High Court of Justice President Dorit Beinish will be launching her next battle in line with pro-secular anti-religious philosophy, this time against the Committee to Appoint Justices, which is seeking to appoint a number of new justices, all shomer shabbos. In actuality, the committee members want the persons listed to be placed on the candidate’s list.
Interestingly her opponents point out, Beinish, who champions liberalism and democracy seems to have a problem when it comes to religious Jews, who appear too unsettling to her western philosophy and perhaps challenge her way of life and the court’s ultra-liberal character.
The controversy surrounds a letter send by committee members to Justice Minister Prof. Yaakov Neeman, the committee chair, naming three candidates for vacant High Court slots. The letter was sent by committee members MKs Uri Ariel, Dudi Rotem and Minister Gilad Erdan.
The problem for Beinish is the candidates are all shomer shabbos, District Court Judges Yeshayahu Schneller, Moshe Drori, and Noam Solberg. Also on the list a Jerusalem attorney from the private sector, also shomer shabbos, Prof. Dov Frimmer, an expert on family law and international law.
The problem is more complicated due to the reality that 7 of the 9 committee members most approve a candidate and that would mean one of the three High Court justices on the committee would have to vote with the others. In this case, it appears unlikely.
On the other hand, it is equally unlikely that Beinish’s choice will also not earn the required majority.
In another High Court matter, MKs Yariv Levin (Likud) and Dr. Michael Ben Ari (Ichud Leumi) are calling upon the Knesset to increase the number of justices on the High Court from 15 to 18 towards permitting an increased representation of different walks of Israeli life.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
Her behavior seems logical to me. For example, how many African American (Negroes as they were called back then) were made judges during the “Jim Crow” era? Do you really expect a judiciary and a legal profession whose goal is to create a zionist state based on the principle of being an “Am Hofshi” from the yoke of Torah (as they like to sing about), to agree to religious judges (and let’s not get into the question of the 20% of Israelis who are at least arguably Hareidi).
It isn’t that the hilonim never heard of frum Jewish lawyers. It’s that they hate us and see us and their #1 enemy.
P.S. It’s wrong to call them liberals. Liberals tend to like minorities, even religious ones. Ideologically, they are just good old fashioned bigots.
OF COURSE. THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT IS THE GUARDIAN OF “SECULAR VALUES” AMONG THE ELITE CLASSES IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
THE “MOTHER SHIP” MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COSTS!
#2 – that’s what they tell gullible frummies —
among themselves, it means free from the restrictions of Torah and Mitsvos, free to eat what you want, free to work whenever the boss wants, free to sleep with whomever you want, free to live whereever you want, free to dress however you like, etc.
2.Am Hofshi – the term stands for a nation ‘Free from pogroms, violence and attacks’
Well that’s worked out well, hasn’t it? A perpetual state of war (61 years now), constant terror and rocket attacks, the largest per captia defense budget in the developed world and now the specter of nuclear holocaust at the hands of some Iranian midget with a combination Napolean/Martyr Complex.
The hard, cold truth is that Zionism has failed in every “objective” (like ending anti-semitism and making Jews safe) that it promised the Jewish people. Sadly, however, it DID achieve for the overwhelming majority of Jews) it’s REAL objective: redefining what it means to be a Jew.
“1… P.S. It’s wrong to call them liberals. Liberals tend to like minorities, even religious ones. Ideologically, they are just good old fashioned bigots.”
The term liberal is a definitely misappropriate but not for the reason you aver. It is more accurate to describe them as “statists” as they see the collective (the community, the state) as supreme over the individual.
Statists “like” minorities because they see people as “groups” or “collectives” rather than individuals and groups are easier to manipulate, control and direct that hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals. This of course only works when those groups will allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by the state. Those minorities whose values do not coincide with the statists objectives and resist state coercion to conform are villified, pilloried, condemned and attacked.
In addition to the “true” liberal who believes in the supremecy of individual liberty rather than the “collective good,” the primary enemy of the statist, whether in the old Soviet Union, China, or Israel is religion, because it offers a competing set of societal definitions that the statists cannot tolerate.
We see this playing out here in the US. The statists “like” Jews because most Jews are “liberal” and amenable to the societal objectives of the statists. Note that, overwhelmingly these same Jews don’t view themselves as “religious,” except to the extent that they can make Judaism conform to “liberal”/statist ideology (Michael Lerner “Tikkun” style) and they villify religious Jews whom they view as primitive anachronists.
This dynamic plays out across the spectrum of political debate: statist v. individuals, statist v. religion. Even when the statist appears to be supporting individual liberty or religious freedom, if you look carefully, you will find a statist objective.
Abortion is a classic example. The real objective is not freedom of choice(as evidenced by the fact that whenever FEWER women “choose” to have abortions, the pro-abortion crowd views this as a tragedy). The real objective is freedom from responibility for ones actions (promiscuous sex) and thereby dependence on the state to protet the means (in this case, abotion on demand) preserving this “freedom.”
By keeping you in a perpetually child-like condition (where you are not ultimately responsible for your actions) you becaome more and more dependent on the parent/state to shoulder that responsibility, which is the end game for any statists as they believe that you SHOULD be dependent on the state, run by elitists and ‘experts” who are smarter than you and know what’s good for you better than you do.
You can anylize just about any political, cultural or economic issue on the basis of this dynamic and find an entiirely new perspective on thses issues.