Bab al-Shams
Israel ejects peaceful protesters who placed tents on private land in the E1 zone of the west bank. Despite a court injunction.
The Israeli state has swung into action against a group of Palestinian activists who established a tent village on a rocky hillside east of Jerusalem, with hundreds of security officials carrying out an eviction under the orders of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in the early hours of Sunday morning.
According to activists, a large military force surrounded the encampment at around 3am. All protesters were arrested and six were injured, said Abir Kopty.
On Saturday evening, Netanyahu demanded the Israeli supreme court overturn an injunction preventing the removal of the protesters, and ordered the area to be declared a closed military zone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/13/isarel-evicts-e1-palestinian-peace-camp
This seems appropriate here:
Can a prime minister "demand" that the Supreme Court do anything. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
In real democracies they can't.
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling then, as they have numerous other rulings they deemed unconstitutional.
But then the government just passes a new law do they not? Much like Canada under the Bill of Rights and why the Charter had to be entrenched in a written Constitution for the courts to be able to override the parliament in our system.
Israel Seeks Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians: Saab Shaath (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/01/13/283383/israel-maneuvers-to-be-r...
"An analyst says the Likud Party is firm on its plans to disconnect Palestinians from their land totally and to do a deal with Jordan..."
Apparently, the injunction covered the tents, not the protesters. So the tents remain, but the people have been removed. Sort of a judicial version of the neutron bomb.