What is at stake is not just judicial reform; after 100 years a large part of the people has awoken to claim its share of the leadership, not just based on ethnic grievances.
By Dror Eydar, ISRAEL HAYOM 17.2.23
1. There is no way back. The metaphorical gun has been placed on the table, senior Opposition members have made insane and irresponsible threats; we cannot fold. There is however room for dialogue and compromise and we must bring on board members of the opposition who support restoring the balance between the branches of power and reining in the Supreme Court. But we cannot pull back. If the coalition gives up this historic opportunity, there will be no way back for the masses who voted it into power
We know that the judicial reform is not about “regime change” as the Opposition charges, and that it will strengthen democracy, not harm it. The Opposition is trying to cause chaos in order to bring down the government. We cannot let this distract us from our goal. Take a deep breath comrades: We have a homogenous coalition that can last out its full four-year term and more. We need to turn down the heat in other government offices so we can concentrate on the present campaign, which is the most important front in the past 100 years in the battle of opinions.
The extremist rhetoric coming from some parts of the coalition is a sign that it is not sure of itself – it is letting off a hundred years of steam. This perhaps nourishes the desire for revenge after many long years of oppression, but it does not show leadership. There are many on the other side who fear that our democratic regime is about to change. We have to ease their fears, to calmly tell the truth, and magnanimously offer a compromise. A regime that is sure of itself does not threaten its citizens – even when they demonstrate against it – and it certainly doesn’t harm symbols of power. Respect for institutions does not contradict criticism of them, but it does show the public that the situation is under control.
2. What is at stake is an issue for which we returned to the chronicles of history and from which we derived the strength to return to the Land of Israel: The question of identity. Who are we? The relationship between Israeli and Jewish, the tension between our right to live in our land and the rights of minorities, how to deal with our enemies, the conflict between our allegiance to this land and comprise over it – and many other issues.
Concepts such as “First Israel” and “Second Israel” are being thrown about. But I believe that these terms, as used by Dr. Avishay Ben Haim, are insufficient and harm our historic battle. I used such concepts in my articles many years before Ben-Haim; they were one of the socio-historical conclusions I drew from my doctoral thesis. But they were not directed at an intra-ethnic Marxist class war. In my view, we are talking about a chronological issue: Who came here first when the state was established, and who arrived later after all the good spots were taken.
The socialist avant-garde that came to the Land of Israel at the start of the 20th century after the failed revolution in Russia were revolutionary pioneers who saw themselves as representing the future and from their perspective, the Old Yishuv and the First Aliyah mostly made up of observant and traditional Jews, represented the past.
3. In 1931, the 17th Zionist Congress took place in Basel, Switzerland. The Revisionist movement led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky had become the second most important Zionist movement and competed with the Labor movement (Mapai) led by David Ben-Gurion. Jabotinsky demanded that the Congress declare that the goal of Zionism was to establish a Jewish state on both banks of the Jordan River. The other parties refused and Jabotinsky responded by declaring “This is not a Zionist Congress” and tearing up his membership card. The Revisionists walked out of the World Zionist Organization and left the stage to Ben-Gurion and Mapai, who within just a few years took over the leadership positions and the institutions of the state-to-be.
When the state was established, Mapai and its sister movements were the first to the post in every field: In politics, government companies, the army, academia, the media, and the judicial system. Likud and other movements that had played second fiddle only came to power in 1977, after leadership positions not subject to vote had long been filled. That was Second Israel, the one that came after First Israel. Few people understood why Menachem Begin, in his victory speech after the 1977 elections, spoke about 46 years (and not 29 years, the time that had elapsed since the founding of the state): He remembered the 17th Congress.
Thus, the ethnic-class struggle is part of the issue, but it is absolutely not the main issue. Benjamin Netanyahu’s excellent English is paradoxically proof that he belongs to Second Israel, as, in the state ruled by Mapai, his late father Benzion – a brilliant historian with revolutionary theses who was considered Jabotinsky’s intellectual successor – was cast into the political wilderness. The chair was taken and he was forced into exile at an American university.
Describing the 100-year battle from an ethnic-class perspective falls wide of the mark and perpetuates the wretchedness of Second Israel at a time when things have moved forward. In order to rule we need to construct a leadership consciousness; namely, to build a leading elite in all fields. In other words, less of a “sweet message” (as Ben Haim defines the message of “Second Israel”) and more of a “certain message” that provides security and confidence to the public and is convinced in its ability to lead the history of the Jewish People in its country at the present time..
