Talkbacks: Beinisch Politics has nothing to do with LAW

JIWON: Basically, all the information, except Secret Society, appear in Talkbacks: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003). There may be more. Too tired to read the entire stuff again…

00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
My Official Mail to Knesset
July 2, 2008 (20:20)
JIWON:
I am toward the end of collection. The format will be like this:
Talkbacks: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)
Selected Articles 1: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)
(There will be another section called “Beinisch Politics has nothing to do with LAW.” But they are already in the first section. I just want to make it a special section to show everybody that Dorit’s dirty method is nothing but one of typical tricks of male-chauvinist’s favorite bimbo.)
Though I can’t understand two articles, ‘Intifada bill’ stirs controversy and Mazuz warns against amending Citizenship Law…, I can never understand what’s wrong with JM Friedmann. Every each word from his mouth sounds perfectly right, and I find that there is a more fundamental problem to cause his willingness to change the Basic Law.
Anyway, I’ve never read dirtier stories than this one. At the same time, I’ve never read more terrific articles than those. I know nothing about LAW, then what about Law Professionals, who have been reading those same articles in Israel? Especially female law specialists? Where are all those terrific journalists working now? Were they fired by Dorit Beinisch? I totally lost my interest in Israel. Once I receive my money from Barenboim, I will leave quickly. I will just want to finish my business with Yechezkel Beinisch. I won’t give it up even after his death. Promise.

My Official Mail to Knesset,
which is part of Hello, Is Dorit Beinisch talking about ME? Public Slander? (Regarding Ruth Gavison) (From Jun 24 to Present).
July 5, 2008 (07:40)
JIWON: I finished posting collections. Sigh… it doesn’t mean that I finished writing. Below are additional articles, along with couple of other Beinisch-Friedmann stuffs to check what means Public Slander. Surely, those Talkbacks quite differ from others, whose only aim is to topple the present government.
P.P.S: I find that Dorit Beinisch’s involvement in Nili Cohen Affair was perhaps in 2004 and there are so many articles written before and during that period, but it’s too tired to find all of them and re-organize this collection. Hence, I will start another section, Beinisch Politics has nothing to do with LAW, with this article,
Secret Society December 21, 2006 / By Yuval Yoaz

Too tired to send mail…,
JIWON: Please check my Knesset-Jokes. I just love it… ho-ho-ho♥:
Beinisch: Media to blame for public’s loss of faith in courts (Jul 21, 2008).: (…) Peres reiterated his frequent contention that Israel was not a corrupt country. If it were, he said, there wouldn’t be a war against corruption. Peres blamed the election system for some of the existing corruption. It was not so bad when there were only two major political parties, he said, but with a lot of small parties it has become problematic, because they all need funding. He suggested tightening the threshold to make it more difficult for the smaller parties to win seats in the Knesset, and introducing regional elections.
JIWON: Really? Talkbacks: Beinisch Politics has nothing to do with LAW I thought Media was Beinisch’s best friend. This is exactly why I am going to join ALL the forums to check this information is right. Hum…

00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Secret Society
December 21, 2006 / By Yuval Yoaz

For three hours, the Supreme Court justices sat in the “oval room” – a conference room with a large oval table in the center – at one of the stormiest meetings ever held there. For a long time afterward, the secretaries in the president’s office recalled the shouting they had heard through the walls. That was in March 2003, on the day that, in the opinion of journalist Naomi Levitsky, “the Supreme Court justices rose up against their president.”

That day, the justices had convened for a crucial meeting, their third, on the question of the appointment of Prof. Nili Cohen as a Supreme Court justice. The president of the Court, Aharon Barak, supported her appointment and tried to promote it in every possible way. On the other hand, Justice Dorit Beinisch, his protege for years and the person slated to inherit his job when the time came, did everything in her power to torpedo the appointment.

At the meeting itself, Beinisch did not talk very much. She had done the work earlier behind the scenes, in discussions with her fellow justices. At the time, she barely wrote any legal decisions; she was too busy working to block Cohen from morning till night. She even managed to bring Mishael Cheshin, one of Cohen’s avid supporters, over to her side. Now Cheshin was opposing her appointment with the same enthusiasm with which he had praised her not long before. “From what I’ve heard about her,” he said at the meeting of the justices, “she absolutely must not be brought in.”

On the table was a letter that had arrived at Barak’s office, written by Prof. Zvia Agur, a biologist who had been working in the faculty of life sciences at Tel Aviv University, did not receive tenure and was dismissed. In the letter, Agur accused Nili Cohen of persecuting her and personally harassing her. It was never clarified, by the way, how this letter got into Barak’s hands. The envelope did not bear the stamp “received,” as is usual for mail that comes to the Supreme Court.

“They told me that there were serious problems of human relations,” said Justice Eliezer Rivlin, a quiet, pleasant man, adding fuel to the fire. “She will cause quarrels here.” Theodor Or, perhaps the justice closest to Barak, came to the aid of the president and said that Cohen should be appointed. “Now you’re saying that we should appoint her,” said Rivlin, “but only a few days ago you told me that you had also heard unpleasant things about her.”

“That’s not true, I didn’t say that,” replied Or, and Rivlin jumped up from his seat, exclaiming, “What, am I a liar?”

Many newspaper articles followed the Cohen affair, but none of the justices was ever openly interviewed about it. Beinisch herself, on the eve of her appointment as president of the Supreme Court, gave a background interview to the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, but never spoke about it in public. Now she has agreed to do so, but for a book rather than to the press. “Ha’elyonim” (The Supreme Court Justices), Levitsky’s second book (the first, a biography of Aharon Barak, came out five years ago), will be published this week, in the Hasifriya Hahadasha (New Library) series of Kibbutz Hameuhad publishers, and includes on-the-record conversations Levitsky held with many past and present Supreme Court justices, primarily Barak, Beinisch and Cheshin. Some of the justices who spoke with her demanded that they be cited only in indirect speech, without quotation marks.

Not Beinisch. “I’m not the only one who believed that Nili Cohen was not the person who would save this court,” she told Levitsky. “That was the general opinion, and that was the main reason for our opposition to her appointment. The discussion during the meeting of the justices was much more practical than people think. They wanted to bring Nili Cohen here as a reinforcement candidate, and that’s very complicated. In order to bring someone from the academic world here, it has to be a very specific type of academic world. A person who has never seen a courtroom, who has never even crossed the threshold, is not a person that this court needs. I am trying to strengthen the constitutional aspect of the court, the public aspect of the work here.”

A few days after that stormy discussion, Justice Dalia Dorner suggested appointing Eliahu Mazza, who was considered neutral in the matter, as a type of “investigating judge” in order to see whether there was any truth in the accusations against Cohen, or whether it was merely slander and gossip. Beinisch agreed, but the next day Barak demanded that former justice Yitzhak Zamir be included in the investigation. Mazza was so insulted that his face turned red, and he announced that if Barak wanted Zamir to investigate, that was fine, “but not together with me.”

At the end of that meeting, as Levitsky describes it, “it was clear that most of the justices were siding with Beinisch, the president-designate, and turning their backs on the incumbent president. This was a situation the likes of which had never been seen before in the Supreme Court. Over three years before the end of the president’s candidacy, it was clear to everyone that the center of power had been transferred from the president himself to the person designated to be the next president.”

How did Levitsky manage to get behind the scenes of the “Holy of Holies,” as she herself describes the Supreme Court, and convince the justices to cooperate with her and expose their secrets? “I simply went from one to the other and spoke with everyone from whom I thought there was a chance of getting information, until I got the whole picture,” she said in an interview a few days before the publication of her book. “I knew there had been a major drama in the Nili Cohen affair, and I wanted to investigate it thoroughly. The matter of Nili Cohen was less interesting to me that the transfer of power. Three and a half years before the changing of the presidents there was an exchange of power, and that is something that fascinates me.”

