Republic means returning the power to the public.  On the same token, Depublic would be taking the power from the public. . . but, there is still hope !

My 2 cents about our fake democracy

Those who have the power at their hands deem us as their subjects, although they should be our servants.  How do they manage to rule us almost absolutely, yet call it democracy?  Please take your time and try to understand my criticism about the roots of this evil.  Although I am focusing on Israel, some of the notions herein might have a common pattern with other western democracies.

What is wrong within the Israeli democracy?

1. There is NO CONSTITUTION.
2. The basic law is incomplete.
3. There is inherent discrepancy within the vague law.
   
   is it intentional?   I think it is!
4. Norms of wartime continue to exist in Israeli law, as if we were still back in 1948, in a state of emergency.
5. Israeli Courts are abusing their ultimate power to rule; occasionally they rule verdicts wrongly,
   a. abusing precedent cases, or
   b. prejudiced by their political affiliation, while
6. there are no proper procedures and regulations.
   
   (I have examples but unable to review them all in this context.)
7. The Israeli police is practically useless when it comes to protection of the individual person (unless such a person is preferred by the rulers).
8. There is not enough separation of powers as required in a theoretical democracy.
9. The Israeli ethos disregards the economy of bribe that twists its social norms.  Politicians and high ranked officers can easily, and some of them do plunder public resources for their private benefit.

Pattern of corruption in Israeli Governments

Commencing with the last item, the economy of bribe or economy of corruption hinders the proper allocation of resources in Israel.  High tax rates with special provisions for tax shelters, the unilateral transfer of billions to special interest groups, the inflated pompous public service sector are all twisting the norms of our society.

Anyone who reads the verdict of Arieh Deri's trial would realize that Deri had been bribed getting State budget monies.  Still the court has deliberately evaded the question who exactly was bribing Deri, because those monies should have been properly controlled by the State.  And there is another question, why had Deri joined the IDF (Israeli Army) for merely four months?  This is because he had planned to become a State employee (none may be a State employee without serving a military service).  Moreover, during his short military service Deri maintained the capacity of secretary of his political party. . . but if so, why they lastly went after him?

The clue might be the "stink manoeuver" in 1990, when Arieh Deri betrayed his comrades in the labor party, cooperating with the Likud.  To keep this story short, the pet of the Israeli Mafia became the Godfather . . .

Lack of a Constitution

For over fifty years the Israeli Parliament - the Knesset - has failed to constitute what this country needs most of all - A CONSTITUTION.  I think that if responsibility for ratifying a constitution is left to our parliament then the task will never be completed.

The Law

Recently the increase in privately-sponsored legislation, as opposed to government-sponsored legislation, is a positive trend.   More than half of the laws (a hundred and ninety) passed in the recent fourteenth Knesset, are the result of private bills.  Previously, most of the laws had been proposed by the government.   Unfortunately, private legislation often becomes a tool used by the legislator to promote self interests, at the expense of the public welfare and the principles of social justice.  Moreover, some of the bills that are voted hastily by a very small number of MKs (Knesset Members).  Consequently some of these are incomplete or improper statutes, but the damage caused would be apparent in the future, when these would become dead letters.

Internal Committees

Additionally, the Knesset abuses its internal committees some of them act behind closed doors quite far away from the public.  As alleged above, the MKs are busy in their internal affairs and their selfish bargaining.  Likely their ultimate goal is their private advantage over the rest (at least for the most of them).  When I say "the rest" I mean not only of MKs direct political opponents in the parliament, but the general public.  Undeniably the Knesset has given an immunity to its members. . .

Some top bureaucrats and corrupt politicians who betray the public trust allocate state resources to their cronies, yet they remain within the consensus.  The courts are mostly lenient and the public forgives consequently.  In my opinion, whatever a case, the phenomenon of corruption must be thoroughly exposed and banned.  Unfortunately the Attorney General also evades dealing with top priority issues (Deri case could be an exception).

Separation of Powers

Separation of powers isn't merely a technical matter, it is a principle - the basis for any democracy.  Naturally, the legislative and the judiciary branches would contend with respect to the correct level of mutual interference.  Recently however Israeli Parliament (Knesset) speaker (Dan Tichon) sharply blamed the Supreme Court President (Aharon Barak), alleging that the Court has intervened in Knesset activity.  Has Tichon attempted to neutralize someone who has the power to disrupt the culture of corruption that has evolved in Israel?

In 1981, Hon. Judge Aharon Barak had set the standard that the Supreme Court will intervene in Knesset decisions "only under extraordinary circumstances, when a decision appears to essentially damage the foundations of the parliamentary regime."
Has the Supreme Court acted accordingly?

The former Justice Minister Dan Meridor responded to Dan Tichon's words: "any decent man knows that our problems are not just of judicial activism, but of Knesset passivity.  For decades, members of the Knesset have not done the minimum which, among other things, they were elected to do.  They have never protected the citizens from the arbitrariness of the administration, but the Supreme Court has done so.  The Knesset should complete the Israeli CONSTITUTION -- not to contest the Supreme Court."

I (page owner) would agree that the Supreme Court has partly protected the citizens, but it was done on a quite selective basis, as I illustrate elsewhere in this web-site.  The Knesset has theoretically undertaken not to involve itself in issues that are under deliberation in the courts.  In reality however there is not enough separation of powers.

Examples:

1. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likely interfered in a pending legal proceeding.  Before a verdict was given he said about Nachum Manbar: "This man is a criminal who did something horrible, the likes of which I don't recall in all the history of the state."  
2. The President of the Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, also demonstrated a double standard with respect to the separation of powers.  Barak explained on March 26, 1998, in a talk on IDF Radio, what he believed as improper relations that could exist between him and the legislators.  It happened after he had turned down Shas request that he meet with them.  The pending issue was a scandal regarding Shas leader, Aryeh Deri MK, the defendant in a criminal case against whom additional indictments are being worked out.  Regardless, there was a meeting held in March 1998, between several Supreme Court justices and a subcommittee of the Knesset to promote the status of women generated a feeling of an intermixing of domains, which should only come into contact through judgments.
3. Another example for the Supreme Court Double Standard was demonstrated in the third week of July 1998.  Hon. Judge Aharon Barak delivered a speech, referring inter alia to what the press has dubbed the "Strasnov Affair."   Then Barak literally mentioned "unethical judicial behavior" of Justice Amnon Strasnov and/or Amnon Zichroni, the defense attorney in the Manbar case.  This speech however was made at the time the police was still investigating the alleged criminal actions.  Hadn't this statement of Judge Barak been interfering with the investigation of the Executive Branch before it was concluded?
4. Hypocrisy is illustrated by a petition filed by PSI (don't miss this letter).

In my opinion and based on the above examples (as well as many other cases) the boundary lines seem to be quite vague.  The Supreme Court likely decides differently each case, according to its political preferences.  Neither the Knesset nor the Court nor the Executive Branch do really care about the required clear separation between them - in contrast to the impression they created among the public.

Legal Research Ring [ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]

Is the Court trying to take over?

Retiring Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Goldberg has (June 1998) rejected attacks on the court.  He warned of the dangers inherent in the idea that the court was seeking to accumulate power and acted as a super-government.  From his words and based on the double standards of this court (illustrated above) I conclude that the Israeli Supreme Court is likely seeking to take over, abusing its powers.

Now let's further focus on some technical aspects of the Israeli judiciary system.  For an example, a protocol in any Israeli Court is written by an employee of the court and directly supervised by the presiding judge.  Practically such a reporter cannot be impartial, although theoretically he or she should act like a recording machine.  Consequently, Israeli Judges would occasionally formulate the wording of the parties.  Moreover, Israeli Courts practically twist the protocol in favor of a pre-selected party.  A motion to amend the protocol is "mission impossible", unless there are undeniable typos.  Unfortunately, I have observed Israeli courts ruling decisions without practically listening to a party.  I hold some examples, when published by me would prove beyond any doubt that some Israeli courts have manufactured decisions ex-parte.

Each year, thousands of interns and lawyers pass through the revolving door of the Israeli legal system.  An intern who clerks for a judge this year may represent a client in whose name he or she must appear before that same judge the next year.  Likewise an intern working for an attorney this year may face him or her in court next year.  There is no chilling period whatsoever.  Moreover, the interns are writing out the (judge's) decisions.  Although they present a draft, often the judges make little or no changes.

The theoretical approach in the Israeli judiciary is that the openness of the proceedings is a basic value with very heavy judicial and social weight.  Although Israeli courts recognize the right of the public that a proceeding be open, in reality things are quite far from this.

A Pro Se litigant in a civil court or a defendant in a criminal lawsuit may not practically defend his or her rights.  It is common to hear a judge teasing a pro se party, "hire a lawyer!"   Otherwise, how could Israeli lawyers survive if people won't hire them?

Have you known that in Israel there is a lawyer for every three hundred citizens?   There are over 20,000 lawyers serving less than 6 millions people.  That is many times more than in any normal country on this planet!   This is likely an extension of the joke: "In a small town, one lawyer would starve but two lawyers would do a fortune."   Israel apparently is nothing more than a corrupted town with too many lawyers.  Each and every year there are over one million lawsuits filed by less than six millions people.  The number of judges however is quite low.  There are about four hundred and thirty judges in all Israeli courts altogether.

Still our judicial system enjoys an astonishing amount of trust.  In their book, "Between Agreement and Conflict," Professors Yochanan Peres and Efraim Yaar-Yochtman report that eighty-five percent of the Israeli public has full confidence in the Supreme Court.

Recently the president of the Supreme Court (Hon. Judge Aharon Barak) stressed that judges personal protection, as a condition for preserving the democratic character of society.  The current intolerable situation may reflect that at least the criminal part of the Israeli society quite despises the courts.  However, the criminals are not the only part of society that protested against the apparent corrupted justice system.  A lack of confidence toward this system is reflected in the behavior of some public officials, who likely know the truth.  The Chairman of the Israeli Bar Association - Dror Choter Yishai - said extremely strong words against a judge who had found him guilty of tax offenses.  Later he won his appeal at a higher court.  Nevertheless the Attorney General - Elyakim Rubinstein - has charged him on July 14, 1998, for the contempt of the Judicial System.

The Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor are also prejudiced.  They solely act for their own benefit.  They had chosen to appoint the two prosecutors in the Manbar trial as the advisors to the police investigators, over their own actions inter alia.  The Movement for Quality Government petitioned before the Supreme Court, against the State Attorney and consequently the nomination of these two prosecutors as advisors to the police was canceled.  Still it has not prevented the Chief Prosecutor, Edna Arbel, to criticize this legitimate petition, implying that it was as an attempt to "undermine the stability of the judicial system."

"Ha"aretz" supplement of October 31, 1997, reported that Miriam Rubinstein, the wife of the Attorney General, Elyakim Rubinstein, has been the head of the civil department of the State Attorney.  Is Rubinstein the yes-man of the corrupted establishment?
Is our State his family business?

My petition before the Supreme Court, BAGATZ 3434/98, was challenging inter alia this improper affiliation.  My own case is focusing on corruption and a retaliation against a Whistle Blower - that's me.  A high ranked officer at RAFAEL (Israeli Armament Development Authority) have gotten rid of me, because I was exposing corruption in the Missiles Division at RAFAEL.

I found myself a retired physicist at age of forty six, practically unable to be hired by the local hi-tech industry.  In RAFAEL they defamed me by a libel made of M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. a New Jerseyan firm, likely an affiliate firm of RAFAEL that illegally employed me in the United States.  My legal actions with respect to this matter were initially invoked in the United States in 1991.  An Administrative Court of the Executive Office for Immigration Review has ruled (OCAHO Case No. 92B00143) that M.L. Energia, Inc. was likely a business partner to RAFAEL.

Now there are pending cases in Israel.  Thus I became acquainted also with the Israeli corrupted legal system.  For example, the Israeli National Labor Court barred me from suing RAFAEL in this regard.  I would allege that Hon. Judge Aliassof wrongly used a precedent case, also he likely failed to read my request to appeal Case No. 9-67/98.  He listened to the blatant lies of the State Attorney unilaterally, without letting me to challenge them.  I consider to file another petition before the Israeli Supreme Court, although I don't believe they would like to deal with my allegations.

In conclusion, I hold tangible evidence for all my allegations.  None is a gossip or hearsay.  Most of the alleged claims would be published on this web-site at the proper time.  Additionally I wish to emphasize that the government should remember that when justice leaves the courtroom, hopes would turn elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Doron Tal
Stop The Abuse of Power