Israel has no Supreme Court

---

North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Algeria is the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. The Congo is the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

If you notice, the least democratic places on earth put democratic in their name. So when you hear certain Israelis constantly claiming democracy or calling a political party the Democrats, you should start to pay attention. Pay attention.

Israel has no executive branch. Israel has no judicial branch. Israel has no supreme court.

We'll say it again. Israel has no supreme court because Israel has no judicial branch. The court made up an executive branch to justify a judicial branch, to justify separation of powers, to justify checks and balances, to justify judicial review, all so that the court can legislate from the bench.

Now, if this is too much English and too many democratic terms for you that you don't understand, don't turn away. Because you did it already. You already did that.

You did it in 1992. And because you turned away in 1992, that's why we're in this mess. They threw words at you.

And instead of finding out what they mean, you accepted them. They fooled you by taking concepts from the three-branch constitutional system and applying them to Israel's one-branch UK parliamentary system. What does that mean? Well, they added two more branches of government.

One was the executive branch, which they called the government. But here in Israel, that's made up. It's fabricated.

It's just part of the Knesset. The Knesset is the government. The government is the Knesset.

They broke it into two words, two branches. But it's the same thing. It's the same people.

It's the same votes. It's the same voters. The same term in office.

The same political parties. They're inseparable. But all of a sudden now, you have government branches.

The first appearance of the term executive branch in Israeli law was in 2001. Yes, only 2001. Go look it up.

In the 2001 amendment to Basic Law 1, the first sentence says, the government is the executive branch of the state. So who passed it? Well, it was the 15th Knesset, the Knesset of Ehud Barak. And they passed it when? They passed it on March 7, 2001.

March 7, 2001. Their last day in office. A lame duck Knesset.

They were already voted out. And what else? They slapped on the made-up term basic law. A made-up term for a made-up branch.

And with this designation, the Supreme Court can now guard this legislation from future Knessets. Now, everyone knows the most basic concept of parliamentary sovereignty, of a legislature's independence, is that a parliament cannot bind its successors. Meaning, it can't rule into the future.

Well, if you have Israel's Supreme Court and fabricated basic laws, yes, in Israel, you can. And now, all of a sudden, the court has become a branch of government. And as a branch of government, they can indeed check the Knesset.

And as we'll see, they won't stop at checking the Knesset by using veto power or striking down laws. They will legislate from the bench. And they'll do it with more authorities than any court in the world.

But when they mimicked the American system by creating branches, they skipped some pretty important parts. And they skipped them on purpose. Branches of government are established by a constitution.

Branches of government are elected by the people. None of this happened or happens in Israel. So that's how you wind up with an unelected court overruling an elected Knesset.

So why do they do this? Go watch interviews from the father of today's opposition leader. He'll say, they had a demographics problem. Too many religious voters.

Too many right-wing voters. Too many Mizrahi voters. And all having too many babies.

So they implemented this system, this runaway court system, as their safeguard. Go listen to the former head of the court, the former president of the court. He has no shame in using the term clandestine revolution.

A clandestine revolution, that's secrecy. That's sabotage. That's overthrowing a government.

They stole the country from the people. That's what happens when a revolution is clandestine. So demographics, that's what sparked all of this.

First Israel, as they loosely call it, trying to maintain control of the country they believe they built. So let's deep dive and clarify and compare some of these concepts to expose this electoral threat. So we'll start with the UK model.

Israel is based on the UK system. A parliamentary system. One branch of government, the legislature.

That's it. There are no powers to separate. That's right.

No separation of powers. I know. They've been screaming to you that separation of powers is the core of democracy.

And that's why you need this Supreme Court to save you. Well, Israel lasted almost 50 years without branches and without separation of powers. And England has lasted hundreds of years.

So when they tell you there's no democracy without separation of powers, they're fooling you. You've fallen into a word trap. You accepted their definition and then you argue based on their terms.

We have a talk on this. It's called word traps. Go look it up.

We go through similar language from the military to social issues. There are tons of them. So they're fooling you and they're using the same MO.

And why don't we need separation of powers? Because in Israel's parliamentary system, the government has no set term. It could fall at any moment from a vote of no confidence. So it's inherently checked by its own members and by members of the opposition.

You like it. You don't like it. It's not relevant.

Are there more details? Of course. But in short, that's the parliamentary system. And the UK is long regarded as an electoral democracy, even with a king.

And they historically have not had separation of powers. And no one is arguing that they're not a democracy. And on to the American model.

There, there are three branches. Three branches because a written and accepted constitution said so. It says so.

They agreed on it. They signed it. There's the president.

He is the executive. And there's Congress, which is a legislature. And unlike the show that we have here in Israel, as we discussed earlier, where they just made up branches in 2001, these US branches are actually separate.

They're elected separately. They remain in power separately. They have separate terms in office.

They can and often are from different political parties. They're two separate branches. And the third branch, of course, is a judiciary, the Supreme Court.

And the judges there are all selected by elected officials because a branch of government can check another branch. And in order to have that authority, each branch has to be representatives of the people. But here they tricked you.

You fell into another word trap. They replaced will of the people with political. And now you think elected officials are a bad thing.

We'll deal with that later. So it's the people. That's democracy.

Not bureaucrats. Not fellow judges. Not random bar association officials.

The people. And it's not even complicated. And what do you think? The founders of Israel didn't know this.

They had the UK system. They had the US system. They had those systems before them.

They had them as examples. The Americans came from the UK system. These governments were established based on their circumstances.

What do I mean? Any US grade schooler can tell you about the Federalist Papers, about the 13 colonies. The US system, where three powers can check one another, was designed on purpose. Was designed to slow change.

Not to outlaw change. To slow it. If the people want it, they want it.

It was designed to protect multiple conflicting groups. Catholics and Protestants. Big states and small states.

City dwellers and farmers. It was meant to slow change and protect the smaller groups. To protect them from reactions on a whim.

That was their intent. And what about Israel? Israel's founders knowingly rejected that American system. They chose the UK system.

They chose a one-branch model. Why? Because while the US system wanted to slow change, Israel wanted the exact opposite. Under constant threat of war, they chose to implement a system, a one-branch system that would be fast acting, flexible, able to quickly tackle challenges.

Real challenges. War. Terror.

A genuine fifth column. One branch on purpose. And this is not just an academic discussion.

This is the exact problem that Israel faces today. In the 30 years since the court elevated itself into this fake branch, Israeli governments have become frozen. Frozen with horrifying results.

Israeli governments can't fight terrorism. They can't fight wars. They can't open roads from protesters.

They can't hire and fire ministers. They can't make international treaties. Anything.

It's all slowed and it's subject to this overarching review. It's against the strategic intent of the founders. And worse, it's subject to review by a body that wouldn't even be considered a branch under the US model because it's not even chosen by the electorate.

So these systems are all by design and they're all thought out. A constitutional branch system and a parliamentary system. Two different systems chosen for different circumstances, different times, different parts of the world.

Different demographics. And they come with different tools and different terms. And as we said, it served Israel for over 50 years and England for hundreds of years.

So why is the Israeli court not elected? Simple. The same reason the UK court isn't elected. It's not a branch of government and was never intended to be one.

In a UK one-branch system, the model on which Israel is based, the court is a finder of fact. Meaning it resolves disputes. You say Tuesday, I say Wednesday.

You say 10 shekel, I say 20. It's also a court of appeals over the lower courts. It could have original jurisdiction in some cases but those are the roles of the court.

It doesn't change just because you add high court of justice to your stationary. But we won't even start with that. And if you want to change this, if you want to become a constitutional democracy, pass a constitution.

Pass it by the people. Did Israel plan to have a constitution in the 1930s? Did they say this and that? Sure, it seems like it. But they didn't do it.

So it doesn't mean you just make it up half a century later which is what the court did. After the fact, they plucked some one-page Knesset law passed in 1992. A law that less than half the Knesset even showed up to vote on.

And the court decided using laughable legal gymnastics that by this law, Israel intended to change its entire government system. To change from a one-party parliamentary system to a constitutional system. We won't get into all the details now because it's well-documented.

So while the will of the people is a good word in every other democracy, in Israel it has become political and it's become bad. So in the US, when the new Supreme Court judges are chosen by elected officials, when government ministers are replaced by the incoming president, when local judges and attorneys general are voted in by the people, these are proud displays of a democracy. Of a clean and peaceful transition of power as voted by the people.

But in Israel, all these tools of democracy have become negative because they fooled you. They fooled you with one word and convinced you that these things are bad. They replaced the will of the people with political and you believe them.

And using this one word, selecting Supreme Court judges has suddenly become something that has to be separate from elected officials. Separated from the people. In order to protect democracy.

It's a complete 180. And that's why the selection committee is made up of a majority, five out of nine, a majority of judges and bar association members because it has sealed itself off from the people. So the people, the voters, the electorate cannot touch the court and cannot touch these judges.

And they'll tell you that these judges are the ones protecting democracy. And if you protest this, that sparks yet another word trap because that makes you undemocratic. So the unelected bureaucrat equals democracy while the representative of the people equals political.

And you're done, you're trapped. So we've gone a long way and we're not even done. We haven't gotten to judicial review, judicial advocacy, reasonableness, the attorney general.

But we've touched on so much English and so much legalese that I'm probably talking to myself by now. And that's exactly what the courts used against you, Mr. Israeli. This is how they designed the theft to overwhelm you with English and overwhelm you with legalese.

And that's why the former president of the Supreme Court told it to you with words in English. He told you it was part of democracy. He told you the Americans do it.

And he told you that he learned it in his year in Harvard. And with your inferiority complex on all these topics, you took it as straight from Moshe Messinai, unchallenged, unfettered, until it became ingrained, taken as truth, taken oddly enough as being democracy. And why? Because he said it was Western and you admire them.

You admire their ways, their thinking, and especially how they perceive you and whether or not they accept you. So you put their system and their language on a pedestal. It's a third world mentality.

I've lived in the third world and I've seen it. That's a Gullis mentality. I was born and raised in Gullis and I know it.

Two thousand years of living in someone else's house, of asking permission, of not making waves, of fitting in, of hoping to be loved and accepted as their resident, as an equal. And I'm not preaching to you because I'm smarter. I'm not.

These U.S. legal concepts I learned in fifth grade. I learned in high school. I learned in U.S. law school where I studied it in my native language.

So when I hear terms thrown around, I don't have to fall for them. I don't have to accept it. I know separation of powers.

I know checks and balances. I know judicial review and reasonableness. And it's not this.

This is mumbo jumbo. This is mumbo jumbo put together by someone who realized he could manipulate you using English and democratic terms. And the ones in the know, the ones who perpetuate this theft from the electorate, the Concepcja, the left, the judges, the media, First Israel, whatever you want to call them.

It's an ideological oligarchy. They believe they're smarter and more worldly than the ignorant religious population. So to protect their state from religion, from what they believe is a pending halachic state, they have justified this theft.

They believe they are saving the state from religious fanatics. And to that end, they will feed us all kinds of nonsense and word traps that they themselves don't even believe. And that's so that they can continue to perpetuate the fraud.

And that's exactly why the average Israeli will say separation of powers and political influence are the holy grail of democracy, as if the UK and Israel pre-1992 never existed. Watch the interview with the former Supreme Court president. He convinces no one.

See how the American legal expert giggles. He asks, where was the parade? If this was such a long-awaited constitutional change, how come no one else knew about it? How come only nine people, only those judges were aware of it? And the former president explains without shame, it was a clandestine revolution. As if that's a real thing.

No shame. Worse than watching Putin and Medvedev explain Russian term limits.

---