Did Beinisch plan the move to reinforce her power?

“These are simply things that happen. When someone loses power, when his locks have been shorn, the power is naturally transferred. That’s the nature of man and the nature of every organization. In my opinion, the Nili Cohen affair forced Beinisch to float to the top much earlier than she had planned. She had been a quiet and invisible justice, largely unheard except in limited forums.”

Did she regret the uproar that centered around her?

“I assume she did. She herself understood that it didn’t help her publicly. But she was very determined on this matter; she did not regret that the appointment did not go through. Beinisch is a strong and determined woman. When she takes on a challenge, she takes on a challenge. We’ve seen that in her personal history, she’s willing to take risks, and it’s impossible not to respect her for that. She has a strong character. I’m not even talking about her beauty. When I saw her for the first time, about 20 years ago, she took my breath away.”

Levitsky met Beinisch for the first time in 1985, when she had just become a reporter for the weekly news magazine Koteret Rashit and Beinisch was the deputy state prosecutor. A short time later, their paths crossed in the Bus 300 affair (in which Palestinian hijackers were beaten to death by Shin Bet agents). To her surprise, perhaps because of her longstanding ties with Beinisch, it was not too difficult to persuade her to be interviewed for this book. In one of the conversations Beinisch also referred to the fraught meeting in her office between her and Judge Boaz Okon, at the time the director of the Courts Administration, and the man who would become one of her bitter enemies. Okon, a close friend of Nili Cohen and her former research assistant, was sent by Barak to find out whether Beinisch would agree to a double appointment to the Supreme Court: Nili Cohen together with Edna Arbel, Beinisch’s close friend.

“He spoke to me aggressively and with chutzpah,” said Beinisch. “He told me that I was not yet the president, and it was not certain that I would be president, and what was I thinking when I opposed the viewpoint of the president like that.” Okon served as legal editor for Levitsky’s first book, and in effect as a private law tutor on behalf of Barak. Now, an interviewee like all the others, he has a different version of what took place at that meeting: “I came in and told her that I understood that she had serious complaints against Nili, personal complaints. Beinisch stopped me immediately and said that her opposition was not personal, and that she was opposed to the appointment because she didn’t think that someone from the academic world should be appointed now, and that was the end of the conversation.” Barak, who heard from Okon about the outcome of the conversation, understood that the story was over.

Did Barak understand at that point that his status had declined, that his exclusive hold on the center of power in the Supreme Court had ended?

Levitsky: “I can’t answer that in his place, but I would guess that he understood. At the time he was very hurt. Anyone who met him then could see that he had changed completely. He wasn’t the same person, he had lost some of his vitality.”

Consolidating a majority

The book shatters two common assumptions about the way Supreme Court justices write their decisions. One is that every justice is entirely independent in this activity – alone with the paper, with the facts in the file and their legal analysis. There is no authority above him except that of the law. The second assumption is that the reason why so much time passes between discussion of the fundamental petitions and the decision on them is the tremendous workload borne by the justices.

Levitsky snickers when she hears these things. Her book is full of examples from behind the scenes that prove that neither assumption is true. Instead, the justices consult with one another, persuade one another, make efforts to convince and even negotiate with one another about the wording of the decision so that they will be able to say, “I agree.”

On the other hand, important decisions are sometimes delayed for years on end so that one justice or another will succeed in obtaining a majority among the justices on the panel. And if efforts to convince don’t help, changes in the composition of the panel do.

“The justices pass along a large number of drafts to one another,” says Levitsky. “One tells the other, I can agree with you on condition that you omit this and that sentence. There are entire negotiations between them. In order to consolidate a majority on a certain issue, sometimes justices have to relinquish one sentence or another. They sit at meetings, speak among themselves and deliberate. Sometimes they also consider how the ruling will affect the court.”

The case of the Citizenship Law amendment that prevents reunification of families of Israeli Arab citizens married to Palestinians proves almost everything that Levitsky wants to prove in this connection. The petition was discussed by a panel of 13 justices, including Justice Salim Joubran, who at the time still had a temporary appointment in the Supreme Court. During the meeting of the justices, Barak, who supported overturning the amendment, was under the impression that he had succeeded in garnering a majority of seven justices, as opposed to six justices headed by Cheshin who wanted to leave the amendment in place. He wrote his decision, but when his attempts to bring Eliahu Mazza, Asher Grunis or Miriam Naor over to his side failed, he decided to shelve his ruling. Levitsky says that he was simply afraid to overturn the amendment to the Citizenship Law on the basis of a majority of seven to six, with an Arab judge as the deciding factor.

The shelving of the decision written by Barak, when it had a majority in the Supreme Court, is a sensational revelation that is being published for the first time in the book. A year and a half after the petitions were submitted to the High Court of Justice against the Citizenship Law, when Justices Theodor Or and Dalia Dorner had already retired, Barak appointed Esther Hayut and Yehonatan Adiel to the panel. But since he had not yet succeeded in changing the balance of power within the panel, he decided, with Mazza’s encouragement, to publish an interim decision expressing dissatisfaction with the amendment; but it has no real binding validity. All the justices on the panel agreed to sign this decision. “Our hope was that the government would understand and do something,” said Mazza. But his hope was dashed.

Prior to Cheshin’s resignation from the court in May 2006, Barak decided to end the affair and publish the decision. Now only 11 justices remained on the panel, and Barak discovered to his chagrin that even his fragile majority had disappeared. Adiel decided to adopt Cheshin’s position. Barak, in an attempt to preserve the majority, agreed to give the government eight more months to change the law. But three days before the publication of the decision, Eliezer Rivlin, who considers himself the successor to Barak’s liberalism in the defense of human rights, informed him that he had changed his mind and sided with Cheshin.

Barak had a plan: He wrote a moderate decision, in order to convince the justices to adopt his position. In case he discovered that he had been unsuccessful in obtaining a majority, he planned to write a much more sharply worded minority opinion against the amendment. But since the balance of powers was discovered at the very last moment, he didn’t have any time left to do so.

Even Cheshin once shelved a decision he had written, under the influence of the internal politics of the Supreme Court. Up until now he has refused to reveal the subject of that shelved decision. Levitsky reveals the secret: It dealt with the well-known “Ka’adan-Katzir affair.” (An Israeli Arab family tried to buy a house in a new community, Katzir, established by the state and the Jewish Agency on state-owned land. The Katzir housing committee refused to allow the family to move in on the grounds that they were not Jewish. The family petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming that this constituted racial discrimination, and challenging the fact that citizens could be excluded from public land through the Jewish Agency.) Barak tried, as usual, to consolidate a solid majority for his ruling, when it was already clear that its influence would be broad and precedent-setting. However, Cheshin surprised him when he declared that he planned so write his own decision.

“When Barak received a draft copy of Cheshin’s decision,” writes Levitsky, “he was upset. Barak could not accept the words. In a very exceptional step, he entered Cheshin’s room and closed the door behind him. ‘You cannot publish such a thing,’ said Barak, ‘it will shame you, and not only you, it will shame this entire court. These words will be published all over the world and will be condemned.'”

Barak said it was not easy to convince Cheshin to shelve the decision he had written. As a last resort, he invoked the memory of Cheshin’s late father, Supreme Court justice Zalman Cheshin: “Misha, if you yourself don’t care, think about your father. What would your father say about the things you’ve written here?” Cheshin finally agreed to shelve the decision, and joined Barak’s opinion.

Secret society

Levitsky worked on her book for two and a half years. Since the publication of her first book, “Kevodo” (His Honor), the biography of Barak, Levitsky has been teaching a course in the law school of the Tel Aviv College of Management, though she lacks formal legal training. The course deals with the connection between the personal and professional background of judges and their legal world view and decisions. At a certain stage she decided to collect all the material that had accumulated in the course she taught and to turn it into a book. For a year she worked only on research, spoke with almost 120 open sources and another 10 clandestine ones, and read legal decisions, books, articles and biographies of Israeli and American judges, before beginning to write.

