T. Belman. The Democracy Institute is a left leaning NGO. Just look at the title and sub-title to see the bias.
The article itself is worth reading.
Canceling this judicial tool would lift yet another barrier to unlimited power and open the door for rampant corruption.
By: Prof. Yuval Shany, DEMOCRACY INSTITUTE. 6.7.23
Administrative law is meant to protect the country’s residents against arbitrary government actions and to require the executive branch to function as the public’s trustee. In Israel, the principles of administrative law have been laid down in rulings of the Supreme Court, just as the rules of English administrative law, which inspired them, were relied on by English courts of law. They include rules that require every action by the government to be legal and within the bounds of the authority granted it by law; that the decision to take an action be made in a valid procedure in which the decision-makers satisfied the procedural obligations set down by the law, did not act with a conflict of interest, and relied on an appropriate factual basis; and that the decision itself be based on reasonable and proportionate exercise of government discretion.
The standard of reasonableness—more generally referred to as the standard of extreme unreasonableness—plays two critical roles in the constellation of measures designed to protect citizens against the abuse of government power. First, it is meant to prevent a situation in which the government makes a clearly illogical and capricious decision without a serious attempt to take into account and balance the many relevant factors involved. For example, one can expect that when deciding on the location of a new airport, the Minister of Transport will give relatively great weight to the impact on the quality of life of those living nearby and the transportation needs of future travelers, and assign relatively lower importance to other factors, such as a small difference in the value of the land that the state will expropriate for the project. In such cases, application of the standard of reasonableness rests on the idea that the government is granted authority in order to exercise it for the good of the citizens and that the burden of proving that the decision rests on a sound basis guarantees that the government will indeed weigh all relevant considerations in a responsible fashion.
Put differently, the democratic principle that legitimizes granting power to the government for the sole purpose of using it for the benefit of its citizens, justifies external scrutiny of the considerations that are used in exercising this power. Nevertheless, it is important to note that according to the principle of reasonableness as it is applied in Israel, the Court cannot revoke a government decision in cases in which the judges disagree with the government decision; but rather – only in cases in which the balance between the various considerations that were made is unreasonable in the extreme. That is, when dealing with a decision that no reasonable government authority would accept.
T. Belman. The High Court of Justice found Deri’s twin appointments as health and interior minister “unreasonable in the extreme” due to past offenses. With the elimination of “reasonableness”, Bibi will now appoint him. This is a case in point. Should the court or Knesset be the one to decide whether he can serve as minister. Did the Court, by holding so, legislate, which is not their function? https://www.timesofisrael.com/coalition-advances-bill-that-would-return-deri-to-cabinet-defying-high-court-ruling/
Another problematic area is the governments fight to secure Israel. The High Court often overrules the Government decision in order to protect the right of the terrorists. The Chief Justice Aharon Barak wrote:
In one case, the state sought to deport 400 suspected terrorists to Lebanon. Human rights organizations petitioned us. I was the Justice on call at the time. Late that night, I issued an interim order enjoining the deportation. At the time, the deportees were in automobiles en route to Lebanon. The order immediately halted the deportation. Only after a hearing held in our Court throughout the night that included comprehensive argumentation, including testimony by the Army’s Chief of Staff, did we invalidate the deportation order. [FN14] We ruled that the state breached its obligation to grant the deportees the right to a hearing before deporting them, and we ordered a post factum right to a hearing.
Why are the rights of suspected terrorists more important than the security of Israelis? Is it reasonable for the court to put the rights of these individuals before the security of Israelis and Israel.
Another example of the High Court overruling the government is when it prevented the Government from deporting 50,000 aliens who infiltrated the country illegally.
