Shine suggests we should follow the Court’s ruling. True enough but we can also seek legislative changes which would nullify it. The ideologically motivated Court is one problem, but the failure of the Knesset to come to grips with the problem is another. I do not mean working on a compromise. I mean that legislation must be passed that in one way or another reverses this decision. Unfortunately Bibi is no help as he stands by the Court rather than challenges it. Ted Belman
By Dr Haim Shine, ISRAEL HAYOM
The citizens of Israel have no choice but to abide by Supreme Court judgements, even if they are wrong and manifestly unjust. If people didn’t fear the court system, they would surely raise their hands against their brothers, especially in such a divided and polarized society as this one. Compliance with the rules of democracy is a cornerstone of Israel’s existence as both a Jewish and a democratic state.
For many years, there has been growing alienation between Israeli citizens and the Supreme Court. Many Israelis, especially from the Right and the religious sectors, justifiably sense that the Supreme Court serves a liberal leftist agenda. This agenda is accepted by only a small minority of Israeli society. This agenda has not succeeded in mustering a majority in the Knesset, so it uses the Supreme Court to promote itself.
Israel’s Supreme Court has adopted a clear and conspicuous line of postmodernism, alienated from the Zionist and Jewish values upon which the state was founded. It is a strategic choice to turn Israel from a Jewish state to a state of all of its citizens, a state whose Jewish character is summed up in the speaking of Hebrew.
In order to pursue this ideology, the Supreme Court has created a dangerous friction between itself and both the Knesset and the government. A spirit of judicial activism has led the court to intervene in security, ethical and economic matters, ignoring the basic fact that the Supreme Court is not an elected body. Knesset members, in contrast, are public emissaries, elected to promote the interests of their constituents, according to the democratic principle of majority rule.
To better explain my claim, I want to provide two recent examples. For several decades, since the establishment of the state, Israeli society has engaged in a difficult debate about drafting yeshiva students into the IDF. Haredi leaders posit that Torah study is a necessary defensive weapon for ensuring the continuation of Jewish existence. The secular state views draft dodgers as not carrying their share of society’s burden. The two arguments start from different assumptions and run parallel to each other, making the difference almost impossible to resolve.
In 2002 the Knesset enacted the Tal Law, named after a former Supreme Court judge, designed to encourage the ultra-Orthodox to serve in the military. Any intelligent person realizes that what happened is nuanced and should therefore be treated as gently as possible. The Supreme Court recently ruled the Tal Law unconstitutional, thereby placing the government, the Knesset and the court itself in an impossible situation. Any fair-minded person understands that the Supreme Court is not the forum for working out complex social issues.
The next example is Migron, an outpost established on a hilltop in the Binyamin region. A few dozen upstanding and idealistic families have lived there for many years in caravans, out of the belief that they are fulfilling the Zionist values of security and settlement. When they first built the community, they received financial assistance from the state of Israel. At a certain point, the Supreme Court decided that they were occupying privately-owned Arab land. Surprisingly, no Palestinian has yet proven ownership of the land. But the Supreme Court decided that we are obligated to evacuate the residents. The Israeli government, understanding how harsh evacuation can be, especially after the evacuation of Gush Katif in 2005, reached an agreement with the residents to move them to an alternative location. The Supreme Court opposed the agreement between the government and the residents and set a date for the evacuation within three months. This decision is especially puzzling given the fact that the Supreme Court has yet to decide who owns the land.
The Supreme Court’s problematic conduct is viewed by most of the public as overstepping its jurisdiction into the political sphere. Such intervention is likely to damage the court’s status. We can only hope that the justices refrain from complaining about the public’s negative attitude toward their ruling. They have earned this attitude through their own honest efforts. Woe to the nation who have to judge their judges.
Nevertheless and despite everything, we must uphold the court’s ruling.
Yamit,
I happen to agree with you about Bibi. The leftist dictators in Israel lay down their decree and every one the Right jerks their heads to slavishly follow it because they happen to wear black robes.
Tyranny is tyranny and the worst form of tyranny is the blind worship of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist edicts in Israel as though they are the modern equivalent of the twin tablets Moshe brought down with him from Mt. Sinai.
The time is fast approaching to relive the Chanukah episode of our history all over again. The “Left” are the Hellenized Jews of today. The assimilationists of today who want to be like all the other nations and leave their Jewishness behind. The “Right” are the Pharisees, the Maccabees of our day who will soon be leading the charge “Who is with G-d”, with the Jewish people, with our history, our heritage and our Jewish destiny? the likes of Beinish and her court and establishment type of her ilk will be defeated as in the past that is for sure, because back then the Maccabees were few in number and still prevailed whereas today, there are far more Maccabees than there are Hellenized Jews and their numbers grow larger by the day.
The ruling is perverse and transparently political and anti-Israel. It violates all sense of decency and minimal justice. Let me count the ways: 1. Ownership of the land has not been established. Then how can it be just, by anyone’s sense of justice to order any eviction? 2. Even if ownership were established on the part of the Arab, laws of western jurisdictions would mandate compensation to the owner rather then forced evacuation of the community as avoiding the greatest harm to the greatest number: 3. Under the principle of eminent domain, the state has the power of expropriation and could take the land and pay compensation to the owner; 4. The government supported and encouraged the establishment of the community; 5. The judiciary has no business interfering with the settlement the government reached with the community. In fact there isn’t a court in any democratic country that does not favor settlement over judicial intervention; 5. The court’s blatant bias casts the entire administration of justice into disrepute and does great damage to the social fabric of the country. 6. When the highest court in the land is seen as biased and corrupt, it undermines the democratic nature of the state and sows the seeds of social unrest, which no doubt will now follow this lamentable ruling.
If I missed anything, please let me know.
By it’s very nature and function the court is anti democratic and dictatorial. Their interpretation and rulings become law. Their power lies only in the willingness of the people to accept their rulings. Mass refusal and non compliance renders them powerless. Another way is to not reelect MK’s who voted for these judges.
In fact their power derives from a Knesset unwilling to legislate law they know the courts will strike down and not seek to limit through legislation the purview of the court,or changing the rules in selecting judges giving no power of sitting judges to select other judges. Mandate that at least half the court comes from active successful trial lawyers, Most today are either academics or came up through the good ole boys club of the state prosecutors cadre. Both academic and state prosecutors have always been philosophically on the far left of our political divide.
Last polls I’ve seen give public confidence and support for the ISC at less than 40%, the lowest it’s ever been. When the public loses confidence in it’s institutions the end of democracy is in sight, not that I think think it’s a bad thing.
BB is still a cowardly SHIT.
“Nevertheless… despite… we must…”
Why?
If a giant sinkhole swallowed up the entire ISC building with all of the “judges” present, the country would continue functioning and we’d have a better, more representative tomorrow.
No! This is not true. No one is obligated to obey an unjust or immoral law!
By this line of reasoning, the Nazis were right in what they did. After all, they claimed to follow the law.
We are obligated to obey G-d and His Laws – and human laws are to be obeyed to the extent they do not conflict with the moral code given to us by our Creator.
When the law oppresses people or deprives them of their G-d-given rights, we are in duty bound to resist it and to get it nullified or overturned.