Her father, Asher Levitsky, was a renowned Tel Aviv lawyer in the 1950s and ’60s, who dealt mainly in criminal law. He died when Levitsky was 8 years old. She is the only daughter of her mother Mary, who died while she was working on “His Honor.” That is the reason for her instinctive identification with Dorner, who also lost her father at an early age.

Levitsky was born in Jerusalem, and while still in elementary school, moved to Tel Aviv. She married early and divorced early, and a short time after her divorce her former husband was killed in a traffic accident. Before working in journalism she served as an emissary for the United Jewish Appeal in the United States. She began to write for Koteret Rashit in 1985, after a conversation with the editor, Nahum Barnea. At the same time she moonlighted as a bartender in a pub on Ibn Gvirol Street.

Three years later she moved over to the now-defunct daily Hadashot as a senior political correspondent, and in 1991 she moved to the daily Yedioth Ahronoth. She says she was never defined as a reporter, but she brought in many scoops. In 1998 she left Yedioth after a prolonged period of mutual cooling of relations. Something went wrong with the chemistry, she says.

Levitsky is extremely protective of her own privacy, which is somewhat surprising in light of her project of exposing the private lives of the justices, and her positions on the connection between one’s biography and professional life. During the years when she was working on “His Honor” she supported herself on the monthly stipend she received from the publisher. In recent years she has received support from the Tel Aviv Foundation, in addition to her salary from the College of Management. The financial security enabled her to devote herself to researching what goes on inside the Supreme Court. Anyone who works as an active journalist, she says, who has to deliver the goods on a daily basis, has neither the time nor the ability to do that. Moreover, she says, the media have not completely internalized the full importance of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, she says, is the last of the clandestine organizations in the country. It is easier to penetrate the Mossad and the Shin Bet security services. “The justices would certainly prefer to continue conducting the entire business under a mantle of secrecy,” says Levitsky, “but as [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Louis Brandeis once said: ‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’ Barak adopted this saying, but he of course is referring to everything but the court.

“I think that one should expose as much as possible. The court is today perhaps the strongest organization in the country. It’s an aggressive, institutionalized organization, and there are power struggles and power hierarchies there. The justices determine every step in our lives, without our even noticing in everyday life how much of it they have determined.”

In the final analysis, the Supreme Court justices are human beings – they like the same food, laugh at the same jokes and have the same loves, hates and needs as everyone else. The expectation that they be perfect, she says, is simply unfair. “In the long run, I think that if we treat the justices more like human beings and less like the sons of gods, and understand them better, we will be able to accept their decisions more easily, even if we don’t agree with them.”

In the book Levitsky tries to decipher the way in which the justices arrive at decisions. They can talk as much as they like about legal reasons, she says, but things also have a political aspect, not in the sense of party politics but in the public, social, ethical sense. She believes that the Supreme Court should not be another appeals court.

“I am among the members of the public who believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to set norms, to move processes of social evolution, to deal with human rights. That is what I expect from it. From my point of view, that is its job. Barak always told me, you are dealing with 2 percent of the things we do, and I replied that those are the 2 percent that give you the title ‘supreme.’ Otherwise, you’re just another appeals court, and that doesn’t interest me.”

What will your next project be in the political arena?

“I don’t want to commit myself, but the work was so hard, exhausting and pressured, that the way I feel now, this is the last project in that area.”

She has some advice for the person who writes the next book on the Supreme Court: To devote a great deal of attention to Justices Ayala Procaccia and Edmond Levy: “Because they have been in the Supreme Court for only six years, it’s impossible to go all the way with them in this book, but these are justices with very complex personalities, they are unpredictable and they look at things differently. It’s interesting that they were appointed together, as though representing two sides of the divide, one liberal and the other conservative, and sometimes they can be found on the same side of the divide.” W

01 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
JIWON: This is part of my previous mail on May 15, Dear Berlin Mayor and President of Supreme Court of Israel.

http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/633/ (Sep 12, 2003) Yechezkel Beinisch, A citizen above suspicion: Attorney General Rubinstein, who, like Arbel, requires Justice Beinisch’s support if he is to realize his dream of a seat on the Supreme Court, showed himself equally reluctant to investigate her husband.

http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/633/ (Sep 12, 2003) Yechezkel Beinisch, A citizen above suspicion: (…) Poraz’s sudden decision to dismiss Bogat from his post … Despite the fact that Bogat is known to have very good media connections, no mainstream media outlet picked up the connection… The refusal of State Attorney Arbel and Attorney General Rubinstein to investigate Yechezkel Beinisch’s handling of the finances of the Jerusalem Symphony or his alleged threats to have Attorney Michal Rosenbaum dismissed from her job was not the last of their assistance to him. Beinisch brought a libel suit against the Broadcast Authority. In ths case, however, the Broadcast Authority was forced to hire a private attorney after receiving the cold shoulder from State Attorney Edna Arbel. Only when the Broadcast Authority filed its answer, did the State Attorneys office attempt to intervene and force a withdrawal of the answer, which contained many damaging allegations about Yechezkel Beinisch. Again, this unusual behavior of the State Attorneys office elicited no curiosity in Yediot Aharanot, Haaretz, or the broadcast media…

http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/633/ (Sep 12, 2003) Yechezkel Beinisch, A citizen above suspicion: Equally curious was the intervention of The Movement for Quality in Government on behalf of Yechezkel Beinisch… At least one investigative journalist noted an apparent conflict of interest between The Movement for Quality Government’s service on behalf of Yechezkel Beinisch and the fact that Beinisch’s wife is presently a member of the panel… Yitzchak (Maariv) wrote to the President of the Court pointing out the problem… For his efforts, Yitzchak received a thinly veiled warning from Justice Beinisch. She accused him of attempting to improperly influence judicial proceedings, and for good measure added that his letter to the Court President might constitute a criminal violation…

Israeli Justice Recuses Himself (May 12, 2005) Yitzchak revealed that the daughter of the next Court President, Justice Dorit Beinisch, was given a position in the State Prosecutor’s office in violation of civil service regulations. That appointment was pushed ahead by former State Prosecutor Edna Arbel, whose own successful candidacy for the Court was pushed by her good friend Dorit Beinisch. One hand washes the other. In her new position, the younger Beinisch will regularly be appearing before the Supreme Court of which her mother is a member and future leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinui On 10 January 2005… However, the Shinui-party continued to support the disengagement and FM Netanyahu’s financial reforms. Poraz affair and party split…

In case you need more reasons to dislike Bibi… (Nov 24, 2004) And to forestall any accusation that I’m not an equal-opportunity critic, that sort of rhetoric doesn’t sound any better when it comes from Avraham Poraz.
JIWON: This article is now “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access /archives/026874.html on this server.”

http://www.dofeed.co.il/search.asp?site=327 (Aug 31, 2007) the fates of the government of Israel and its prime minister will be in the hands of three members of the High Court of Justice: President Dorit Beinisch… They will discuss two petitions, submitted by the IDF judge advocate general and former MK Avraham Poraz, asking the court to require the Winograd Committee