In addition, it is often difficult to prove the existence of specific defects in the process that preceded the executive branch decision or in the considerations behind it, even though they led to a result that seems to be extremely problematic. It is possible, for example, that some inappropriate consideration (such as a discreet nudge by a childhood friend who expects to reap a huge profit from the expropriation of the land) tipped the balance for the minister’s (hypothetical) surprising decision about the airport’s location, overriding other weighty considerations. The standard of reasonableness is meant to provide additional protection to citizens against the improper use of government power in cases when it is difficult or even impossible to identify the hidden flaw, which may involve serious corruption. When a decision is unreasonable in the extreme, the court may nullify it even if it cannot determine what improper motive led the minister to skew the balance among the various factors influencing his or her decision.
It follows that elimination of the standard of reasonableness for all decisions by elected officials would lead to a significant dilution of the protection that the judicial system affords Israeli citizens against improper government decisions. As long as the decision was made by a minister, the executive branch could make questionable decisions—sometimes for hidden motives that are improper or corrupt—and the court would not be able to protect the general public interest. What is more, elimination of the standard of extreme reasonableness would deprive the executive of an important incentive for structuring its decision in a way that demonstrates a serious weighing of all the relevant issues. It would have a dramatic effect on the quality of government decisions in Israel.
Some argue that elimination of the standard of reasonableness would not be a dramatic step, because the bill before the Knesset would not apply to the professional echelon (but only to elected officials) and because citizens could still avail themselves of protections on other grounds, such as proportionality. It is also argued that the court has been too active in its invocation of the standard of extreme reasonableness. These assertions are not very persuasive. Ministers would be able to “immunize” many decisions by the bureaucrats in their ministry against judicial review based on their reasonableness simply by presenting the decision as their own. As a result, the legal protection available to citizens against the vast majority of government actions would be dramatically weakened. In addition, the claim of disproportionality is relevant only when it is a specific citizen who is harmed. It cannot be invoked when the public interest as a whole is impacted (for instance, the public interest that appointed officials be suited for their post, or that an airport is not located in an unsuitable location). As for the argument of “judicial activism”—even if specific court decisions against government actions can be criticized as overreaching, abolishing the standard of reasonableness would be tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water and would lead to a situation of almost no external restraints on the exercise of government power.
The bottom line is that abolition of the standard of extreme reasonableness would lead to a further concentration of power in the hands of the executive—a power that is already greater in Israel than in many other democracies because of the Government’s control of the legislature. It would then be able to exercise many important powers in an arbitrary fashion, sometimes for dubious motives. This would mean a significant erosion of the idea that underlies administrative law; namely, that the executive branch must function as the public’s trustee. A step in this direction is a move away from the system of checks and balances that is the underpinning of democratic regimes and that is intended to ensure that those who hold government power—both elected and professional officials—do not abuse the vast power they hold.
Beyond this, in a country grappling with severe problems of government corruption and has already recorded in its short history a distressingly long list of ministers and senior officials indicted and convicted for corruption, elimination of the standard of reasonableness would open “loopholes” in the governmental decision-making process and increase governmental corruption. As with other parts of the judicial overhaul being pushed by Minister Yariv Levin and MK Simcha Rotman, the Israeli public and Israeli democracy would be dealt a severe blow by the continuing effort to grant more and more power to the government, to crush the mechanisms of control and oversight designed to prevent the accumulation of unchecked power by the executive branch, and make it more difficult to oppose the tendency of unlimited power to generate more corruption.
T. Belman. So the authors of this article are “against the accumulation of unchecked power by the executive branch” but have nothing to say about the accumulation of unchecked power in the High Court and in the Attorney General. No doubt they are also against the accumulation of power in the legislature.
This article was originally published in the Times of Israel.
