web analytics
December 8, 2016 / 8 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘justice’

Report: Justice Minister ‘Simplifying’ Supreme Court Appointments

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) is working on changing the process of appointing Supreme Court justices, according to a Tweet by journalist Amit Segal (Channel 2 News). According to Segal, Shaked is using the good services of MK Robert Ilatov (Yisrael Beiteinu), promoting a new bill that eliminates the need for a special majority to appoint Supreme Court judges, and also eliminates the need for approval for the appointments from the sitting members of the Supreme Court.

According to Segal, Shaked has informed both Court President Miriam Naor and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the move, which comes ahead of the replacement of a quarter of the high court judges.

Israel’s constitutional law on selecting judges assigns the appointments of new judges to a nine-member Judicial Appointments Committee, as follows:

The committee is headed by the Justice Minister (Shaked), as well as one other minister chosen by the government — the most recent choice has been Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (Kulanu). It also includes two MKs, traditionally one from the coalition and the other from the opposition — however, currently they are MK Nurit Koren (Likud) and Robert Ilatov (Yisrael Beiteinu), the latter, having been in the opposition earlier, has now moved over with his boss, Avigdor Liberman, to the coalition. To remind you, Ilatov is the author of the new proposed rules for picking new judges.

In addition there are two members of the Bar (this time one is Jewish, the other Arab), the president of the high court and two high court judges.

The committee requires a simple majority to appoint judges below the Supreme Court level; but a law enacted by then Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar in 2008 requires a special majority of 7 out of 9 committee members, or 2 fewer than the overall number of members in attendance (6 out of 8, 5 out of 7).

Historically, the three Supreme Court representatives aligned with the members of the Bar, as well as with the opposition MK, to push their own candidates, and the special majority requirement guaranteed their ability to torpedo the ones of whom they disapproved. Shaked is looking to erase this unfair advantage, then use the fact that both MKs on the committee are from the coalition to appoint four rightwing judges in 2017, with a simple 5-4 majority.

David Israel

Benevolent Justice

Thursday, October 27th, 2016

Mr. Gross owned a large supply company. A dispute arose over a shipment of goods to one of his long-time clients, Mr. Kleiner, who ran a small store. Mr. Gross made numerous offers to settle the dispute, but Mr. Kleiner adamantly refused to pay anything, insisting that he bore no liability.

Mr. Gross had no choice but to sue Mr. Kleiner. The parties agreed to adjudicate before Rabbi Dayan’s beis din and presented their case.

On technical grounds, the halacha was in favor of Mr. Gross, although “common sense” justice was not necessarily so. In addition, Mr. Kleiner’s difficult financial situation made it hard to lay the law against him. The debated sum was significant for him but a drop in the bucket for Mr. Gross.

After the dayanim conferred, Rabbi Dayan called the litigants in. “By law, Mr. Gross is entitled to collect the full amount of his claim,” he said. “However, on account of Mr. Kleiner’s financial circumstances, we recommend that Mr. Gross be benevolent and compromise on half the amount.”

“Is financial status a reason to issue a ruling in his favor?” asked Mr. Gross. “The Torah states explicitly, ‘Do not favor the poor’ [Vayikra 19:15]. How can you do this? Furthermore, if I am entitled to the full amount, why should I forgo half?”

“As evident through the proceedings, Mr. Kleiner is in a delicate financial situation,” said Rabbi Dayan. “Demanding full payment is liable to drive him out of business. That is not in your best interest, either, as you lose a long-time customer.”

Mr. Gross’s advocate spoke up. “My client appreciates your concern, but this does not seem the role of the beis din,” he said. “We offered Mr. Kleiner ample opportunities for mediation and out-of-court settlements. If your verdict is that he is liable, how can you encourage us now to compromise?”

“You are correct that once the verdict has been issued, the dayanim cannot impose a compromise, even if the litigants initially authorized also compromise,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “That would be cheating the rightful party and an injustice. Some authorities write that doing so would be considered a taus b’dvar mishna, a mistrial, and the compromise is null and void. However, another person who is not a dayan can try to mediate even after the ruling has been issued; this should be done outside of beis din.” (C.M. and R’ Akiva Eiger 12:2)

“Nonetheless, the Shach [12:6] and Aruch Hashulchan [12:2] write that if the dayanim do not press the compromise upon the litigants, but rather explain the benefit of the compromise and persuade the litigants until they agree, they are allowed to do so,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “Others maintain, though, that the dayanim should not do so; this is the more prevalent practice” [Pischei Teshuvah 12:5].

