Last night, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, besieged by never-ending “investigations” courtesy of the Israeli chief prosecutor’s office took the extraordinary step of a public address to the nation from his private residence in which he demanded to face his accusers, all of whom were made state witness and promised a package of goodies to testify against him. He further demanded that this confrontation be made public, taking to Twitter this morning to reiterate his demand. It only took a few minutes for Netanyahu’s opponents to point out that what he was asking for was in fact a trial, a trial in which he would be allowed to face his accusers as is the right of any defendant. Facing them before the trial and before an indictment had even been recorded making the Israeli public in its totality act as a de-facto jury, was unprecedented and outside of judicial norm they claimed. Needless to say, they neglected to mention the fact that an indictment would deprive the Israeli people of their choice for prime minister, while an acquittal would do nothing to reverse the result of the election. The forces behind Netanyahu’s investigations are not on a quest for justice; they simply wish to stop Netanyahu from winning the election and with it another term as prime minister. Their agenda is purely political, a fact to which Netanyahu rightly wishes to draw the attention of the Israeli public. The anti-Netanyahu Israeli web resource Walla published an opinion poll this morning that shows Netanyahu’s plea falling on deaf ears in the general public, with only 20% supporting his demand and 53% opposing it and supporting the publication of an indictment prior to the elections. The Likud party base however, exhibited a vastly different opinion, with majorities of upwards of 80% saying that Netanyahu had the right to face his accusers prior to the indictment. This result is precisely what Netanyahu was hoping for; to be re-elected he needs high turnout by his base of Likud party voters, this base alone is worth 30 Knesset seats, more than enough to form a stable coalition under his leadership.
Netanyahu and his legal team were doubtlessly aware that their demand to face the accusers would not be granted and the public reaction must not have been a surprise either. So why did he do it? Why did Trump call the judge presiding over his Trump University case “Mexican”? Why has he doubled down on his assertion that judges and even supreme court justices are political actors? To answer these questions, we must first understand the concept of the “independent” judiciary and how it has been abused for over half a century now by our globalist elites. The first thing to understand in this regard is that the concept of an independent judiciary as a fair-minded umpire, not rooting for any team, focused rather on calling balls and strikes as he sees them, is in and of itself weaponized propaganda. THERE IS NO STRIKE ZONE. Life is not baseball. There is no fixed strike zone. In countries with a representative system of government like the US and Israel, the strike zone is constantly adjusted by the the will of the voters. Even the broadest of outlines such as the Constitution change and sometimes very rapidly. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself if the Framers would have consider the minimum wage law to have been constitutional, to say nothing of abortion and gay marriage.
The Founding Fathers knew full well that judges will be as much political animals as congressmen, senators, and presidents. They never intended for anyone to pretend otherwise. They simply wanted to create an adversarial system of checks and balances; to distribute political power among many political actors (including judges), who owed their allegiance to different constituencies: congressmen directly to their constituents, senators to congressmen, presidents to the states (via the Electoral College), and judges to those who, like governors and presidents appointed them. The judiciary did get a bit of a special treatment, this so-called independence, which never, for the ever pragmatic Founders, equal “impartiality”. All it meant was that presidents and governors having once appointed a judge, had no more control over his actions. That made judges independent of political interference, as free to agree with whomever appointed them as disagree. This was simply another check on the power of the executive and certainly did not intend to confer upon judges the superhuman status of impartiality.
It is one of history’s finest ironies that the diversified power system devised by Western civilization only works for societies in which diversity is virtually nonexistent. Non-diverse, homogeneous societies such as existed in the West until only a few decades ago overwhelmingly agree on a set of fundamentals that therefore are never subject to political debate. This agreement crosses all class divides; it is shared by elites and regular folks alike. Political battles are thus limited to growing and dividing the national “pie” and dealing with external threats and opportunities. In diverse societies such as today’s America and Western Europe, even the most fundamental aspects of life such as the attitude towards sex and reproduction, the primacy of a certain economic system (e.g. capitalism), or even the desirability of adhering to the system of governance itself (e.g. electoral college), are up for debate. Add to this the post WWII push for globalism and the subsequent creation of a class of globalist elites, and what ensues is a system in which these elites are arrayed in a pitched battle against their own less fortunate brothers and sisters, a battle in which even the terms of engagement are subject to total war. Since members of the judiciary, be they judges or prosecutors, come by necessity from the ranks of the educated elites, it is that particular branch of government that becomes their chief redoubtSo the battle lines are drawn, the populace led by elected institutions like the US Senate or the Israeli Knesset vs. the elitist judiciary, which uses its self-proclaimed and obviously fraudulent claim of impartiality to decapitate the populist movement and leave the population bereft of their choice of leader. Acting in ways similar to the Supreme Clerical Council of Iran, the globalist elites often attempt to use the judiciary to implicate popular candidates in court proceeding before they even have a chance to appear on a ballot. In Western Europe especially, with its “hate speech laws”, candidates like Marine Le Pen are often attacked in the courts for their speech, making them ineligible to run or simply too odious for “normal” people to vote for. Should a popular candidate like Trump get elected, he or she is immediately embroiled in a variety of lawsuits in a variety of jurisdictions, lawsuits whose frivolity is made obvious when they are dropped as soon as their utility in the political warfare against their target disappearsHere’s what is different now: in the past, judges and the judiciary were rather evenly spread across the political spectrum. They were political, yes, but their politics were not homogeneous and thus they served as an effective check on whomever happened to be in power. Today, judges and the judiciary are almost exclusively in bed with the globalist elites, making them a destabilizing rather than a stabilizing factor, creating the urgent need for the other side to fight them on the populists’ chosen battlefield – the battlefield of public opinion. This is why both Netanyahu and Trump are busy exposing the Israeli and the American judiciaries, respectively, for what they really are: bought and paid for attack dogs for the globalist elites, acting only at the behest of their masters and in opposition to the majority will of their own people. Both Trump and Netanyahu know that they will never get a fair shake in the courtroom; there will not be an impartial judge presiding over their trial, because had there been one, he or she would have taken all of thirty seconds to dismiss all charges and hold the prosecution in contempt. Both Trump and Netanyahu are warriors who will not succumb to empty words about “judicial impartiality” and “judicial procedure”. They will take the fight to the people and they will win.