web analytics
January 18, 2017 / 20 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Ayelet Shaked’

Shaked to Victorious Trump: Let’s Move that Embassy to Jerusalem!

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) on Wednesday morning issued a statement calling on President Elect Donald Trump to make good on his campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“I congratulate US President Elect Donald Trump, a true friend of Israel,” Shaked said. “I’m certain Trump will know how to courageously navigate the free world to successful destinations in the war against world terrorism. This is an opportunity for the American Administration to move the United States’ embassy to Jerusalem, Israel’s eternal capital city.”

Shaked noted that “such a move would symbolize the tight connection and deep friendship between our two countries.”

Back in October, Ivanka Trump told assembled members of The Shul of Bal Harbour in Surfside, Florida, that her father would “100 percent” move the US embassy to Jerusalem should he be elected president.

A year ago, in an appearance before the Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump would not go on record as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but last January he said the city was “the eternal capital” of Israel and that he was “100 percent for” moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 was passed by Congress on October 23, 1995, calling for initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999. Congress even attempted to withhold 50% of the State Department budget for Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened. The same act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.

Since its passage, the law has never been implemented by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who saw it as an infringement on their constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy. To add insult to injury, all three, Clinton, Bush and Obama, had pledged on their campaign trails to move the embassy to the “eternal city.”

JNi.Media

Shaked Blinks First But Wins Advantage in Contest with High Court President

Sunday, November 6th, 2016

The mark of a statesman—or, in this case, a stateswoman—is their ability to retreat momentarily for the sake of future victories. In her very public and very aggressive contest against Supreme Court President, Justice Miriam Naor, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) collected her winnings and stepped back, knowing she was not yet prepared to pay the full price of a complete victory.

Shaked is spearheading several concurrent moves, all of which have provided the context for a proposed bill by Yisrael Beiteinu MKs—with Shaked’s blessings—to deprive the Supreme Court members of the Judicial Appointments Commission of their veto power over Supreme Court candidates. The moves the Justice Minister was advancing behind the cover of the new bill were a Netanyahu cabinet request for a 7-month delay of the decree to demolish the Amona community in Samaria; a new Regulation Act to compel Arab claimants who prove they own the land belonging to Jewish communities to accept market value as compensation; and a list of appointments to the Supreme Court which the current Court members loath.

Last week, Justice Naor lost her cool, sending a leaked letter to Shaked telling her the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission bill was tantamount to placing a gun on the table. On Sunday the two women met and Shaked eventually consented to putting a temporary lid on her bill — depending on how well the court would deal with her proposed appointments to replace four retiring justices—that’s 4 out of 15—in 2017.

Shaked’s candidates are considered brilliant, and they are also critical of the judicial activism of the court over the past 40 years, since the Likud party for the first time won a decisive electoral victory and relegated the Labor party to what eventually became a perpetual seat with the loyal opposition.

There’s Prof. Gideon Sapir from Bar Ilan University, who has voiced his loud criticism of the high court for neglecting the national component in their decisions. Sapir was harsh in his criticism of the court’s support for the uprooting of Gush Katif’s Jews in 2005.

Then there’s Judge Yosef Elron, who enjoys the backing of Finance Minsiter Moshe Kahlon (Kulanu) who is a member of the appointments committee, and also the support of the two members of the bar on the committee. The justices don’t like Elron and prefer to appoint in his place an insider, one of their own, Ron Sokol, the son-in-law of former Supreme Court Justice Theodor Or.

Shaked’s list of 28 candidates also includes Professor Aviad Hacohen, who writes the judiciary column for Shledon Adelson’s daily Israel Hayom, as well as Tel Aviv District Court Judge George Karra, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Chaled Kabub, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Dr. Michal Agmon-Gonen, Central District Court Judge Menachem Finkelstein, Haifa District Court Judge Yael Willner, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Ruth Ronnen, Central District Court Judge Prof. Ofer Grosskopf, Central District Court Judge Michal Nadav, Jerusalem District Court Judge Tamar Bazak Rappaport, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Gilad Neuthal, Official Receiver General Prof. David Hahn, Adv. Asaf Posner, Prof. Aviad Hacohen, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Dr. Kobi Vardi, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Shaul Shohat, Nazareth District Court Judge Asher Kula, Jerusalem District Court Judge Nava Ben-Or, Jerusalem District Court Judge Ram Winograd, Jerusalem District Court Judge David Mintz, Jerusalem District Court Judge Moshe Sobel, Jerusalem District Court Yigal Mersel, Prof. Haim Sandberg, and Prof. Shahar Lifshitz.

