You’re looking at the demolition of five buildings in the Ulpana neighborhood of the Jewish town of Beit-El, north of Jerusalem, November 27, 2012. The High Court has decided that the multi-family dwellings built by Jews were on a privately owned Palestinian land, and so they had to be demolished, in the name of justice, liberty and the pursuit of really crazy and wasteful choices.

In a country of law, if such a dispute erupts more than 10 years after an enclave of residential buildings had been erected and families had set roots there for close half a generation – a dispute between the land’s sellers, a dispute over a stupid missing document, a dispute fueled by “evidence” provided by the Ramallah-based officials of the great democratic state of Palestine – then the two sides would have gone to court and debated their opposing positions; then the court would have decided. And should the court have decided that the half of the Arab family that disagreed with the sale of the land was right, then the same court would have decided on an amount of money that either the other half of the family, or the innocent buyers, were to pay in compensation.

But to demolish the buildings? What insane, sociopathic judge would have decided on demolition as a remedy for injustice?

When the right wins the day – again – in the coming elections, before we do anything else, before we implement the Judge Levi recommendations, before we protest yet another Palestinian move for independence that reneges on all our mutually signed agreements, before we send the first IAF plane to hit back at Gaza for this or that volley of rockets at our civilians, before we do any of that – we must change the way we pick supreme court justices.

In a civilized country, the sovereign, which is the people (you, me, my wife, all of us) choose representatives and they decide who will be our high court judges. Once they decide, those judges are no longer under anybody’s thumb, totally independent. But to get there they must receive our approval.

Not so in Israel, where our elected representatives are a minority in the body that picks high court justices, and the older justices basically nominate their friends, family, the nice girl from Apt. B-2.

This has to stop, now, this is a travesty, this court is not enjoying the support of the people, it is, in fact, an enemy of the people. And the nice thing is, the people have the power to change this. So, let’s.

A constitutional court in Poland reportedly has ruled against allowing Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter in that country.

The Warsaw court’s ruling, which was made known on Tuesday, said the government had acted unconstitutionally when it exempted Jews and Muslims from stunning animals before slaughtering them as their faiths require, according to Piotr Kadlcik, president of the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland.

Kadlcik told JTA that in addition to the special exception announced by the Polish Ministry of Agriculture, Jewish ritual slaughter—shechitah—is permissible under the 1997 Law on Regulating the Relations between the State and the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland.

“It appears there is a legal contradiction here and it is too early to tell what this means,” he said. “We are seeking legal advice on this right now.”

Poland has approximately 6,000 Jews, according to the European Jewish Congress.

According to Kadlcik, Poland has no kosher slaughterhouses but locally slaughtered kosher meat is nonetheless served at kosher canteens across the country.

“I’m not sure we will be able to keep serving meat there,” he said.

Left-wing German MPs are threatening to oppose their government’s attempt to keep male circumcision legal in Germany. More than 50 MPs from three parties are now proposing that parents should have to wait until their son is 14 so he can give his informed consent to the operation.

Last summer, a regional court ruled that circumcision could amount to criminal bodily harm.

It should be noted that circumcision is by far less painful and traumatic to an 8-day old infant than it is to a teenage boy.

Jose Ramos, imprisoned for 20 years for molesting children and the prime suspect in the case of six year old Etan Patz, a Jewish boy from Manhattan who disappeared on his way to school on May 25, 1979, is set to be released on Wednesday.

Ramos was found guilty of Etan’s death in civil court in 2004, but a criminal court found that not enough evidence existed to charge him.  Ramos has denied any responsibility for Patz’s disappearance.

Long-time Ha’aretz columnist Neri Livneh has been ordered by a court to pay NIS 200,000 ($50,000) in compensations for slander to two residents of the settlement Itamar.

The complaint was filed last March, by Attorney Doron Nir Tzvi, legal advisor for the Committee of Samaria Residents, following Livneh’s appearance on the Channel 1 TV program “Politics,” where she described Itamar residents’ behavior as “especially aggressive,” adding that “every two years a murderer comes out of there,” Walla reported.

The law suit claimed that Livneh referred to the two plaintiffs as murderers who apparently were products of the settlement.

The court ruled that Livneh must to pay damages for slander after the journalist failed to file a defense statement in time and had not requested an extension to do so.

Last week Livneh, a veteran columnist at Ha’aretz, was called in for a hearing, as part of a wave of cutbacks in the paper.

Members of the Committee of Samaria Residents were pleased with the decision and said that “this verdict is a warning signal to anyone who wants to lash out in an unrestricted and malicious manner against Jewish settlers. The false and irresponsible statement reflects the attitude of many in the media towards the Jews of Judea and Samaria and it’s a good thing that the court took a harsh approach against her.”

Livneh has not yet issued a response.

Over the past few weeks, I, like many of you, have received wedding invitations, and I truly hope that the young couples-to-be have chosen wisely and will enjoy long and fruitful unions.

But living happily ever after is not a guarantee. I myself am divorced. And while unfortunately, some couples are not able to achieve a good marriage, they should, to the best of their ability strive to have a “good” divorce (though by definition that would be an oxymoron).

