nations workers for all of their agencies have some of the most difficult and dangerous jobs when working out in the world as they are often not exactly appreciated by the governments of the nations where they are assigned and often face threats of death simply for attempting to serve others unselfishly and many probably get abuses which they do not deserve. Imagine attempting to distribute aid and food and other sustenance to the people under a dictator who would just as soon see them dead and wants to steal the food supplies and distribute it to his security forces and army which keep him in power and then it becomes no surprise that often the aid is simply unloaded from the ship or aircraft and then left for the dictator to distribute as he desires because it is not worth being murdered in a futile effort. There are reasons that the United States sends troops with their aid shipments. It is true that the United States military should not be used for meals on wheels but sometimes they may be necessary for those performing the meals on wheels distribution to be allowed to actually move the aid. The world is a far from perfect place, something many of us forget or would rather not face as long as it does not affect us and may we continue to live where life is not endangered just because we hold an opinion which others are willing to kill us over.

 

Going to another set of thoughts, something we do here often and what else can be said about an IAEA report we all knew would be a whitewash of the Iranian nuclear program anyways and that is what we likely got. The hope now is that we never reap the ill rewards which are possible should Iran produce and use nuclear weapons or that ever there should come a nuclear war which encompasses a number of nuclear armed nations and a general exchange of nuclear weapons causes a runaway ecological disaster having planetary effects which could only result in consequences too horrid to imagine. Such an event would make most of those post apocalypse movies appear optimistic with the likely exception of “On the Beach” depicted. That was presumably what the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was designed to prevent and the reason for the IAEA was originally enacted and initiated, but that was when the United Nations member nations were restricted.

 

That was before the fateful decision to allow all nations to enter the United Nations as all nations were equal and should have an equal vote in such a body and the General Assembly was opened to every nation and dictator who desired equal footing with every other nation. Fortunately the original nations who were tasked with fashioning the United Nations kept veto power in the Security Council for the five nuclear powers of the time, or their closest allies thus the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France were given veto power in the Security Council, the only body which could order the use of military force. That too will soon be surrendered as the world will decide there is nothing special about those five nations and everybody has to be equal. Once the veto for the permanent members has been erased then the seats on the Security Council will be expanded and the fixed memberships will either be expanded beyond reason or abolished making all nations equal in all things and then the United Nations will devolve into chaos and soon will disintegrate under its own equality as the more equal numbers of dictators vote the democracies out of existence under threat of war, of course, after they have demanded and received nuclear technology including weaponization because all nations are of equal value so they should have equal military power and technologies. We will learn that merit has value but it will probably be learned too late. Equality only works between nations who agree on the sanctity of life, have similar value systems and have a free and open society; otherwise you end up with almost two hundred nations who agree on nothing except that there are well over one hundred who wish to drag the wealth from the most wealthy nations even if it destroys the geese with the golden eggs because they want all the golden eggs for themselves in the name of equality. Such a United Nations will be the igniter for a terrible conflagration. Let us pray that the nations with dignity of the human spirit to protect realize their special place and realize it is not rubbing elbows in equality in the putrid bog where leaders disregard or enslave their populations as in such a swamp all sink into the teeming cauldron of inhumanity and such can only work to the detriment of the world as there is enough heartlessness in the world that without freedom loving nations mutually protecting those values all human value will be lost. That is the number one reason for the free world to realize their precious gift and the value of going to whatever lengths required to protect the freedoms from those who would denigrate all human life trampling underfoot the freedoms which by the grace of all that is holy came from the values which have flourished in the Western World and a limited set of other nations who must remain free at all costs. Freedom once lost is almost never regained and especially if it dissolves from the entire planet in a swarming over the free world of a demographic explosion initially necessitated due to a demographic implosion largely fueled by a loss of faith in Hashem.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Will the Initial Vote in the Houses of Congress Be Meaningless?

 

We have the deal of a lifetime, presumably the perfect and deeply complex agreement which if the Administration spokespeople are to be believed, and who would know better than those who fashioned the deal, such that the complex minutia weaves a web of inspections and requirements which Iran will be incapable of extricating themselves without being betrayed by the particulars combined with snap unannounced immediate access inspections at which time any failure to be within the web that has been tediously structured would result in total snapback of the most severe sanctions bringing Iran to its knees; thus Iran will not progress as a nuclear power for at least a decade. But if one has also paid any attention to the celebrations and excessive elation raging out of control through the halls of power in Iran, one might suspect that either the Iranians have not figured out the brilliance by President Obama and the State Department mediators who once again have made an airtight box just as they had with North Korea, as the very same members of the North Korean negotiations committee were once again put into service to similarly fashion an ironclad nuclear deal with Iran. Imagine the shock and awe that will eventually end one side or the other’s elation when the truth shows its hand and either Iran never becomes a nuclear armed power for at the least a decade and a half or does so far more rapidly. Still, despite the unanimous approval of the P5+1 and Iranian Agreement with a chapter seven enforceable ratification which some are claiming makes any vote by the United States Congress potentially meaningless, but is this true?

 

The ratification by the United Nations Security Council will only become an issue if there can be a vote taken which manages to recognize and demand enforcement of United Nations sanctions being reimposed. It would still require the five permanent members, France, Britain, United States, Mainland China and the Russian Federation not to use their veto power to block enforcement, those very same nations who have millions or billions or conceivably trillions of Euros or Dollars in trade deals to vote to end such deals, even should Iran test a nuclear device in the middle of the waters to their south. That is far beyond reasonable and should not be expected unless the Iranian test was over Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and even then it would be doubtful. The other P5+1 (France, Britain, China, Russian Federation and Germany) have already announced their willing compliance with the deal and are ready for full ratification which is waiting on the United States which has a far more complicated approval system than any Parliamentary system which is found throughout most of the world, so, every eye is on Washington D.C. and while the world waits the media are thrashing every conceivable turn of the cards of fate possible to come out of Washington in the next sixty days Congress has set as the limit before they must present their final verdict. So, what comes next?

 

 

Photo of the Lead Negotiators Taken After Agreement Reached with the Smiles on the far left two Iranian Lead Negotiators and neutral bored look by the man in the middle representing the European Union with the two on the right no more aware that they are posing for the picture which will mark them in history than they were during the negotiations themselves while they either are looking at the real winners or posing as if this was an after frat party picture with the thumbs up, who are they kidding?

 

 

The United States House of Representatives often limits the debate speaking time to each of the State’s Representatives ten minutes each to express their opinions and attempt to persuade their cohorts before the vote is taken. With four-hundred-thirty-five Representatives that results in four-thousand-three-hundred-fifty minutes of debate or seventy-two-hours and thirty-minutes. That means that if we allow for procedural delays and Representatives speaking beyond their allotted time or outbursts which leaving a mere four hours of time per day this results in a minimum of fourteen and a half days or approximately four weeks before every Representative had made their feelings known. Perhaps this mathematics is why the time allotted for Congressional approval or disapproval to be decided and a final vote taken on the proposed Iran nuclear agreement and the results be made known to the White House and an eager media who will waste no time chewing on every piece of gristle fed to them and pretend that they found the finest filet mignon and then pretend their perception is the finest cut of the votes taken in both houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

 

There are some very unusual conditions stipulated in the Congressional approval of this Agreement which is not a treaty and not exactly just a Presidential decree as the Congress insisted and received oversight, but not merely the usual Senate only ratification required by a normal treaty but because President Obama’s successful labeling unusual and break from norm claiming that arms agreements are not normally treated as a treaty but instead simply demand the straight up majority in both houses rather than the two-thirds approval (sixty-seven of the one-hundred) Senators. President Obama suspected, it would be impossible to receive such ratification from a Senate controlled by a majority Republicans even were it to garner one-hundred-percent support from the Democrats, both Independents who caucus with the Democrats and possibly a half dozen Republicans who honestly believe that the President is to be granted leeway on items pertaining to foreign affairs matters. It was likely beyond any conceivable probability that the President could find a full dozen minimum Republican Senators to vote for the deal, thus it was this frightening reality facing President Obama who decided his sole chance was to invent a new class of agreement where because there were six other nations involved and this presumably made the United States an co-equal partner to an agreement, an executive agreement by a President who was but one amongst many in reaching this agreement making it an agreement amongst executives and thus it was a Presidential Agreement requiring only passage by both houses of Congress. This will presumably provide to grant the President a veto over any vote taken which refused the Congressional approval of the Agreement thus then requiring the Congress to then override the Presidential veto now requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses in order to prevent the Agreement taking effect, a complete reversal of fates. Now, it would appear, there will be required that both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, would be required to attain a two-thirds vote each to override the veto and end the ratification by the United States.