14 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Another Tack: Friends in deed
Sep 21, 2006 / By Sarah Honig
Consider the merciless vetting to which candidates for the US Supreme Court are subjected. (…) Not so in Israel.
(…) For openers, there are no transparent hearings to scrutinize candidates to one of the most powerful positions in the land, particularly in view of how ultra-interventionist our court is. This court, a law unto itself, also replicates itself. “A friend brings a friend” in the worst of Israel’s tradition of unabashed cronyism.
(…) Exactly 11 years ago, on September 22, 1995 – only weeks before the assassination – Israel state television titillated its viewers with particularly eerie footage shot in the wee hours in a deserted graveyard. (…) The camera, as we’re often told, never lies.
(…) Beinisch pled ignorance. She maintained she “never permitted” Raviv to “incriminate innocent persons.” We have to take her word for it, because we’ll never know for sure.
WE’LL NEVER know if different tactics were sanctioned for communities, as distinct from individuals, if the prosecution merely approved defaming an entire segment of public opinion. The case against Raviv for libel and his macabre midnight pageant was closed – for “lack of public interest”- by Beinisch’s best friend and successor as state attorney Edna Arbel.
During Arbel’s state attorney tenure, a case against Beinisch’s husband, Yehezkel, for defrauding the income tax authorities was also closed. Beinisch blamed Yehezkel’s legal travails on “political antagonists” who’d stop at nothing to get at her. Again we may never know, because the tax charges were dropped.
TO BE SURE Yehezkel is still the subject of financial and felony investigations, which the prosecution is incredibly loath to pursue and apparently very eager to forget about. Nonetheless, formally at least, some allegations still hang over Yehezkel’s head, a circumstance which would have made his wife’s promotion to head the highest court in the land unlikely elsewhere – in Washington, for instance.
But here, as we noted, a friend brings a friend. And so, Beinisch made sure Arbel joined her on the Supreme Court. No feminist zeal was involved. Beinisch stopped at nothing to thwart the candidacies of two of the country’s most esteemed law professors: Ruth Gavison and Nili Cohen.
In true oligarchies nothing is left to chance.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 1: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

26 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Behind the Lines: Supreme self-importance
Feb 22, 2007 / By Anshel Pfeffer
The media has room for all kinds of pundits. (…) But it is definitely the latest species of talking-head on our screens who speak with an unassailable self-confidence and are accorded the greatest degree of respect. These are the former Supreme Court justices, descending from their Mounts of Olympus and – as if they never had handed in their robes – delivering absolute judgment on all of us.
Over the last couple of weeks, during the fracas surrounding the appointment of Daniel Friedmann as justice minister and Yaacov Genot as police inspector-general, you could barely turn on your TV or open your newspaper without coming upon one of these luminaries pontificating against the appointments which are about to bring the temple down.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 2: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

29 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Beinisch warns of campaign to erode public’s faith in the courts
Mar 14, 2007 / By Yuval Yoaz

TALKBACKS 2
1. Prespective 18:44 Benlolo 14/03/07 14/03/07
2. What does Mrs Beinish say 19:37 Vladimir 14/03/07
3. King Barak, Queen Beinisch destroying Torah basis of justice 20:08 Yacov 14/03/07
4. Pompous Court 21:00 Yisrael 14/03/07
5. She forgot to tell those refusing post how rich they could become 21:21 Absolute Sweden 14/03/07
6. you eroded the faith yourselves 21:26 Ben Uziel 14/03/07
7. rule of the clerks!!!! 21:29 rebecca 14/03/07
8. The Court has no one but itself to blame 21:55 Chick Corea 14/03/07
9. Funniest article I`ve read in a very long time 22:36 Mosheh Wolfish 14/03/07
10. Absolute Sweden: Barak & 18 houses 22:46 Mosheh Wolfish 14/03/07

30 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Beinisch warns of campaign against legal system
Mar 14, 2007 ? By Aviram Zino
(…) Beinisch said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave her his word that the government would not only not cut back on the judicial system’s budget but also increase it.
(…) Many expected the two to clash over Friedmann’s reform agenda and public statements about restraining the power of the courts, but so far matters have been dealt with in a relatively calm manner. Beinisch simply said: “I hope he learns the needs of the system and understands that reforms are for the long run and demands a thorough examination.”
(…) “Israel can be proud of an independent and professional system,” said Beinisch, adding that she constantly received praise from colleagues abroad about Israel’s judicial system.

TALKBACKS 3
1. Maybe the problem is…..
an Israeli Supreme Court that thinks it’s not soley supreme over the other courts of the land rather over all other branches of government as well.
Ben Hur , Manhattan, USA (03.14.07)
6. Judicial greed for power
The Israeli Supreme Court is unfettered by a constitution, and rules by political whim. Naturally the judges are afraid of curtailment of their free-wheeling right to impose their views. The elected government must not back down on its attempt to reign in the Supreme(ly arrogant) Court.
Nathan , Montreal (03.15.07)
8. It’s about time restriction are imposed.
They are out of touch with reality & constantly sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong.
Avraham , Netivot (03.15.07)

34 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
The Gavison Solution
Apr 20, 2007 / By Yuval Yoaz
Were Prof. Ruth Gavison now sitting on one of the padded orange armchairs in the Supreme Court, she would certainly not instruct the Winograd Committee to publish (…) Had Gavison been appointed to the bench some years ago, it is possible that the complainants would never have submitted the petition in the first place, having realized that it did not stand a chance.
Gavison is one of the country’s most eminent jurists of all time. In some areas, such as the philosophy of law, she is outstanding even by international standards.
(…) This week, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz backed Mandel publicly after she was criticized for the state’s representation of the Winograd Committee. (…) Justice Ministry officials are convinced that they are caught between a rock and a hard place, between committee members with militant views who tried to rebel against the High Court’s directives and the court itself.
(…) For Friedmann, the transcripts affair is part of a much wider problem, that of the gradual expansion of the sphere of responsibility of the Suprene Court justices without interference from any other body. In the era of the Agranat or the Kahane commissions, no one would have dreamed of the High Court intervening to tell the committee how to operate and what to take into consideration.
Friedmann’s position, which is close to Gavison’s worldview, marks the battle between the Winograd committee and the High Court of Justice as yet another chapter in the larger battle between the Friedmann and Beinisch camps. In effect, this is the first arena in which this battle has come into the open, while the moves toward legislating the contraction of the High Court’s power and changing the composition of the judicial appointments committee have not yet reached an advanced stage.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 3: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

36 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
‘Ramon charges worse than Katsav’s’
Jul 17, 2007 / By Dan Izenberg
JIWON:There was internet-comment saying, “Beinisch made the statement during a High Court discussion of petitions against a plea bargain signed by Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz.” Then, the commenter questioned about Beinisch’s real reason. But this article tells me nothing.

38 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Beinisch: Friedmann ‘sowing strife’ in legal system
August 02, 2007 / By Jonathan Lis and Carmel Ben-Tsur
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch accused Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann yesterday of sowing “disharmony and strife” with his proposed reform of the selection process for court presidents and deputy presidents.
“It is clear that the proposals you are disseminating are another in a series of steps that sow strife and disharmony and are intended to crush the existing structure of the judicial system and demolish the institution of the Supreme Court president,” Beinisch wrote in a letter to Friedmann that she also distributed to the media.
Friedmann had written a letter detailing the proposals, which was publicized over the weekend.
(…) In response, Friedmann’s office said: “We view the Supreme Court president’s letter as unfortunate, as she chose to respond to the justice minister’s consultative letter by issuing a statement to the media. Since the day he took office, Minister Friedmann has worked to strengthen and improve the justice system and increase the public’s faith in it.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that he is “proud of the Supreme Court, headed by President Dorit Beinisch, and see my job as prime minister as protecting it, its independence and its ability to continue being the bastion of democracy and the keeper of its seal.”
Speaking at a graduation ceremony for the National Security College, which took place in Jerusalem, Olmert termed the judicial system “an important element of our national security.” This system is a “flak jacket” that gives the government and the army the moral and legal confidence to defend the citizenry, he said. (…)

39 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Retired Justices (Barak, Shamgar) Attempt to Heal Friedmann-Beinisch Rift
Aug 7, 2007 / By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
(…) Last week, Justice Beinisch sent a harshly worded letter to the Justice Minister in which she attacks him with unprecedented vitriol and accuses him of causing “strife and discord.” The letter, copies of which were sent to representatives of the press, accuses Friedmann of purposely destroying the judicial system’s present structure, undermining Beinish’s own status and creating a situation in which court presidents are dependent on the justice minister.
(…) Justice Minister Friedmann’s official response to Beinisch’s broadside against him was a single sentence, in which he said that ever since he was appointed Justice Minister, he has been “acting to strengthen and improve the judicial system and to increase the public’s faith in it.” The unofficial response, attributed to “sources close to Friedmann” or “Friedmann’s bureau,” was, “We are sorry to read the letter by the Supreme Court President, who chose to answer a topical letter of consultation by the Justice Minister with a press release.”
Last month, Friedmann scored a legislative victory of sorts in his efforts to reform the judicial system when the Knesset approved, in a lopsided 45-0-5 vote, a bill he sponsored that limits the term of office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to seven years. Justice Beinisch and former Justice Barak opposed the bill. The presidents of all other courts in Israel are already bound by term limits.