“Nonetheless, some write that if the dayanim clearly state the ruling but nonetheless advise the rightful party to concede lifnim mishuras hadin [beyond the letter of the law], it is certainly permitted,” added Rabbi Dayan. “A story is told that the Chazon Ish ruled in a certain case and afterward said, ‘You are right, but exempt him.’ ”

“What if the dayanim haven’t issued the ruling, but already came to a halachic conclusion?” asked Mr. Kleiner.

“Tosfos and many other authorities maintain that once the dayan knows what the ruling is, he should no longer advocate compromise,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “However, the Shulchan Aruch rules that until the verdict is issued, the dayan can still advocate compromise. The Shach (12:4) supports this position, since it is a mitzvah to achieve a peaceful resolution, whereas Bach and Birkei Yosef write that one should follow Tosfos’s opinion. Rav Nissim Karelitz, shlita, is cited that until a decisive verdict is issued, compromise is still possible, since in most cases where a compromise is recommended the case is not clear cut and there remains room for doubt.” (Pischei Teshuvah 12:4; Mishpetai Tzedek, Tziun HaMishpat 12:65)

Rabbi Meir Orlian

Fighting Anti-Israel NGOs And BDS Activists: An Interview with Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

In just a few years, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has shot to political stardom in Israel. A computer engineer turned politician, Shaked, 40, has been a member of Knesset for the Jewish Home party since 2013 and was appointed justice minister by Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2015.

Shaked, a forceful champion of Israel’s rights both at home and abroad, is an outspoken supporter of Jewish settlements and was the driving force behind Israel’s 2016 NGO transparency law.

 

The Jewish Press: Can you describe your background and what influenced your political views and your decision to join the Jewish Home party?

Shaked: I was right wing since I was a child, after having watched a debate between Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres. I served in the army in the Golani Brigade and that also influenced my ideology, since most of the soldiers were from the Religious Zionist movement.

For a few years I was a Likud member, working with Benjamin Netanyahu after the Gaza Disengagement. I decided to leave the Likud and join the Jewish Home party because I thought that it’s very important to have a party that has secular and Orthodox working together on the basis of Religious Zionist values.

How concerned are you that the UN will try to impose a unilateral solution on Israel?

The UN is a very political and biased organization and I don’t believe in truth coming from it. It’s just a body of political interests. The fact that the UN has failed to deal with Syria while hundreds of thousands of women and children are being slaughtered there proves that it does nothing. The UN tries to hit Israel whenever it can in a very biased approach without even mentioning the ongoing incitement by the Palestinian Authority. Just the other day Mahmoud Abbas paid a condolence call to families of terrorists who tried to kill Jews.

The UN also ignores the fact that there are terror attacks conducted in the U.S. for the same reason – radical Islam against the West. In dealing with the UN, Israel should stick to its own beliefs.

Establishing a Palestinian state right now is a very dangerous thing. It’s also not realistic at all. The majority of the people in Israel, including those from the left and center, don’t think we have a partner right now. So Ban Ki-moon can talk, but it’s just wishful thinking. In reality we will do what we think is good for us.

How would you advise America to combat the scourge of Islamist terrorism that both America and Israel face?

You just need to face reality. In Europe they are already facing reality and identifying it as radical Islamic terrorism. We are not at war with Islam. In Israel, 20 percent of the population is Muslim. And we have a very good relationship with them. But we need to distinguish between Islam and radical Islamic terror, which threatens the Western world.

This is actually a war between two civilizations; between the Western world and radical Islamic terror. It’s in the U.S., in Europe, in Israel; it’s all over the Middle East. And radical Islam is mainly aimed at hurting other Muslims. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims all over the Middle East who have been slaughtered because of this extreme ideology. We need to face this reality.

What is your position on Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria?

