Appalling

The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs (and Trade) has issued a statement that they are “appalled” at the assertion by Israel’s Finance Minister that today’s Palestinians are fakers.

What, in reality, is really appalling are their unbelievably inaccurate assertions peddled forth in a knee-jerk reaction to undeniable historically accurate facts.

Take note of how quickly and energetically the bureaucrats burst into print and compare it with their silence in the face of decades of Arab incitement to hate and the negation of Jewish history.

Compare the hot-air rhetoric with actual cold facts, and you will get an inkling of how entrenched bias and ignorance combine to produce an immoral foreign policy.

The Finance Minister’s crime was that he articulated truths that, unfortunately, have been deliberately covered up over many years. As a result of this conspiracy of silence, the lies and fables churned out by latter-day “Palestinians” have become the accepted narrative. It is safe to assume that foreign ministries and their relevant ministers parrot the prevailing slogans without actually having the faintest idea of the actual facts.

If, by some miraculous chance, someone stumbles upon the truth, it is rapidly buried because it contradicts false international beliefs.

Was Mr. Smotrich guilty of being undiplomatic? Undoubtedly this is the case.

Did his unvarnished revelations deserve the appellation of “appalling”? Judge the situation for yourself.

As recorded by the Jewish Virtual Library:

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most of the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.”5

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”7

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said “Palestine was part of the Province of Syria” and that “politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.” A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”8

Following the 1967 war, the PLO, with the help of the Soviet KGB, concocted a new history that was aimed at eradicating any Jewish legitimacy and replacing it with a fictional Arab Palestinian presence.

Thanks to a combination of inept and ineffective Israeli countermeasures plus a deliberate international willingness to swallow each and every PLO lie, the pattern for the future was set in place.

Anyone who dares to challenge and expose the warped mantra of the UN is automatically designated as an “appalling” racist and a threat to peace.

Will any revelation of facts actually change the minds of the NZ Foreign Ministry? Regretfully the answer is no because, by now, they have been conditioned to not upset the inciters.

The NZ Foreign Minister was in China at the time that her department expressed their “appalled” reaction to what is actually the plain truth. I wonder whether anyone has noticed the ironic situation. While the NZ Government convulsed about Israel, its Foreign Minister was hobnobbing with representatives of a totalitarian regime. I realise that trade trumps moral and human rights causes, but for those of us fed up with selective condemnations and consistent voting against Israel at the UN, this particular display of double standards is nauseating.

Has anyone by any remote chance heard expressions of appalled outrage issuing forth from Wellington or other Capitals after the PA and its supporters propagate vile slanders? Claims that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs and that they have no historical connection to a fictitious Temple in Jerusalem are met with nary a peep of appalled outrage by the same countries which now lambast Israel.

The US State Department spokesperson claimed that “the Palestinians have a rich history and culture.” Unfortunately, nobody has yet managed to name when an independent Arab Palestine existed or who its kings or rulers were. Apparently, it is far easier to swallow malicious fantasies and instead gang up on the eternal scapegoat.

As we prepare to celebrate the Festival of Pesach (Passover), we should brace ourselves for the annual litany of woke-induced rhetoric.

Politically incorrect, especially in certain circles, is the fact that we escaped from servitude in a strange pagan land and started on our long journey to the Promised Land. On the way to that long-promised destination, we received our constitution and learnt the painful consequences of failing to live up to its laws.

The core essence of this Festival is, therefore, the journey to the land, which is central to the whole history of the Jewish People.

It is this message that these days becomes obscured and buried by all those who cannot stand how finally, after all this time, Jews have finally returned to their national homeland.

Nothing riles the Jew-haters and post-Zionist self-loathers alike more than the sight of a resurrected Israel. We have always been plagued by dissenting voices, internally and externally, who love nothing better than to wreck and rubbish our sovereignty. Pesach reminds us once a year that not only do we still face those who wish to destroy us physically, but there are also far too many of our own who refuse to see the return to Zion as relevant.

This Chag is, therefore, the perfect opportunity to shatter myths and revisionist agendas and proclaim why we are here in Eretz Israel.

Our detractors will be appalled at whatever we do.

It’s time to declare “dayenu.”

Chag Sameach.

Pollak: The Military Intervenes in Israel — and the USA

What happened this week in Israel is best understood as a partial military coup, backed by the U.S. government.

The Israeli opposition used protests to shut down the country — and used mass military desertion to force the democratically-elected government to suspend judicial reforms to make the courts more accountable to the legislature.