4. The social group in Israel that came second and assumed the leadership in 1977, did very little to change the situation in unelected centers of power. It sufficed with the illusion that it had won the elections and was growing demographically. Nothing was done to change the situation in academia, the media, and think tanks. It is only in recent years that the trend has begun to change. In any event, the primary tool employed by First Israel to determine the rules of the game was no longer the Knesset. The arena switched from the legislative and executive branches to the judicial branch.
In the 1980s the number of petitions filed against the government to the Supreme Court – sitting as the High Court of Justice – skyrocketed. When Aharon Barak became president of the Supreme Court and the Knesset legislated the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation the bell was rung for “the constitutional revolution” as Barak himself described it. Its main message was: You can play pretend in the Knesset, but it is the Supreme Court that will decide whether laws are legitimate if government decisions are valid, and whether IDF combat and security doctrine are proportional.
The judicial appointments committee made sure to only appoint judges who agreed with the constitutional revolution and by doing so perpetuated the system. Even a legal prodigy such as Prof. Ruth Gavison couldn’t get a seat on the Supreme Court because she had criticized Aharon Barak’s judicial activism. The “reasonableness standard” was the final straw because after all the opinion of the Supreme Court justices weighs over the experience and considerations of those whom the public appointed to carry out the policies they support. Those were the rules of the game – until today.
That is why this is a decisive campaign. That is why there are protests on the streets and that is why in the media there is almost wall-to-wall opposition to change. We are witnessing in front of our very eyes the historic possibility to change the rules and that strikes fear into both sides. After a hundred years, our side has awoken and is demanding its share in the leadership pie; not crumbs and not having to ask permission from the honorable justices, but a restoration of the proper balance between the branches of power. For the first time, the judicial system will also be subject to audit and restraint. For example, the court will not be able to debate basic laws, which to its understanding are the foundation of a constitution. Dialogue and compromise, yes, but we must not miss our opportunity. In this historic struggle, one thing must be clear, we will not return to the status quo ante.
Edgar
“The Arab terrorism overshadows any kind of Jew against Jew prospect. They’ll limit their “civil war” to behaving like children in the Knesset, and using their tongues to lash out at one another, an old habit of Jews.as we’ve already seen. Jewish mob violence in unheard of in Israel or anywhere else.
Whoever thinks differently has a “screw loose”. ”
I think there is wisdom here. But will people answer to the points made by Richard Kemp I have just read. He is worried.
@Edgar G.
So, you WOULD trust Aryeh Deri with your money?
I am asking because the new legislation will make it possible to give him 3 ministries including (later) the finance ministry.
READER-
One of the pivotal things you must admit about the PM, is that having spent m,-ost of his adult life- over 40 years- in International and Israeli politics, some of the dirtiest in the world, he is comparatively poor, even though under the microscope all his adult life.
If there were any secret Swiss hoards, they’d have been uncovered long ago. So basically he is incorruptible. His total fortune including property etc is put at $10 mill. And ALL proven to have been derived from book sales and speaking stints.
His take home pay as PM is a miserable $45,000 a year. He does it, because he loves politics, he is masterful at it, and he loves Israel.
Where would Israel have been in the past perilous years without him.
His enemies hate him with a visceral hate, acknowledging not a single good aspect possessed by him, although he’s the greatest, and indeed only Statesman Israel has ever produced, a World figure of great influence and alliances. How else would a tiny sliver containing a hated population surrounded by bloodthirsty enemies, survive without his “contacts” and international friends.
And….most of his enemies have been shown to be in Israel, his home country, who never cease trying to pull him down.
READER-
I was speaking only of the P.M., not Deri, but you, as usual switch directions when the opposing argument is to sound to overcome..
I am no Deri follower, nor even a Netanyahu acolyte. But in Eretz Yisrael I expect fair play and “Justice, Justice shalt thou seek|….
My recollection of Deri’s first conviction is that it was revealed that most of the money had gone to support several of his charities of which he ran many. It didn’t mean he didn’t take the money but………..
If every Knesset member was forensically examined , no doubt 50% would be indicted and convicted by THIS Present Court.
If they can try cases that are glaringly fallacious and conocted that the wholem woeld condemns, they are capable of anythin.
Imagine awarding a convicted terrorist and traitor who had to flee the country, all his Knesset “goodies” and pensions unchanged…And preventing to African infiltrators, tens of thousands of them, committing heavy crimes and making South Tel Aviv unlivable for a Jew..They disallowed their repatriation out of Israel.