Prof. Yuval Shany is a Senior Fellow of the Israel Democracy Institute and a Professor of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
These arguments resemble the illogical arguments that George Orwell described in his articles “Politics and the Engliish language” and a “a Note on Newspeak,” which he appended to his novel “i984. One such arguments he labeled “blackwhite.” It involved makeing claims that were not only fale, but the exact reverse or mirror-image of the truth. Another, very similar argument he described as :turnspeak,” meaning the false projection of one’s own lies and distortions onto one’s opponent in a debate. This leftist spokesman, like all of the proponants of the treasonous rebellion against Israel’s elected government, resorts to both blackwhite and turnspeak. The election by the people of a government whose policies the author disagrees with is described as a “coup.” Proposed legislation to emd the absolute power of the 850 members of the Bar Association, and its appointees in the Supreme Cout and all the other courtsis characterized as “governmental tyranny.The restoration of sovereignty to the Israeli people and their elected represntatives, as provided for in Basic Law number 1, adoped immediately after the state was formed, is characterized as creating “a government with unlimited power, not subject to the supposedly benevolent checks and balances on this power by the courts. And so on. Orwellian blackwhite and turnspeak combined. Until and unless the Israeli people finally realize that they are being played by these political liars, Israel is probably doomed.
@bob962009@gmail.com
Quite true.
Most of the people here give their opinions saying the reasonability is good or bad. But I make a simple question: WHICH LAW IN THE KNESSET CREATED IT AND WHEN? The answer: NONE. Ehud Barak created it by himself. So, it’s simple: reasonability is not good or bad – it’s ILLEGAL. Period.
Reader-
What you consider unqualified persons get their ministerial posts mostly to bring their parties into a coalition. The REAL work is done by the permanent officials. The Minsters have “adviors” sometimes committees to advise his how to make the announcements, and what NOT to say. They prepare his speeches and generally guide him.
. The PM wants Deri because he is a very experienced administrator and is badly needed, not because of his sylph like looks.
All countries do the same.
READER-
You show a lamentable ignorance as to how ministers are appointed and the reasons for doing so. Some , to make the deal to get the party into the Coalition, others, as being the most prominent in their party,
AND, they ALL have”advisors” sometimes plural, or committees.
They serve as the recognised “figurehead”……
and the REAL work is done by the PERMANENT OFFICIALS. In every country it s the same. Rarely, as in the case of the PM do we get a political genius into the highest sear. Israel has been lucky ….so far.
@Reader
Are you suggesting Zionism can be built in one country?”
@Reader The judges you defend said there was no case against Netanyahu. The witnesses have all testified in his defence despite being tortured and having their families threatened. The AG won’t accept it. You were warning us about fascism? 😀
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/373327
@Reader Umm, this is more like my understanding of fascism, of being like the Iranian regime. Has the governing coalition done or even proposed anything like this? This is what the people you support have been up to :
@Reader
https://www.timesofisrael.com/reports-judges-in-netanyahu-trial-tell-prosecution-bribery-charge-has-little-chance/
“To compel Netanyahu’s closest associates to incriminate him, the prosecution and police extorted, tortured and humiliated them. Two of Netanyahu’s chiefs of staff, David Sharan and Ari Harow, former director general of the Ministry of Communications Shlomo Filber and Netanyahu’s former spokesman Nir Hefetz were subjected to physical and psychological torture and extortion at the hands of police investigators closely guided by prosecutors. They were locked up and denied food and medical treatment.
-The police ruined Hefetz and Harow’s marriages.
-Police carted Sharan’s elderly mother into an investigation cell in front of him to break him.
These men, who committed no crimes, were subjected to prolonged incarceration and denied sleep.
-Hefetz was jailed in a flea-ridden cell and denied minimal medical care.
-All the witnesses were subjected to prolonged public humiliation.
-The police opened a scurrilous criminal probe against Harow and staged a dramatic arrest, taking him into custody as he landed at the airport as if he were a drug kingpin.
-They opened another open-ended, scurrilous investigation against Filber’s son.
-Harow and Sharan’s bank accounts were frozen. Their wives found themselves unable to buy food at the supermarket.
Multiple other prosecution witnesses were subjected to similar treatment in the state prosecution’s campaign to use the criminal probe to intimidate and terrorize Netanyahu and coerce him into stepping down.