For all President Joe Biden’s bluster about “democracy,” he backed the opposition, and the coup attempt.

That stance was extraordinary — and hypocritical, given that judicial reform is also a hot topic in the U.S. Biden himself has considered “packing” the Supreme Court to counter its conservative majority with liberal justices.

In some ways, what the Israeli government is trying to do is what the U.S. did in the Jacksonian era, at about the same stage of American democracy — 75 years in — that Israel has reached today. Back then, a growing, changing society saw demands from the frontier to share in the political power previously monopolized by New England brahmins and Virginia planters.

But in Israel, the elites are not yet willing to compromise.

Former left-wing Prime Minister Ehud Barak recently explained the strategy of the Israeli opposition in a candid lecture at Chatham House, a highbrow think tank on international affairs.

He acknowledged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s judicial reforms — which he called “regime change” — were actually legal and democratic. However, he explained, the Israeli opposition could stage a “counter-revolution” in the streets:

Observers have compared this strategy to the “color revolutions” in former Soviet republics in recent decades (e.g. Ukraine). Clearly, Israel’s opposition knew it was going outside the rules of the democratic game.

Friends of Israel are trying to put a brave face on what happened. My friend and mentor, Alan Dershowitz, called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to pause the judicial reforms “just the latest example of Israel’s raucous democracy at work.”

In contrast, consider the Wall Street Journal headline from Wednesday: “Soldiers Forced Netanyahu’s Hand.” The fact that the soldiers were largely reservists barely softens the blow.

It is no use pretending that what happened this week was democratic. The question is whether it is legitimate.

And that is a real question: after all, we quietly accept, in principle, the idea that some military coups may be necessary.

When the Egyptian military overthrew the country’s first elected leader, Mohamed Morsi, in 2013, the world accepted it — not just because of anti-Morsi protests in the streets, but because Morsi was an Islamist.

The lesson of the Iraq War, and the Arab Spring, was that democracy is not the same as, nor as important as, liberty. And liberty requires a foundation of order, based on common principles that give the state legitimacy.

There are some countries, such as Turkey, in which the world has generally been willing to accept military intervention when it is done to preserve the secular or liberal character of the state.

The question is whether Israel is now just another Turkey, where military intervention is acceptable to prevent certain parties from governing, even if they win an election.

And given our recent history, the question is relevant to the U.S. as well.

But first, to Israel.

Israel’s military made clear, through the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff, and through an unauthorized speech by Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant while Netanyahu was abroad, that it would not allow the right-wing legislature to weaken the left-wing judiciary.

One reason was that the left was threatening civil war, which the military sought to prevent. Another reason was that the generals themselves oppose Netanyahu.

Likewise in the U.S., where senior law enforcement and intelligence officials undermined President Donald Trump after 2016. Later, national security officials, active and retired, opposed his efforts to restore order during the 2020 riots, and sought to prevent his reelection.

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis sided with the mob; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley apologized for standing with Trump; and we all know about the Hunter Biden laptop.

In both countries, the defense establishment has been captured by the left — both through the indoctrination of the officer corps, and through a growing cultural divide between the elites and the bulk of the population.

In Israel, the opposition justified military pressure against Netanyahu’s government by claiming that he was the one attempting a coup. Netanyahu still faces petty criminal charges in the Israeli courts, after all; to allow him to reduce the power of the courts and the attorney general would be to place himself above the law. (All of that presumes that the charges against Netanyahu are legitimate, and not also an effort to force him from power.)

Likewise, in the U.S., the military justified its opposition to Trump by claiming, as Mattis did, that Trump himself was the threat to the U.S. Constitution. The nature of that “threat” evolved, over time: first Trump was supposedly a Russian agent, then he supposedly used troops to attack protesters in a park.

(All of those claims fell apart, until the events of January 6 gave Trump’s enemies the justification they needed, and will use again.)

Israel’s coup is not yet complete. The only force standing in the way is Netanyahu himself, who shocked the IDF and the political opposition by firing the defense minister, asserting civilian control of the military, in principle.

There will now be a negotiation process over the next few months to determine whether Israel’s opposition will accede to changes that will reduce the supremacy of the judiciary, through which the left has wielded power.

These changes are moderate, not radical. All of them have parallels in the U.S. Even the most controversial one, to allow the Knesset to overrule the Supreme Court, has an analogue in the U.S., though the threshold is much higher (three-fourths of the states to pass a constitutional amendment).

In the U.S., many state judges and local prosecutors are elected; Congress can even eliminate most of the federal judiciary by a simple majority vote.

