Amona effect: Likud introduces new Basic Law to fight off Bagatz.

[Lipush]

MK Mickey Zohar introduced in the Knesset an new Basic Law to limit the power of the Supreme Court (Bagatz) to order the eviction of entire Jewish communities from their homes as was the case in Amona this week.

Under the bill, titled 'Basic Law: Standing,' lawsuits claiming developed land as privately owned could only be brought by the individual or individuals claiming ownership of the land, and not by a third party. Israel's Supreme Court, as opposed to the United States, allows anyone to bring a suit, whether he has standing with respect to the claim or not. Left wing NGOs have used this to claim Arab ownership of lands without any specific claim by a landowner.

The Basic Laws function as Israel's constitution.

Bill introduced to reduce powers of Supreme Court

-----------------------------

I get the feeling this won't be authorized by the Supreme Court.

 

[Penelope]

Well lets hope not. Those are illegal settlement homes right?

 

[Lipush]

Well lets hope not. Those are illegal settlement homes right?

It is in reaction to Amona, but speaks in General about not having foreign individuals/ organizations interfearing in cases. Not only about settlements issues.

That being said, the intire issue of Bagatz having the final word in any issue is undemocratic and unjustified.

 

[Bleipriester]

Well lets hope not. Those are illegal settlement homes right?

It is in reaction to Amona, but speaks in General about not having foreign individuals/ organizations interfearing in cases. Not only about settlements issues.

That being said, the intire issue of Bagatz having the final word in any issue is undemocratic and unjustified.

Why? Shouldn´t it be harder to introduce a constitutional law? And shouldn´t it be labeled undemocratic and unjustified to take more and more land?

 

[Lipush]

Well lets hope not. Those are illegal settlement homes right?

It is in reaction to Amona, but speaks in General about not having foreign individuals/ organizations interfearing in cases. Not only about settlements issues.

That being said, the intire issue of Bagatz having the final word in any issue is undemocratic and unjustified.

Why? Shouldn´t it be harder to introduce a constitutional law? And shouldn´t it be labeled undemocratic and unjustified to take more and more land?

We are in conflicts with the Arabs, and in times of war it's not the high court who decides on issues, but the government. The same one that was chosen by the citizens.

And Why? Because of the same thing I just wrote. I didn't vote for the judges who sit on the high-court chairs. I voted for the people who sit on the Knesset chairs. Some I like, Some I hardly disagree with, but they were voted for, fairly.

What exactly gives the high court to just offhandedly eliminate bills and offers? Expecially when they do it under their own personal agendas?

 

[Bleipriester]

Well lets hope not. Those are illegal settlement homes right?

It is in reaction to Amona, but speaks in General about not having foreign individuals/ organizations interfearing in cases. Not only about settlements issues.

That being said, the intire issue of Bagatz having the final word in any issue is undemocratic and unjustified.

Why? Shouldn´t it be harder to introduce a constitutional law? And shouldn´t it be labeled undemocratic and unjustified to take more and more land?

We are in conflicts with the Arabs, and in times of war it's not the high court who decides on issues, but the government. The same one that was chosen by the citizens.

And Why? Because of the same thing I just wrote. I didn't vote for the judges who sit on the high-court chairs. I voted for the people who sit on the Knesset chairs. Some I like, Some I hardly disagree with, but they were voted for, fairly.

What exactly gives the high court to just offhandedly eliminate bills and offers? Expecially when they do it under their own personal agendas?

That´s the job of the court. A democratic control instance that watches the government. Israel also has a democratic issue with the Knesset and government because even the winner, Likud, has only 23,4 %. Your criticism can not completely be denied but a coalition of 6 different parties is hardly what even a single voter had in mind. While none of the parties do really represent the people´s will, this coalition does it even less. You see, democracy is often just democrazy and provides everyone with plenty of targets to attack.

 

[Penelope]

You know that the Palestinians do not have a deed to the land is all. So then you can just take it.

 

[Lipush]

Well lets hope not. Those are illegal settlement homes right?

It is in reaction to Amona, but speaks in General about not having foreign individuals/ organizations interfearing in cases. Not only about settlements issues.

That being said, the intire issue of Bagatz having the final word in any issue is undemocratic and unjustified.

Why? Shouldn´t it be harder to introduce a constitutional law? And shouldn´t it be labeled undemocratic and unjustified to take more and more land?

We are in conflicts with the Arabs, and in times of war it's not the high court who decides on issues, but the government. The same one that was chosen by the citizens.

And Why? Because of the same thing I just wrote. I didn't vote for the judges who sit on the high-court chairs. I voted for the people who sit on the Knesset chairs. Some I like, Some I hardly disagree with, but they were voted for, fairly.

What exactly gives the high court to just offhandedly eliminate bills and offers? Expecially when they do it under their own personal agendas?

That´s the job of the court. A democratic control instance that watches the government. Israel also has a democratic issue with the Knesset and government because even the winner, Likud, has only 23,4 %. Your criticism can not completely be denied but a coalition of 6 different parties is hardly what even a single voter had in mind. While none of the parties do really represent the people´s will, this coalition does it even less. You see, democracy is often just democrazy and provides everyone with plenty of targets to attack.

It would have been acceptable if the actions they took were not so dipped on political agendas. And their job is to watch over to when the state clearly crosses the line, it is not their job to just eliminate bills ofhandedly.

What is the point of me, the little person, voting at all, if any judge in his high tower can just eliminate bills which the people I elected offered, just because? At the same breath, I could vote for the judges at the court. The idea of having Members of the Knesset is to do what civilians believe is good for the nation. Judges are not leaders, and they can look at the law from many sides, not neceserally the side accepted by the people. And justice is subjective.

The people chose the Likud. We have so many parties it's almost impossible for one to have most of the votes. There are parties I haven't even heard about. The Zionist camp lost the votes evne though the media obviously favorited them. At the end of the day, the Likud were chosen democratically.

 

[Lipush]

You know that the Palestinians do not have a deed to the land is all. So then you can just take it.

I don't know what that means.

 

[Bleipriester]

It would have been acceptable if the actions they took were not so dipped on political agendas. And their job is to watch over to when the state clearly crosses the line, it is not their job to just eliminate bills ofhandedly.

What is the point of me, the little person, voting at all, if any judge in his high tower can just eliminate bills which the people I elected offered, just because? At the same breath, I could vote for the judges at the court. The idea of having Members of the Knesset is to do what civilians believe is good for the nation. Judges are not leaders, and they can look at the law from many sides, not neceserally the side accepted by the people. And justice is subjective.

Maybe, in the opinion of the judges the state did cross the line. Not only intended the bill to support illegal settlements but also to limit the court´s power to order their evictions. The pro-settlement people clearly know about the legal status of their plans and try to bypass and tie the existing law.

The people chose the Likud. We have so many parties it's almost impossible for one to have most of the votes. There are parties I haven't even heard about. The Zionist camp lost the votes evne though the media obviously favorited them. At the end of the day, the Likud were chosen democratically.

I have heard that argument and my answer is that the existence of many parties does not automatically reduce each party´s voter share. We have dozens of parties as well. I do not say Likud has not been lawfully elected. I say, its legitimation is questioned due to low approval despite victory in the elections. However, it may be true since the polls did not suggest a Likud victory, idk.

 

[RoccoR]

Lipush, Penelope, et al,

Boy, it did not take long for this to degenerate.

You know that the Palestinians do not have a deed to the land is all. So then you can just take it.

I don't know what that means.

(COMMENT)

You know that a "deed" is a document pretating to real-estate property ownership. It has nothing to do with sovereignty; nothing at all.

The purchase of Alaska was done by Treaty: Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868)
The Louisiana Purchase Treaty.jpg (1803)​

In the case of Israel, the territory was acquired by Declaration and defended against armed aggression; demonstrating its sovereignty.

I do not think it even matters that the Hostile Arab Palestinians agree or not. It is simply impractical to hand back. And it is just as impractical to permit the entry of radical Islamic terrorist dedicated and sworn to jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R