Archive | 2023/01/20

Izraelski sąd: przestępca nie może być ministrem. Premier Netanjahu ma kłopot

Premier Izraela Binjamin Netanjahu (z prawej) rozmawia z ministrem Arjem Derim, 8 stycznia 2023 r. (Ronen Zvulun/Pool Photo via AP)


Izraelski sąd: przestępca nie może być ministrem. Premier Netanjahu ma kłopot

Robert Stefanicki


Izraelski sąd najwyższy uznał w środę, że Arje Deri nie kwalifikuje się do rządu, ponieważ został skazany za przestępstwa podatkowe. Bez wsparcia jego partii Szas rząd Binjamina Netanjahu nie będzie miał większości.

Szef ultraortodoksyjnej Szas, który wielokrotnie służył w poprzednich rządach Netanjahu, w tym rządzie objął teki wicepremiera, ministra zdrowia i spraw wewnętrznych.

W środę dziesięciu z 11 sędziów sądu najwyższego stwierdziło, że Deri powinien je oddać, gdyż w zeszłym roku dostał w ramach ugody wyrok w zawieszeniu za przestępstwa podatkowe i został umieszczony pod sądowym dozorem. Wcześniej był skazywany za korupcję.

„Większość sędziów w panelu uznała, że ta nominacja jest wyjątkowo nieracjonalna i dlatego premier musi usunąć Deriego ze stanowiska” – napisano w oświadczeniu. Sędziowie przypomnieli też, że w ramach ugody Deri obiecał przed sądem, że odejdzie z polityki.

Wicepremier nie ma jednak zamiaru się poddać. – Kiedy zamkną za nami drzwi, wejdziemy przez okno. Kiedy zamkną okno, przebijemy się przez sufit – powiedział na wieść o orzeczeniu.

Gazeta partii Szas „Haderecz” dała w czwartkowym wydaniu nagłówek: „Sąd najwyższy przeciwko narodowi Izraela”.

Lewin chce ograniczyć uprawnienia sądu najwyższego

W Izraelu obowiązuje ustawa zakazująca politykowi skazanemu za przestępstwa podatkowe pełnić funkcję ministra. Ale pod koniec grudnia zdominowany przez prawicę parlament uchwalił poprawkę mówiącą, że zakaz pełnienia stanowisk nie odnosi się do wyroków w zawieszeniu.

Chodziło właśnie o utorowanie drogi Deriemu. Szas ma 11 miejsc w Knesecie i jest drugą największą partią w koalicji po Likudzie Netanjahu.

Od razu po objęciu urzędu premier, który sam ma proces o korupcję, postanowił ograniczyć władzę sądowniczą. W styczniu minister sprawiedliwości Jariw Lewin przedstawił projekt zmian. Jest tam m.in. wyeliminowanie klauzuli racjonalności, która pozwala sądowi najwyższemu anulować decyzje podjęte przez rząd, gdy uzna je za „wyjątkowo nierozsądne” – to właśnie ona posłużyła do wyeliminowania Deriego.

Lewin chce również, aby politycy odgrywali większą rolę w powoływaniu sędziów sądu najwyższego. W komisji nominacyjnej na miejsce dwóch przedstawicieli izby adwokackiej mieliby wejść dwaj politycy. Dałoby to politykom większość 5 do 4, ale nadal sędziowie mieliby prawo weta.

Zwolennicy rządu twierdzą, że niewybrani przez naród sędziowie mają za dużo władzy, a większość parlamentarna powinna móc działać bez ograniczeń. Krytycy załamują ręce nad groźbą upadku izraelskiej demokracji.

Co teraz zrobi Netanjahu?

Netanjahu na razie nie powiedział, czy utrzyma Deriego w rządzie wbrew orzeczeniu. Od decyzji sądu najwyższego nie ma odwołania.

– Jeśli premier nie zastosuje się do nakazu sądu i nie zakończy kadencji Deriego w rządzie – chociaż trudno mi sobie wyobrazić taki scenariusz – to mamy kryzys konstytucyjny, z jakim nigdy wcześniej nie mieliśmy do czynienia – powiedział „New York Timesowi” Johanan Plesner, prezes Izraelskiego Instytutu Demokracji w Jerozolimie.