To demonize and criminalize the sitting prime minister and his associates, prosecutors and police investigators engaged in widespread criminal use of cyber warfare tools developed to fight Israel’s enemies. Netanyahu’s closest aides and, apparently, his children and wife were subjected to illegal monitoring of their electronic communications. One of the breach-of-trust charges against Netanyahu allegedly originated in the police’s illegal use of such a spyware tool against Ari Harow.”
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/373327
@peloni
Netanyahu attacked the judicial system to smear it and accuse it of trying to unseat him by accusing him of crimes he didn’t commit.
Just because something wrong, corrupt, or criminal has been done or is being done somewhere by someone is no excuse for adopting or continuing the same mode of behavior, moreover, different countries have different cultures, stages of development, and different needs.
Israel’s system of governance is outdated, prone to corruption by people who are so inclined, and it is starting to really harm the country.
Your last post supports my argument that the system must be reformed ASAP.
@Reader Oh, this is hilarious. This government delivered on the promise of free pre-school starting from age 2 not 3 and the Left hates it because they think it mainly benefits the Haredi* because so many are poor and have big families and the middle class will have their taxes go up to pay for them. This is the way Conservative Republicans talk in the U.S. 😀
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-27/ty-article/.premium/free-preschool-mainly-benefits-israels-ultra-orthodox-families/00000186-9435-d873-a5ce-b7bd514b0000
*Actually, it benefits every family where both or all the adults work.
@Reader
You have a poorly informed idea of how ministers are appointed. Just for starters, what was the qualification which Abas had for being Deputy Minister to anything in a country which he doesn’t even recognize as being legitimate.
Ministery appointments are politically arranged and not dependent upon either qualifications or even good performance after the appointment. Not in Israel, and not anywhere else either.
@Reader
You are wrong. It is easy enough to prove. First look at the words of the Left during the last election:
Lapid Slams Netanyahu’s Attacks on Judicial System
Then look at the platform posed at the onset of the election. In the waning hours of the former govt, Likud put forth a judicial reform plan which they knew wouldn’t pass, but served as an advertisement of the goals for the following Knessett (Opposition previews plans to remake composition of the Supreme Court</em>).
Then look at the position within Likud gained by those running in support of the Judicial Reform. The proponents of judicial reform took many of the top slots in the Likud party elections (Likud voters just handed Netanyahu a mandate to remake the judicial system).
Notably, one of those in the top slots, Yair Levin, spoke of the goals of the judicial reform from the very early days of the election season (Likud’s judicial reform plan seeks to end ‘rule by judges’ and constrain the AG).
@peloni
NOT TRUE.
The “Right” were elected on the basis of their promises to improve security, cost of living, and having free kindergartens for children up to 3 years old, but once elected the “Right” lunged for power and cash and disabling the judiciary to suit their corrupt needs – this is a far worse betrayal that Bennet’s coalition including Arabs (who, BTW, Netanyahu also invited but they refused) in spite of promising not to do so.
Anyway, I am allergic to false dichotomies such as Left/Right, etc., etc. – “Let me know whose team you are on, and I will know exactly what you think, put up a lot of straw men to argue about what I think your convictions are, and treat you accordingly.”
If a ministry is obtained by an unqualified individual as part of a coalition bargain and it is considered perfectly acceptable, ethical, and harmless to the country and its population, this is not democracy, this is corruption in spades.
Israel cannot afford this type of corrupt governance, and this is why it is in the throes of a huge crisis which, at worst, might lead to a civil war and/or the destruction of the state of Israel.
Just because this government didn’t start this system doesn’t mean that the system must be deemed permanent, unchangeable, and free to exploit in all sorts of corrupt ways by anyone who so desires.
Israel does need improving in both legal and governance system. However this current government did not create this parliamentary system. It has evolved over 75 years.
Unfortunately the most qualified person does not always run a ministry but the one that obtains it is part of a bargain to join the ruling coalition or government.