Shaked’s final four will likely include two rightwingers, an Arab and a centrist woman, such as Judge Tamar Bazak Rappaport, who also serves, as Vice Chairman of the Anti-Trust Tribunal, which deals with issues of cartels, monopolies and mergers.

Of the two rivals, Shaked turned out to be the one speaking softly and holding a big stick behind her back. Naor was loud and blustery, and it looks like she got her way — for now. But Shaked did not put down her big stick, and in the long and exhausting struggle the country’s judiciary will be undergoing soon, she likely plans to bring home a few wins.

David Israel

Did Ayelet Shaked Borrow a Page from FDR’s Play Book?

Friday, November 4th, 2016

Is it possible that Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) initiated the legislation that so upset Supreme Court President Miriam Na’or not so much to make constitutional changes at a breakneck speed, but instead as a shot across the court’s bow on the future of Amona?

Israeli media are bustling with more and less informed commentary regarding this week’s showdown between Justice Na’or and Justice Minister Shaked. Na’or was so enraged at the insolence of Shaked’s move to promote (tacitly) a bill that deprives the high court of its veto power on high court judicial nominations, that she sent her a written warning, well leaked, about how Shaked’s move was tantamount to placing a gun on the table.

Not exactly what one imagines as “judicial temperament…”

The fact is that Shaked is determined to curb the outrageous activism of Israel’s Supreme Court, begun after the 1977 elections when a Likud-led coalition replaced the country’s uninterrupted 29-year Labor-led rule. Justice Aharon Barak, who began his term on the high court in 1978, was the architect of a brilliant, calculated and patient campaign to usurp many constitutional powers from the elected officials, representing the will of the natural sovereign — the people, for the unelected judicial system.

In her exulted as well as vilified essay this past October (Tracks toward Governing), Minister Shaked detailed the dire need to restrain Israel’s expansionist Judiciary. She noted an ongoing war between the Supreme Court and the executive branch, which necessitates the passing of a new constitutional-level legislation (Foundation Laws in Israel’s system) to regulate once and for all this combative relationship.

In that context, Justice Na’or, despite her aggressive language, is not necessarily out of line in saying that crucial constitutional changes, such as a bill to deprive court representatives of their ability to disqualify Supreme Court judicial candidates at will, deemed serious discussion prior to submission. Which leads me to believe that Shaked, whose own temperament is far cooler than Na’or’s, did not necessarily intend to actually cut the court’s power with the new legislation, but only to scare it a little.

As was made clear from reading Shaked’s essay, she is quite the student of US history and democracy. In that case, she must be aware of the legendary battles between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Supreme Court. FDR taught generations of Poli-sci students how an executive can tame his hostile high court.

Roosevelt won the 1932 presidential election following the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression, promising America a “New Deal” for national economic recovery. The 1932 election also gave the Democrats a majority in both houses of Congress, giving Roosevelt legislative support for his reform. Roosevelt and the 73rd Congress called for greater governmental involvement in the economy as a way to end the depression. But a series of successful challenges to New Deal programs were launched in federal courts, and, inevitably, the very constitutionality of much of the New Deal legislation, especially that which extended the power of the federal government, was rejected by the Supreme Court. A series of Supreme Court decisions knocked down major FDR legislation, culminating in Black Monday, May 27, 1935, when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes arranged for the decisions to be announced from the bench that day to be read in order of increasing importance, after the Court had ruled unanimously against Roosevelt in three separate cases.

In 1936, after a sweeping victory, FDR came back to the battlefield ready to take down the Supreme Court. He proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire. It was the subject of Roosevelt’s 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937. The argument FDR made was that it was for the benefit of the court to establish continuity in this manner — but, of course, what he really meant was that he could make the justices irrelevant if they continued to mess with his legislation.

Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. The 5–4 ruling was the result of the sudden shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation.

He got the message.

In the spirit of the great architect of the New Deal, the most creative and decisive Justice Minister in Israel’s recent history may be aiming only to throw the fear of God (and the voter) in the hearts of Na’or et al. Currently the Netanyahu government is asking the court to postpone the demolition of Amona, a Jewish community in the liberated territories the court wants to see razed. Meanwhile, Shaked and the Habayit Hayehudi Knesset faction are working on an Regulation Act that will compel Arab claimants to accept market value for their seized land, instead of destroying the communities in question.