After the Oslo Accords, Judea and Samaria were assigned to areas A, B, and C. Areas A and B are under the Palestinian Authority and area C is under Israeli authority. If you ask me what will be in the end, how will we finish the conflict, I believe we should annex area C. There are 425,000 Jews and 90,000 Arabs who are living there. The Arabs should be full citizens of Israel and get all the according rights. Areas A and B should be a strong autonomy or in conjunction with Jordan.

Under international law, those territories are not occupied territories; they are territories under dispute. There is a lot of land in area C that belongs to the state and we should expand building on those lands. There’s nothing we need to apologize for. It’s legally state land and we should continue to build there.

You initiated and then advanced Israel’s NGO bill through the Knesset. What do you hope it will achieve in terms of deterring agitators from working within Israel?

It’s a transparency bill. In Israel, there are a few NGOs that get the majority of their money from abroad from different countries. Those countries actually try to interfere in a diplomatic way in Israeli policy and are trying to do it through NGOs.

We are not forbidding that, but we want the public to be aware of it. That’s why we passed a transparency bill that any NGO that gets more than 50 percent of its budget from a foreign country should declare it when approaching a Knesset member and in their official publications.

What more can be done about many of these NGOs who are aligned with the BDS movement and their allies, such as the Black Lives Matter delegation that recently visited Israel and accused it of “genocide”?

There are definitely NGOs in Israel that cooperate with BDS groups, mainly in the United States. They actually lay the groundwork for the lies and they distort the facts the BDS groups end up using.

We need to determine what falls under freedom of speech, but we are fighting against the threat of delegitimization the NGOs are pursuing. This is something we are dealing with on a regular basis because it’s based on lies and it hurts Israel.

Unfortunately, many agitators against Israel in these various groups are Jewish. What would you say to them as Jews?

They are confused. I talked about it in the lecture that I gave to the JNF, in which I said there are extreme liberal Jews who just swallow the lies and the propaganda the BDS movement is selling. They are confusing liberal and human rights values with the new anti-Semitism. BDS is perpetrating a fraud and unfortunately there are people who are buying into it.

Sara Lehmann

Justice Minister Shaked Issues Manifesto on Jewish Democracy, Based on the Teachings of Chief Justice Barak

Wednesday, October 5th, 2016

“The Knesset is attempting to legislate away our lives and the High Court is invading territory to which it is not entitled,” declares Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi), in a lengthy but exciting essay in the inaugural issue of Hashiloach, an Israeli Journal on thought and policy. The essay, titled “Tracks toward Governing” (the Hebrew title is a play on words between Mesilot-tracks and Meshilut-governance), suggests that the behavior of some of Israel’s branches of government is threatening individual freedoms as well as the ability of elected officials to govern. Shaked is urging a return, as soon as possible, to the proper governing on the proper tracks, from within Israel’s definition as a Jewish and democratic state.

“Good governance is not a blind force, certainly not a strong but silent engine,” writes Shaked, stressing that “the ability to carry out goals in the way they have been defined is a prerequisite condition for good governance, but is far from being sufficient in itself: good governance is measured above anything else by the ability of government ministers to establish their own goals.”

“A politician who knows how to bring the train to its destination, but is unable to set the destination, as senior as he may be — is not governing but merely subcontracting; he may have been appointed Minister, and he may get to cut ribbons in the end, but he is nothing more than a contractor,” Shaked argues. “To move down a track laid down by others does not require leaders; any driver could do it just fine. The essence of governance is always setting down directions and posting goals. This requires of elected officials to lay down new tracks only after they had decided for themselves where they would like to take the train.”

Shaked asserts that every time the Knesset votes in favor of any given law, it is also voting against the freedom of individuals to take care of their issues on their own. She calls it a vote of no confidence in the autonomy of communities and individuals. Indeed, as Chair of the Ministerial Legislative Committee, Shaked laments that she has processed more than 1,500 legislative proposals, from amendments to existing laws to fully realized, new bills. Suggesting the Knesset is by far the most prolific parliament in the entire Western world, Shaked describes this abundance of new laws as a hospital that’s being built underneath a broken bridge to care for the people who fall off.

Referring to economist Milton Friedman’s impressions following his visit to Israel in the 1960s, when he predicted that the historic spirit of Jewish freedom would eventually overcome the newly bred spirit of Socialist bureaucracy in Israel, Shaked admits she’s not so sure Friedman was right. “Without our firm push on the brake pedal of this locomotive, week in and week out, those legislative proposals would have created for us an alternative reality, in which government controls the citizens through the regulation of more and more economic sectors, with the individual being left with precious little freedom to manage his own affairs.”