TALKBACKS 4
3. Justice Min.Friedman -Justice Beinisch
valiant, Ramat Gan (08/08/07)
May I commend Justice Minister Friedman for his stand may he be empowered to make the reform that he has proposed to do and clean up the old codwebs within the Highest Court of Israel …every person organisation parliament under the sun has to be accountable to someoelse that includes Madam Justice. We must progress not be stagnant for stagnat waters smells and brings forth parasites and sickness. Please Retired Judges step back and let this situation take its course there is no shame in any office held by the authority to be transparent to the public no one is exsempt from weakeness and blindness. So let us be courageous and deal with this that anything that is hidden may be revealed and dealt with without fears malice slander anger resentment and power struggle we are in a family! We must function as a family and be fair with all the members involved be of high esteem as well of low !
4. level turf
James, (08/08/07)
easing the field shifting the power, making the courts responsive and not reactive and inactive. when ones power and prestige is threatened they will always fight. but with the light shinning on her perhaps she will give in in time for true change to take place.
5. These people have no dignity.
Tony Trenton, Israel (08/08/07)
They hold offices of critical importance & yet they don’t have the sense to show the dignity of their positions. They act like adolescent kids. They should both be fired immediately as unsuitable people for the positions they hold.
THIS IS JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
THIS FISH HAS BEEN STINKING FROM THE HEAD FOR TOO LONG!

40 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Friedmann, Beinisch jointly back legislation on courts’ authority
Aug 15, 2007 By Yuval Yoaz
(…) Several months ago, Beinisch announced that one of her express goals is to establish a legal system that is not subordinate to the Justice Ministry, and conducts its affairs directly with the Knesset. This sentiment has also been expressed by both Barak and Shamgar in the past.

TALKBACKS 5
1. Beinisch politics has nothing to do with the law 19:11 Joseph E . 15/08/07
2. Beinish policies do have to do with the law 20:45 J.M. 15/08/07
3. since when can JUDGES DECIDE ON THEIR OWN POWER in a democracy 21:02 amir 15/08/07

45 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Beinish: Human rights weakened because of Friedmann
Nov 4, 2007 / By Aviram Zino

TALKBACKS 6
1. Friedmann just try finish feudalism in Israel
Mike, London (11.04.07)
2. The Court’s job is to interpret the law
It is not to run every aspect of the country, set policy, micromanage the state. This situation in Israel is no different from a dictatorship. The dictator stays in power, unelected and unremovable, while the ministers do the Court’s bidding and the electorate remains powerless. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but my disgust is so profound that I must agree with Musharraf’s replacing the Chief Justice…. Not a bad idea.
Jeff, USA (11.04.07)
3. yes it is to harm
and harm is an active action .and do not need passive one but the kenesset low ,when it is rational meanes it is halfe passive
kasseer, jerusalem (11.04.07)
4. No, it’s the other way round
As the court is nominated and not elected, it is clear that Beinish is lying in order to conserve her immense and unjustified power
Andras Bereny bereny@tin.it, Kfar Tapuah, Samaria (11.04.07)
5. Beinish blaming Friedman – again
Best possible news possible to start the week. The better news will be when Beinish goes !
I.Kemp, Nahariya (11.04.07)
6. As a democratic country – IF such a thing exists here –
it’s about time to get rid of the self appointed criminal High Court and institute elections to appoint judges for the High Court.
Joseph P, Jerusalem (11.04.07)
7. If I’m correct, Israel does not have a constitution? That’s
probably why powers are not separated properly nor limited properly. If this is the case, everyone can move the target a little here or there.
*Correct me if I’m wrong, and explain how the court or legislature knows what’s going on if there is no clear reference point.*
Without a constitution, human rights become whatever you make them off to be.
We’ve had our liberal judges do or try that. If a Judge wants to make law, he or she should run for the legislature and get off the bench. Then they will find out how popular their ideas really are.
Stewart, RalphPoochK9@gmail.com USA (11.04.07)
8. P.S. Like New Zealand and Canada, I just found out that …
Israel has no real constitution. New Zealand is one of the biggest pain in the patouts that Isreal has to experience. Canadian liberal are probably in their somewhere. Their judges just don’t understand why our government doesn’t their marijuanna down here. Does Israel really want to follow the examples of New Zealand and Canada? As G. Gordon Lidy so wisely said, “Poor laws make poor decisions.” I doubt Basic Law is a substitute for the real thing.
Stewart, USA (11.04.07)
9. The problem is the Juduciary and not the Minister!
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish just doesn’t get it. The people of this country do not have any confidence in the judiciary! When will our judges get it into their thick heads that we demand justice and not plea bargains. Criminals MUST go to jail. People who kill must be punished with minimum sentences. Allowing lawyers to kill while drunk and to get off scot-free is not acceptable! Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish MUST reform the judiciary for one reason and that is because “We the people say so!” and that is our civil right as the electorate to whom the administration is responsible.
David, Karmiel, Israel (11.04.07)
10. Don’t Be Bullied, Danny.
Reuven Brauner, Raanana, Israel (11.04.07)

46 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
DM Ehud Barak: Public must be involved in determining court’s authority
Nov 11, 2007 / By Yuval Yoaz
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the argument between retired Supreme Court president Aharon Barak and Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann “must not be solved by arm-twisting, but through a public hearing.”

TALKBACKS 7
1. a court that sets its own jurisdiction is a kangaroo court! 13:43 victor hardman 11/11/07

49 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Mazuz: Leaders under suspicion should resign
Nov 23, 2007
(…) Attorney General Menahem Mazuz, who was speaking at a conference in Bar Ilan university, cited Haim Ramon, Tzahi Hanegbi and Avraham Hirschson as examples of ministers…
(…) Next week, a decision is expected in the investigation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the Bank Leumi tender case…
(…) Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, who also attended the conference, opined that corruption was not exclusively a matter of criminality. “I don’t know if the level of corruption in government institutions has risen,” she said. “However, it is bad enough that governmental institutions are seen as corrupt [by the public]. One must bear in mind that not all inappropriate behavior constitutes a criminal offense.”

50 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Aharon Barak: Israel tops US at protecting human rights
Nov 25, 2007 / By Dan Izenberg
(…) Their speeches focused on the dispute between the Supreme Court and Friedmann over sweeping changes that the justice minister has begun to introduce to reduce the court’s powers…
(…) Friedmann also charged that the judges, including retired justices Barak, Mishael Cheshin and others, were violating the Rules of Ethics for judges that were approved earlier this year. He maintained that according to the rules, judges were prohibited from speaking out on matters that did not involve judicial issues. He also argued that the reforms that he wanted to introduce were not judicial matters, but matters of public policy. Therefore, the judges should not speak out on them.
At the same time, however, he complained that until he was appointed justice minister, the judges and their allies stifled public discussion of the allegedly far-reaching changes they had made in judicial decision-making.

51 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Lower rate of rape victims reporting to police
Nov 28, 2007 / / By Ruth Eglash
(…) Presenting its annual report, the association’s director Tal Kramer told the assortment of MKs, representatives of women’s organizations and other government officials, including Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, that the decrease in reporting was slight but extremely significant. “It is something that should raise alarm bells,” Kramer said.
(…) A range of mostly female MKs commented on the subject, including MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz), who asked how women could be expected to report sex crimes against them when in high profile cases such as those of former president Moshe Katsav and Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon the women are ridiculed and state pardons are handed out.

