(August 27, 2024)
Monday night, the Maki Haifa Branch was shut down by the police for an event that included a screening of Mohammed Bakri’s new film. Bakri’s earlier film, Jenin, Jenin, was banned by an Israeli Court in 2021. Adalah demands immediate intervention by the Attorney General to ensure police will not obstruct the next screening. This action is part of broader Israeli police policies designed to suppress dissent against Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza.
(29. August 2014)
Seit Beginn des weltweiten Terrorkrieges in 2001 herrschten in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zwei Personen als Kriegspräsidenten und “mächtigste Männer der Welt”, George Bush Junior und Barack Obama. Der Kern ihrer Legitimation für
– fast jede seit dem 14. September 2001 angeordnete militärische Aktion, Operation und Invasion, wie der Eroberung von Afghanistan (2001), Irak (2003), Libyen (2011), Luftangriffen bzw Bodenoperationen z.B. in Somalia, Jemen, Pakistan, Kenia, etc, etc, pp,
– den versuchten Aufbau einer “Totalen Informationskenntnis” (“Total Information Awareness”) über alle Menschen, Gruppen, Strömungen und Organisationen im Macht- bzw Einflussbereich der U.S.A. (also dem, was die Gesellschaft heute als “Totalüberwachung” versteht),
– die folgende Erschaffung eines informationstechnologischen, Privatleben fressenden Frankensteins, eines weltweit vernetzten Golem der “Nationalen Sicherheit AG” bzw dem “sicherheitsindustriellen Komplex”, der allein 800.000 Personen (Stand: 2010) Zugang zu “streng geheimen” Informationen und damit Zugang zu praktisch allen u.a. aus Telekommunikationssystemen wie dem Internet gesammelten bzw geraubten Daten von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in ungezählten Datenbanken und Tauschbörsen der Spione, Militärs und (Geheim)Polizeien und Behörden allein in den U.S.A. gibt, samt einer bis heute nicht verifizierten Zahl assoziierter Kräfte und Stellen, z.B. in der Republik Deutschland,
– die Errichtung des Lagers Guantanamo, sowie einer unbekannten Zahl geheimer Folterkammern und Kerker auf eigenem Territorium, in Besatzungszonen und / oder in kollaborierenden Staaten, in denen Menschen willkürlich eingesperrt, gequält oder ermordet wurden,
sowie weitere offene oder klandestine Maßnahmen, wie z.B. die “Uminterpretation” von geltendem Recht zu faktischem geheimen Kriegsrecht in ungezählten Staaten, ist ein am 14. September 2001 bei alleiniger Gegenstimme von Barbara Lee durch den Kongress gejagter und, zumindest in der Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, präzedenzloser Gesetzestext: die “Authorization for Use of Military Force”.
Hier dessen gerade einmal 60 Worte und keinerlei zeitliche oder räumliche Einschränkung enthaltende Wirkungstext, beschlossen am 14.09.2001 von beiden Kammern des Kongresses, Repräsentantenhaus und Senat:
(27.03.2024)
Die Protokolle des Corona-Krisenstabs des Robert Koch-Instituts sollten geheim bleiben. Journalisten haben die Unterlagen freigeklagt und veröffentlicht. Sie werfen viele Fragen auf.
(21 February 2023)
Our Declaration of Independence promises that the State of Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture…”
As of today, those foundational commitments and guarantees are under direct and tangible threat, from the very government charged with upholding them.
(03.02.2024)
(01.01.2024)
The 42 plaintiffs filed the claim for NIS 200 million ($56 million) at the Tel Aviv District Court against the Shin Bet security service, the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Police, and the Defense Ministry, alleging multiple instances in which they failed in their duties.
“A single phone call by IDF officials to the commander responsible for the party to disperse it immediately in view of the expected danger would have saved lives and prevented the physical and mental injuries of hundreds of partygoers, including the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit said. “The negligence and the gross oversight is beyond belief.”
