I worked for a few years in a South American country with one of its military branches. . It was somewhat typical of others in South America. I discovered that going into the military was also an alternate career part that could lead into politics. Looking at the major political figures in Israel shows a surprising similarity. But in all cases I have seen in South America, the Judiciary is weak and ignored by the governments with the same indifference and with the same impunity. I also saw that the military were not restricted by the police as were ordinary civilians. The article does bring up some interesting questions and offers an amazing insight into the only democracy in the Middle East. What is the basis for the court deciding what is Palestinian land, and what Is Israeli land, in the conquered territories? If the government has a legal claim that any part is Israeli why isn’t all of it Israeli? If any part is Palestinian then all of it is. Or is the unstated issue really about who has more rights based on religious or ethnic entitlements under the law? Jews or Palestinians? In South America the indigenous Indian population was often treated more like the Palestinians are in Israel. That is they had lesser rights than those of European descent. The PLA has stated that in a final partition Jews could have Pal citizenship and live in a Palestine state. I am beginning to wonder who would be treated more fairly. A Jew living in a Palestinian state, or a Palestinian living in a Jewish state. Only one side has any record to point to, and it is not encouraging.
Iranian parliamentary panel gives conditional nod to nuke deal (Reuters)
from the article: Israel sees court rulings on Palestinian land as mere 'recommendations'