Is the new threat Shaked imposes on the future makeup of the Supreme Court only her way of using FDR’s recipe to scare justices? Will there be a behind closed doors deal to exchange Shaked’s killing the new bill in exchange for the court letting the Regulations Act slide?

 

David Israel

Right Won’t Budge as AG Rejects ‘Softer’ Regulations Act

Friday, November 4th, 2016

The Regulation Act, aimed at stopping the hateful phenomenon by which anti-Zionist NGOs haul into court Arabs who claim ownership of Judea and Samaria land where Jewish communities have lived for decades—followed by the court’s decision to raze said communities out of existence—is in its final stages before being submitted for a first reading in the Knesset plenum. The new law will compel the claimants who proves his case in court to accept the same outcome any claimant does over on the 1949 side of the green line, namely, market value compensation, possibly accompanied by a fine if malice was involved.

However, in preparation for the vote on the Regulation Act, authored by MK Bezalel Smotrich (Habayit Hayehudi), the law was modified, softened, if you will, to include an option whereby should the claimant be unhappy with the offered compensation, they are allowed to sue in Israeli court.

Several MKs involved in the new legislation have told Makor Rishon that its chances to pass are high. But that does not seem to alter AG Avihai Mandelblit’s objection to the very idea of a Regulation Act, which, as he told Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, would constitute a violation of international law.

A decision to take the bill to a vote would forever alter the relationship between the Netanyahu government and its legal counselors, who so far have been used to riding roughshod over proposed legislation, getting elected ministers to kill bills based strictly on their recommendations, warnings and, occasionally, threats.

“Gone are the days when the politicians were guests and the jurists owned the house,” Likud and Habayit Hayehudi MKs told Makor Rishon this week. Indeed, Amona appears to be merely the excuse for this new confrontation between rightwing legislators and the Supreme Court. The real cause célèbre here is the curbing of Supreme Court powers, something a majority of Israelis appear to crave.

JNi.Media

Supreme Court President Pulls Gun on Justice Minister over Appointments Veto

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Supreme Court President Justice Miriam Naor on Thursday sent a harsh letter to Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi), informing her that she and her colleagues on the bench will no longer discuss with her their proposals for new judicial nominees as long as Shaked persists in promoting a law that deprives the Court of the right to veto those appointments.

Justice Naor was referring to a bill proposed by three Yisrael Beiteinu MKs — Robert Ilatov, Oded Forer, and Sofa Landver — which she attributed to Shaked, based on media reports, and based on the fact that the Justice Minister had not rejected the bill nor its timing.

The bill proposes changing the voting requirement of the nine-member Judicial Appointments Committee to what it had been before 2008, when a Likud minister, Gideon Sa’ar, instituted the need for a special majority to decide a Supreme Court appointment: 7 out of 9 committee members, or 2 less than the number of members in attendance (6 out of 8, 5 out of 7). The Supreme Court is represented by three committee members, which gives it enormous leverage in deciding appointments by special majority, but not so much if the committee reverts to the simple majority requirement.

The bill comes just ahead of the parliamentary year of 2017, when as many as four out of the 15 Supreme Court justices will be retiring, to be replaced by the Shaked-chaired appointments committee.

Justice Na’or’s rage was outright Chekhovian: “Submitting the bill at this time is tantamount to putting a gun on the table,” she wrote the Justice Minister (who represents the will of millions of Israeli voters). “It means that should some committee members not agree with the appointment of certain candidates in a manner that would not facilitate their appointment by a special majority, the constitutional rules of the game would be changed so that they may be appointed by a simple majority.”

Meaning, the Supreme court could be forced by the sovereign, the Israeli public, to accept among its numbers justices with whom they may disagree ideologically. Imagine the scandal…

Na’or added that under such circumstances she and the rest of the high court members of the committee will cease all communications with the Justice Minister over future appointments.

Na’or’s imagery of putting a gun on the table likely referenced Russian playwright Anton Chekhov’s famous quote: “If you say in the first chapter that there is a gun hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off.” In other words, it’s a warning to the pesky Shaked that she may have started something she’d regret.

It could also be a reference to Eli Wallach’s character Tuco in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” (1966), who said: “When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk. Don’t stand around trying to talk him to death.”

Or it could be a reference to Russian roulette, a lethal game of chance in which a player places a single round in a revolver, spins the cylinder, places the muzzle against their head, and pulls the trigger.