Am 19. Dezember 2016 kam es auf dem Weihnachtsmarkt am Berliner Breitscheidplatz zu einer LKW-Attacke, die insgesamt zwölf Menschen das Leben kostete. Für diesen schwersten Terroranschlag in Deutschland seit der Bombe auf das Münchner Oktoberfest von 1980 gilt laut offizieller Version der Tunesier Anis Amri noch immer als alleiniger Täter. Doch nach über vierjähriger Aufklärung in mehreren parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschüssen gibt es daran begründete Zweifel. Wenn nicht Amri, wer saß dann am Steuer des LKW? Wer waren die Mittäter und Helfer? Und warum haben die deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden kein Interesse, die wahren Hintergründe aufzuklären? Thomas Moser macht deutlich: Die ungeklärten Fragen aus dem NSU-Skandal wiederholen sich auf erschreckende Weise nun im Amri-Komplex.
The papers show that at the start of the war the Foreign Office set up an internal International Humanitarian Law assessment process.
On 10 November it judged: “the volume of strikes, total death toll, as well as proportion of those who are children raise serious concerns”. 2/12
It also said: „the government’s current inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance with International Humanitarian Law poses significant policy risks”.
But look at what Foreign Office minister Andrew Mitchell said to me just 4 days later… 3/12
In Parliament on 14 November, I asked Mitchell if British-made weapons had been used in violation of international law in Gaza.
He replied reassuring me of Israel‘s commitment to international law, even though just 4 days earlier his department registered serious concerns. 4/12
Mitchell said: „The member will know that the President of Israel has made it clear that his country will abide by International Humanitarian Law“.
These court papers reveal that his own department, the UK Foreign Office, doubted the Israeli President‘s words.
The Export Control Joint Unit – a cross-departmental body that oversees UK‘s export controls and licensing for military and dual-use items – told Cameron on 8 December that he had three options when it came to advising whether export licenses for sales to Israel should be approved.
He could either not suspend them, but keep them under careful review; suspend where it was assessed items might be used to carry out Israeli military options in the conflict in Gaza; or suspend all licenses.
Cameron decided on 12 December that he was satisfied Israel was committed to complying with international humanitarian law, according to the filing.
(29. August 2014)
Seit Beginn des weltweiten Terrorkrieges in 2001 herrschten in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zwei Personen als Kriegspräsidenten und “mächtigste Männer der Welt”, George Bush Junior und Barack Obama. Der Kern ihrer Legitimation für
– fast jede seit dem 14. September 2001 angeordnete militärische Aktion, Operation und Invasion, wie der Eroberung von Afghanistan (2001), Irak (2003), Libyen (2011), Luftangriffen bzw Bodenoperationen z.B. in Somalia, Jemen, Pakistan, Kenia, etc, etc, pp,
– den versuchten Aufbau einer “Totalen Informationskenntnis” (“Total Information Awareness”) über alle Menschen, Gruppen, Strömungen und Organisationen im Macht- bzw Einflussbereich der U.S.A. (also dem, was die Gesellschaft heute als “Totalüberwachung” versteht),
– die folgende Erschaffung eines informationstechnologischen, Privatleben fressenden Frankensteins, eines weltweit vernetzten Golem der “Nationalen Sicherheit AG” bzw dem “sicherheitsindustriellen Komplex”, der allein 800.000 Personen (Stand: 2010) Zugang zu “streng geheimen” Informationen und damit Zugang zu praktisch allen u.a. aus Telekommunikationssystemen wie dem Internet gesammelten bzw geraubten Daten von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in ungezählten Datenbanken und Tauschbörsen der Spione, Militärs und (Geheim)Polizeien und Behörden allein in den U.S.A. gibt, samt einer bis heute nicht verifizierten Zahl assoziierter Kräfte und Stellen, z.B. in der Republik Deutschland,
– die Errichtung des Lagers Guantanamo, sowie einer unbekannten Zahl geheimer Folterkammern und Kerker auf eigenem Territorium, in Besatzungszonen und / oder in kollaborierenden Staaten, in denen Menschen willkürlich eingesperrt, gequält oder ermordet wurden,
sowie weitere offene oder klandestine Maßnahmen, wie z.B. die “Uminterpretation” von geltendem Recht zu faktischem geheimen Kriegsrecht in ungezählten Staaten, ist ein am 14. September 2001 bei alleiniger Gegenstimme von Barbara Lee durch den Kongress gejagter und, zumindest in der Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, präzedenzloser Gesetzestext: die “Authorization for Use of Military Force”.
Hier dessen gerade einmal 60 Worte und keinerlei zeitliche oder räumliche Einschränkung enthaltende Wirkungstext, beschlossen am 14.09.2001 von beiden Kammern des Kongresses, Repräsentantenhaus und Senat:
(Jan 17, 2014)
By the end of the meeting, it was clear that this was the resolution, a single sentence and 60 words:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
That was it. After more than a day of negotiations between the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, this is what had emerged. Congress could take it or leave it. There would be no going back to the drawing board.
Underscoring the urgency, arguments will be held on Feb. 8, during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices. The compressed timeframe could allow the court to produce a decision before Super Tuesday on March 5, when the largest number of delegates are up for grabs in a single day, including in Colorado.
The high court’s decision to hear the case puts the nine justices squarely in the middle of the 2024 election as voting starts in the early primary contests and represents the court’s most significant involvement in a presidential race since its highly consequential decision 23 years ago in Bush v. Gore.
The 42 plaintiffs filed the claim for NIS 200 million ($56 million) at the Tel Aviv District Court against the Shin Bet security service, the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Police, and the Defense Ministry, alleging multiple instances in which they failed in their duties.
“A single phone call by IDF officials to the commander responsible for the party to disperse it immediately in view of the expected danger would have saved lives and prevented the physical and mental injuries of hundreds of partygoers, including the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit said. “The negligence and the gross oversight is beyond belief.”
Die von der Regierung seit ihrer Vereidigung vor einem Jahr massiv vorangetriebene Justizreform hatte die israelische Gesellschaft tief gespalten. Über Monate gingen immer wieder Hunderttausende von Menschen auf die Straße, um dagegen zu protestieren – sie sahen im Vorgehen der Regierung eine Gefahr für Israels Demokratie.
Netanyahus Regierung argumentierte dagegen, das Gericht sei in Israel zu mächtig, man wolle lediglich ein Gleichgewicht wiederherstellen.
The reasonableness law, an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, prohibits courts, including the High Court, from reviewing government and ministerial decisions using the „reasonableness“ standard. This standard permits the court to annul decisions based on substantive issues with the considerations behind them.
It was passed last year amid furious protests that saw hundreds of thousands Israelis take to rallies in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and elsewhere across Israel.
– Twelve out of 15 Supreme Court judges ruled that the court has the authority to conduct judicial oversight on basic laws and intervene in extreme cases when the Knesset oversteps its legislative authority.
– The law was the first piece of legislation of Netanyahu‘s judicial overhaul — a plan that destabilized Israel‘s economy, military and foreign relations.
The Supreme Court struck down the law in an 8-7 vote.
Twelve of the 15 justices agree the court does have the authority to strike down Basic Laws.
(38 min ago)
Hebrew media outlets report that the High Court of Justice will publish its ruling on the government’s “reasonableness law” this evening and that it will strike down the controversial legislation, which is an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary.
This would be the first time the court strikes down any aspect of one of Israel’s Basic Laws, which have quasi-constitutional status.
Lawmakers from the Shas coalition party are reportedly seeking to advance a bill that would temporarily extend the time in which High Court justices can publish rulings on petitions, allowing the bench to postpone a decision that is widely expected to strike down a piece of the government’s judicial overhaul.
In an unprecedented leak, a draft ruling published last week previewed the court’s intention to strike down, by an 8-7 vote, a law limiting the court’s ability to reverse government and ministerial decisions based on the doctrine of reasonableness.
“Given the urgency of Israel’s defensive needs, the secretary notified Congress that he had exercised his delegated authority to determine an emergency existed necessitating the immediate approval of the transfer,” the department said.
“The judiciary views very severely the leak of parts of draft rulings that have not been completed,” acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman said of the leak. “The attempt to influence pending proceedings and to harm public trust in the judiciary and its dedicated judges and employees will not succeed.” The final ruling is expected to arrive midway through January.
The report drew immediate, heated reactions, with coalition members chastising the expected decision and casting it as undermining the national unity being displayed during the ongoing war against Hamas. The group that petitioned for the law to be nullified claimed the leak was an attempt to intimidate the justices and push them to change their ruling and not void the legislation.
The leaked draft revealed an apparent 8-7 split among the 15-justice panel, indicating eight justices in favor of annulling the law and seven against
The justices who reportedly support the nullification are: former president Esther Hayut, current care-taker president Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Chaled Kabub, Daphne Barak-Erez and Ruth Ronnen.
The opponents are reported to be Noam Sohlberg, Yechiel Meir Kasher, Yosef Elron, Alex Stein, Yael Willner, David Mintz and Gila Canfy Steinitz.
Each judge will now read the opinions of the other justices before a final decision is reached. There is a chance, though slim, that the result will be different if a justice changes his or her mind after reading the other verdicts, Channel 12 reported.
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, said that during his 13 years on the committee, he’d pressed multiple FBI directors about civil liberties violations associated with the surveillance program and had repeatedly been given false reassurances about the reforms being put in place.
“Every darn one of them has told me the same thing: ‘Don’t worry about it, we’ve got this taken care of, we’ve got new procedures, it’s going to be different now,’” Lee said. “It’s never different. You haven’t changed.”
(05.12.2023)
FBI Director Christopher Wray at a Tuesday hearing gave an impassioned pitch for Congress to reauthorize warrantless surveillance powers for the intelligence community without the need to secure a court’s blessing to review information on Americans swept up in the process.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is set to expire at the end of the year unless it is reauthorized by Congress, threatening to topple a program that allows the U.S. government to monitor the communications of foreign nationals located abroad.
(December 6, 2023)
The FBI director is pushing senators on reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is set to expire at the end of this year. The law enables the US government to obtain intelligence by targeting non-Americans overseas who are using US-based communications services.
(23. Juli 2014)
Je mehr und je länger die Praxis der ausführenden Funktionäre / Amtsinhaber und ihrer nach eigenem Ermessen interpretierten Begriffe und Rechtsbegriffe anhält und von der Gesellschaft akzeptiert wird, verändert diese merklich oder unmerklich ihre eigene Auffassung dieser Begriffe bzw Rechtsbegriffe und passt sie der Rechtsauffassung der Ausführenden bzw Amtsträger und Funktionäre an.
Die Gesellschaft akzeptiert also nach und nach eine Umdeutung der (rechtlichen) Standards durch diejenigen, die sie lediglich ausführen müssen oder sogar selbst beschlossen haben, aber nicht versucht haben sie in aller Öffentlichkeit zu verändern.
Nun aber kann der neue Standard, den man durch veränderte Praxis und eigene Auslegung von Begriffen, Rechtsbegriffen und Recht in der Gesellschaft verankert hat, in neue Gesetze gegossen werden.
Die Interpretation der Norm – die bewusst, gezielt und unauffällig eingesetzt auch eine faktisch unbegrenzte Abweichung von der Norm, einen Bruch beinhalten kann – ist so die Norm selbst geworden. Eigentlich Illegales wird legal. Oder umgekehrt. (…)
Erfolgen diese Prozesse in Absprache und / oder auf Befehl der höchsten staatlichen Ebenen, in Exekutive, Legislative oder Judikative, gar allen zusammen, im Geheimen, in Absprache mit einer ausländischen Macht, oder gleich mit mehreren, nennt man so etwas Hochverrat und einen organisierten Staatsstreich.
Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research was founded in 2014 out of a recognition of the unique role archives can play in breaking conflict-enhancing myths, fostering fact-based discourse, and supporting the work of human rights defenders. We make archives a tool for change by researching and exposing mechanisms, processes and events who play a role in the perpetuation of the Conflict. We assist human rights defenders and civil society organizations in accessing archival documentation relevant to their work. We campaign to expand the public’s access to government archives to promote transparency and freedom of information.
Generally, there are preambles to the constitution and this preamble has been called by our Supreme Court the “conscience of the constitution”. Preamble’s Part 3 Fundamental Rights, Part 4 Directive Principles of State Policy, which are not enforceable by the court but are nonetheless binding, they are all part of the conscience of the constitution (…)
You believe that there is the duty to interpret the constitution in the context of the time and in the context of the issues of the day.
Oh absolutely, absolutely! There has to be! (…)
In fact, interpretations keep changing, people keep adding to existing questions and revising new meanings.
Absolutely! Courts as you know go by precedent, so what five judges say today, seven judges can say tomorrow or have nine judges say the contrary to that, two years later.
This is what makes the constitution a living, dynamic object.
Absolutely!
(28.09.2023)
The passionate advocate for liberal priorities who broke gender barriers was the oldest member of Congress. She was 90.
Biden offered his counterpart a warm, cordial welcome as he said they would discuss “some of the hard issues,” including “checks and balances,” a reference to the Israeli leader’s judicial reform efforts which have been a source of significant tensions between the countries.
“Today, we’re going to discuss some of the hard issues. And that is upholding democratic values that lie at the heart of our partnership, including checks and balances in our systems, and preserving the path to a negotiated two-state solution, and ensuring that Iran never, never acquires a nuclear weapon,” Biden said.
The plaintiffs in the case, led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, eminent doctors, and others alleged that under guise of combating „mis-, dis-, and mal-information,“ the Biden White House and nearly a dozen federal agencies have, alongside private-sector cutouts, cajoled and colluded with Big Tech platforms to silence millions of Americans. The topics social media platforms have censored at the government‘s direction, measuring likely hundreds of millions of posts, range from the Hunter Biden laptop story, to matters of election integrity, to virtually every aspect of the coronavirus pandemic.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed hesitancy about whether and when it was worth it to pass a funding measure at this point in time. “Why are we talking about Ukraine supplemental when we can’t figure out how to fund our own operation of government to do what it‘s supposed to do?” he asked during a press gaggle on Monday morning.
“I want to see what claim there is for actual success in Ukraine,“ he added. „And I want to know how every dollar that $113 billion is going to be spent. Come present that to me as a member of Congress, and then talk to me about” what future funding should look like.
Although the High Court has heard petitions against Basic Laws before, it has never heard a case against a law specifically designed to limit the High Court’s own powers, and the powers of the judiciary more broadly, nor has it done so amid such internal political turmoil over the balance of power between the branches of government.
Because of the extremely sensitive nature of the case and the highly explosive impact the court’s ruling may have, the entire bench of 15 High Court justices will hear the petitions, a judicial panel unprecedented in size in Israel’s history.
(14th May,1948)
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
In its brief, the government argues that the court lacks statutory authority to annul Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws, and therefore any such verdict would be based on unlegislated and unclear “basic principles.”
“All government institutions may argue that they have the right to determine what these principles mean. It is a short path from here to anarchy,” the brief said
An unprecedented full 15-justice panel of the High Court is slated to hear the petitions against the law on September 12. A variety of government ministers and other figures have warned of the potential for chaos if the court strikes down the law passed by the Knesset to curb the court’s authority, setting up a potential constitutional crisis.
Demonstrations are to be held at dozens of locations across the country. The Tel Aviv protest begins with a march from Habima Square to the central rally at Kaplan Street at 8 p.m.
Israel‘s Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana warned Supreme Court justices on Wednesday that the parliament „will not acquiesce to its trampling,“ less than a week before the court is set to hear petitions against a key law in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s judicial coup.
“Israel is democratic, and in a democracy, the sovereign is the people. In a democratic state, the justice system respects the sovereign, the people and its elected officials, and this respect is mutual. There is no debate, and there cannot be one, over the question of whether the Knesset has authorized the court to nullify Basic Laws,” he says, arguing that the court possesses no such power.
Whatever the outcome, Israeli politics is undergoing a tectonic change. We have shifted from normal politics, which promises mundane improvements and sometimes delivers them – to messianic politics, which promises paradise on earth but tends to create hell. A radical messianic group has risen to power. Like the Bolsheviks and the Khomeinists, the Israeli messianic zealots are certain of three things:
• They know the way to ultimate redemption.
• To bring about that redemption, they require unlimited power.
• Any means used to acquire that power are acceptable, and every sacrifice is legitimate.
Sie versuchen es allen Ernstes mit genau den gleichen Sätzen und Propagandamethoden noch einmal. Und der Spiegel ist wieder vorne mit dabei. Vielleicht läuft da gerade ein heimlicher Sentinel-Test auf geistige Bevölkerungsgesundheit.