JIWON: It will be interesting to compare this article with what appeared five months later.

Hetzroni Zula: a refuge for street youth (from Secular, Arabs, Haredi, & Religious Zionists)
Apr 12, 2008 / By Peggy Cidor
(…) THE NUMBERS are astonishing. By the end of 2007, there were 7,884 street youth aged 14-26, known and registered in various ways with the Youth Advancement Division. As for the “newcomers,” the numbers are even more dramatic. (…) Dan notes that there are more boys than girls living on the streets, but adds that “the girls are in much more serious trouble, due mostly to their naivete and their education from home. Thus they get into trouble more easily, and their problems are very serious.” (…)
Number of homeless female teenagers soar
Apr 15, 2008 / By Ruth Eglash
The number of teenage girls living on Israel’s streets has dramatically increased in the last three years and preventing the young women from being sucked into the sex industry is an extremely difficult task (…) More than 25% of all homeless youth in 2007 were girls, found the report, compared to 15% in 2004. (…) “We are talking about girls aged 17-25 who, because they have nowhere to sleep will go home with a man just so they have a roof over their heads,” explained Gabai, highlighting that 99% of young homeless females are eventually drawn into the sex industry. “There is a real problem in locating homeless teenage girls,” stated the report. “Many of them are picked up by men who take advantage of them, making them sell their bodies in order to survive. That means that in many cases the girls cannot be found out on the streets at night but often find shelter in the outlets of the sex industry.” (…)

52 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Senior Judge Beckenstein Accuses Beinisch of Deception
Jan 15, 2008 / By Gil Ronen
Two days after the publication of a petition by 20 Knesset Members, (=20 MKs to Beinisch: Disqualify Yourself), against Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch in the matter of her surreptitious meeting with the American ambassador to Israel, she is under fire again, this time from the president of a lower Israeli court. Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court President Edna Beckenstein accused Beinisch of issuing a statement that has “no grounds in reality” regarding why Magistrates’ Court judge Chayuta Kochan was not being considered for promotion.
(…) According to Yediot Acharonot daily newspaper, Kochan told her friends that Beinisch called her on the phone and told her that Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann wanted to avenge Kochan’s guilty verdict against his friend Chaim Ramon and had her name removed from the list of candidates for promotion.
This claim turned out to be untrue, (…) According to this theory, Beinisch decided to cancel Kochan’s promotion in order to try and weaken the rumors that she had conspired with Kochan.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 4: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

TALKBACKS 8
1. The corruption Never ENDS!
This is more evidence of the corruption, lack of ethics and dirty dealings of so-called Israeli ‘justice’. If you think you smell something rotten you probably do. There needs to be a giant overhaul starting with the UNDOING of appointment coming from the bench. Like Savage says: The stench from the bench is making me clench! 😉
Moriah, Sacramento (16/01/08)
3. Supreme court
Welcome to Israel, the only country where p*******tes can become supreme court judges. Halelluyah!!!
Alain, Montreal Qc (16/01/08)
4. So imprison both Kochan and Beinisch.
It’s ok to plea bargain Kochan so that Beinisch can join Omri Sharon behind bars. Say, for 10 years.
sk, USA (16/01/08)
7. Freemasonry women in Israel’s Judiciary
Finally Prof. Friedmann is cleaning up Israel’s Judiciary. Freemason Dorit Beinisch exceeded her assignment in consulting the Freemason American Ambassador in Israel concerning political matters. The Supreme Court’s building in Yerushalayim, constructed and financed by Freemasonry (Rothschild:
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/rothschild__the_israeli_supreme.htm
shows the real NWO’s and Freemasonry’s plans with Israel!!! Blessings for Prof. Friedmann in dismantling this cancer in Medinat Israel. Shalom from the Netherlands, Hans Holtrop
Hans Holtrop, The Netherlands (16/01/08)
8. Where there is smoke, there is fire!
The justice system in this country stinks & needs an overhaul.
Avraham, Negev (16/01/08)
9. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
This is what you get when the highest court (not necessarily in ethics) engages in political lawmaking. Once the high court gets used to [playing with the law to push the political agenda of justices, why not use the court to protect. And heaven help those who don’t play ball. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” At the expense of Gush Katif, Sharon made a deal with the Left to try & keep his family out of jail (with the help of the Leftist media & the Leftist courts.) Olmert has made the same deal at the expense of Yehudah, Shomron & Y-m. And the Left, the media & the Left on he high court will protect both him and his political allies.9, e.g. Ramon. And heaven help those who don’t play ball. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Aaron Kinsberg, (16/01/08)
10. Conspiracies?
When do conspiracies become movements?
John Hanks, Laramie (17/01/08)

20 MKs to Beinisch: Disqualify Yourself
TALKBACKS 9
1. Why should she?
Israel’s supreame court has consistently acted with supreame disdain to any matter of leftist impropriaty why would they start now. The former head of the court barak openly said during a debate that if it was a conflict between a Jewish State and democracy he always judged for democracy even if he had to bend the laws to do it.
Michael, (13/01/08)
2. Time To Dump ALL These Eruv Ravniks!
These elitist rashaim, who consider Eretz Yisroel to be their own personal rechush, control the media, education ministry AND the courts in order to advance their evil plans. They are a danger to the survival of the Jewish people & must be stopped NOW! Where is the civil unrest, where’s the Opposition? Sur merah va’asei tov. First dump this garbage!
Dr. Zechariah, New York (13/01/08)
3. Hi-Court violated#30 Univ.Declar. of Human Rts.
11/12 of the HighCourt justices violated #30 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by taking away their civil,religious&human rights
jew, Israel (13/01/08)
4. The Supreme Court’s Improprieties. Nothing New
Imagine this – US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia ‘discussing’ legality of anti terror methods with US Chief Justice Justice Roberts.
In any case, there is nothing new under the sun here. Israel’s justices have been taking their orders from their left wing handlers for years.
Adina Kutnicki, (14/01/08)
5. Israel is not a democracy. It is run by the secular elite self-appointed judges
They override the military, the executive orders of the PM, the knesset, and they control all facets of society. The funny thing about the old-school arguments between Rav Kahane ZT”L and the demagogues opposed to him is that the Rav claimed democracy and a Jewish state were contradictions, while they insisted that democracy must stay and Jewish character limited but still upheld. The reality is that that democracy those US “rabbis” so vehemently defended did not even exist in Israel and does not exist today. What planet are people living on?
Velvel, Silver spring (14/01/08)
13. Dorit Beinisch & Olmert as Uncle Toms
It seems that Olmert is not the only ghetto Jew who runs to a foreign power & cow tows/ How disastrous it is when the head of the Court also cow tows to a foreign power.
Aaron Kinsberg, (15/01/08)

53 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Israeli panel faults 2006 war effort
January 31, 2008 / By Richard Boudreaux, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
But the report on the conflict with Lebanon’s Hezbollah doesn’t cast blame on Olmert or other leaders.
An official panel of inquiry found Wednesday that Israel’s failure to win the 2006 war in Lebanon stemmed from “flawed conduct” and “serious failings” by its political and military leadership, but concluded that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert acted in what he thought was the country’s best interest.
The final report on the panel’s 16-month investigation casts no personal blame on any leader. Critics of the embattled prime minister said that made it less likely he would soon be forced to resign. (…)
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 4: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