The reason that does not happen is that it would be viewed as an abuse of power by the majority. There is still enough trust on both sides of the political aisle.

But that trust is quickly eroding — in both the U.S. and Israel.

The outcome in Israel is unclear.

On the one hand, Netanyahu would appear to have won a significant victory. By sitting down to negotiate, the opposition parties have accepted — in principle — the idea that there must be judicial reform in Israel, that the current system is so out of balance that half the country sees it as illegitimate. (A common complaint among Netanyahu’s supporters is that their votes are constantly nullified by the courts.)

On the other hand, the opposition is still in the streets, and the military brass are still waiting in the wings to take action.

Already, there is an effort to lobby Netanyahu to accept Gallant back as defense minister, despite the brazen power play he tried to execute.

The U.S. is siding openly with the opposition: President Joe Biden reneged on a promise by Ambassador Tom Nides to invite Netanyahu to the White House as a reward for negotiations.

The negotiations are being overseen by Israel’s ceremonial president, Isaac Herzog, who bears as much blame for the crisis as anybody. Several weeks ago, as the protests were growing, Herzog suggested that he would offer a compromise plan.

At first, it seemed that Herzog, theoretically above politics, would tell his former left-wing allies that they had to accept some reform. But then he changed his mind: his plan sided with the opposition.

That accelerated the crisis, because there was no one left to adjudicate the clash between the legislature and the courts.

We saw a similar failure in the U.S. in 2012 when Chief Justice John Roberts, supposedly a conservative, saved Obamacare by essentially rewriting the law. Instead of rebuking President Barack Obama for making sweeping, one-sided changes to the country — the kind Biden tells Israel not to make — Roberts vindicated him.

Roberts acted to preserve the legitimacy of the courts after Obama made the bizarre, and threatening, claim that the Supreme Court had no power to review legislation.

Regardless, the Obamacare decision set forces in motion that led to America’s ongoing political impasse, where each side tries to use slim majorities to impose massive changes on the other. (Biden has learned nothing; he hailed the anniversary of Obamacare last week.)

In Israel, Herzog’s failure to exercise responsible leadership probably made some kind of military intervention inevitable.

Either the military was going to have to discipline the military deserters and clear the streets of protests, defending the democratically-elected government and restoring order by force; or it would have to emerge from the shadows and oppose Netanyahu more openly than it ever had before. It chose the latter.

Time will tell if that was the right choice.

In the best-case scenario, Israel’s leaders will realize how close they came to the brink, and will forge a compromise on judicial reform that inaugurates a new constitutional era. The worst-case scenario is too awful to consider.

Barak seems confident that the “counter-revolution” will win. It could — but at an incredibly heavy cost.

Israel’s ultra-Orthodox population does not serve in the military, but many of the soldiers are religious, and have right-wing political views. Those soldiers obeyed orders during the pullout of settlers in the Gaza “disengagement” of 2005. They may not do so again, now that the left has legitimized desertion. Morale could take years to rebuild.

We have a similar problem in the U.S., where the “woke” military that is studying “white privilege” and holding “drag queen story hour” is struggling to recruit new soldiers from the demographic once most eager to serve.

The danger in both societies is an attrition from the military, and public life, that will leave us open to conquest by enemies who know what they want and are determined to take it. If we are not free, we will not survive.

It is time for elites — including senior command structures in the military — to make their peace with the aspirations of so-called the “deplorables” in our respective societies.

Let us hope for a good outcome in Israel. But let us not fool ourselves: this is not democracy at work. The military is involved. There, and here.

And we must be honest: it has been involved, and will be involved, in America, too.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the new biography, Rhoda: ‘Comrade Kadalie, You Are Out of Order’. He is also the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

A warning before it is too late

Americans for Peace Now, The New Israel Fund, The Israel Policy Forum, J Street, the Foundation for Middle East Peace and Rabbis for Human Rights spread a vile rumor that Jews from Judea and Samaria , described by normative media outlets as “settlers” conduct daily pogroms against innocuous Arab families.

This specious news item has reached the ears of the prominent policy makers in the US government and the 27 nations of the European Union.

Lethal attacks on Jews in Judea, Samaria and the rest of Israel go unreported.

Elected leaders of the Jews in Judea and Samaria do not take this seriously.

They do not understand that such news items motivate Jews abroad and even in Israel to conduct vigilante actions against Jews in Israel

Israel’s protesters are enemies, not heroes, of democracy

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opens the weekly cabinet meeting at his Jerusalem office on February 10, 2019. - Nudged by rightwing political rivals after a deadly Palestinian attack on a young Israeli woman, Netanyahu who seeks re-election pledged today to freeze money transfers to the Palestinian Authority. (Photo by GALI TIBBON / POOL / AFP) (Photo credit should read GALI TIBBON/AFP/Getty Images)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu announced Monday night he was temporarily pausing his government’s judicial-reform efforts in the face of strikes by key industries, insubordination in some parts of the military and huge protests.

While many within the international community, as well as on the Israeli left, will attempt to portray the announcement as a triumph of democracy, it is anything but.

The reforms seek to introduce a modicum of checks and balances into Israel’s political system, where the “court” sits as a de facto unelected supreme legislative chamber that can exercise veto power over every single government action.

The assault on the proposals, apart from the telegenic protesters, was actually rooted in the state’s bureaucracy, which remains highly sympathetic to the judiciary.

For 25 years, Israel’s Supreme Court has operated entirely without democratic constraints.

Not only does the court remain unfettered by any written constitution when evaluating a law — it is guided by such nebulous principles as “human dignity” and “liberty” — it’s also seized the ability to block any government act it deems “unreasonable.”

Activists assembled from around the country demonstrate
Activists assembled from around the country demonstrate outside the Knesset in Jerusalem against the new Israeli government.
ZUMAPRESS.com/Nir Alon

Perhaps most confounding, judges exercise veto power over the selection of their successors, resulting in an ideologically homogenous judiciary.

To top it off, what little power the court has not assumed for itself, it has delegated to the attorney general, who can veto any government action or policy by his or her own discretion.

In the United States, presidents can and do fire their AGs. In Israel, it is closer to the opposite.

As soon as Israel’s AG Gali Baharav-Miara learned of the proposed reforms, she issued Bibi a directive ordering him to halt any involvement in or discussion of the proposals — a strategic decapitation strike on the reform movement’s leadership.

She claimed Bibi had a “conflict of interest” due to the criminal charges he faces in a case that’s dragged on for years.

Never mind the fact the presiding judge has already been selected for Bibi’s case, rendering the conflict-of-interest accusation speculative at best.

Some of the reforms would check the AG’s power.

Ironically, this interplay amounted to a genuine conflict of interest that did not give Baharav-Miara pause when rebuking Netanyahu.

Protesters attend a demonstration after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
The reforms seek to introduce a modicum of checks and balances into Israel’s political system.
REUTERS/Ammar Awad

What makes the situation even more peculiar is that Israel is supposed to be a parliamentary-sovereignty system — like many countries with roots in British law — in which the legislature is granted the last word.

For years, that simply has not been the case. The court has weighed in on everything from the appointment of ministers to the conditions attached to welfare transfers to the location of Israel’s West Bank separation fence.

Netanyahu’s most recent efforts to enact reforms are the culmination of nearly a decade of campaign promises.

As early as 2015, Netanyahu had proposed two of the more controversial reforms: the override clause, which would allow the Knesset (Israel’s legislature) to override a court ruling via a simple majority, and changing the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee to ensure the court doesn’t squash the Knesset’s voice.

Despite Netanyahu’s decision last week to whittle down his reform ambitions to just eliminating judges’ veto over their own colleagues on the Selection Committee, the demonstrations continued unabated. That’s telling.

The protests’ persistence suggests that for many protesters, it is not about the reforms but about “resisting” the newly elected government, even if doing so would disenfranchise millions of Israeli voters.

democratic constraints
For 25 years, Israel’s Supreme Court has operated entirely without democratic constraints.
ZUMAPRESS.com/ Chris Emil

It also reveals the pro-reformers’ diagnosis was largely correct.

It is precisely because the court wields vast, self-judging and self-perpetuating power that ideologically sympathetic elites have been willing to foment chaos and even threaten civil war to preserve that power.

Contrast the Israeli reaction to reform discussion with the American reaction to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

The case was highly contentious, but no one blocked highways for months or closed national airports. That Israeli anti-reformers would shut down the country rather than let rotating elected governments fill judicial vacancies reveals the court is no so much a court as a Supreme Governing Council.

What is unfolding in Israel is not a Bibi problem — it is a democracy problem. And those portraying themselves as heroes of democracy may actually be hurting it.

Erielle Davidson is an attorney in New York City. Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School and director of its Center for the Middle East and International Law.

Four questions about the opponents of judicial reform

There is no reason to impugn the integrity of the vast majority of those who demonstrated against reforms to the Israeli Supreme Court.