 

Oddly enough there are a number of presumptions which make much of these arguments completely erroneous. Let us look at the realities. The first item that requires investigation is exactly how the wording of the presentation of the Iranian agreement before Congress is read. Any initial investigation one would expect that a ‘Yea’ vote would be in favor of the Agreement and any ‘Nay’ vote would be against the Agreement. So, if the Senate voted fifty-one in favor and forty-nine against while the House of Representatives voted two-hundred-eighteen in favor and one-hundred-seventeen against, then both houses would have approved the Agreement with minimal votes required and the passage would permit President Obama to sign the Agreement placing the United States to be in compliance of the terns, limitations and obligations within the Agreement just as President Obama desires. So, the House and Senate both approve the Agreement even by the narrowest of margins, then there would be no need for any veto and everybody limps away satisfied they had performed their duty as they saw best to be committed.

 

But we all know that what we have been told is that the problems arise should the Congress oppose the will of President Obama and not approve the Agreement. It would make absolutely no difference should the Senate, the House of Representatives or both deny passage to the agreement sent before them by whatever margin, then what comes next. We have been led to believe that President Obama could veto their vote to turn down their initial vote and now place the two Houses of Congress into having to reach a two-thirds vote to override President Obama’s veto by voting by a two thirds vote in both Houses of Congress in order to have the Congressional advice be heard and President Obama be instructed not to sign the Agreement thus removing the United States from any of the particulars of the Agreement and should this occur, then and only then would the Agreement be kept from becoming binding on the United States. There is one grievous mistake in the reasoning here as long as a ‘Yea’ vote means ratification of the Agreement and a ‘Nay’ vote indicates one is opposed to the Agreement. Once either House of Congress votes against the Agreement and thereby not approving it that is the end of the Iran Nuclear Agreement as far as the United States is officially concerned because the President is not empowered to veto a negative vote. He can only veto those items brought before him as passed legislation by both houses of Congress. In order to have his Iran Deal passed, he must present the deal to both houses for an up or down vote and not propose some finagled legislation asking if they oppose the Iran deal, thus turning approval on its head and making support a ‘Nay’ vote and opposition a ‘Yea’ vote thus making turning down the deal available for him to veto as, despite what he believes, that is not presenting the agreement for a vote by Congress, that is perverting everything that is holy and true about the American confirmation process and turning a negative into a positive and vice-a-versa twisting the affirmation process. By this method it would become near impossible to oppose any appointment or treaty made by a president and makes them a virtual dictator for their time in office and as far as that goes, also impossible to make them relinquish their office claiming their declaration that their removal from the Presidency was itself a threat to national security. The vote over the Iran Nuclear Agreement has to proceed as a ‘Yea’ vote as in favor of the agreement and a ‘Nay’ vote a vote against ratification and thus either house refusing to approve the Agreement would spell the end of the Agreement in so far as the United States would be concerned. The President could ignore that and sign the Agreement but his signature would be meaningless as the courts would override any demand then made under that signature void; thus, all of the Iranian sanctions made by the United States would stand and any monies held by United States banks would remain frozen, period, game-set-match.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Great and Powerful Bibi

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has announced another power which he has awarded unto himself. I had attempted to think up some comical manner based on Toto, the Scarecrow looking for a brain, the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man desiring a heart and Dorothy who would have played the part of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. Of course Bibi (read respectively as Prime Minister Netanyahu and also intended to give the thought of ‘The Great and Powerful Bibi’), as stated in the article title, would have played the Great and Powerful Oz which was manipulated by and represented the timid little man behind the curtain who decided on the new persona so as to give himself gravitas and impressive dimensions he feared he lacked in person. With Bibi now taking a new and almost completely original definition for veto power over legislation, the comparison might have been appropriate. Unfortunately for you and a letdown for me, I am not the greatest of comic writers if I might be called such at all. So, instead we are left discussing this new power, its ramifications and perhaps a look into the crystal ball to try and divine the real reasons and what future this portends.

 

First-off, the comparison of the veto power as explained that Bibi has assumed and the veto power of American Presidents have only one real comparison, they are both referred to as ‘veto power’ by the executive be they President or Prime Minister. Where the American President must wait for legislation to be passed and then he is able to veto the bill which then returns to the Congress where a two-thirds vote by both houses can override the veto by the President making his veto not necessarily the last word on the legislation and it becoming law. Prime Minister Netanyahu has a completely different veto as he informs a ruling member of the Tourism Minister Yariv Levin. Levin also serves as deputy to the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, chaired by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, of the Prime Minister’s desire to kill any legislation and he is empowered to kill the bill right there never even allowing a reading before the Knesset or any form of vote or override. This makes the veto by the Prime Minister a preventive action making this particular power more attuned to an Emperor or a Monarch with supreme and undisputable powers. Levin stated speaking with Haaretz that the veto will be used very rarely adding, “I don’t want to make serial use of it,” as Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and he shared a “good rapport.” That is all well and good, but any use of such power and even its existence makes the Prime Minister all powerful beyond the norms of his office, but if he was able to get this approved by the coalition, then, obviously, more power to him.

 

The question that this begs is when does the Prime Minister intend that this power be exercised. There is one obvious and one which strikes fear in us here where this power would be wielded, one widely and one to rein in those the Prime Minister fears inside his coalition who might have more extreme views, some might say were made of sterner stuff. The obvious use of such an extreme veto power would be that it was expected that having such a narrow, actually the most minimal, coalition majority at a mere sixty-one that it might be expected for a series of critical maneuvers might be made by swamping the Knesset with divisive legislation not intended to ever pass but to expose and widen differences eventually tearing down the coalition forcing another election cycle and in order to achieve anything productive and agreed upon within the coalition. These petty targeted legislation would be best nipped in the bud and prevented from doing their intended destructive influences. Then there is the feared use where Bibi would be implementing this power to prevent any confrontations between himself and the Knesset with the Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Justice Ayelet Shaked has stated she intends to cut the Supreme Court’s overbearance and overwhelming power to dictate and influence laws by actually reviewing every law passed by the Knesset and then vetoing whichever laws they disagree with and even rewriting or writing original laws and through judicial fiat making these laws be enforced. Many have referred to the Supreme Court as a second or shadow government far more powerful than the Prime Minister and Knesset combined as their veto is not made available to review and their enacted by judicial fiat laws are also not reviewable or removable as any attempt at doing so is simply struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

This is, unfortunately, a trait which has plagued Bibi in his role as Prime Minister and is something his impressive and well recognized military career would not have given one to expect such hesitance and insecurity from one such as Prime Minister Netanyahu. Should this power be intended to avoid any confrontations with the Supreme Court and used to strike down those instances where the Justice Minister takes on the court too directly and with what Bibi fears is too little tact and delicacy. Unfortunately, the only way the Supreme Court will be reined in and brought to more represent the people of Israel and not be a self-selecting and self-sustaining clique which wields power beyond measure will be a direct assault with the full support and backing of the Knesset and the Prime Minister. Currently the Supreme Court Justices in combination of near even representation between the coalition and the opposition as well as the head of the Bar Association and the Attorney General, who is appointed largely by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has influence and a leftist influence which has only been further exaggerated through a string of leftist appointees being placed on the Supreme Court Bench as well in the Attorney Generals spot and any other institutions which are under the direction of these offices instituting an echo chamber where these legal arenas are resistant to change in their political viewpoints and still are representative largely of the early socialist, almost communist, political ideals which were the vast majority the first few decades of the history of Israel which cemented the courts in place and sustained such views across the six decades of the nation’s history.

 

One change which has been proposed both within the government and amongst the legal and popular representatives of the people and the media that the court appointees should have to pass through some review by the Knesset in order to bring the courts and legal system of the State of Israel more closely aligned and able to be altered as the citizens themselves develop, mature and take on new ideas and choose to stress certain political ideals which might differ with an unalterable and moribund court still stuck in the viewpoints of the initial decade of Israeli existence, an extremely leftist viewpoint which stands in opposition to much of the current societal views. Should this and the ability to prevent any of the more extreme and untried views to solve many of the most pressing problems facing the nation and people of Israel be presented by those more to the right or of a more strident form of Zionism attempt to press legislation, this veto power would grant Bibi with relatively unprecedented and supreme power to prevent such views from being debated. We will have to wait and see how often and in which manner this unalterable veto is used. Sometimes it will have to be divined by the media and public whether the reason that certain ideas seem to go silent extremely suddenly and unnaturally. This Prime Minister normally has great amounts of power in a Parliamentary form of governance but this new veto, more of a kill switch, power over legislation will require great and astute scrutiny in the coming months in this new government and perhaps might result in a call for new elections with the greatest question of who other than Bibi can be chosen as Prime Minister? Perhaps this is the greatest question which may fall upon the Likud leadership to decide, but here too Bibi has gathered great centralization of power to himself making uprooting him from the lead of the Likud apparently impossible for now. That may force the people of Israel to seek a new leader elsewhere which should be a step taken with care and serious deliberations well before any action. Such a question would merit being a central issue for the citizens of Israel to consider amongst themselves in the immediate future rather than waiting until the next elections are upon us. Time’s a wasting.

 

Beyond the Cusp