by Ezequiel Doiny

There is no democracy in Israel. Jerusalem’s Orthodox Jews are ruled by Tel Aviv’s unelected left wing activists that control the Supreme Court.

The divide between secular and religious Jews in Israel is deep. Many secular Jews hate religious Jews and consider them a burden, unproductive individuals who do not contribute to the modern, high tech State they envision.

Religious Jews see Israel as a holy spiritual land and see that it is their service to God that blesses Israel with prosperity.

 In a Christian country Monks and Nuns are respected for their devotion but in Israel Religious Jews are treated as “parasites”. Since the secular/religious divide is so wide religious Jerusalem should become independent from secular Tel Aviv?

In 1967 Jews returned to Jerusalem. Today most Jews in Jerusalem are orthodox but they are rulled by Israel’s Supreme Court which is controlled by the anti-religious left.

There should be a referendum asking whether residents of Jerusalem would prefer independence from Israel’s supreme court tyranny by declaring an independent nation: The Jewish Kingdom of Jerusalem

On September 18, 2017 Evelyn Gordon reported in Commentary Magazine “When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, he’ll undoubtedly devote part of his speech to the need to fight terrorist organizations. What he probably won’t mention is that in Israel, the fight is often hamstrung by the Supreme Court’s out-of-control judicial activism, as evidenced by last week’s mind-boggling ruling denying the government the right to revoke the Israeli residency of people serving in the Palestinian legislature or cabinet on behalf of Hamas.
In 2006, three Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem were elected to the Palestinian parliament on behalf of the Hamas-affiliated Change and Reform party, while a fourth was appointed to the Palestinian cabinet on behalf of that party. Israel responded by revoking their Israeli residency rights.

To most people, this would sound like a no-brainer. Many democracies view serving in a foreign government as grounds for revocation of citizenship because holding a policy-level position in one country’s government is considered to require a level of commitment to that country, which conflicts with one’s loyalty to the other country. Indeed, both America and Israel have such rules for their own citizens in policy-level positions; that’s why, for instance, when Michael Oren became ambassador to the U.S., he had to forfeit his American citizenship, despite the fact that America and Israel are close allies.

But these four Palestinians weren’t just serving in a foreign government; they were doing so on behalf of Hamas – a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction. This, as the Israeli government correctly argued in court, constituted a massive “breach of trust” toward Israel.

Yet the court, in a 6-3 ruling, decided otherwise…

Ostensibly, the case at least has limited application. After all, how many East Jerusalem Palestinians are going to become Hamas legislators of cabinet members? But in reality, the implications are broad, because if even swearing allegiance to a foreign government on behalf of a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction isn’t enough to make a Palestinian lose his Israeli residency and its attendant benefits, what on earth would be? Nothing I can think of. Thus, Hamas supporters in Jerusalem will now be emboldened to step up all kinds of activity on the organization’s behalf, secure in the knowledge that they need not fear expulsion from the country as a consequence.

The court’s judicial activism impedes the government’s ability to set policy in almost every walk of life…”

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/israel-shields-hamas-officials-consequences/

Here is another example of how the court’s judicial activism impedes the government’s ability to set policy replacing the rule of the people with the rule of the left. On December 5, 2016 Evelyn Gordon wrote in Mosaic “In 2015, following lengthy negotiations, President Barack Obama concluded an executive agreement marking the accomplishment of a cherished policy goal: the nuclear deal with Iran known as the JCPOA. Also in 2015, after similarly lengthy negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concluded an agreement realizing a long-cherished policy goal of his own: a deal enabling development of Israel’s largest natural-gas field by a private American company and its Israeli partner. Both agreements included a commitment by the respective governments to refrain from adverse legislative action over the next ten to fifteen years: in Obama’s case, action to reinstate nuclear sanctions against Iran; in Netanyahu’s case, action to alter the regulatory regime for natural gas to the disadvantage of the private energy companies.

As it happens, neither country’s executive branch has the authority to bind the legislature without the latter’s consent. But this didn’t trouble either the Iranians or the energy companies; they took it for granted that both executives would use all of the considerable power at their disposal to prevent such legislation, and that sufficed.