54 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Dror denies backing Olmert
Feb 6, 2008 / By Dan Izenberg
(…) Dror and the committee were strongly attacked by law professor Mordechai Kremnitzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who said the public was losing its faith in the political system because politicians did not take responsibility for their actions and resign when they failed.
Kremnitzer added that although the committee could not have fired the prime minister, it could have recommended firing public servants or ministers who had failed to do their duty.
(…) At the same time, he said that the only body that could have effectively investigated the war and reached accurate conclusions would have been a state commission of inquiry, whose members are appointed by the president of the Supreme Court and would therefore be independent.
(…) Other symposium participants blasted those who had demanded that the Winograd Committee make concrete recommendations regarding those responsible for the failures.
“Our democracy is sick,” said Israel Democracy Institute head Arik Carmon. “People are increasingly alienated from the political system. I want to consider the Winograd Committee in that context. I want to consider the ‘legalization’ of the political process, wherein the only thing the people want to know is whether a politician is innocent or guilty. The Knesset is not fulfilling its task of supervising and criticizing the government. The establishment of a judicial committee of inquiry is meant to let someone else decide who’s right. The culture of these committees is anti-politics.”
Hebrew University political science professor Shlomo Avineri declared that the reason the government established the institution of the judicial committee of inquiry in the first place was to buy time and appease the public in the face of serious government failures.
JIWON:FOUR months later on June 19, Winograd’s Dror: PM must be ousted. What is his real reason? Real curious…

55 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
An apolitical animal? There’s no such thing
Feb 10, 2008 By Gideon Levy
Shock, surprise: Prof. Yehezkel Dror has political opinions. This sensationalist revelation about a member of the Winograd Committee immediately became one more weapon in the hands of commentators, politicians and self-proclaimed “apolitical” protests that sought to make one final effort to resuscitate their moribund movements.
(…) Having a political opinion has become a slur in these parts. The fashion now is to keep one’s distance from all things political. But politics is what shapes our lives and determines fates.
(…) In the United States, which we are so fond of imitating, Congress holds a hearing for all Supreme Court judicial candidates and asks them about their political views. Why? In order to know who will be sitting on the bench. We, too, deserve to know what Dorit Beinisch thinks about international law. Only thus can we evaluate them in the proper light.

63 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Justice minister blasts ‘publicity hungry’ Supreme Court
May 27, 2008 / By Tomer Zarchin
Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann on Monday accused Supreme Court justices of encouraging controversial cases that will draw media attention, even if the petitions in question have no chance of being accepted.
(…) According to Friedmann, there are two Supreme Courts – the one that existed during the state’s first four decades, and the court of the past 20 years. The first court exercised self-restraint, he said, but the second is overly involved in controversial issues.
(…) Responding to Friedmann’s salvos, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak termed the minister’s description of the court “a caricature.”
(…) Barak also blamed government officials for the rise in the number of petitions to the court, (…) Barak added that the increase in the number of petitions does not stem “from a new Supreme Court; the cause is the same old government.”
(…) The current court president, Justice Dorit Beinisch, told the conference that there are efforts to curtail the court’s powers of judicial oversight, and charged that this is a deceptive and mistaken use of the principle of checks and balances. She added that there is an attempt to create the impression that the court is infringing on areas beyond its proper purview, in an effort to signal the bench that unless it behaves with restraint in pending cases, legislation will be passed to curtail its power.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

TALKBACKS 12
1. DICTATORSHIP of the clerks: No CHECKS & BALANCES in ISRAEL!!! 08:56 Ben Uziel
2. but the second is overly involved in controversial issues. 11:18 Esther
3. Common sense 12:27 Joseph

64 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Senior judge Beckenstein rapped for meeting journalists
May 27, 2008 / By Tomer Zarchin
(…) Strasberg-Cohen looked into Bekenstein’s behavior in response to a complaint filed by Beinisch around three months ago.
(…) Bekenstein told Haaretz in response that “the ombudsman’s decision in this matter was tendentious and was intended from the start to satisfy President Beinisch. My letter [to Beinisch] was not given to the press by me. In contrast, an announcement was sent to the press about the president having filed a complaint against me, a proceeding that is internal, confidential and personal. And that is without even mentioning the ombudsman’s decision, which was forwarded in a ‘personal, confidential, for the addressee only’ letter, but is today circulating in the media.”
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

69 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Report: Government panel to probe Ramon sex crime inquiry (Use of Wiretapping)
Jun 11, 2008
TALKBACKS 13
1. “Sex-crime”…? 23:31 Esther 11/06/08

71 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
News in Brief: Katsav lawyers to ask Friedmann whether former president can expect fair trial
June 16, 2008
Lawyers of former president Moshe Katsav will today ask Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann to consider whether their client can receive a fair trial, given the media exposure of the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him as well as the judges’ previous involvement in the case. Lawyers Avigdor Feldman, Zion Amir and Avraham Lavi claim Judge Shulamit Dotan wrote an official document in which she criticized the decision made by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch over a plea bargain with Katsav, which was later canceled by the former president. A Judicial Authority spokesperson said the memo was for in-court purposes only and was drawn up to facilitate legal procedures. (Ofra Edelman)

73 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Sa’ar-bill: Nobel laureate Aumann applies game theory to judge selection
Jun 17, 2008 / By Dan Izenberg
(…) During the meeting Aumann had much less to say about game theory than he did about what was wrong with the Supreme Court and the committee that chooses it. (…) He added that he was “shocked” to hear that Ben-Sasson had asked Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch for her opinion of the bill.
“This contradicts the separation of the branches of government,” he said in his introductory remarks. He also blamed the Supreme Court for its efforts to curb its power.
“The court brought the politicization upon itself because it deals with matters pertaining to social values, politics and security,” he charged. There should also be no judges or lawyers on the committee that choose the justices of the Supreme Court in the first place, he added later, since the court deals with these three areas. (…)
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

74 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Sa’ar-bill: Beinisch gives quiet support to upping judicial appt. majority
June 19, 2008 / By Shahar Ilan
(…) Beinisch thereby indicated that she does not oppose the bill.
(…) Robert (Yisrael) Aumann, a Nobel Prize laureate in economics, raised a different issue, arguing that lawyers and judges should not sit on the JAC at all. Currently, the JAC’s nine members include three Supreme Court justices and two Bar Association representatives, along with two ministers and two Knesset members.
“It’s a scandal that lawyers are represented on the committee, when they must appear before the judges [they appoint],” he said. “This is institutional corruption.”
Regarding the issue over which he had been invited to the Constitution Committee – explaining how the bill would affect the current balance of power among the JAC’s four factions – Aumann said the Supreme Court justices would retain their current dominance in the appointments process, since the bill gave any bloc of three members a veto. He therefore opposed the bill, saying it would prevent a more fundamental reform of the system.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
My Behind-Scene-Messages to the READERS,
which is part of Hello, Is Dorit Beinisch talking about ME? Public Slander? (Regarding Ruth Gavison) (From Jun 24 to Present).

79 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
A brutal initiative
Jun 27, 2008
(…) The Labor Party has managed so far to block other crackpot legislative initiatives with the veto it was granted in the coalition agreement. Until Friedmann is replaced with a minister who understands the meaning of constitutional democracy, it is doubtful we can relax. Labor’s role is critical here as well.
The Kadima-Labor agreement, which is intended to shorten the prime minister’s term due to suspicions of corruption, should have included a little clause promising that Friedmann will go home when Ehud Olmert does.
Meanwhile, one can only hope that as the Knesset is going on summer recess, this will be Friedmann’s last chance to try to undermine the High Court’s powers, and to infringe on the human and civil rights that the High Court protects.
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
My Official Mail to Knesset,
which is part of Hello, Is Dorit Beinisch talking about ME? Public Slander? (Regarding Ruth Gavison) (From Jun 24 to Present).