This is common in democracies parliamentary or otherwise. The people running things are elected to the Knesset. This is just part of a messy democracy. The winners get to divide the pie. The opposition cries foul and corruption. Somethings are valid constructive critiques. Then there is the part where the opposition is trying to bring down the current government and so they will say almost anything to get back into power. This is currently occurring to the detriment of the country in a serious way. Some MKs who were for the judicial reform are against it because they are sitting in the opposition now.
@Peloni Well said.
@Reader
This sounds like a bunch of sour grapes, to be honest. I don’t recall you objecting to the last govt when they actually were bribing members of their coalition to support the govt, and the bribes were being paid to the Muslim Brother in the form of state lands and state funds.
Fascism? Really? Again? I really wish people would not use this term out of context. In a fascist govt, the streets would be filled with troops supporting the govt, not protesters objecting to the govt, the opposition would be in jail, not in the opposition, and the media would be broadcasting govt propaganda rather than that of foreign influence groups. When you think of a fascist country, think of Ukraine, then tell us how Israel is similarly positioned. I tell you, you will have a hard time doing this.
This may be true, but who should be left to make these changes? Those elected by the people or those who were turned out of office based upon gross incompetence. If reform is to be pursued, the representatives chosen by the people, as in an election, should be the ones to pursue it. Unlike Bennett, who said he would not sit with the Arabs and the Left, the Right were elected due to their support for Judicial reform. As to a “complete reform of governance”, whatever that actually implies, who was elected based upon their support of such a thing. What is more, who voted for it. So, what you desire might be needed, but it is clearly not consistent with the designs for which the people voted, no matter for which party they voted. Tendering such ‘complete reform[s]’ would be a radical act taken by radical actors should they be pursued without the clear support of the people, and the way the people would declare such support would be thru the vote, not mob action and threats of military plotted insurrections.
@Sebastien Zorn
Fascism is being imposed on the country by the current coalition which is a junta of certain sectors of the population who think they are salt of the earth and the cream of the crop and are free to impose their will on the rest of the population and do whatever they want just because they now have the opportunity.
“the faction that lost the election by a big margin” it is a fantasy by the junta supporters – no party that made it into the Knesset can be described as having lost the election, the parties in the opposition can be described as parties that the corrupt PM chose not to buy off with any number of ministries and the promises of everything they want and more as long as the parties follow his wishes in his coalition and do everything to keep him in power and out of prison.
Israel needs a complete reform of governance, not some judicial reform designed to disable the Supreme Court in order to put convicted felons (foxes) in charge of several ministries (chicken coops) and to benefit one sector of the society and to keep in power the PM who has clearly “lost it” because he would rather die than let go of power and the benefits this power affords him.
@Sebastien
Very well stated!
@Reader In other words, to avoid the dystopian fantasy of fascism that the Left imagines and fears, actual fascism should be imposed in a, presumably military, coup d’etat by the faction that lost the election by a big margin and states of emergency are the way to do it. It’s the route by which, other than invasion, every democracy that has ever fallen has gone bye bye and one junta will replace another continually. Now, history shows that autocracy can be the most stable form of government but only if Barak declares himself emperor (or at least until he surrenders enough land to the Arabs to make another invasion of Israel feasible.) But, not to worry, like Zelensky and the Jordanian kinglet, I’m sure they will be generously compensated in their retirement on the Riviera. 😀
This whole thing would not be happening in the first place if Israel had a law which didn’t allow convicted felons or politicians under indictment to be in politics, if the Knesset wasn’t divided into coalition and opposition which disables most of the Knesset just because the prime minister creates a coalition by promising a few parties whatever they want, and if Israel had no sectoral parties, and if it had a Constitution which included separation of religion and state.
The way the system is designed encourages infighting, corruption, and the politicians fighting to get the biggest piece of the pie for “their” sector instead of concerning themselves with the good of the country and the country’s citizens.
I think the Knesset must be dissolved, an emergency government established to run the country, and a commission established to make the above changes and to work on the constitution with separation of religion and state being a non-negotiable item.
Netanyahu: We will use summer to ‘reach internal agreements’
The prime minister’s remarks came following Likud ministers and MKS expressing their resolve to pass any future judicial reform legislation with broad consensus.
The good of the country requires this way of operating and enough Likud MKs are backing this way of operating to require this for any further judicial legislation.
By ELIAV BREUER
Published: JULY 30, 2023 13:49
This article is worth reading. The writer certainly leans left and I do not agree with him in many instances but provides a good insight into what people in Israel feel from different segments of society.
Today INN reports:
Music to my ears.
@Bear
The point I am trying to make is not that the Left is wrong and the Right is, well, right. This is true enough, but it is irrelevant to your desire of gaining a consensus, which is why I didn’t raise it. The Right is willing, has been earnestly willing, to negotiate, but the Left is not, despite the fact that there is common ground between the two sides already. No matter what the people want, they won’t get it because the Left means to bring down the govt, and that is the limit of their interest in negotiating.
No matter what your friends, or anyone else wants, this is the playbook being exercised by the Left. Until they change their obstructionist tactics and come to the table to negotiate, there will be no consensus, not on any topic. Honestly, I am not slightly hopeful that such a change is imminent. But time will tell.
“Quite a few” that should have read.
It sounds like having run out of arguments and frustrated with the lack of a majority, you have decided to just overturn the chess board much like the Israeli left.
@Bear
I am reminded of Steve Martin’s debut on Saturday Night Live in the late 70s. He came out in a white suit and tie, looking very clean cut and an arrow through his head and exclaimed, “Well, excuuuuse me!”
““I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend … if you have one.”
— George Bernard Shaw, playwright (to Winston Churchill)
“Cannot possibly attend first night; will attend second, if there is one.”
— Churchill’s response”
—
Alternative response: Oh, well, if they are your friends, they must certainly know what they are talking about! (whoever they are. 😀 )
In all seriousness, I read all the Israeli news sources and commentators from right to left and most of them are lying through their teeth about what I have heard Bibi and others say myself on countless video clips. If these left wing legacy media sources are where your Israeli friends are getting their news, they are as bamboozled as millions of Americans have been these last 3 years.
Years ago, when the Time Warner building at Columbus Circle in Manhattan, a big shopping emporium, went up and the scaffolding first came off, nobody had moved in yet and there was only one sign visible from across the street, “Swatch, world’s largest watch store.”
I observd that, I could have taken a picture of this big building and said to my fellow
Americans, nay New Yorkers, “look, this is the world’s biggest watch store. I was there, myself in person, to witness it and here’s the evidence'” and who would have been the wiser.
Ironically, somebody had put something on the sidewalk that would have made a good accompanying photo, a leather glove standing, giving the middle finger.
Do you think your anonymous “friends” are the only Israelis on the scene?
Try Caroline Glick, Jonathan Tobin, Avi Abelow of Pulse of Israel for starters.
And news flash, a few commentators on Israpundit are in Israel, though it would be nice if more of them spoke up more often.
I am right he is wrong. He is the bad guy I am the good guy. A lot of that has been going in Israel to great extremes and I am way understating it.
I am for finding a way forward that requires compromise and lowering the flames of fellow Jews at each other throats. Unless we do that it, it is a lose lose situation.
I have friends who know way more about what is going on in Israel than commentators on Israpundit. They are very mad about watching our country potentially imploding. More writing about who the other side is wrong and we are right is not constructive.
The majority of citizens now want compromise on judicial reform and they want consensus. They do not want want judicial reform come hell or high water.
@Bear
Your desire of a consensus is blocked not by a lack of genuine agreement between the parties, but because the Left is acting to obstruct, and thru this obstruction malign the Right as being illegitimate and undemocratic. Leiberman and Saar have each supported judicial reform in the past and neither would even entertain the pretense of negotiating with the Right. The same outcome will come from your desire to wait for a Bill of Rights to pass. There can be nothing so important as to the Left entice for them to offer the slightest legitimacy to the Right, making your hopes of a consensus quite fleeting.
