Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The sin of omission is sometimes graver yet


Letter to the editor from username: pundit02@yahoo.com
Sent at: Jul 10 2012 at 06:46 pm EDT
RE: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/10/3100306/berkley-faces-ethics-review

To the Editor:

As the agents of record for so many Jewish publications all over the world I would think that it would behoove the JTA to give all the facts of interest pertinent to a story that will probably be carried by most of them.

While it is true that U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) has been a stalwart of pro-Israel policy in the U.S. Congress, and would most definitely be the same on the Senate side, I find it difficult that the JTA fails to note in this story that her opponent in this year's senate race, incumbent U.S. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), is equally strong on issues regarding the US-Israel bond and was in fact the senator chosen by the co-sponsors to introduce the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2011, legislation that serves to strip the president of his/her "waiver power" and finally relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem where it belongs.

I am a staunch independent and in any race I choose to look at the person running, their record their policy and their character, not at their particular party affiliation. In this case, I believe the JTA should have done the same - acknowledge in the body of the story that both candidates seeking to represent Nevada would be a strong vote for a strong and everlasting US-Israel alliance.

The sin of omission is sometimes graver yet.

Dr. Mike Cohen
Zionism, Post-Zionism & The Arab Problem
http://www.drmikecohen.info


Pro-Israel lawmaker Shelley Berkley facing ethics review

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The House Ethics Committee has launched an investigation into U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, a pro-Israel lawmaker, potentially complicating the Nevada Democrat's bid for the U.S. Senate.
The investigation announced Monday, and backed by Democrats and Republicans on the committee, will focus on allegations that Berkley's championing of kidney care benefited her husband, a leading kidney specialist in Nevada.
"The Committee notes that the mere fact of establishing an investigative subcommittee does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred," said a statement from the Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives.
Berkley's office said she was "pleased with the committee’s decision to conduct a full and fair investigation, which will ensure all the facts are reviewed."
Her successful efforts to block a federal bid to close a kidney transplant center saved part of a practice co-owned by her husband.
Berkley, widely considered as among the most pro-Israel members of the House, was seen as one of a handful of chances for the Democrats to pick up a Senate seat in a year when they are defending most of their seats. She faces incumbent Sen. Dean Heller, who was named to the seat after fellow Republican John Ensign resigned in a scandal.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Committee Report: Judea and Samaria



Unity Coalition for Israel

For Immediate Release - July 4, 2012
Contact: Esther Levens - 913 648 0022

Prime Minister Committee Report:

Israelis Have a Legal Right to Settle All Judea and Samaria


A Committee appointed by Prime Minister Netanyahu to examine the legality of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria has issued a statement today, Tuesday, July 4, 2012 - Israelis have a legal right to settle that region. Retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, who heads that Committee, declared:
    “According to international law, Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, the establishment of Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria] is, in itself, not illegal.”
The committee was established by the Prime Minister to determine and cement the legal status of the outposts in Judea and Samaria, with an emphasis on communities that were not built on privately owned Palestinian land but their status was still in doubt due to legal bureaucracy.

The committee issued its report that was subsequently handed over to Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein. In the report, Levy wrote:
    “upon completing the committee’s tasks, and considering the testimonies heard, the basic conclusion is that from an international law perspective,the laws of ‘occupation’ do not apply to the unique historic and legal circumstances surrounding Israel’s decades-long presence in Judea and Samaria.”
    Quoting the report: “Likewise, the Fourth Geneva Convention [relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] on the transfer of populations does not apply, and wasn’t intended to apply to communities such as those established by Israel in Judea and Samaria.”
    “...dozens of new neighborhoods have been erected, without government authorization and at times without a contiguous link to the mother community. Several were built outside the legal jurisdiction allotted to the community. This prevalent phenomenon has required large amounts of funding therefore the committee finds it hard to believe that it was done without the government’s knowledge.”
In conclusion, the report said:
    “we have discovered a phenomenon within the Israeli settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria that does not befit a country that upholds the rule of law. From now on, it must be made very clear to the proponents of the settlement enterprise and to the political echelon that they are to operate only within the confines of the law, and the various law enforcement institutions must decisively enforce the law in the future.”
The committee’s recommendations include the following:

          The government must clarify its position on the issue of Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria to prevent varying interpretations of its policy; a new community will only be built after the government or an authorized ministerial committee has approved it;

         the expansion of a community outside the bounds of its authorized jurisdiction must first be approved by the defense minister or a ministerial committee on settlements, in coordination with the prime minister.