84 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Supreme Court president: Our justices are the target of incitement (Haaretz)
Jul 3, 2008
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

TALKBACKS 14
1. democratic = not only from Rehavia ,not only non-religuous. 15:05 Vogel 03/07/08
2. Incitement 16:39 Dr. David Feigenbaum
3. Incitement? 16:55 Arie
4. Real source of incitement 17:42 Gee
5. Knesset must strip Court of authority to make new law 18:19 Dr. L. Brnd
6. Israel hamstrung by second-rate governmental institutions 19:29 IW
7. No MS beinisch: they incite 20:52 A thinking Jew
8. Ho hum. when in doubt attack. 20:54 Jewboy
9. Beinish is right! Arrest the inciters! 22:16 Gil J. Yashar
10. #9 reductio ad absurdum 03:25 A thinking Jew 04/07/08

Beinish: Democracy has paid heavy price for incitement (Ynetnews)
Jul 3, 2008 / By Ronen Medzini
JIWON:For the entire text, please click Selected Articles 5: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)

TALKBACKS 15
1. Could you explain how SELF-ELECTED judges can be a Democracy
Miriam, Israel (07.03.08)
2. If the judges in the Jewish state act like they’re in Sodom&
Amora, can you blame the citizens for slandering the judicial system? YOU YOURSELF ARE TO BLAME that you are Jewish and judge AGAINST our Torah!
Miriam, Israel (07.03.08)
3. But NO Justice if you are a Jew!
Linda Rivera, New York (07.03.08)
4. JUDGES ?
These are not the judges of the people of Israel, they do not even uphold Jewish law, but English Ottoman law. These are self appointed elitists who bend these alien laws to the state’s benefit and protection of an secular corrupt system. Over and over again we see that their political agenda is more important then impartial justice. The word Democracy sounds hollow out of the mouth of Beinish, who is part of incitement herself.
DAVID , JUDEA (07.03.08)
5. Beinish and her people are corrupt stuges
She has no shame at all. She is corrupt as Olmert.
Mike, Haifa (07.03.08)
6. More like CROOKS
These people are crooks and we are suppose to respect them? HELL NO!
Jewish Law (07.03.08)
7. 3 – loonie tunes rivera is back
been working on some more cut-and-paste posts?
mike, israel (formerly usa (07.03.08)
8. Democracy suffers
Democracy suffers when free speech is banned.
Kyle, Southpark, CO, USA (07.03.08)
9. Jewish Democratic State
The problem with the judges is that they only emphasize the Democratic apect and completely ignore the Jewish principles of the state.
Chaim (07.03.08)
10. Beinish, if you can’t take the heat than get out of the damn
kitchen!!!, Shlomo, Israel (07.03.08)
11. “Public slander”???? There is no such thing
as “public slander”. The public figures are a fair game and in a free society people are free to say ANYTHING they please about them.
Antonio, Haifa (07.03.08)
12. We are paying a heavier price in blood
because of a “judicial” system that meddles in our security. In a system that allows foreigners to use it, like the palis or anti Zionist n.g.o.s. We have a judicial system that bends over backwards to be politically correct at the expense of our life and limb. They use their system to please the eurabian,the u.n. and the U.S. state dept. We do not need this system and we do not need these “judges”.
jason white , afula,israel (07.03.08)
13. Mindless talk amongst fools
If the security of the state is in question as it is right now, then this mindelss talk about democracy is akin to nothingness. Rome is burning while the self anointed mayvens of nothingness wax poetic about nothingness. Hey dummy your house is on fire. get out and put out the flames….. “No” you answer. “I have to debate with myself whether I deserve to put out the flames and whether they may disturb the rights of the water pail.” Pass me an advil…I’ve heard enough.
Al (07.03.08)

00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
My Official Mail to Knesset,
which is part of Hello, Is Dorit Beinisch talking about ME? Public Slander? (Regarding Ruth Gavison) (From Jun 24 to Present).
July 3, 2008 (20:00)

Supreme Court president: Our justices are the target of incitement (Haaretz)
Beinish: Democracy has paid heavy price for incitement (Ynetnews)
“Public slander… to raise incitement against them… quite a few tendentious attempts… Don’t listen to these claims. They are based on misinformation and deception. The reality is very far from what is described.”

JIWON:
Hello,
Is Dorit Beinisch talking about ME?
Public slander?
To raise incitement against them?
Thank god that I am no more considered as a ghost. HOWEVER… When did I raise incitement against THEM? My only subject was HER, and it was a result of reading more than 100 articles, which were written by professional journalists. They never blamed THEM, including A-G Mazuz, who was rather described as an innocent victim. Tendentious attempts? I clicked all the possible sources found in the Google-Web and organized them in chronological order. That was all I did. Is she really a president of Supreme Court of Israel, whose IQ must have been ten times higher than mine? In my previous mail, Dear Berlin Mayor and President of Supreme Court of Israel on May 15, I clearly wrote how much I valued her ability and even her beauty. I even expressed my pure respect of the FIRST female president of Supreme Court of Israel.
I finished organizing articles. Not yet posted, though. Tomorrow…
One more article from the New York Times should be added in-between;

Beinisch: Friedmann`s claim that High Court impedes Knesset baseless (Article No. 47)
Mazuz: Leaders under suspicion should resign (Article No. 49)
I didn’t know that it was already an international issue. Perhaps, I should join Facebook.com to check common sense of Israeli public and American Jews. (I was thinking about this but didn’t know when…) I am a good girl, who likes to follow an order from above. The president of Supreme Court of Israel wants to prove that all those more than hundred articles about Beinisch are based on misinformation and deception. It will be my honor to help her to prove it.
Perhaps, it could also prove a shortcut to finish my business with Yechezkel Beinisch. Perhaps, it could help me to understand one mysterious article about Beinisch and Rabin. I wanted to know the whole story but couldn’t. What does she mean “period of incitement just before Rabin’s assassination”?

85 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
COLLECTION WILL KEEP GOING…
JIWON: For the entire text, please click
Selected Articles P.S.: Beinisch, Friedmann, Sex-Scandal, Corruption (Kangaroo Court from Sep 12, 2003)
Selected Articles P.P.S.: Beinisch’s Secret Society Can’t Accept Olmert/Friedmann

JIWON: COLLECTION WILL KEEP GOING. HOWEVER. the Haaretz article written by ‘Haaretz Editorial’ or ‘Powerless Journalist,’ such as Show the bandit the door or Birds of a feather, can’t find its place in this blog. Only the real names will appear in this COLLECTION. Thanks.

INDIVIDUAL COLLECTION.
Dalia Dorner: Former Judge & Israel Press Council’s President (Beinisch Can’t Accept Olmert/Friedmann)
Shelly Yechimovich (Labor): Lebanon Before Winograd Report (Beinisch Can’t Accept Olmert/Friedmann)
Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor): Barak/Liebermann/Bibi (Beinisch Can’t Accept Olmert/Friedmann)

00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
My Official Mail to Knesset,
which is part of Hello, Is Dorit Beinisch talking about ME? Public Slander? (Regarding Ruth Gavison) (From Jun 24 to Present).
July 14, 2008 08:30
JIWON: Now, I feel very sorry for Labor’s female MK Shelly Yechimovich. The more article I read, the more dirty information I get and they are referring PM Barak’s foolish decision even before Olmert’s Winograd report.

July 15, 2008 10:00
JIWON: MY OPINION ABOUT RAMON’S FRENCH KISS…

Please check my Knesset-Jokes. I just love it… ho-ho-ho♥:
Beinisch: Media to blame for public’s loss of faith in courts (Jul 21, 2008).: (…) Peres reiterated his frequent contention that Israel was not a corrupt country. If it were, he said, there wouldn’t be a war against corruption. Peres blamed the election system for some of the existing corruption. It was not so bad when there were only two major political parties, he said, but with a lot of small parties it has become problematic, because they all need funding. He suggested tightening the threshold to make it more difficult for the smaller parties to win seats in the Knesset, and introducing regional elections.
JIWON: Really? Talkbacks: Beinisch Politics has nothing to do with LAW I thought Media was Beinisch’s best friend. This is exactly why I am going to join ALL the forums to check this information is right. Hum…

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: