SUPREME COURT JUDGES ARE TRAITORS

The analysis which Steven Plaut makes continually of Israeli politics is being proved more and more correct. This is especially so in the recent Israeli High Court Ruling which backs Sharon over the Gaza Treacherous and Traitorous Betrayal.

Basically Plaut argues that the Israeli Establishment, especially the Media and High Court, is in the hands of a Stalinist and Totalitarian cabal, the remnants of Oslo. There are many there who do not like Israel and want it destroyed forthwith!

The following analysis of the High Court decision by Haaritz and posted by Ted Belman of Israpundit bears this out. That decision is traitorous in the extreme.

There was one dissenting voice and here Ted focuses on him, a man by the name of Edmond Levy, who slashes the Court decision on every score, historical moral and legal, showing it to be a farce.

But, and this to me is the really interesting item, Levy himself says that Israelis must obey the law of evacuation, ie betrayal.

This reminds me of those old democratic centralist stalinists who would argue: “Look comrade. The party may be wrong! But the party is always right! So you get out there and sell those bloody newspapers and don’t forget to fight for the fund!”

Levy is saying to the Yesha Jews. “You are correct. But although I agree with you, this court of which I am a part is going to screw you. So screw you!”

Such is life in the Sharonesque Gulag!


Levy: Law violates settlers' rights, freedom, dignity
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz

The law governing the disengagement from Gaza is so illegal that it ought to be declared null and void - but the settlers must obey it nonetheless, Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy wrote in his dissent to the court's ruling upholding the law.

Levy, the lone dissenter, was scathing in his criticism of the legislation. It violates the settlers' property rights, their freedom of occupation and, above all, their human dignity - "a rare combination that is virtually unparalleled," he wrote.

Nevertheless, he continued, now that a majority of the court has declared it constitutional, "all of us are obligated to obey the law, even if there are some who will be compelled to do so with gritted teeth. For we must remember this - we are brothers and responsible for each other, both in the difficult days that lie before us and after the storm has subsided."

Levy disagreed with the majority on almost every issue, including the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza. After surveying the legal history of these areas, including various League of Nations and UN decisions, he concluded that Israel was not an "occupying power," but rather had a right to those lands - both a historic right and "a right anchored in international law." Israel never conceded this right in any of its agreements with the Palestinians, he continued, and could only do so by a "constitutional act" such as a Basic Law.

However, he said, Israel is de facto conceding its rights through the disengagement. Therefore, the pullout "will ultimately undermine the Jewish people's right to settle even in those parts of the land where there is a consensus that they should remain under Israeli sovereignty under any future agreement."
Additionally, he said, the fact the disengagement so starkly contradicts the platform on which Ariel Sharon and the Likud were elected is a major constitutional problem. "The degree to which the prime minister and Likud MKs who support the disengagement have deviated from the principles on which they were elected to their posts is so great that it distorts the will of the voters and damages the principles of the democratic system," he wrote.

withdrawal from Gaza, which was the key policy plank of his rival, Amram Mitzna. Thus, Sharon voters thought they were voting against unilateral withdrawal - only to discover, when it was too late, that they had in fact voted for it.

Levy dismissed the idea that the court should show deference to the government on political or foreign policy issues, saying the court "cannot and may not refrain from deciding on certain issues just because they are diplomatic or political in nature. `Politics' is not a magic word that negates judicial review."

And he also rejected the argument that, since basic rights may legally be infringed for an appropriate purpose, the disengagement was constitutional despite its violations of settlers' rights. Citing various top security officials who have been quoted in the press criticizing the disengagement (the court decided not to allow security experts to testify in person), Levy concluded that the withdrawal would not improve Israel's security, and therefore did not further any "appropriate purpose" that would justify violating constitutional rights.