But what about the role of the third branch of democratic government, namely, the judiciary? That is where the two stories diverge. The Iran deal was never challenged in an American court. But in Israel, two left-wing opposition parties (Zionist Union and Meretz) and two nongovernmental organizations, alarmed by the encroaching specter of capitalist development, immediately petitioned the country’s supreme court (also known for some purposes as the High Court of Justice) over the gas deal—and won. The court struck down the agreement, saying the government either had to procure legislation enacting the prime minister’s commitment to regulatory stability or renegotiate the deal to exclude the commitment altogether.

A week later, speaking at a conference of the Israeli bar association, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked accused the court of wielding its power “irresponsibly” by intervening in “political and macroeconomic questions” that were better left to the elected branches. She also reiterated a longstanding pledge, in her role as head of the judicial-appointments committee, to seek the appointment of justices to the court who would respect the government’s “authority to act on political matters that don’t violate human rights.” For this effrontery, opposition members of the Knesset promptly accused her of undermining democracy and demanded her dismissal. MK Shelly Yachimovich of the Zionist Union, for instance, charged Shaked with “trying to destroy the legal system’s independence, intimidate judges, and threaten them,” adding that if this sort of behavior continued, “Netanyahu would no longer be able to boast that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.”

This was hardly the first time in recent years that domestic critics of Israel’s government have accused it of “anti-democratic” behavior that wasn’t actually anti-democratic at all. But such accusations have served to obscure the real anti-democratic revolution that has occurred in Israel over the last few decades: the judiciary’s steady usurpation of policy-making powers that were once reserved—as they still are in other democracies—for Israel’s executive and legislative branches…”

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/israel-zionism/2016/12/disorder-in-the-court/

There is no democracy in Israel there is a tyranny of the left imposed by the Supreme Court through judicial activism. To end the Supreme Court tyranny there should be a referendum asking whether residents of Jerusalem would prefer independence from Israel’s supreme court tyranny by declaring an independent nation: The Jewish Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Israel’s left controls the supreme court and wants to withdraw from Eastern Jerusalem. Again and again we see left wing organizations such as Betselem, Peace Now, JStreet, Ifnotnow calling to “end the occupation”. Obama’s 2016 UNSC 2334 calls Judea, Samaria, Eastern Jerusalem (including the Old City, Temple Mount, the Western Wall) “occupied Palestinian Territories”. To comply with UNSC 2334 and avoid the criminalization of Israel and its government officials, the Israeli Government may decide to withdraw from Jerusalem’s Old City. Why should left wing Jews who hate religion have the power to decide whether religious Jews can have access to pray at the Western Wall?

Jews were not allowed to pray in the Western Wall during Jordanian rule.  Since the left does not want Eastern Jerusalem anyway, Orthodox Jerusalem’s residents must take their fate in their own hands and declare independence from Israel through a referendum.

On March 29, 1993 the New York Times reported that there was a referendum to turn Brazil into a Monarchy “…Cut short after 67 years by an army coup in 1889, the New World’s only successful monarchy may be on the road to restoration. Republic or Kingdom? On April 21, after a century long ban on monarchist politics, Brazilians are to vote in a national plebiscite to decide whether Latin America’s largest country should continue as a republic or should revert to an ancient title, the Kingdom of Brazil. The 1988 Constitution provided for a plebiscite this year to allow Brazilians to choose what system of Government they want…”

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/29/world/tired-of-presidents-brazil-can-vote-for-king.html

If the Brazilians had a national plebiscite to choose what system of government they wanted why can’t Israel? There are several Islamic Monarchies among the 57 members of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, why can’t there be a Jewish Monarchy?

Quebeq had a referendum to separate from Canada, Catalunia had a referendum to separate from Spain, Jerusalem can have a referendum to separate from Israel or Palestine (if Israel decides to abandon it).  If through a referendum Catalunia can separate from Spain and Quebec from Canada, there should be a referendum to separate Jerusalem from Israel. The Muslims have Mecca and Medina as their holiest cities ruled by the King of Saudi Arabia who is also their religious leader. Catholics have Vatican City, ruled by the Pope. There should be a referendum asking the inhabitants of Jerusalem whether they want to secede from Israel and become an independent country, the Jewish Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Most inhabitants of Jerusalem are religious orthodox Jews and  their self determination must be respected: Jerusalem should become Judaism’s Holy City, the Vatican City of Judaism. Instead of abandoning Jerusalem’s Old City to the Arabs there should be a referendum calling to create an independent Jewish Kingdom in Jerusalem, the international community will have to respect the self determination of Jerusalem’s citizens.

Ezequiel Doiny is author of “Obama’s Assault on Jerusalem’s Western Wall”