The one who ruled on the chairman of the election committee, was Amichai Shikli himself: "Judge Amit is a politician in a cloak, and his decision is scandalous." The judge's decision reflects a sentiment that characterizes members of a social class who tremble and their teeth clench in involuntary spasms, when someone says the name next to them "Shikli". Just recently, a friend who also rubs shoulders with leftists told me what happened when he tried to schedule an interview about the experiences of a well-known man in the Yom Kippur War. The man asked what he was doing tomorrow, and the answer referred to the pre-military training school founded by Amichai Shikli. He says That the married man, who was complicit in serious political lapses, injected poison into the telephone line. You could feel that he was exploding and trying to control himself just by saying the name. That's how it is with a Pavlovian dog.
Judge Amit's decision reveals the terrible political corruption of the Israeli justice system.
The transparent and forceful attempt of the leftist parties to determine the fate of democracy and the fate of the country through legal means.
Amit sculpted himself.
If Mazuz cannot fulfill a position, probably Amit should also vacate the position.
The fierceness of his forehead is reminiscent of that of his colleague, retired judge Hanan Meltzer, who also ruled on insurance company law, also moved without blinking to a senior position at Migdal, and also insists on serving as president of the Press Council.
It seems that there is no limit and no restraint to this group, whose members feel that the black cloak envelops them in some aura of justice and holiness.
Indeed, Dr. Yoash Meisler was right in his immortal book "And it was in the days of the judges' rule", in his writing about the "constitutional Hamas strategy" on the part of the judges.
"The (normative and legalistic) semblance is, in fact, Bonapartist rule."
Bonapartism is a governmental coup.
This is the accumulation of quantitative power at the expense of the political system and its weakening accordingly.
No step that will be taken in the future for reform that will return democratic government to the public will not be too radical, provided that after the necessary amendments, the judiciary will remain independent, but not interfere in the work of the legislative branch.
Amit behaved in the discussion as expected from someone who sees himself as a religious priest in a religious priesthood regime.
"He adds to the ambush for future fitness hours and threatens the independence of the political community," Dr. Meisler predicted the shameful event yesterday at the Election Commission, when the one who initiates the show is the leader of Meretz Zehava Galon, who was euphoric after the disqualification decision when she congratulated her friend Gabi Lasky who submitted the petition against She promised to protect democracy.
It is hard to remember when a judge came to the courts for corruption.
The case of Judge Malhi in the 1960s caused a shock, and since then there have been isolated cases in which the system prosecuted marginal judges for marginal offenses and these continued to work as lawyers.
This is not necessarily a positive sign of moral purity, but of closing ranks.
Yair Lapid now wants, through Judge Amit, to threaten Channel 14, and possibly bring about its closure.
rowing set
Some of the heads of the security establishment make light of the Iranian threat. They do not accept the rulings of the political echelon, if it is not accepted by the elite they are associated with
The Director General of the Ministry of Defense is being recruited for election propaganda. An unremembered phenomenon. The statements of Major General (Ret.) Amir Eshel, Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot can teach us something about the subversive potential of senior members of the defense establishment. Just as Eshel is being recruited to portray Prime Minister Netanyahu in a black light Today, while holding a senior state position (statehood, did we say?), according to his testimony, he mobilized to torpedo, together with Benny Gantz, the application of sovereignty to parts of the West Bank and the Valley in early 2020. "I told him (President Trump), sir, we must make sure that the plan comes out to practice
"Then I spoke to Jared Kushner and told him that no Arab ruler would agree to the plan of the century. I told Gantz, we must stop the annexation. It would be a disaster. Talk to him now. We knew that Bibi intended to annex immediately... From the car he spoke to Kushner again and in the parking lot Intermediate one more time. Kushner started to have reservations... and then everything turned upside down."
As usual, Ben Caspit is voiced by security officials, and their unwise statements serve Netanyahu.
Eshel and Gantz dealt with the tarpoud of the plan that the Prime Minister of Israel saw as a historic national interest.
Add to Eshel's words the promiscuous words of Defense Minister Gantz in the interview, that if Netanyahu obtains 61 mandates "invite me for the state summary interview", and you will get the beginning of an explanation of why it is good that Gantz did not become the prime minister of Israel.
It is possible to hypothesize that Gantz will enter the unity government in 2020 with the Likud, with his top priority being to thwart the Trump plan.
He did not reveal to the public who were the factors that pushed him to this move beyond his willingness to establish unity during an emergency.
When the Abraham Accords were signed, there was a media outburst against the agreements;
The main reasoning was that the agreement involved the supply of F-35s to the United Arab Emirates, which was presented as treason.
This could explain why Prime Minister Netanyahu sidelined Defense Minister Gantz regarding the negotiations.
Since the agreements were against the policy of the Democratic Party, it is very likely that Gantz would have worked to torpedo them as well.
In addition to Gantz and Eshel, there is a statement from a year ago by the former Chief of Staff and today's politician, Gadi Eisenkot, regarding the Iranian nuclear: In response to the question of what would happen if Iran got nuclear, Eisenkot answered: "North Korea has a nuclear capability, and in South Korea they live quietly and do not talk about an existential threat .
There is no need to panic under any circumstances.
The US is covered in a target bank of Russian and Chinese nuclear missiles that can land there in no time, and the Americans don't seem bothered to me."
Defense Minister Gantz said almost identical things recently, even if not publicly.
Gantz referred to the situation where Iran already has a nuclear bomb.
The conclusion is that some of the heads of the security establishment are making light of the Iranian threat.
They do not accept the rulings of the political echelon, if it is not accepted by a certain elite they are associated with.
One can understand from those who represent the state of mind at the top of the defense, that for them security problems are zero sum exercises.
Either the problem exists or it is destroyed.
Eisenkot and Gantz's approach is a psychological therapeutic approach towards the Israeli public, not a treatment for Iran.
It is doubtful whether Yair Lapid thinks differently from them.
Patience pays
History shows that even successful performers do not bring with them confidence. In contrast, long systems can end in a sweeping victory
In her fascinating new book to read, "The Netanyahu Code" (Benyamin Netanyahu's biography), the journalist Mazal Moalem writes: "In the drafting of the agreements (the Abraham agreements) Netanyahu behaved as a soloist even more than usual. His suspicions were heightened from the beginning due to the appearance of three of his former confidants as state witnesses. They were He has only two secret partners along the way: Ambassador Ron Dermer and the head of the Mossad, Yossi Cohen. He hid the political move until the last moment even from his senior partners in the emergency government, Defense Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz, and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as from the top of the Likud... he He did not show any generosity towards his political partners and did not offer any of them to accompany him to the signing ceremony... in Washington."
Moalem's book provides quite a few cases in which Netanyahu acted in an environment of politicians who tried to fail him, as if it were only a matter of treachery with personal goals, and there is no national significance to the acts of sabotage and the attempts to rebel against him
After Amir Eshel's striptease regarding the "Deal of the Century" tarpoud and the application of sovereignty, Netanyahu's conduct is clear and understandable.
Mazel Mualem creates the impression that Netanyahu is a puzzle that needs to be deciphered for its solution;
In comparison, Gantz's behavior suggests a simpler puzzle.
If he were a basketball player, we would say that Gantz has trouble keeping eye contact with the ball;
What is really considered a supreme national interest for him and what is the difference between that and adherence to simplistic and crude policies such as relations with the American government.
If he believes in everything about the importance of the Jordan Valley, why didn't he at least mobilize for the application of sovereignty in the Valley and its tributaries during the time of the unity government?
When will there be such an opportunity?
After all, it is clear that no agreement will be signed with the Palestinians in which they accept the application of Israeli sovereignty in those territories.
Since the Democrats were hostile to the Abraham Accords, as was the US foreign relations establishment, Bibi had a basis for his suspicions.
Moalem's book provides quite a few cases in which Netanyahu had to act for many years in an environment of politicians who tried to thwart him, as if it was only a matter of treachery with personal goals and there was no national significance to the acts of trepidation and the Lilliputian attempts at rebellion against him.
For example, it is hard to believe that after the seizure of power in '96, when many in Israel and certainly on the right feared the security disaster from which there would be no return, there were some senior Likud officials who tried to harm the prime minister, and if possible topple him.
The victory of the right led by Netanyahu about three years after the Oslo Accords and seven months after the assassination of Rabin was considered a political miracle, but in a short time the mobilization expired and the season of subversion began that never stopped.
The feeling is that when it comes to a biography that is also modern Israeli history, Netanyahu deserves more.
No more expansions on the familiar headlines from the media continuum, but an analysis of a strategic political worldview, especially on the Iranian issue, although pulling Israel out of the Oslo pit is a historical achievement in itself that probably did not please some powerful establishments in the country.
Moalem leaves a big question mark around the issue of why the instruction, or command, was not given.
Why was the attack not carried out in the end in 2010 and 2012.
In those days, I had the chance to hear Bernard Lewis and Uri Lobrani in conversation.
Both opposed military action and strongly supported the efforts included in the "regime change" category, namely the overthrow of the regime, moves of the type that are being predicted these days throughout Iran.
Lewis was an anti-Islamist hawk.
It is clear that his position has not disappeared from Netanyahu.
It can be assumed that the answer is divided into two: an Israeli captain after the Second Lebanon War and after "cast lead" could not feel confident about another major war if it broke out following action in Iran.
And even more than that, modern Israeli history shows that even the most successful operations, such as the Six Day War, do not bring with them security in the deep sense.
The genie is out of the bottle
Someone must have found that the most active and effective trigger of hatred among the voters of the left, and especially the parties of the northern middle class, is the Mizrahim
About five years ago, a TV series called "Le Promise" was released about the immigration of French Jews.
Among other things, the racist attitude of some of the Israeli public towards the immigrants was revealed in the series.
Television critics referred to this and wrote about this racism towards the "French" explicitly.
They of course discovered the truth behind the hatred of the "French".
This is not because they are French Jews, but because behind this new identity hides the fact that they are first of all Jews and not just Jews but mostly Mizrahi, second or third generation in France of North African origin.
It's not much of a movie fast forward to get to today.
I don't remember an election campaign where racism was so on the table, so blatant.
It started by focusing around personalities whose eastern identity pokes the Yesh Atid propagandist (Yair Lapid) in the eye.
Shlomo Karai, David Amsalem.
Before the election campaign, these were Miri Regev and Galit Distel Atbarian, but it can be said that Pavlovian reactions of drooling hatred were recorded even when the name "Shikli" came up.
The method is to present a good Mizrahi or Mizrahi who meets the criteria of politeness and political correctness also in terms of policy, and next to them is a Likudnik Mizrahi who tells truths in a blunt way that cannot be ignored, except that it is impolite.
Amsalam is reasoned but not polite.
The strong motif in leftist propaganda is: Bibi equals Likud, Likud equals Mizrahim.
Someone must have found that the most active and effective trigger of hatred among the voters of the left, and especially the parties of the northern middle class, is the Mizrahim.
In the past these were statements, or rather outbursts, by Yair Garboz, Dodo Topaz or Tiki Dayan.
The emissions of the mouth betrayed a certain state of mind.
Prime Minister Netanyahu told me at the time that "Until today, the Likud was allowed. Today, the Likud can."
This situation in which the Likud has the ability to implement policy and execute it, provoked the opposition that led the Deep State coalition to join the Arab nationalist parties just to torpedo what "the Likud can do".
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