On the other hand, the committee declared that the encouragement provided by the government to the settlement enterprise constituted authorization. According to the committee, communities that were built on land owned by the state, or privately owned Israeli land, with the help of government bodies could not be classified as “unauthorized” due to the absence of an official government decision to authorize them.

The very assistance provided by the government in their establishment constitutes implicit authorization.

Under these circumstances, the report concluded, the evacuation of such communities would be impractical and another solution, such as compensation or land swap, should be implemented.


Therefore, the committee recommends in its report, the government should avoid issuing demolition orders for these communities because it is the government itself that created this situation in the first place.

It was also recommended that the government should speed up the examination of the communities whose status isn’t defined. They suggested that the government define these disputed communities’ status in terms of evacuations or demolitions only after a thorough investigation and a full legal proceeding. In order to ease the lives of the residents, the committee suggested the establishment of special courts in Judea and Samaria specifically to settle land disputes.

To prevent uncertainty and to promote stability, the committee encouraged Israelis and Palestinians to record their land purchases within an agreed upon time frame of between four and five years, after which anyone who did not complete the process would lose rights to property. The committee further proposed that Israelis would only be allowed to purchase land in Judea and Samaria under the auspices of an authorized body.

Americans who support Israeli sovereignty over all of the land designated to  "reconstitute the ancient Jewish homeland" (quoted from the landmark decision at San Remo, Italy, April 25, 1920) rejoice at the definitive findings of this committee.  Israel has finally cast off the bonds of false accusations and is no longer accepting the false designation of "occupation". That terminology is finally put to rest by the findings of PM Netanyahu's  Committee.

It is truly a "landmark" decision handed down by this authoritative source.

The UCI Campaign to move the United States Embassy is substantiated by this edict which validates the Supreme Council of Allied Powers granting of rights by the Supreme Council of Allied Powers international law. This ruling adds credence to the Unity Coalition for Israel (UCI) campaign to promote the United States becoming the first nation to accept the legality of International Jewish claims to Jerusalem as the eternal Capital of Israel. The Congressional purchase of the land on which to build the Embassy was completed after passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 was approved overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress.

The original Embassy Act reflects the will of the American people. Therefore in our campaign we urge Congress to finally pass House Resolution 1006 and companion  Senate bill ????; together they will eliminate the Presidential waiver granting the President the right to defer implementation of the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem every 6 months for "security reasons". All presidents since 1995 have used this waiver to delay the move, thus repeatedly thwarting the public outcry for action.


--"NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM"-- 

is the prayer repeated by Jews all over the world for more than 3000 years.

We hope to gather in Jerusalem in 2013 for the U.S. Embassy ground-breaking that can soon become reality! 

#30#

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Supreme Court vs. Israel


The A Monkey Wrench In The Works – The Supreme Court vs. the Declaration of Independence

by Haim Misgav

The declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel was anchored constitutionally in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. Ever since, it was determined, basic human rights must be founded upon recognition of the worth of man, the sanctity of his life and upon his existence as a free man, and all these must be fulfilled in the spirit of the principles appearing in the Jewish state’s Declaration of Independence.

One need not be a distinguished legal scholar in order to understand that this document grants clear preference to Jews. The Jewish state is supposed to be the national home of the Jewish people – exclusively. Its gates will be opened wide before Jews alone. The borders of the Jewish state were not determined in the Declaration of Independence nor were the borders of the Land of Israel, as all that mattered to the founders of the State of Israel was to emphasize that the Land of Israel was from time immemorial the homeland of the Jewish people in which its spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped and in which it created national and universal cultural assets and bequeathed the eternal Book of Books to the entire world.

At the same time, it is important to remember that the rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel were also recognized in international documents; both in the November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration and in the League of Nations Mandate, granted to the British. Thus, universal legitimacy was granted to the historic connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and to the Jewish people’s right to reestablish its national home.

Unfortunately, the Jewish people themselves, or at least large segments of it, once again fail to believe in the vision of the founders of the Jewish state. Led by phony elites, which are manifest in the central governmental institutions, the Supreme Court, the State Attorney’s office, at the upper echelon of elected officials or at central junctions of the media and the cultural world, decisions are made, which, for all intents and purposes, deny the very right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

Thus the Supreme Court decisions validate the baseless thesis that the territories conquered in the Six-Day War are subject to the early nineteenth century Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention because those territories are occupied by the State of Israel in a “belligerent occupation”. Those decisions, adopted with the agreement of the Office of the State Attorney, first and foremost suffer, obviously, from moral flaws as they ignore the fact that there is no difference, legal or otherwise, between the territories conquered in 1948 during the war of Independence and those conquered 19 years later.

The Arabs have not relinquished one or the other – however, ironically, they receive legal support for their claims from the Supreme Court of the Jewish state.

It is unfortunate that many Jews do not believe in their ability to sustain the national home of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The legal system and all of its subsidiaries has mobilized, not for the first time, in support of the Prime Minister’s delusional course of action. The Attorney General has already initiated “special” courts for the settlers in the true Bolshevik tradition. Blatantly anti-democratic actions are being undertaken in every corner of our public life. The Prime Minister’s office acts as if it owns the country. Cronies are appointed to the most prominent positions. Anyone who doesn’t fall into line – is dismissed in shame.

If what is happening now is not stopped – and it is hard to envision any public force able to stop what is happening – the fate of the State of Israel will be bitter indeed. The vision of its prophets and founders is liable to collapse all at once.
Haim Misgav

The declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel was anchored constitutionally in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. Ever since, it was determined, basic human rights must be founded upon recognition of the worth of man, the sanctity of his life and upon his existence as a free man, and all these must be fulfilled in the spirit of the principles appearing in the Jewish state’s Declaration of Independence.

One need not be a distinguished legal scholar in order to understand that this document grants clear preference to Jews. The Jewish state is supposed to be the national home of the Jewish people – exclusively. Its gates will be opened wide before Jews alone. The borders of the Jewish state were not determined in the Declaration of Independence nor were the borders of the Land of Israel, as all that mattered to the founders of the State of Israel was to emphasize that the Land of Israel was from time immemorial the homeland of the Jewish people in which its spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped and in which it created national and universal cultural assets and bequeathed the eternal Book of Books to the entire world.

At the same time, it is important to remember that the rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel were also recognized in international documents; both in the November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration and in the League of Nations Mandate, granted to the British. Thus, universal legitimacy was granted to the historic connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and to the Jewish people’s right to reestablish its national home.

Unfortunately, the Jewish people themselves, or at least large segments of it, once again fail to believe in the vision of the founders of the Jewish state. Led by phony elites, which are manifest in the central governmental institutions, the Supreme Court, the State Attorney’s office, at the upper echelon of elected officials or at central junctions of the media and the cultural world, decisions are made, which, for all intents and purposes, deny the very right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

Thus the Supreme Court decisions validate the baseless thesis that the territories conquered in the Six-Day War are subject to the early nineteenth century Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention because those territories are occupied by the State of Israel in a “belligerent occupation”. Those decisions, adopted with the agreement of the Office of the State Attorney, first and foremost suffer, obviously, from moral flaws as they ignore the fact that there is no difference, legal or otherwise, between the territories conquered in 1948 during the war of Independence and those conquered 19 years later.

The Arabs have not relinquished one or the other – however, ironically, they receive legal support for their claims from the Supreme Court of the Jewish state.

It is unfortunate that many Jews do not believe in their ability to sustain the national home of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The legal system and all of its subsidiaries has mobilized, not for the first time, in support of the Prime Minister’s delusional course of action. The Attorney General has already initiated “special” courts for the settlers in the true Bolshevik tradition. Blatantly anti-democratic actions are being undertaken in every corner of our public life. The Prime Minister’s office acts as if it owns the country. Cronies are appointed to the most prominent positions. Anyone who doesn’t fall into line – is dismissed in shame.

If what is happening now is not stopped – and it is hard to envision any public force able to stop what is happening – the fate of the State of Israel will be bitter indeed. The vision of its prophets and founders is liable to collapse all at once.


--Dr. Haim Misgav is an attorney and a lecturer at the Netanya Academic College as well as at Bar Ilan University. His book, Conversations with Yitzhak Shamir, is available here:



NATIV  ■ Volume Eighteen  ■ No. 3 (104)  ■  May 2005 ■ Iyar 5765 ■ Ariel Center for Policy Research

A Monkey Wrench In The Works – The Supreme Court Vs. The Declaration Of Independence