Również dr Amir Fuchs, badacz tej samej instytucji, uważa za mało prawdopodobne, aby Netanjahu zignorował orzeczenie, ponieważ narażałby się na zarzut obrazy sądu. – Jestem pewien, że zastosuje się do orzeczenia. To nie znaczy, że je uszanuje – powiedział Fuchs agencji AP. – Prawdopodobnie wprowadzą bardzo szybkie przepisy, które pozwolą ponownie mianować Deriego.

– Netanjahu wie, że jeśli Deri nie jest w rządzie, to nie ma rządu – powiedział inny minister z Szas Jaakow Margi tuż przed wydaniem orzeczenia przez sąd.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


The judicial reforms are essential to saving our democracy – opinion

The judicial reforms are essential to saving our democracy – opinion

OMER DOSTRI


While the Left actively opposes the proposed judicial reforms, the Right largely supports them.
.

STUBS OF the different parties from which to choose are on display at a voting booth, on Election Day, November 1. Most of the public came out to vote in free and democratic elections in favor of the measures we are hearing about these days, says the writer. / (photo credit: MICHAEL GILADI/FLASH90)

In recent weeks, Israel has witnessed a piercing public debate about the intention of the Netanyahu government to carry out a comprehensive reform of the legal system in Israel. On the one hand, the opponents, most of whom are identified with the political Left, claim that the plan is actually a regime coup that will lead Israel to the loss of democracy and turn it into a dictatorship, no less.

On the other hand, the supporters of the plan claim that the changes are necessary in view of the strengthening of the judicial authority vis-à-vis the executive and legislative authorities, which led to an imbalance and the actual elimination of the separation of powers in the country.

Opposing forces

The opposition camp was joined – as expected – by most civil society organizations, closed elitist cliques and unions (retired commanders, security personnel, judges and lawyers, reserve pilots, and politicians and public figures belonging to the same branch) and media in Israel. The latter went to the battlefield while trying to help lead loud public pressure against the incumbent government in any way possible.

The highlight event, so far, of the opponents came last Saturday night in the form of a mass demonstration in Tel Aviv. The demonstration received indulgent and supportive media coverage, designed to exert maximum pressure on the government, including promos on the news channels, pompous headlines, live breaking news, live updates on the Telegram channels and on Twitter about every protester who arrived on the scene, exciting selfies of enthusiastic journalists who came to cover the demonstration and more.

In the face of this massive pressure campaign – with the help of international factors – the current government must not surrender. Most of the Israeli public came out en masse to vote in free and democratic elections exactly in favor of the measures we are hearing about these days.

CENTRAL ELECTION Committee workers count the remaining ballots at the Knesset last week. (credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)

In the end, in order to restore the balance in the separation of authorities in Israel, it is necessary to curb the legal system that has gained unimaginable power following the judicial coup carried out by the former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak without any struggle on the part of the Knesset and the government. The desire now of the current Netanyahu government and Minister of Justice Yariv Levin is to return the situation to the way it was before.

And here the question arises: did democracy not exist in Israel until 1993, when the illegal changes were made in the relations between the authorities? It certainly existed and therefore the hysterical outcry of the Left camp does not reflect reality.

Furthermore, most of the changes in Levin’s plan are intended to strengthen the separation of powers and to give a broader expression to the elected officials sent to parliament by the people. This is at the expense of government officials and judges who are not elected and who have no responsibility for their rulings or actions but still enjoy powerful and unprecedented powers.

This need was understood even in the Left camp in 1993, when the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin – with the help of the Meretz party and Aharon Barak itself – added an override clause to the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. Finally, it is important to remember that the original purpose of the court was to resolve conflicts and struggles between the citizens of the country in a peaceful manner in accordance with the law of the state and not to interfere in the government’s policy, let alone not to legislate themselves.

And what about the way the judges are chosen? Isn’t it appropriate that the judges do not choose themselves? Is there a more legitimate and reasonable demand that elected officials from the executive and legislative branches be the ones to choose the judges, alongside the representatives of the judges on the committee, whose voices will, of course, be heard?

Seniority rules

Levin’s proposal regarding changing the appointment of the president of the Supreme Court, abolishing the seniority system, is also important and necessary. Why, therefore, should the president of the Supreme Court be appointed according to his seniority and not according to his qualifications? Would we like to see a business owner or organization that would promote employees or managers only because of their seniority, while hardworking, professional and more suitable employees are left behind?

The government’s plan also includes a reference to the cancellation of the reasonableness standard. Today, this pretext allows the court to invalidate and frustrate the decisions of the elected echelon by vague and abstract means. The magic word unreasonable is enough to damage the policy that the minister is trying to promote. Since they are flesh-and-blood judges, despite the beautiful cloak and aura surrounding their position, there is no reason to assume that they better understand than others what is a reasonable decision and what is unreasonable.

Rather, such a determination should be accepted by a broad consensus, from a person with responsibility accompanying his powers, who was sent to his position by the people and who received a mandate from the citizens to represent them and promote the view of their faith – of course, in accordance with the laws of the state.

Opponents of the plan also complain about the intention to turn the legal adviser from a professional position into a position of trust. However, this is a necessary step since the role of the legal adviser, as the name indicates, is to advise the minister on the correct legal way to promote his decisions and policies.

The fact that the adviser will become a personal appointment does not mean that the minister will break the law or that the legal adviser will allow him to do so – obviously, the adviser will act in accordance with the laws of the state. Otherwise, the goal is to streamline and simplify the decision-making processes in the government ministries, which today are sometimes thwarted and slandered by legal advisers who do not like the minister’s policy and are not enthusiastic to help promote it, to say the least.

If so, the government’s plan for changes in the judicial system not only does not harm democracy, it is intended to restore and strengthen the democratic foundations in the state that have eroded and even disappeared in recent decades since the undemocratic judicial revolution. Hence, the threats and intimidation of the Left camp regarding the end of democracy are not aimed at the necessary changes in the judicial system, but refer to the very existence of the right-wing government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The issue is not the reform of the judicial system but a lack of readiness and willingness to accept the people’s decision and the democratic results of the latest elections. The irony is that the very same people who claimed against Netanyahu that he was dragging Israel into repeated rounds of elections, now disavow the results of the elections that were held only two months ago and demand a rematch. In other words, they want to drag Israel into further elections. Is there a limit to their hypocrisy and duplicity?


The writer is a researcher and an Israeli publicist. He also holds a PhD in political studies.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan Raises Israeli Judicial Reforms in Meeting with Netanyahu: Report

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan Raises Israeli Judicial Reforms in Meeting with Netanyahu: Report

Andrew Bernard


White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delivers remarks during a press briefing inside the White House in Washington, U.S., February 4, 2021. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan raised the issue of Israel’s impending judicial reform measures in a one-on-one meeting Thursday with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Walla news reported Thursday.

Sullivan’s discussion of the judicial reforms marks the first time that the issue has been raised by the Biden administration, which has taken a cautious approach towards the new right-wing Israeli government. Statements by President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides have stressed the “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel and continuing alignment between the two governments on security issues, while preemptively suggesting that the Biden administration would be opposed to any measures that “contradict our mutual interests and values” or that might undermine the two-state solution

The White House readout of Sullivan’s meeting, however, omitted any discussion of the judicial reform package, saying instead that in his meetings with Netanyahu and other Israeli officials that he discussed regional security threats including Iran, as well as Ukraine and the growing military partnership between Iran and Russia. The White House also issued a joint statement Sullivan made with his counterparts from Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain about improving ties between the signatories of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain.

Israel has faced domestic mass protests in recent days over the publication of four draft bills that would significantly curtail the judiciary’s ability to strike down laws and would give the Knesset greater control over judicial appointments. Critics of the legislation, including Israel’s Chief Justice Esther Hayut, say the reforms are a threat to Israeli democracy, while its proponents argue that the measures are necessary to hold the courts accountable to the popularly elected government.

The issue came to a head on Wednesday as Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that Shas Party leader Aryeh Deri cannot continue to serve as Israel’s Health Minister and Interior Minister because of his repeated criminal convictions. The court used a “reasonableness” standard in making its ruling that faces abolition under the judicial reform package.

“A decision against Minister Deri will constitute severe damage to the choice of hundreds of thousands of voters. If the court wants to use the ‘legal unreasonableness’ clause, the issue will be brought before the prime minister and [the clause] will be canceled. Is it not ‘reasonable’ in the eyes of the judges that 400,000 voted for Shas,” said Ya’acov Margi, a Shas MK.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com