Shaked provides several examples whereby proposed legislation would have, for instance, created a world in which a landlord would be forbidden to raise the rent for several years. Of course, rents would soar on the eve of this new law going into effect, followed by a loss of interest on the part of investors in creating new rental stock, leading to a drop in available apartments and, of course, another rise in rents. It would also be a world in which employers must comply with pensions set by the legislator, until, of course, they go bankrupt. And a world in which police would be bound by a two-strike law that compels them to arrest any individual against whom someone has filed two complaints. Running down some of these “bizarre” proposals, as she calls them, Shaked eventually describes a proposal to compel the state to solve terrorism by distributing bulletproof vests to every citizen against knife attacks, as well as a proposal to eliminate the reference in the law to “Beit Av,” which is the Biblical term for Household, because it has a reference to a father rather than to a mother.

Shaked reports that she requested, for the 2017-18 budget, that the ministerial committee would no longer consider bills that add new criminal offenses to the law books, without a thorough investigation of similar legislation in other countries, of the ramifications of the new criminal law on the books in Israel’s society, and, most important — of existing, non-criminal alternatives.

Alongside the need to restrain the legislator, Shaked sees a dire need to restrain Israel’s expansionist Judiciary. She notes 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. She cites several cases in which government was blocked by the high court in areas that are clearly the executive’s domain, such as the law regulating the treatment of illegal infiltrators from Africa, and the government contract with natural gas companies to exploit Israel’s rich deposits.

Shaked laments the fact that the Supreme Court so often usurps the right to kill an entire legislation, as if it had appointed itself the 121st Knesset Member (or more than that, since it so frequently joins with the opposition parties to defeat a majority coalition). She has no problem with individuals seeking remedy in the lower courts to damages they claim to have suffered from, say, the new gas contract. That’s a legitimate use of the court system. But how can the unelected high court delete an entire legislation passed by elected officials? Who, after all is said and done, is the sovereign, the people or their appointed judges?

As a result, the art of politics in Israel is practiced as follows, according to Shaked: first the different parties vie for the voter’s trust; then, in the Knesset, the coalition negotiates with and fights against the opposition over a proposed bill; finally, after the bill was passed, the opposition parties appeal it before the Supreme Court, which reverses it. That, in a nutshell, was the story of the natural gas bill earlier this year.

JNi.Media

Woman of the Year 5776: Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked

Saturday, October 1st, 2016

The January 22, 2013 general elections in Israel marked the emergence of two new parties; one, journalist Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid, was yet another attempt to grab the undecided center among Israel’s voters; the other, Habayit Hayehudi, was a coalition of National Religious parties led by hi-tech executive Naftali Bennett and his long-time political ally, a 30-something computer engineer from Tel Aviv named Ayelet Shaked, who stood out as the only secular Jew in an otherwise Orthodox Jewish party. Both parties did well, although Lapid’s party took seven more seats than Bennett’s (19 vs. 12). Both parties also represent new challenges to the current power status quo in Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud leading a right-leaning coalition government over an opposition being led by Labor (a.k.a. Zionist Camp).

At this point in the life of the 20th Knesset, the polls are showing Yesh Atid as the new largest party, siphoning off votes from Likud’s centrist voters and Labor’s more nationalistic supporters, as well as from Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu party which barely passes the threshold percentage in the polls. At the same time, Likud is also being bitten on its right flank, by Habayit Hayehudi. And, also for the first time, the National Religious leader Naftali Bennett has been speaking openly about his ambition to be Israel’s next prime minister, at the helm of a rightwing, pro-religious, pro-settlements government.

That ambition is a new thing to a party that, since its incarnation as NRP in 1956, has always seen itself as a second banana, always in government, be it with leftwing or rightwing majority parties, but never at the helm. And while Chairman Bennett has been outspoken about his ambition to carve out a new direction for the country in the image of his party’s ideology, another Habayit Hayehudi leader has been giving the nation an idea of how a national religious government would carry out its agenda — Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked.

Since the end of the 1990s, it has become clear that Israeli Jews are only going to become more traditional, even religious, and, consequently, the chance for a left-leaning party to receive the largest percentage of the vote will continue to grow dimmer. But while political positions have been given by the voter to rightwing governments, key decisions on issues that are close to the heart of the same rightwing voters have continued to lean to the left. This has been most notable in the liberated territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, where evictions of Jewish settlers have been carried out over the past decade and a half by rightwing-led governments, and those same governments have been refusing to implement Israeli civil law in Jewish communities hat have been living under martial law since the 1970s.

This is because the judiciary in Israel has been ruling as a shadow government, unelected and with a leftwing, secular agenda. In addition, Israel has had the most activist supreme court anywhere in the West, a court that has seized for itself powers well outside the norm in countries that uphold the principle of three branches of government. In countless cases, the high court has acted as a legislator, siding with the opposition against a ruling government (the recent vote on exploiting Israel’s natural gas come to mind, when the court torpedoed a government signed contract with US and domestic companies). The judiciary has also had its hand on the executive branch through the Attorney General and the legal counsels who are appointed to every ministry, and who often force the hands of elected officials using the threat of legal action against them.

The appointment of Ayelet Shaked to be the Minster in charge of this judiciary stronghold of the real power in Israeli society was received with a great deal of alarm and trepidation in the leftwing media, which called her “Israel’s Sarah Palin,” and accused her of inciting the mobs against the Supreme Court justices, “as if she were the worst [Internet] talkbacker and not the minister in charge of the holiest holy of every democracy — its separate and independent judiciary.” (Uri Misgav, Haaretz, Aug. 11, 2015).

The attack came in response to the new Justice Minister’s tweet on the same evening the Supreme Court was convening to rule on a law designed to block infiltration of illegal migrants from Africa through Israel’s southern border. Shaked tweeted that the law had already been quashed twice by the court, causing the infiltration, which had been reduced to single digits, to grow to dozens of new border crossings.

“If the law is revoked a third time,” Shaked tweeted, “it would be tantamount to declaring south Tel Aviv an official haven for infiltrators.” She then added that, until the court’s ruling, she would upload every two hours a new video describing the “intolerable life conditions of south Tel Aviv residents,” urging her followers to spread the message.

The court took notice and restricted itself to a few minor corrections, mostly regarding the length of time an illegal migrant could be held in a locked facility until his case is resolved by the Interior Ministry. The court continued to take notice throughout Shaked’s first year in office, and has been noticeably mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary friction with a Justice Minister who is probably the most popular minister in Israel. How popular? In 2013 she was picked by the Knesset Channel as the summer session’s most outstanding MK, and in 2014 as the second most outstanding MK of the winter session. In 2015 the Jerusalem Post ranked her 33rd on its list of the most influential Jews in the world. In 2015 she was ranked by Forbes Israel as the fifth most influential woman in Israel. And in 2016 Lady Globes ranked her second on its list of 50 most influential women.

Most importantly, Minster Shaked has afforded Israelis a view of a nationalist, rightwing politician who can be trusted to run the country’s third most complex system, after Finance and Defense. As Justice Minister, Shaked also chairs the ministerial legislative committee which decides which bills receive the backing of the government. Her role is comparable to that of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, in terms of influencing the legislative process. And the fact that she has been a competent, creative and resourceful Justice Minister might suggest to people in the secular center and right of center that her and Bennett’s party is worthy of their vote.

Shaked and Bennett are in troubled waters currently, over the fate of Amona, a Jewish community in Judea and Samaria that the Supreme Court has slated for demolition by early December, 2016, over claims to ownership of the land by Arab PA residents. The fact is that no one on the right in Netanyahu’s government believes that Amona could be saved, which Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman stated openly. Shaked wants to see the residents being relocated to a nearby plot of land, that could turn out to be just as problematic. But both Bennett and Shaked are also interested in advancing new legislation that would compel future claimants to settle for fair market value or comparable land from the Israeli government. At stake are an estimated 4,000 homes, the bulk of which were built as part of a government sponsored settlement program. The Supreme Court has rejected these “arrangement law” initiatives, and the current AG, Avihai Mandelblit, also objects to them, even though he himself is on the record as supporting them in the past.

For now, Shaked and Bennett are under attack by their voters, who cannot believe that a government that is as rightwing as this one would still engage in the forceful removal of Jews from their homes. And the last thing Shaked and Bennet want is to be forced to resign from Netanyahu’s government over this dispute.

Shaked, like Bennett, is a vehement enemy of the two-state solution. But she is also a liberal when it comes to many legislative initiatives. She has fought court activism; she objected to imposing jail sentences on Yeshiva students who refuse to enlist; and she supports a free and open market and reducing state regulations of businesses. She also believes in cutting down on new laws.

Noting that her government legislative committee has processed over the past year and a half no less than 1,500 new legislative proposals, Shaked wrote an op-ed in the right-leaning website Mida, saying that “every time the Knesset puts its faith in a new law intended to serve a worthy cause and solve a social or economic problem, we are, in effect, raising our hands to support a vote of no confidence. … It’s a vote of no confidence in our ability as individuals and as communities to manage ourselves in a good enough manner; it’s a vote of no confidence in the wisdom of the nation and of each person to create and preserve mechanisms that are better than those which are designed artificially by experts; it’s a vote of no confidence in the ability of familial, social and economic communities to run their own lives and strive successfully to reach their goals.”

Spoken like a true, sane Libertarian. And a Libertarian who knows how to combine the principles of freedom with the ideals of nation and Torah — could make one fine prime minister some day. Which is why we believe 5776 was the year of Ayelet Shaked.

JNi.Media

AIPAC Mourns Shimon Peres, Indefatigable Advocate for Justice [video]

Thursday, September 29th, 2016

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby group extended its condolences Wednesday on the passing of former Israeli President Shimon Peres.

The organization created an especially dramatic video tribute to Peres, using for the audio track a recording of a stirring speech delivered in English by Peres himself, against starkly simple piano notes.

In a separate statement the organization said, “We join the people of Israel in mourning the loss of Shimon Peres, a visionary Israeli patriot and beloved statesman who came to symbolize the reborn Jewish state.

“He sought to realize the ancient Jewish yearning for peace where there was strife and pursued reconciliation amidst discord.

“As an indefatigable advocate for justice and human progress, he earned the respect and appreciation of his fellow leaders and the global community. Indeed, his life’s work was an inspiration to all who strive for peace and freedom.

“Throughout his distinguished career in public service, including his work as Prime Minister and then as President, Shimon Peres sought to strengthen ties between the United States and Israel in deep appreciation of the democratic values we share.

“As we mourn his passing, we know his legacy will live on through the many good deeds he accomplished, the countless lives he enriched, and the commitment to the Jewish state he inspired in so many. May his memory forever be a blessing.”

Hana Levi Julian

Turkish Justice Ministry Asking US to Detain Dissident Gülen

Tuesday, September 13th, 2016

The Turkish Justice Ministry on Tuesday officially requested that the US arrest Turkish preacher Fethullah Gülen, the founder of the Hizmet (Service) movement and its Alliance for Shared Values. Gülen lives in self-imposed exile in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.

Despite President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s repeated calls over the past two months for the cleric’s extradition, this is Turkey’s first official provisional arrest request to the US for Gülen, who is accused of leading the failed July coup that resulted in the death of 240 people, according to Justice ministry sources cited by the Anadolu news agency.

According to these anonymous sources, the official request claims that the July 15 coup attempt was carried out under Gülen’s “command and control.”

The dispute between Gülen and Erdoğan go back to 2013, when a number of corruption-related arrests were made against Erdoğan’s allies, reflecting a growing political power struggle between Gülen and Erdoğan. The arrests led to the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey, which the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s supporters (along with Erdoğan himself) as well as the opposition parties said was choreographed by Gülen.

The Erdoğan government said the corruption investigation and comments by Gülen were part of the long term political agenda of Gülen’s movement to infiltrate the security, intelligence, and justice institutions of the Turkish state, a charge almost identical to the charges against Gülen by the Chief Prosecutor of Turkey in his trial in 2000 before Erdoğan’s party had come into power.

Gülen had previously been tried in absentia in 2000, and acquitted of these charges in 2008 under Erdoğan’s AKP government.

JNi.Media

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/turkish-justice-ministry-asking-us-to-detain-dissident-gulen/2016/09/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: