Supreme court insults families of terror victims during War Memorial Day
Ariel Kahana points to another of the serious problems with the supreme court, this one coming as it does during War Memorial Day, allowing Islamofascists to attend a dhimmi service in Tel Aviv:
In 2018, 2019, and 2023, then-defense ministers Avigdor Lieberman, Benjamin Netanyahu, and now Galant saw no reason to make an exception for Palestinians to attend a joint Memorial Day ceremony with Israelis in Tel Aviv, a highly controversial alternative event.It was also honestly a mistake for Netanyahu to continue employing Galant after he undermined the government's positions in the past month or so. Just one more reason why judicial reform is crucial, and also why it's sad there's said to be families of terror victims who don't want the government ministers to attend memorial services, depending which ministers are in focus anyway.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit did not really defend Lieberman's position in court in 2018, and as a result, the three judges (Esther Hayut, Uzi Vogelman, and Anat Baron) – whose personal political opinions are hard to miss – forced him to approve the entry of 90 Palestinians into Israel to attend the ceremony.
In 2019, the court ruled against Netanyahu, and 100 Palestinians were granted entry. And this year, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara is not even trying to defend Galant's position.
Both Baharav-Miara's position and the High Court's intervention reflect the administrative distortion of decision-making in Israel.
Firstly, It is Baharav-Miara's job to defend the position of the defense minister. Her not doing so only came about due to legal precedents. Her refusal, and Galant's inability to hire an external attorney to represent him in court, reflect the madness of the system.
Secondly, the court's ruling to overturn the defense minister's decision because he "should not interfere in how a family wishes to express its private bereavement" is ridiculous and biased. The state intervenes in myriads of ways in the way families express their pain, such as the uniform design of tombstones in military cemeteries, which the Supreme Court approved. If so, why is it acceptable to intervene in one case but not in the other?
Labels: anti-semitism, dhimmitude, islam, Israel, jihad, Knesset, misogyny, Moonbattery, political corruption, terrorism, war on terror