There is no end to the atrocities committesd by this Court.
This couert is Not a Court it’s a sleazy Corruption Club.
PELONI-
Your masterful post says it all. The fruit of a poisoned tree etc. I was going tom post along similar lines buo not nearly as eloquently.
@Reader
@Edgar
Alas, herein lies the problem.
Forgive the interruption, but in a corrupted justice system, all criminals are equally able to make the claim that they were the victim of a false prosecution, which is why having a just justice system is an immensely important requirement of a free people, and failing this, the prosecuted and the persecuted become impossible to differentiate. Hence, to this, what are we to believe about Deri? That he was not targeted by the same judicial chicanery of political prosecutions which has been detected among the Bibi prosecutions? Are we to honestly accept that the new standard of justice requires that those being prosecuted prove their prosecutions are due to political motivation and corruption being wielded against them? And that failing this, or ignoring it, we should leave the prosecuted to be potentially persecuted as charged?
Seeing that this dilemma was created by the justice system itself, and that failing any attempt by this system to remedy or even expose the corruption – which is still being ignored – it is not too much, I would suggest, to conclude that Deri very well might have been in fact guilty as framed, rather than as charged. The judiciary provides a very important role, both for the citizenry and the govt, and by introducing witch hunts and political show trials as acceptable motivations by this formidably powerful organization, it is not just one cup of justice which is left affected by such corruptions, as the entire brew of the judiciary’s convictions are left tainted by the toxic effects of injustice being openly harbored within the judiciary.
Relating to the issue of Deri as Finance Minister, or any other ministry, the connection between the political consequence of ending his career can hardly be ignored as a motivation behind the prosecution of the man, as it took place in the same time frame as Bibi and was intended to achieve the same goal as the prosecution of Bibi, and that goal was clearly political. As a long time political ally to Bibi, with obvious intractable enemies on the Left, the same forces which have targeted Bibi would gain from the sidelining of such a strong political ally to Bibi, as Deri has proven himself to be. With this in mind, do recall that the initial charges of tax evasion were brought against Deri in 2018, eerily around the time in which that pillar of injustice, Mandelblit, was ramping up his persecutions against Bibi. Similar to Bibi, the plea offer was made to drop the charges if he left office, clearly demonstrating the political nature, context, and degree to which Deri’s ‘crimes’ were seen as being criminal by those who were bringing and judging the charges against him.
So, was there a connection between the two prosecutions? It remains a question in my mind, and I would suggest that it should remain a question for anyone who is not already otherwise motivated decided to condemn the man, to be honest. When the pursuit of justice includes the prosecution of political enemies, the context of such convictions should be considered in the light of the political nature to which the judiciary has unfortunately made itself a party.
@Edgar G.
OK.
Suppose you are right about Netanyahu (which I don’t think you are) – what about Aryeh Deri?
Is he also a poor, innocent victim of the corrupt justice system?
Would you trust him with YOUR finances?
HI, Peloni
You certainly have an “optimistic” outlook on man’s moral nature. As a Christian, of course, a way of life that I entered by confessing my own moral depravity to God, I obviously look at these things a different way. For detailed minds, the applicable scripture is:
Jas.4
[1] From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
[2] Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
[3] Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
Concerning the American Civil War, I have four great-grandfathers. Two of them fought in that war: one at Shiloh in April, 1862 and the other at Petersburg in the summer of 1864. Both were high-casualty events, to which the Ukraine war pales by comparison. They certainly were not engineers of these battles, much less of the war. “Who started” the war didn’t matter very much: They were simply involved in it and wounded by it.
Appropriate music, from closer to our times:
https://youtu.be/Dg2DcZjG7fw
READER-
Your post is well off the target, Netanyahu’s “crimes” are acknowledged by all jurists and legal scholars world wide to be fraudulent, and non-crimes in any civilised society.
Mandelblit himself said that he’d drop the charges if the PM left politics. This it the whole reason for these charges, As we see they are crumbling under the weight. of their own fallaciousness.
The supreme court needs a thorough cleaning out and their proper position in Israeli jurisprudence firmly imposed.
The other reforms have been badly needed since at least 1967.
You really have a hatred of Netanyahu, of which I’ve spoken to you before. Baseless hatred, the curse of the Jew.
If you’ve ever attended a shool board meeting you’d hear and see behaviour very much like that in the recent Knesset display. People ready to “kill” one another, draw fists back but never strike. fight with their serpents’ tongue, instead.
