Netanyahu must act immediately to pass legislation to curb the court’s authority and restore the powers of the public’s elected representatives.
Israel’s democracy is in critical condition.
Sunday, the High Court of Justice ruled that the government’s natural gas policy is unlawful. The policy, which was negotiated with foreign energy companies, was to be the basis for developing the massive offshore Leviathan gas field. It was supposed to anchor future gas prices, ensure gas revenues for the government and energy security for the country in the coming decades. On the basis of this policy outline, the government negotiated deals to supply natural gas to Egypt, Turkey and Jordan.
Given the enormous cost of developing offshore gas fields, the policy, which was determined in close consultations with legal experts and regulators, determined a base price for natural gas that would be frozen for 10 years. The point of the price freeze was to encourage investors to take the financial risk of exploring and developing Israeli fields. The price freeze guaranteed them a minimal profit on their investment.
In a healthy democracy, the court would never have agreed to adjudicate the populist petition against the government’s gas policy submitted by a consortium of radical NGOs.
Under normal rules of standing that apply in every other mature democracy in the world, the petitioners would have had no right to submit their petition.
In states not controlled by a legal junta, as the people’s elected representative it is the government’s sole prerogative to determine the state’s energy policy and to sign deals with foreign governments and investors.
But in Israel, the court gives standing to whoever it wants. Given the radical pedigree of our justices – who have engineered a process where they appoint themselves – it was not surprising that the court permitted a group of unelected radicals to petition to destroy Israel’s energy sector, and to cause the loss of hundreds of billions of shekels in future revenue to Israeli society.
Recognizing what was at stake, last month Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the unprecedented step of testifying before the High Court of Justice in defense of his government’s gas policy.
Rather than rise to the occasion, led by Justice Elyakim Rubinstein the justices acted like spoiled teenagers.
After Netanyahu finished speaking, Rubinstein whined that the justices already knew Netanyahu’s arguments by heart. Netanyahu, he clearly implied, was wasting their time defending a policy it had taken him months to negotiate and to which Israel’s economic future is tied.
Although the justices intimated a month ago that they would reject the price freeze clause and so scupper the entire policy outline, many refused to take their threat seriously. The notion that the court would reject the government’s right to determine Israel’s energy policy and rule in a manner that endangered energy supply agreements the government negotiated with three foreign governments was so mindboggling that commentators assumed that the justices were bluffing.
But they weren’t. In response to Sunday’s ruling, Netanyahu said, “The Supreme Court’s decision is a grave threat to the development of Israel’s gas reserves.” Netanyahu noted, “Israel is seen as a country with exaggerated judicial involvement in which it is difficult to do business. Certainly, no one should celebrate that the gas may remain deep under the sea and that hundreds of billions of dollars will not reach Israel’s citizens.”
The immediate result of the ruling is that Israeli consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for energy. The only investors who will likely be willing to operate under conditions where the government is unable to negotiate binding international agreements are the ones who are already stuck here.
Noble Energy and its Israeli partner Delek Energy, which are currently operating the Tamar offshore gas field, which they developed at great cost, will maintain an effective monopoly over gas production in the coming years.
Due to the court’s ruling, the mammoth Leviathan gas field will probably not be developed at all.
Who in their right mind would take the risk now? Consequently, Israel will be completely dependent on the Tamar field to the detriment of consumers and its energy security. It will be unable to export gas to its neighbors who negotiated deals in good faith.
The wider implication of the court’s ruling is that foreign investors in every economic sphere will steer clear of Israel altogether. After all, no responsible investor will invest in a country where at any given moment, in contravention of basic democratic norms and practices, unelected judges can be expected to change the rules of the game.
And they aren’t the only legal dictators disenfranchising the public.
The day before the court took control of Israel’s economy and foreign relations, Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit decided that ministers do not have the right to decide how to spend their budgets.
Last year Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev moved to freeze government funding of the Almidan theater in Haifa. Regev acted after Almidan decided to stage The parallel time, a play based on the writings of a terrorist serving a life sentence for kidnapping and murdering IDF soldier Moshe Tamam in 1984.
The play, which portrays the life of the terrorist in Israeli prison, glorifies terrorists and terrorism.
Almidan petitioned the court to force Regev to reinstate its public funding. Mandelblit decided that her action would not be upheld in court and forced her to reach a deal with the theater to reinstate its public funding. In other words, Mandelblit decided – as a surrogate for the court – that ministers do not have the authority to run their ministries.
For the past 25 years, supported by the radically biased media and the multi-million dollar industry of foreign-funded NGOs, the court has seized more and more governing powers and prerogatives from Israel’s elected leaders.
It has seized the IDF’s power to make operational decisions. It has seized the Israel Lands Authority’s power to determine its policies for allotting state lands. It has seized the government’s power to enforce border controls, determine education, health, consumer protection, incarceration and commercial policies.
In other words, over the past 25 years since then Supreme Court president seized dictatorial powers from Israel’s weak and unsuspecting lawmakers, the court it has taken over every aspect of Israeli governance. And as Mandelblit’s refusal to defend Regev’s funding decision before the court illustrates, most issues don’t even need to be adjudicated by the court for the court’s radical positions to dictate government policies.
Through the attorney general and his army of legal advisers in every government ministry, national authority and the military, the court’s uniformly radical, socialist and post-Zionist positions reign supreme in all aspects of governance and legislation.
If anything good is to come of this week’s scandalous events, Netanyahu must stand up to the legal fraternity now. He must act immediately to pass legislation to curb the court’s authority and restore the powers of the public’s elected representatives.
If Netanyahu acts, he can restore Israeli democracy.
If he fails to act, he will go down in history as a full accomplice in the legal fraternity’s destruction of freedom in the Jewish state.
Ca plus change…..?
@ SHmuel HaLevi 2:
Do your ideas still resonate with the below?
http://yitzhakrabin.blogspot.com/2007/09/overt-plans-for-new-israeli-government.html
Daniel Elazar on
The urgent need for electoral reform of Israel’s parliamentary system is widely, if not universally, recognized. But electoral reform can be enacted only by a Knesset made up of parties and individuals whose political life may be threatened by that reform. Political suicide has never been popular — certainly not in Israel.
There is only one way to bring about electoral reform in Israel — by a democratic “citizens revolt” in the form of a massive campaign of public mobilization.
There are many kinds of electoral reform that this “citizens’ revolt” could support. But electoral reform that has any chance of being enacted must take into account the present party system and the reluctance of any of the present parties to accept any electoral arrangement that does not give at least those parties in the coalition some hope of survival. At the same time, any electoral reform, to be worth the effort, must meet the demands of the “non-party” population which is increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, by providing for close relations between the voters and their representatives; broader representation of the different interest, ethnic, and the geographic groups that make up Israel’s society; and greater independence for their party hierarchies for Knesset members.
Various proposals for change have been advanced, ranging from continuing the present parliamentary system, with a certain percentage of the Knesset’s 120 seats elected from districts and the remainder elected at large, to a complete constitutional change instituting presidential government.
The simplest change in the electoral system would be to retain proportional representation as at present, but to raise the minimum percentage needed to win a seat. Today slightly over one percent of the total vote will gain a seat in the Knesset. That is how Meir Kahane was elected. Were that threshold to be raised to a three percent minimum, all the present fly-by-night splinter parties established to foster the ambitions of some individual would be eliminated while preserving those parties — large, medium-sized and small — that have demonstrated staying power on the political scene over the years and thus arguably deserve representation. Such a change would alter the present system, which rewards splintering by encouraging leaders of factions within existing parties to set up their own parties prior to each election and thereby improve their chances of gaining election to the Knesset.
Another possibility, which I prefer, is what is called a fixed multi-member district system. Under this system, the country would be divided into a fixed number of large districts, say 8 or 12, based on permanent regional divisions, and the 120 Knesset seats would be apportioned among them periodically on the basis of population. Within each district as many parties as wished could submit lists, but voters could vote either for party lists or for individual candidates up to the total number of seats allotted to that district. This would reduce the number of parties able to compete in the election, allow voter choice of individual candidates and not simply party lists, thereby encouraging the parties to nominate attractive candidates in every district. At the same time this would allow Israel’s permanent groupings an opportunity to be represented in the Knesset as at present. By permanent groupings I mean those parties or combinations of parties whose continued existence from election to election because of some individual’s ambition or in pursuit of an electoral will-of-the-wisp that never emerges with even the minimal one percent of the vote needed to obtain a seat. Such a system would assure appropriate regional representation in the Knesset, something that now is lacking, without overemphasizing localism. So, for example, the eastern and Western Galilee, the south and the Negev are badly underrepreseted in the Knesset, while Tel Aviv and its surrounding area and the Jezreel Valley kibbutzim are overrepresented. A permanent distribution of seats among fixed regions would, on one hand, guarantee those regions representation, and, on the other, make certain that the representation did not exceed what they were due, given their share of the country’s population. Voting for those representatives on a regions basis would strengthen regional consciousness and foster intra-regional cooperation in other areas because the Knesset members would have an interest in working together, while at the same time giving every Knesset member a broad enough base so that the kind of parochialism sometimes associated with individual member constituencies would be prevented.
Each of the electoral districts would be allocated its share of Knesset seats in proportion to its percentage of the country’s total population. In order to give each district at least four seats, the fourteen planning subdistricts would be reduced to twelve by combining the Safed and Kinneret subdistricts and the Ramle and Rehovot subdistricts. (See map.) Under this arrangement, each district would be sufficiently large in population and varied in interests to offer several parties a fair chance to elect representatives to the Knesset. At the same time, each district will be sufficiently distinct as a regional entity to encourage its residents to develop a long range community of interest internally and even allow the territorially-based minorities such as the Arabs, the agricultural settlements, and the religious population to gain representation in an appropriate way. Each of the three major cities with its environs would constitute a separate district as they already do for governmental and planning purposes, which would tend to concentrate the “independents” in a few centers where they could compete with the parties on equal terms without putting the latter at a permanent disadvantage.
The apportionment of seats by district would be done by determining how many people each Knesset seat represents, relative to the total population of the country, and comparing that figure with the total population of each district. After allocating seats to the districts in this manner, the remaining seats would be allocated on the basis of major fractions of the required figure, in descending order. Thus, if the average population per seat is 27,000, a district with a population of 260,000 would initially be allocated nine seats and would likely receive a tenth on the basis of the 17/27 of the basic figure remaining unprovided for. Periodically — every ten years is the usual interval — the seats would automatically be reapportioned among the districts by a non-partisan commission on the basis of population changes.
As a general rule, all candidates would be elected at large within each district. This means that every voter will be able to vote for as many candidates as the number of seats allocated to his district. Any party many nominate candidates for any and all of the seats in each district, as provided by the state election laws. Candidates would carry party designations on the ballot and would be listed under party columns. Voters will be able to vote for individual candidates or for a straight party ticket. The parties will thus be able to attract the voters as before but the burden of attracting new votes will be placed on the candidates they choose rather than on the ideologies they espouse. the parties will be able to attract voters by nominating exceptionally good candidates who could pull votes away from the larger parties in the districts where the candidate’s parties, as such, have little support, or by convincing the voters in districts where they have abundant support to vote a straight ticket for them. At the same time it could be possible for one party to elect a majority and be able to form a stable government by careful construction of tickets in the various districts.
There are many other reforms that have been proposed, including a complete change in the structure of the Israeli political system from a parliamentary to a presidential one, whereby a chief executive or president would be directly elected by the voters independently of the Knesset and would relate to the Knesset on a separation-of-power basis similar to that in the United States.
What is needed is a half million to a million signatures on a petition that would demand a change in the electoral system. This should be presented to the Knesset by 50,000 citizens marching in Jerusalem. That is the only way to effect a break-down of the present resistance to electoral reform on the part of the powers that be. The rest of the article can be found at http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/electref.htm
@ Bear Klein:
Mr. Harris in general responded to your question.
The precise proposed new government system format suggested in our Platform and 8 Point Plan formulated by the HASHKEM -Radio Free Israel group since 2001-2 can be reviewed by anyone meeting with us during our executive meeting planned for before Passover.
It serves no purpose to continue to play the broken recording saying that the speechster is the best we have.
Netanyahu is a great TV poser and face maker. Not much more.
His tap dancing has been forever transparent as weak, irresolute and in fact harmful for the Jews.
He was and remain identified with “disengagement”.
He froze the Levi Report.
He froze on his own, building for the Jewish people in Jerusalem and Y & S.
He has destroyed hundreds of Jewish villages, homes, farms…
He intentionally failed to stop Iran plans.
Only one with intrinsic limitations of thought could possibly buy that Netanyahu’s speeching supplemented with cardboard and red markers props would do it.
He failed in the Gaza War.
His selection of “military” command only augurs the disasters and vicious persecution of Jewish patriots we have seen.
Torture of Jews is his credit.
He must go and remain there.
@ Bear Klein:
I think SHL2’s comment references a bicameral legislature, such as in the USA: US Senate with certain powers and the US House of Representatives with other powers.
Also, I think Israeli should abandon its present parliamentary system, which always has proven unstable, and replace it with a single executive branch whose head would be chosen on a calendar-based schedule, and discarding the mostly ceremonious role of the presidency. Under such a system, the chief of state would be an elected official, not a member of the legislature.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
@ SHmuel HaLevi 2: I am interested in your ideas but I did not understand the structure of what you meant below.
“What Israel must do is to completely change the government system by selecting and electing, directly, a new government system and populate it with freely elected representatives to two chambers.”
Lets disagree…
Israel does not need more paper piles.
What Israel must do is to completely change the government system by selecting and electing, directly, a new government system and populate it with freely elected representatives to two chambers.
None of the present political hack may apply. Perenial planted operatives shall be removed as well.
No more ex generals, ex judges ex police commanders and NO MORE former “security” peddlers.
The self elected judges now in place shall be placed into retirement under strict limitations.
The Judiciary system purged and repopulated by direct election of Judges in conjunction with the New Jewish National Assembly. No more “chaver brings chaver” plots.
Etc.
If and when the people feels the need of a Constitution, the people must express that on a free election.
More…
Leftist fascism. A victory against the right is worth the destruction of IL economy. They will blame Bibi for having committed this anti-IL act.
The left is no different from the Islamists!! They will back-stab you where it hurts the most.
This fiasco is again evidence why Israel needs a constitution separating powers clearly between the Judiciary, Government and the Knesset.
@ Eric R.:
Perhaps the phrase ought to be, “…the court has been allowed to seize…”. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
“For the past 25 years, supported by the radically biased media and the multi-million dollar industry of foreign-funded NGOs, the court has seized more and more governing powers and prerogatives from Israel’s elected leaders.
It has seized the IDF’s power to make operational decisions. It has seized the Israel Lands Authority’s power to determine its policies for allotting state lands. It has seized the government’s power to enforce border controls, determine education, health, consumer protection, incarceration and commercial policies.
In other words, over the past 25 years since then Supreme Court president seized dictatorial powers from Israel’s weak and unsuspecting lawmakers, the court it has taken over every aspect of Israeli governance. And as Mandelblit’s refusal to defend Regev’s funding decision before the court illustrates, most issues don’t even need to be adjudicated by the court for the court’s radical positions to dictate government policies.”
Substitute “America/American” for “Israel/”Israeli” and substitute the appropriate officials here for Regev and Mandelbilt, and the paragraph is equally true.
The supreme court having taken over the government, and deciding national economic policy, is exactly what you get for operating a country without a carefully written constitution that balances the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. That system, to greater or lesser degree, is what has kept the USA afloat for 240 years.
Another fix-up needed in the Israeli system is a bicameral legislature in which members would be elected to represent local and greater-size districts, rather than shifting pluralities of party votes, which leads both to governmental instability and not infrequently, graft on the part of elected officials.
Above all else, remember that for small and insecure countries such as Israel, nationalism is far more vital than democracy.
One more concern: Notwithstanding all due respect to Ted, our gracious host on Israpundit, I generally do not trust lawyers, and I try very hard to svoid electing them to office here in the USA. Such people tend to abuse power when they get control of government.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker