RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/gaslighting-gaza-initial-analysis-of-un-commission-of-inquiry-on-gaza-riots/

On February 28, 2019, the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the riots along the Israel-Gaza border, which began in March 2018, alleged that “Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law… and may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.” The COI created a “confidential file” of “which is recommended be given to the International Criminal Court (ICC)” and to be used by governments to “consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze.”

Methodological Failures

In contrast to professional fact-finding standards, the COI clearly established pre-determined legal and factual conclusion and merely gathered “evidence” to fit its desired outcome.
In preparing its report, the COI relied heavily on Palestinian sources, including Hamas and terror-linked non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Notably, the COI uncritically adopts the NGOs’ application of a domestic law enforcement paradigm – erasing the context of the armed conflict with Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups – to analyze cross-border violence.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13812/palestinians-israel-elections

Instead of marching Palestinians towards democracy, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas have chosen the model of totalitarianism as a way of governing their people. The pro-Abbas demonstrations organized by Fatah in the West Bank are reminiscent of dictatorships in the Arab world that send their loyalists to the streets to voice support for the ruler. The Hamas-sponsored anti-Abbas demonstrations in the Gaza Strip will not solve any of the crises facing the Palestinians there. These protests are Hamas’s way of distracting attention from its failure to improve the living conditions of the people living under its repressive regime.

The only way for the Palestinians to move forward is by protesting against their failed leaders in the PA and Hamas. Many Palestinians, however, are afraid to speak out against their rulers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Why would any Palestinian speak out against Abbas when the PA arrests and harasses those who even dare to post critical remarks on Facebook? Why would any Palestinian in the Gaza Strip criticize Hamas when he or she knows that this would endanger their lives?

On April 9, Israelis will again celebrate democracy by voting in a free and democratic election. The Palestinians, meanwhile, will mark another year of dictatorship and failed leadership, and will continue to dream about heading to any ballot box at all.

Israelis are scheduled to head to the ballot boxes on April 9 to vote for a new parliament (Knesset). This will be the fifth general election in Israel since 2006.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, on the other hand, have, since 2006, failed to hold a single election for their parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/281282/what-bibis-indictment-means

Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s announcement to the media, 40 days before general elections, that he intends to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of bribery and breach of trust in three different cases was political drama of the highest order. There’s no gainsaying the importance to Israel’s politics and the election. But more importantly, Mandelblit’s announcement heralds a crisis for Israel’s democracy and the public image of its legal system.

Mandelblit’s announcement inserts law enforcement officials into the political arena in an unprecedented way, and on a very shaky legal foundation. If the legal theories that the attorney general is introducing against Netanyahu become general law, a considerable part of the democratic life of Israel will have to pass through police interrogation rooms. If they remain restricted to Netanyahu, the partisanship will permanently damage public trust in the Israeli legal system.

To be sure, Mandelblit’s announcement is only an interim step in the legal drama. Any actual indictment will have to wait for hearings in the attorney general’s office in which Netanyahu’s lawyers will be afforded the opportunity to attempt to dissuade Mandelblit from his chosen course. The hearings will take place after the election, and only in a year or so will Mandelblit be in a position to request that the Knesset lift Netanyahu’s immunity or formally file an indictment. And the political fallout will not end with the opinion polls now being conducted. It is likely that Mandelblit’s announcement will influence not only the number of votes received by the parties on April 9, but the coalition negotiations to follow.

Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit announced on Thursday that he will file charges in all three criminal investigations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The decision was expected throughout the day, and tension was high in political circles ahead of the long-awaited announcement.The charges came despite a last-minute Likud effort to convince Israel’s High Court of Justice on Thursday to stop the attorney general from making the announcement, arguing that it would cause “unprecedented interference” in the political system.

However, High Court justice Noam Sohlberg rejected the petition.Netanyahu faces charges in Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000.In Case 4000, (aka the Bezeq-Walla! Affair) Mandelblit charged Netanyahu with bribery. In Case 1000, (the Illegal Gifts Affair) Mandelblit brought lesser charges of fraud and breach of trust. In Case 2000, (the Yediot Ahronot-Israel Hayom Affair) Mandelblit will charge with breach of trust only.Case 4000Case 4000 is reportedly the strongest case against Netanyahu in the opinion of the State Attorney’s Office. In that case, Netanyahu is accused of driving through a merger for businessman Shaul Elovitch in return for favorable coverage on website Walla!Netanyahu maintains that the merger involving Bezeq, Israel’s largest telecommunications firm and Yes, a satellite TV provider, both owned by Elovitch, was carried out by the book.

Netanyahu also argues that coverage at Walla! was not positive toward him, undermining the case.