TED is absolutely correct. Regime change occurred from the recent election. As for there being some sort of Civil War, this is pure tommy-rot. Nonsense of a major proportion.
The Arab terrorism overshadows any kind of Jew against Jew prospect. They’ll limit their “civil war” to behaving like children in the Knesset, and using their tongues to lash out at one another, an old habit of Jews.as we’ve already seen. Jewish mob violence in unheard of in Israel or anywhere else.
Whoever thinks differently has a “screw loose”.
The main goal of the reform is not to strengthen democracy but to permit criminals to stay in the Knesset and to be prime ministers and finance, etc. ministers.
That’s why Netanyahu created this coalition by giving (or, at least, promising) everyone whatever they want and more.
Another goal of the reform is to disable the judiciary to the point where the current coalition could do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to do it, could force the rest of the country to follow the coalition’s wishes, and to enable the coalition to stay in power for as long as it wants.
For example, the [Supreme Court’s decisions] override clause requires a simple 61 Knesset member majority while the Supreme Court, in order to change a law would require a unanimous vote of all the 15 justices.
If this is not a setup, I don’t know what is.
There is a need for reforms but not of this kind.
@Tanna
@Michael
I don’t believe this was true. It is just my own inflection, of course, but I studied on this war for many years when I was very young, and I always believed that if war could have been put off from the 1820’s til the 1850’s and then again til 1860, due only to the the careful actions pursued by conscientious men of considerable abilities, the means to continue such steps to avoid war could have been found, that is, if men with the will and the talent had been available to make it so. Unfortunately, the very opposite was true.
Hi, Tanna..
Well said! The Civil War, when it began, was not expected to last more than a few weeks — by both sides! Spectators even brought their families to picnic on the surrounding heights, to watch the blue and grey, and colorful zoave troops commence to mall one another. Wisconsin’s contingent (This may have been at Bull Run II) had the misfortune to have been issued grey uniforms, and suffered high casualties from friendly fire.
The picnic ended, the battle fell apart, and the first great modern war dragged on for four more years.
I personally think the war was inevitable. — as, indeed, is the current fighting in and around Ukraine. Will we see four more years of fighting? 3½ minus one sounds more Biblical.
The discussion started about Israels politics and then Michael brought in the U.S. situation. I have notice what I think is a strange similarity between here in the U.S. and Israel. I agree with all as stated and believe we are witnessing a “regime change” in Israel, U.S. and maybe in the world at large. how this will play out is anyone’s guess at this point. I find it exciting but in a strange way….. scary as I look into the future for my children and grandchildren.
I remember my summer reading years ago of the years leading up to the war between the states in 1860’s. It did not have to happen. Upon, returning about 10 of the best books ever written on the subject back to my history teacher, who’s passion was this time in American history, over a cup of coffee she ask for my summation. I responded, it looks to me like it all was in the hands of 5 to 10 men on both sides. We did not need the destruction and bloodshed that came with the civil war to get to where we are today, we would have gotten here anyway if we had just taken a different route.
Hi, Peloni
The latter is certainly a concern in the US . The Globalist/Democrat alliance has convinced itself that the violence will come from the Right, and is always trying to provoke it; but it has already broken out in part, from the left (Antifa, BLM, MS-13, etc., as well as weaponized federal agencies like the FBI).
In the US, private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, along with strong local support for the sheriffs and other law enforcement, have probably been the greatest protection against anarchy, backed by a strong Biblical mindset among most Americans.
In Israel, of course, you have long had to deal with a Muslim insurrection, backed by nearly all UN members, ultra-wealthy donors to terrorist groups and strong opposition by leftist Jews. Your most visible restrainers, of course, are ubiquitous young, healthy reservists.
2 Thes. 2:
[7] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (restrains) will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
@Michael
Now that was a very nice complement indeed. You are far too generous, but thank you all the same.
Well, here is the simple truth which we face. Either the govt will bend to the will of the people, or the people will bend to the tyranny of the govt, or there will come a point of tension so great between the two that some form of violence will break out to settle the situation, one way or the other. This is why the call from the Left for political violence is so very concerning, even as it is both inappropriate, and should be illegal if it is not already, and if it is illegal, such illegality should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The injection of violence in political speech is not just dangerous, it is corrosive to the very tenets of freedom upon which all free societies are based. Ignoring such harms to the market place of ideas is in itself a violation of the freedom of expression which champions of liberal values should respond with the greatest of haste. Indeed, the application of such intolerance and threats upon the legitimate actions of governmental figures should not be suffered lightly, not from the public and certainly not from figures within the govt, itself, much less from the military. Of course, to hear such words being spoken from members of the military stands as being a far more significant elevation in such concerns, and this does expose the degree to which the Left finds themselves exposed to being silenced by the people over whom they have for too long held power without the representative means to explain that authority. Nonetheless, the people have spoken, and reform is imminent. The groundswell of support to see it thru will only grow should the current govt fail, and I do not see them failing. Hence, the elites will have their wings clipped by this current govt or the next…that is unless the elites choose a path forward which is so inimical that the contest which you fear actually comes to be – I do not, myself, believe this is likely, but the rage of the Left is quite real and they have never been so exposed to being constrained by the public’s will since they originally appropriated their mechanizations of tyranny during the Barach revolution.
@Ted
Of course, I agree with all that you say, only, I see the re-institution of representative control over the govt by the will of the people, as you say ‘restoring democracy’, to have been the true regime change which took place in that election. It is an important point that the judicial reform is not a product of the govts resistance to the Court, but that the govt was chosen by the people for this very purpose. This is the change in regimes to which I was referencing, as the election was not just of a Right wing govt, but of a govt which would return the system of govt from that of a jurist supervised democracy to one which is controlled and representative of the people, ie from the rule of unelected elites to the rule of chosen representative govt. Of course, the importance of a Right wing govt is a sea change in and of itself, but I would offer the view that the greater change in regimes which took place in this last election was, in fact, the public voice demanding the return of their democratic system itself, which was taken without their consent and without their support, some 30yrs ago.
Hi, Peloni. I was impressed by
reminded me of
Those are very elegant words; but they certainly do nothing to allay my concern that in Israel, the US and elsewhere, people will begin taking up arms against their fellow countrymen. 😮
I give you an A+ in English composition 🙂
@Peloni
The purpose of the Judicial review is not regime change as the author says, but restoring democracy. The regime change has already taken place due to the last election. Also, judicial review will make that regime change more permanent but that is a by product.
Regime change. Speaking these words has a countenance which is wholly distasteful to anyone born of a liberal spirit, and yet, should a liberal society find itself captured and enchained by a false authority against its will, what other nicety of terms might we choose to otherwise describe the action of returning to a state of normality, that which has been perverted and distorted to an illiberal intent. Indeed, can we not be honest enough to simply state that the judiciary reforms, though warranted and reasonable, are in fact, a form of regime change? It is an unpleasant reality to come to grips with the fact that following the Barach revolution, Israel has not been functioning as an honest democracy, that is, beyond the tolerance of the Court to allow it the pretense of one. If the Court could restrict the members of a govt, could restrict the actions of a govt, and could in fact overthrow a govt which was otherwise stable, functioning and legitimate, how is this a democracy? In fact and in effect, the govt has been for too long held under the power of the Court, and the over-boldness of the Court, tied to its recklessly whimsical actions, has led to the rejection of this self invented authority of the court, but not by the captured govts which the Court held in its grasp, but rather by the people, whose will this Court sought to subjugate beneath their own will with a sense of complete abandonment. Consequently, I would suggest, that the mandate handed down by the people in the last election to restrain the revolutionary powers of the Court back to something less radical, less mischievous and more responsible, is in fact a form of regime change, distasteful as it might be to speak of the need of it. Indeed, I would further characterize the reforms proposed stand as a counter revolution to the usurpations made by Barach and his successors, thus restoring the power back to the true democratic sovereigns of the nation, which should justly be recognized as being the people, and their democratically chosen representatives, and not these philosopher kings who wrongfully commandeered their authority and wielded it without any proper context or justification.
I’m surprised that there has been only one comment. The comment section should be filled with letters of approval and strong support for the article focii.
I think it’s an excellent essay. it brings out what we were not aware of, that Begin, strong Zionist that he was, did very little internally to place Zionist figures in seats of power. he was mostly taken up with showing the cursed Goyim, that at last, the Jew was in his own Land and not subservient to anyone. But this had definite limits.
Who knows what would have happened of his wife had not died and broken his heart, already not healthy?. Would Benny have taken up his mantle instead of proving t be a soft-head..? Would Kach have been reinstated..?? It was a malicious crime by Lefties who cuddled up to the Arab mamzerim.
I’ve always believed that this was a grave omission of Begin, not to have made this happen.
Bravo! Well said. I agree 100%. We must not back down,