In other words, be the ones deciding the quality of your future, not some stranger in a robe who didn’t know you existed before you entered his/her courtroom.

Over my long association with The Jewish Press, (and as recently as this past Rosh Hashanah) I have been approached by embittered men and women, deeply embroiled in a nasty divorce and asked if I could “stop the presses” and publicize what they insist is a horrific miscarriage of justice, one deserving to be front page news. They want the whole world to know how they have been abused, maligned, ignored, threatened, financially milked and generally ruined by what they view as a totally unfair court order – ranging from division of property, jewelry and bank accounts to the children. They are the hapless victims, they claim, of corrupt, bought-off, unscrupulous, incompetent, unsympathetic judges, attorneys, social workers, teachers, rabbis, etc.

How else, they claim, can you explain the court’s ruling? Each party was so sure that the judge or jury, upon hearing their side of the story, would immediately grant them everything they petitioned for – the house, the cars, the vacation property, the investments…the kids.

But that’s not the way it works in Divorce Court. You don’t simply get what you want based on your say as to the character – or lack thereof – of the spouse you are feuding with. You can swear up and down that your now insignificant other is a sorry excuse for a human being, but that’s not necessarily the conclusion the court will come to.

While their perception of what he or she deserves and are entitled to receive, both in terms of assets and custody, may be rather one-sided, narrow minded and hence unrealistic, it is clear that the desperation, despair and the feeling of being trapped in a nightmare is very real. Sadly, many times it is something that he brought on himself. Nonetheless, the emotional pain is relentless.

And that is why I can’t be emphatic enough when I say that couples who feel their marriage is not salvageable – should at least salvage their divorce. In other words, try to work out any post-marriage issues such as custody, visitation and the division of mutual assets yourselves. Don’t allow your lives and those of your children to be hijacked by outsiders who don’t know you, in a delusional belief, fueled by anger, greed or a desire to punish, that you will come out way ahead of your soon to be ex-spouse. You are gambling with the possibility that you will come out with a lot less than had the two of you negotiated fairly.

When divorcing couples “out-source” the resolving of their major disputes, they are essentially giving up the freedom and the right to make decisions whose impact will last a lifetime. To them you are a docket number – much the same way as you are a disease, not a person, to a busy doctor making rounds.

Not only will these strangers (judge or jury) decide who gets what, when and how – they can also impose serious penalties and punishment if you don’t comply with these decisions.

The outcome of custody cases are especially unpredictable.

Basically when a couple goes to court to resolve this contentious issue, they are saying, “Your honor – you don’t know me or my family from Adam, but I am going to let you tell me if my kids will be living with me, and if not, when I can see them, and if I don’t follow your dictates exactly – like if I attempt to see my son on Tuesday instead of Wednesday – then you can find me in contempt and jail me. And for all this I will end up paying a fortune to you and your ‘experts’ (psychologists, social workers) to the extent that I will likely end up borrowing money from everyone I know or go into debt.

An Islamist radical convicted of stabbing two German police officers during a protest against “offensive” cartoons has been sentenced to six years in prison.

Murat K, a 26-year-old German-born Salafist of Turkish heritage from the western state of Hessen, openly admitted that he had attacked and wounded the two police officers with a kitchen knife during the cartoon riots in May. He showed no remorse, however, during his trial at the district court in the city of Bonn; he said he had been morally obligated to follow Islamic Sharia law.

Murat, whose last name has not been made known to the general public due to German privacy laws, claimed that the attacks on the police officers were justified because the German state had allowed offensive images of the Prophet Mohammed to be shown in public. Many Muslims believe that according to Islamic law, it is forbidden to depict Mohammed in images.

During his trial, the judge — who allowed Murat to wear a black jihadist headband in court — asked the defendant whether it was necessary “to use violence to defend Islamic values.” Murat, who was born in the German town of Eschwege, and whose family has been living in Germany for decades, replied: “Yes, of course.”

The judge then asked him to “imagine you are a policeman and it is your job to ensure order. In your view, would you be a justified target?” Murat replied: “Yes. The German state allows caricatures of Mohammed to be shown, so the police are automatically involved.”

The judge continued: “What if a court said it was all right for the caricatures to be shown?” Murat replied: “Your values make it possible to insult the prophet. Islam prohibits that. The price for doing that in Islam is the death sentence. You have your freedom of opinion, but as a Muslim, a believer, Islam must be my opinion.” Murat added: “One cannot expect from a Muslim that he remain calm when the prophet is being insulted.”

On October 19, the district court in Bonn found Murat — who is unemployed and lives on state welfare benefits — guilty on charges of causing grievous bodily harm, disturbing the peace, and resisting a law enforcement officer. The court sentenced him to six years in prison, in line with demands by state prosecutors, who had asked the court to sentence Murat to at least five years and nine months.

The Interior Minister of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Ralf Jäger, applauded the conviction. “The verdict is a clear signal that in our constitutional state, brutal attacks against our police officers will be consistently punished.”

Murat’s defense attorney, Johannes Pausch, said he had asked his client if he would at least be willing to apologize to the policemen, not as state employees but as human beings. Murat refused. “It was not possible for him to show remorse,” Pausch said; “he believes he is right.”

Murat responded to the verdict by declaring German courts to be illegitimate. He said: “I do not accept this court as legitimate. I am not sitting here voluntarily. Only Allah alone has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, what is moral and what is immoral.” Murat added: “I will answer only to Allah.”

The stabbings occurred on May 5, when more than 500 radical Muslims attacked German police with bottles, clubs, stones and other weapons in Bonn, the former capital of West Germany, to protest cartoons they said were “offensive.”

The clashes erupted when around 30 supporters of a conservative political party, PRO NRW, which is opposed to the further spread of Islam in Germany, participated in a campaign rally ahead of regional elections in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW).

Some of those participating in the rally, which was held near the Saudi-run King Fahd Academy in the Mehlem district of Bonn, had been waving banners depicting Mohammed (see photo here), to protest the Islamization of Germany.

The rally swiftly disintegrated into violence (photos here and here) when hundreds of angry Salafists, who are opposed to any depiction of their prophet, began attacking the police, whose job it was to keep the two groups apart.

In the final tally of the melee, 29 police officers were injured and more than 100 Salafists were arrested, although most were later released. Murat is the first Salafist to be tried for the violence; 22 other Salafists are still waiting for their trials to begin.

It’s a news story that directly affects just one man, but the implications of what is being done to Prof. Cyril Karabus are horrific, and of particular note to air travelers planning to fly Qantas at some future time. (The background is in two blog posts of ours: Dubai, Dubai, Dubai and Back to Dubai: Australian travelers might want to factor this report into their plans).

The short summary: A distinguished professor of medicine aged 78, with a lifetime of service to the community in his native South Africa, passed through Dubai airport in the UAE on August 18, en route back home following his son’s wedding in Canada. In Dubai, he was arrested and notified that he was convicted a decade earlier on charges arising from the death of a three year old child he had treated for terminal cancer. No notification had ever been given to the doctor at the time of the child’s death or since then up until his fateful transit visit to Dubai. Lawyers were retained, and the doctor formally denied any involvement in what was described as the killing of the young leukemia patient. The prosecution was unable FOUR times to produce the files on the basis of which the elderly doctor was convicted, and so four times his application for bail could not proceed. Meanwhile he remained incarcerated in an appalling prison.

The Guardian wrote on October 3, 2012 that he is an “old, frail and very sickly man” according to his lawyer, Michael Bagraim.

He has no travel documents or any means of escaping or jumping bail. There doesn’t seem to be any heart in what is taking place. “My reports from people who were in the court were that the man appears to be broken. He was hunched. He was shackled. He is almost 78 and he has a pacemaker and a stent because of problems with his heart.

Now to the update. The report below comes from one of the UAE’s English language newspapers, the Khaleej Times:

Doc in the dock to be released on bail
12 October 2012

The Abu Dhabi Criminal Court issued a primary ruling on Thursday assigning the UAE’s Higher Committee for Medical Liability to give its expert opinion on the charges addressed to the South African doctor, Cyril Karabus.

The doctor has been accused of committing a medical error that led to the death of a girl and of falsifying a prescription to hide his mistake earlier in 2002 while he was in the UAE as a visiting doctor.

The court explained in its ruling that the case is not ready for adjudication as it calls for technical opinion to resolve and clarify some of the issues and the points raised, and therefore decided to assign the Higher Committee for Medical Liability to give its opinion whether or not the accused committed a medical error while the victim was receiving treatment under his supervision.

The court also asked the committee to give its opinion whether the error, provided it is established, was the direct cause of the death or there were other reasons which hastened the child’s death.

At a hearing, the court also decided to release him on bail on security of his passport or the passport of a guarantor plus a bail amount of Dh100,000… the value of the blood-money the court may order him to pay if found guilty.

…

The court also scheduled the next hearing for November 20 when the claimant of the civil damages will appear along with his attorney.

…

We understand that the Karabus family was having a hard time raising the bail/”blood” money, which equates to US$54,000. The Guardian quoted Prof. Karabus’ lawyer saying “During the apartheid system, he concentrated on helping children of colour, so much so that he is an impoverished man himself today…” [source].

As we said here last week, there is not much we ordinary people can do to express our fury in the face of outrageous injustice by people with power. Signing a petition is one (the online petition is here – please consider signing it).

Letting the good people at Qantas, one of the world’s really good airlines, know [as a Sydney lawyer did] how the special relationship with Emirates, Dubai and Abu Dhabi feels to us, is another.

Meanwhile, the latest (from Henry Benjamin’s excellent JWire site in Australia) is that Prof. Karabus was released from jail on bail following his arrest at Dubai airport whilst in transit on August 18. It quotes a family member saying: “He was released on Sunday night to stay at a colleague’s flat. He is free to move around the UAE but cannot leave as his passport has been confiscated.” His next court date is November 20. No word on whether the authorities have managed to find the missing paperwork.

Visit This Ongoing War.