The Justice Minister’s office issued a response statement saying, “Judicial Selection Committee meeting will continue as scheduled. In the coming days we will publish the list of Supreme Court candidates.”

Advantage Shaked.

JNi.Media

Minister Ariel: If AG Can’t Defend Law Saving Amona, Let’s Get an Attorney Who Can

Monday, October 31st, 2016

Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) may end up being the politician who broke the iron hold of the judicial civil service on Israel’s democracy — when all along we were certain it would be his teammate, Ayelet Shaked.

In years past, when the Attorney General, who serves both as the executive officer for Israel’s law enforcement agencies and as the government’s legal counsel and litigator, would tell ministers that he could not defend a certain legislation before the Supreme Court, that was the end of said legislation. Which is why, early on in her term as Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) was looking to cut the job in half and hire one person to manage law enforcement, and another to manage the government’s legal affairs. But she couldn’t find enough support for the idea and, possibly, didn’t want to appear too radical so early in her administration.

Now, as the government is mulling legal means of bypassing a draconian Supreme Court decree calling for the demolition of the community of Amona in Samaria over a lawsuit by phantom Arab owners—the entire affair has been managed by Peace Now and other anti-Zionist NGOs—the AG, Avichai Mandelblit, on Sunday announced, through his deputy, Avi Licht, that he could not defend the proposed Regulation Act before the high court.

The bill compels Arab claimants against existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria to be treated like similar claimants inside green line Israel: if it can be shown that the land indeed belongs to them and the construction on it had been done illegally, the court rules on an amount, usually fair market value plus a fine, to be paid out by the defendant. No one inside 1949 Israel has ever demanded that standing buildings be struck down to remedy such a situation.

But over in Judea and Samaria, the Israeli Supreme Court has been riding high for years, insisting that the only remedy, even in cases in which there is no living and breathing claimant, the only acceptable remedy is destruction.

The cabinet decided to delay their discussion of the proposed Regulation Act until next week, to give the state time to petition the court for a postponement of the demolition date, December 25, 2016. It’s doubtful the Miriam Naor court, which has already voiced its exasperation over the Netanyahu government’s failure to carry out its demolition order for Amona given back in 2006, would grant yet another delay. As we noted earlier, should the court not grant a delay, Deputy AG Licht told the cabinet that his boss is not prepared to defend the proposed law before the high court.

Minister Uri Ariel then issued a statement saying, “I regret the prime minister’s decision to postpone the debate on regulating communities, most importantly Amona. It is an unjust decision which contradicts the prime minister’s own announcement two and a half months ago. We will continue to promote the Regulation Act despite the difficulties.”

And then Ariel released a shot across the bow of the AG’s office: “The AG’s statement regarding his inability to defend the state under certain conditions is unacceptable, and I hope he will change his mind. Should the AG not be willing to defend the new law at the Supreme Court, we’ll demand private representation, rather than give up our righteous struggle.”

And that’s how you teach a civil servant about the limits of his office.

JNi.Media

Ministerial Committee Delays Vote on Bill to Legalize Amona

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

A vote by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation has delayed by a week a decision on a bill to officially recognize the Jewish community of Amona and other similar communities.

The measure was to have prevented the expulsion of residents of Amona from their homes by the end of this year, as ordered by the High Court of Justice. The community, founded in 1995, is comprised of approximately 40 families.

Although the High Court has ordered its destruction on the basis of a lawsuit that contends it is built on “private” Palestinian Authority land, to this day not one “private” citizen of the Palestinian Authority has come forward to document that claim. A group of PA residents allegedly represented by the leftist Israeli Yesh Din NGO filed a petition in 2008, claiming Amona was encroaching on the group’s land and demanding its demolition.

There are still no replacement homes and community for the families, as also happened to more than 8,000 Jewish residents of the Gush Katif region and northern Samaria, who were forced out of their homes in the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza.

Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit has asked lawmakers not to approve such a bill, however, saying it is unconstitutional. Government ministers decided to delay their decision after a meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and coalition leaders.

The committee was to have voted Sunday on the measure. The law was proposed by Bayit Yehudi MK Shuli Mualem-Refaeli, whose party has threatened to leave the coalition if the bill to save Amona is not passed.

Hana Levi Julian

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/ministerial-committee-delays-vote-on-bill-to-legalize-amona/2016/10/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: