The demonstrators speak of “dictatorship” while the current situation is one in which we are ruled by a small group of unelected oligarchs that has concentrated unrestricted powers of governance in its hands.
Stalin as an organizer of the October Revolution by Karp Demjanovich Trokhimenko
1. The compromise proposed with regards to the composition of the judicial selection committee is a good one. If the opposition does not wish to engage in dialogue, then we must talk with the voices coming from within the opposition. Our sages have said after all that man does not leave this world having achieved even half of his desire. Judicial review of Basic Laws by the Supreme Court will lead to a constitutional crisis – one that those sowing the seeds of chaos seek to bring about.
The Basic Laws have through the rulings of the court become constitutional laws that override regular laws. It is for that reason that the court does not have the jurisdiction to debate them as its authority too derives from a Basic Law. The dismissal of a Basic Law is contrary to the law by the very standards that the court itself has set, and therefore any such decision would be invalid. It is very important that Justice Minister Levin has clarified this point.
Video: Tens of thousands of Israelis protest against judiciary overhaul// Reuters
The justices of the Supreme Court are not the law; they are subject to the law. In most democracies, it is not possible to strike down a law unless that law explicitly or implicitly violates the constitution. Here, a unique method has been invented: The Supreme Court took all the powers for itself – not only did it rule that there is a constitution (the Basic Laws), but it also ruled that it is above the constitution! None of this is anchored in the letter of the law and there is no other court in the world that has such powers.
2. While the argument that the powers of the government and the Knesset should be limited is just one, the question must be asked: Who will limit the powers of the Supreme Court? After all, that is the basic tenet of the separation of powers. The unrestricted power of the court has upset the balance between the branches of power as the Knesset’s ability to legislate is restricted because the court has the power to strike down laws, but the court itself is not limited by any other body. Moreover, the Supreme Court is not restricted even by the law, as it interprets the law as it wishes through the mechanism of “purposive interpretation”: It is not the letter of the law nor the intention of the legislator that determines how a law is read – even if the legislator has made his intentions explicit. What determines how the law is read is the way the justices understand the purpose of the law. This is where a judge’s worldview and personal opinions come into play. And if this is the case, then it is important that we have a diverse composition of Supreme Court justices.
The court has reserved for itself the right to have the last word on every decision but has never agreed to be subject to external review, nor has it agreed for the state prosecution to be subject to such review. In other words, the judges have taken sovereignty from the people into their hands. Even if we are talking about prodigies (we should recall here that even Plato’s philosopher king was a kind of dictator) they were still not elected to rule or to manage the country.
The protestors speak of “dictatorship” while the current situation is one in which we are ruled by a group of oligarchs – a small group that was not elected directly by the people but has concentrated unrestricted powers of governance in its hands. This is authority without responsibility; the Supreme Court doesn’t take responsibility for the failures and dangers that its decisions may lead to. On the other hand, our elected officials have been left without real powers to carry out their policies, while at the same time, it is they who bear responsibility to the electorate.
3. Talk of “liberty” by the reform’s opponents is similar to their irresponsible use of the term “dictatorship.” We arrived here from thousands of communities after a long exile. We all have our own opinions and values; often they are contrasting. We always decided on every issue through public debate, elections, and votes in the Knesset. But now we are being asked to consider one person’s vote as worth more than another’s. Why is the vote of someone who succeeded in business or served in the army or the security services worth more than another person’s vote? Why is the former head of the Shin Bet better than anyone else – beyond the symbolic capital he accrued in his position?
In his book What’s National in National Security Maj,-Gen. (Res) Gershon Hacohen coined the term “security technician”. One can lead divisions on the battlefield, hunt down terrorists, and use intelligence to thwart attacks, but that doesn’t give any advantage over someone else in understanding diplomatic and political affairs or ideological and spiritual viewpoints as to the future of Israel and the Jewish people. Back in the 12th century, Maimonides taught us in his Eight Chapters, an introduction to the Ethics of the Fathers, not to look at a speaker’s title, but to look at the truth of what is said, no matter what their status – be they a taxi driver or a fighter pilot.
When I hear the term “dictatorship” used so freely to describe changes to the judicial selection committee, I lose interest. That is not a worthy form of public debate, it is merely throwing a bomb into the room to cut debate short and shut out the arguments of those who support the reform. The judicial reform is intended to restore, via the Knesset and the people’s elected representatives, some of the authority that has been usurped from the public. That is the real demand for liberty – not the vacuous slogans thrown out on the street and in television studios.
4. Now that we have seen how groups who consider themselves superior use their status to threaten the people, it is imperative that we prepare for the years ahead. It is important that we change the criteria for acceptance to certain IDF units. If in the periphery there are no schools that produce graduates with what is needed to be accepted to elite units, then talented pupils can be located and given the necessary skills training after completing high school, to bring them to the required level. In the long term, this will lead to greater social mobility and to the kind of diversity that is needed in these units. Similar processes need to be conducted in other power centers – not affirmative action that will lower standards, but preparation prior to placement in order to give candidates from the periphery the tools to compete on equal terms with their colleagues from the center of the country..
5. The use of the term “dictatorship” is aimed at influencing public consciousness by scaring citizens with threats of the disastrous fate that awaits them. The same goes for the voices that call for refusal to serve in the army, thus fraying the delicate fabric that binds us all in a bond of common destiny. What does it mean when one group declares that it will refuse to serve because of the legitimate policy of an elected government? Only our opinion counts, and if it is not accepted then we won’t defend the public. For over a decade I have been writing that among us there is a group of elevated status that has chosen the “Samson Option;” in other words, if we do not continue to run the country, and if it does not comply with the set of values that we have determined for it, then “let us all die with the Philistines” – and all means are kosher to harm the state.
Less than three months have passed since the judicial reform was announced, but it is already clear that opposition to it has long since transcended the boundaries of legal debate. Even if at first it wasn’t within those boundaries, it at least had a pretense that its objections were to do with the judicial selection committee and other trifles.
But that is not the case. We are graduates of previous protests where the idea was identical even though the costume was different. Its idea is to undermine the legitimization of the elected government with the expectation that this will lead to demoralization among its ranks, and then to wait for the first brick to fall in the hope that the government will collapse. To achieve this, pressure from foreign governments has also been mobilized. So it is imperative that the prophets of doom know that from the perspective of the reform’s supporters, this is a battle for their freedom to make decisions equally at the ballot box. To this end, they will be willing to see a drop in their standard of living – there is no price that can be placed on liberty.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.