At the same time, most people do not know that there are four issues on which Supreme Court reform would have a very positive impact, and certain interested parties do not want that to happen.

The Palestinian Authority and its allies in Israel

The Israeli Supreme Court has issued a series of inappropriate rulings over the last 30 years that approved Israeli government agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization. It did so even though the PLO’s ruling party Fatah never ratified the Oslo Accords’ core document—the Declaration of Principles.

The Court even ruled that Israel should be allowed to supply weapons and military training to the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, as they could be relied upon to protect the lives of Jews. The Court would not accept the premise that the P.A. remains at war with the Jews and Israel.

Supreme Court reform could upset the Israel government’s courtship of the P.A. and the PLO and reverse blind Israeli support for the P.A. as a “peace partner.”

Families whose loved ones were murdered, only to witness the release of their killers

During what was described as peace negotiations with the PLO, the Supreme Court allowed as many as 9,000 convicted Arab felons to walk the streets, on condition that they sign a statement that they supported peace.

These felons included convicted murderers released in exchange for Israeli POW Gilad Shalit. Some 40% of these felons have returned to terror.

Supreme Court reform could introduce normative standards of release, which would require an evaluation of each case on the basis of recidivism—the probability that the released felon might repeat his crime.

Israeli contractors who import migrant workers

Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to Israel contractors who have imported as many as a quarter-million migrant workers to perform menial labor.

These contractors, working with the Israel Hotel Association and other employers ready to hire workers for below the minimum wage and without social benefits or medical care, hire PR professionals to tell the public that these migrant workers are innocuous asylum seekers.

Migrant workers have run rampant and ransacked neighborhoods in south Tel Aviv, yet the Supreme Court prefers to believe that they are innocent asylum seekers with nowhere else to go.

Supreme Court reform would be a nightmare for these unscrupulous contractors.

The Israeli high-tech industry illegally importing workers

Israel’s booming high-tech industry now recruits workers from abroad, ignoring local high-tech professionals who are seeking employment.

Many of these high-tech companies do not allow their imported workers a day of rest or apply for work visas on their behalf, both of which are mandated by Israeli labor law. The Supreme Court regularly turns a blind eye to these abuses.

Supreme Court reform could hold these companies to account and prevent the further importation of foreign high-tech workers.

On the seder night next week, four questions should be asked about four issues and why some of the parties involved are such strong opponents of judicial reform.

David Bedein is director of the Nahum Bedein Center for Near East Policy Research.

Strategic Minute: America’s Rag Doll

A Word First

We take a look at a man who’s been in the news nearly every hour in the Middle East — Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Forget the heap of criticism coming from Washington, this man is America’s best asset in the region.

Click here to read full article. 

Exposing the vile UNRWA Palestinian Education System

Join Simon as he interviews Angela Oakley on how British taxpayers are funding the UNRWA Palestinian education that is inciting Palestinian children to hate and glory terrorism. 😔

👉 Click here for more: https://revelationtv.com/news/Exposing-the-vile-UNRWA-Palestinian-Education-System

Israel Judicial Reform Crisis

JNS Jerusalem Bureau Chief Alex Traiman sorts out the details of Israel’s Judicial Reform Crisis. What are the reforms? Why are there protests? Why are there counter-protests? Will embattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be able to save his coalition? What is at stake for the Jewish State

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?extid=NS-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=1YhcI9R&ref=watch_permalink&v=140613612286298

Genesis of the Palestinian Authority

Genesis of the Palestinian Authority collects articles and policy papers by Bedein, director of The Center for Near East Policy Research and founder of the Israel Resource News Agency. The author has covered the Palestinian Authority (PA) from its inception in 1994 and documents how the United Nations and Western countries working with organizations such as the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) have artificially created and sustained the Palestinian Authority using revisionist history and lies.

For years, Bedein’s main focus has been exposing UNRWA, established as a relief agency for Palestinian refugees. He demonstrates how UNRWA has exacerbated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and created new generations of “refugees” who demand the “right of return” and advocate for the destruction of Israel.

One section of the book is devoted to portraits of terrorists who were educated in UNRWA schools where a toxic curriculum of anti-Semitic and pro-jihad incitement is taught daily. UNRWA textbooks incite students to violence and are condoned by the Palestinian Authority and, not astonishingly, by the United Nations itself. In a list of questions, which Bedein suggests the media put to PA officials, he includes, “Will you remove from all Palestinian Authority schools and libraries the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well as the doctoral thesis written by Abbas that asserts that Zionists worked with the Nazis to conduct mass murder of Jews in World War II?”

Bedein explains how both the Oslo accords (1993-95) and the dismantling of Jewish communities in Gaza in 2005 were disastrous blunders that emboldened the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to continue their jihad for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. He warns that the “peace process” is merely the continuation of the war against Israel by political means. A case in point is the training of Palestinian Authority policemen that took place in conjunction with the Philadelphia Police Department in 1995. Despite the good intentions of those who envisioned this program, it in fact helped create an armed militia for the Palestinian Authority that ultimately was responsible for the deaths of more than a thousand Israelis.

The book is a treasure trove of documentation exposing how the Palestinian Authority has morphed into a terrorist entity while successfully presenting a façade of reason and moderation to Western governments that continue to fund its deadly activities.

Reviewed by Beila Rabinowitz
Militant Islam Monitor

Who stands to lose if the Israel High Court of Justice is not reformed?

There is no reason to impugn the integrity of vast majority those who demonstrate in Israel against judicial reforms of the High Court of Israel. At the same time, most people have no idea that there is reason to doubt the integrity of some who lead the efforts to squelch these reforms:  

​​

*​The Palestinian Authority and its allies in Israel. 

The Israel High Court of Justice  issued a series of  inappropriate rulings over the last 30 years ​which approved​  Israel government agreements with the Palestine ​ ​Liberation Organization, overlooking the fact that ​the ​key constituent of the PLO , the Fatah, ​never  ratified  the DOP, the Declaration of Principles​, the core  document of the Oslo  peace accords​. 


In that context, the High Court even ruled that Israel should be allowed to supply weapons and military training to the PSF, The Palestinian Security Force,  a​s if  ​the PSF could be relied upon to protect the lives of Jews.

The Israel High Court of Justice simply does recognize the fact that the PLO and its proxy, the PA, remain at war with the Jews.


The Israel High Court of Justice would ​​not ​take into ​consider​ation the fact that the PLO will not change its covenant of war with the Jews​, a written requirement of the accord with the PLO.

​​A new make-up of the Israel high court of justice could upset the Israel government courtship of the PLO  and reve​r​se the blind ​I​srael support for the PLO as a ​”​peace partner​”​.

​​*Families whose loved ones were  murdered –  only to witness the release of their killers.
​​

During what was described as peace negotiations with the PLO, the Israel High Court of Justice has allowed ​as many as ​9,000 convicted Arab felons to walk the streets, if they would  sign a statement that they support peace.  

These felons include convicted murderers released in exchange for Israel POW Gilad Shalit. 

40% of the felons released in exchange for Shalit have returned to terror.


​​A new make-up of the Israel High Court of Justice could introduce normative  standards of release, which would require an evaluation of each case on the basis of recidivism- the probability that the ​released ​felon might repeat his crime. 


​​

* Israel contractors who import migrant workers to work under minimum wage​,​  without ​ ​social benefits​ or proper medical care​

Over the past decade , the Israel High Court of Justice has turned a blind eye to Israel con​t​ractors who  imported as many as a quarter million migrant workers for menial labor. 

These contractors, working with the Israel Hotel Association and other employers ready to engage workers below the minimum wage and without social benefits or medical care, hire PR professionals to ​inform the public ​ that  ​these ​migrant workers are  innocuous  asylum seekers. 

Yet migrant workers have run rampant and ransacked ​​neighborhoods in south Tel Aviv.

 
The Israel High Court of Justice preferred to believe that the​se were innocuous migrant workers who ​​ had nowhere else to go to.
​​

A new make-up of the Israel High Court of Justice would be a nightmare to Israel contractors who might no longer get away with importing migrant workers ever again. 


​​​​*Israel high tech industry who import high techies from around the world
​​

Israel​’s booming  high tech industry now recruit​s​ high tech professionals from abroad, 

ignor​ing local high tech professionals who seek work. 

Many of these high tech companies do not allow their imported workers a day of ​rest,  mandated by Israel labor law which ​​requires ​a day of rest for all employees.


​Many of these high tech companies do not apply for work visas for visiting workers, as required by Israel labor​ law.

Hence, Israel high tech personnel demonstrate in the front lines of vigils  against the Israel High Court of Justice, which turns a blind eye to ​illegal import of high tech​ personnel​.​​
​​

​​A new make-up of the Israel High Court of Justice might ​stifle illegal import of  high ​​tech​ workers  from abroad.