@Bear Most of the country voted for this coalition which ran on the promise of judicial reform. 64 to 56. And the pro-judicial reform demonstrations have dwarfed the anti-judicial reform protests in size though not in violence. The left discriminates against Jews and weakens Israel on behalf of Arab antisemites. Are trivial matters like whether chametz should be allowed in hospitals on Jewish holidays or everybody should have Shabbat off really worth enabling a murderous fifth column?
Anybody who uses such issues to compare a religious Israel with Iran as the left does is dabbling in antisemitic tropes and lies.
If the left wants its credibility restored, it has to become nationalistic again.
I am reminded of Jabotinsky’s famous Gefilte Fish dictum.
The right offered to compromise in the interest of unity and was rebuffed. And in fact, the proposed reforms are really quite centrist and mild. The vote was 64 to zero as the left walked out.
Bibi even absurdly promised to accede if the court canceled the reform as unreasonable. 😀
@Sebastian I will answer your first about a Bill of Rights. The Israeli Democracy Institute which the left and center listens to wants a Bill of Rights among other things. Bibi and others in the Likud have said they also agree with a Bill of Rights.
So this actually is a key part of what could be included in a negotiation for judicial reform and separation of powers. Question is will the Haredi and far right politicians agree to a bill of rights.
I will stay focused on just discussing the above.
Since Israel has no constitution and the Basic Laws only have what I would call a partial generalized Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court stepped into this void of power and took power. At first they did not appear to abuse the power they took. Then as happens with power they started to abuse it by being overactive. So by writing specific limitations of power on the judges but providing clear specified civil rights with a bill of rights, a balance between what the right/religious and secular/left want.
The right wants limitation of what judges can do. Most of the country wants to make sure the religious can not imposed their way of life on the rest of the country by legislation and the courts can not overrule this.
Citizens would understand and even welcome in some cases (not all) if the Supreme Court overrules the government when they are abusing the basic rights of citizens of the country.
@Bear What makes you think the currently entrenched left wing judicial clique would respect a bill of rights any more than they respect the Basic Laws they had themselves declared to be the constitution when it suits them. And it was they who overthrew the unwritten separation of powers that had existed for 50 years until then was it not? Is it rational to expect them to sit back and quietly accept and comply with their own political emasculation by the very elected body whose power they had usurped and continue to usurp in the first place?
Only the most well-intentioned absolute monarch chooses to give up absolute power in favor of a constitutional monarchy. George Washington not only refused those who wanted to make him king for life, but he eschewed political parties and refused to serve more than 2 terms, completely withdrawing from political life to manage his farm.
Does this seem like a well-meaning crowd to you? Laws and treaties, binding written legal instruments of any kind, that are enforced by those who don’t respect them just become a straitjacket for those who do and a weapon of the cruel against the compassionate.
How many examples come to mind? The British Mandate for Palestine, Geneva Accords, Res 242, Oslo, The treaty with Jordan readily come to mind.
The Minsk Accords, the JCPOA. The 1956 or 7 agreement to withdraw from Sinai in exchange for UN peacekeeping troops.
The mutual defense treaty between the Maccabees and Rome.
The treaty of Hudabaiya which Arafat compared Oslo to in a radio address in Arabic as he was preparing to sign it.
Most or all of the treaties between the U.S. government and the Indians.
What are some others. Anybody? Now, Don’t all raise your hands, at once.
Naive literal-mindedness will be the death of us.
Israel needs a Bill of Rights, Judicial Reform with Separation of Powers. This is short of a constitution, but this with the Bi-Laws will have to do.
This currently with great effort is the most possible.
So the authors of this article are “against the accumulation of unchecked power by the executive branch” but have nothing to say about the accumulation of unchecked power in the High Court and in the Attorney General. No doubt they are also against the accumulation of power in the legislature.
I do not believe that a consensus is achievable. Thus requiring consensus is another way to prevent this shift in power. The center left has shown no inclination to achieve consensus. They should instead present their judicial reform suggestions the public to show their seriousness.
A parliamentary committee should be set up to make recommendations for a constitution. It should consist of National Union, Yesh Atid,and the government. I doubt they will agree on one but they should try.
Finally, I think this government should pass legislation aimed to assuage the fears of the left from religious over reach.
I guess Bibi can propose Deri as a minister, but in that case, it is his responsibility to keep him in line. If any corruption can be proved against Deri in his task as a minister, then Bibi must take is “kova tembel” too.
For those who do not know what a kova tembel is, that is the kind of hat worn by Israeli kids…
I was for eliminating judicial over reach in Israel, and as judges have in some cases abused the subjective application of the reasonableness clause. More so in recent years as the court has become too active.
I was and am for doing this in cooperation with at least some of the opposition because the societal eruption of the changes. I believe further changes to judicial reform will be attempted with somewhat a consensus, as several Likud members are now saying this is the only way they will vote for further reform.
Bibi has says he will bring Deri (Shas leader and a twice convicted felon) up to be a Minister again. Court ruled it was not reasonable that this longtime untrustworthy person (several convictions for bribery and fraud plus more) to be a minister.
So the left has said passing this new law against unreasonableness rulings by judges will lead to corruption. So Bibi is playing right into the lefts hands by having Deri become a Minister. Who could trust this crook? Wow what a bad idea making Deri a Minister.
Netanyahu Responds To Critics Of Judicial Reform
I just discussed the law eliminating reasonableness with my leftist intelligent daughter.
First she argued that we didn’t have a plurality of votes. I said what’s that go to do with anything, we won 64 seats.
Then she argued that we need more than a slight majority of seats to make such a drastic change.
I said Aharon Barak didn’t have that yet he took it upon himself to make a drastic change. In effect he substituted his values for a constitution.
This government is simply undoing what he did without authority.
She didn’t give an inch.
@SEYMOUR
Thanks for that great quote..
All of his arguments against politicians apply to judges but judges aren’t accountable to the electorate. He is arguing against democracy and for benevolent despotism.
Turns out “Jewish and Democratic” means neither. How ironic in an Orwellian way. “Plato’s Republic.” Or the Soviet Union. This is what they mean by “democratic” governance. “People’s Democracies” like the GDR.
In the U.S., the corruption of Clarence Thomas has recently come to light but nothing will be done about it. In Israel, the media never investigates judges, though if there were ever a right wing majority on the court, it undoubtedly would.
The estimable prof’s argument would be more convincing if he:1. Enumerated the many countries in which Reasonableness is an acceptable legal tool. 2. Offered or convinced others to pass a bill in the Knesset making Reasonableness a llaw of the land. He could do that by joining or starting a party that will support and pass such a bill in the Knesset.
The prof can not do any of those for obvious reasons. So instead he justifies this unprecedented creation of Aharon Barak, the architect of Israel “Bagatsokratia”, with this lengthy and convoluted article
Professor Bork was already on the case 20 years ago in 2003 comparing Israeli, American and Canadian Supreme Courts, Coercing Virtue, The Worldwide Rule of Judges. His closing para of the Israeli chapter as follows:
“Israel has set a standard for judicial imperialism that can probably never be surpassed, and, one devoutly hopes, will never be equaled elsewhere. The sad irony is that the Supreme Court, operating with a basic law that specifies the values to be applied as those of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state, is gradually producing an Israel that is neither Jewish nor democratic.”
The reason we don’t have a constitution is because we can’t agree on one. We can’t even get 2/3 of the people to agree with one. Another reason we don’t have a constitution is because Ben Gurion didn’t want one.
The Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, took it upon himself to impose his own values without parliamentary support, to dictate our values. This government is trying to undo that.
No constitution is the original sin . All basic – fundamental laws are mere band-aid to patch a weak backbone. A constitution must be adopted ; Make a referendum to adopt either the french Presidentialism ( de Gaulle 1958-62 ) or the German one . In a country where ethnic – religious fragmentation is so high the french Presidentialism offers more stability.