by Isaac Levy
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
In order to have true clarity as to what is happening in Israel, we need to employ accurate terms. The first judicial reform in Israel happened in the years 1992-1999. Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak issued a series of rulings which gave birth, eventually to a new doctrine. By doing so, he reformed 44 years of history. He did so surreptitiously – without any legislator passing a law. His rulings slowly introduced four new terms that did not exist previously “(1) reasonableness, (2) good faith, (3) public policy, and (4) violation of legal duty.”
These terms are subject to the whimsical interpretation of judges. Unlike the United States, these judges are not appointed by the government under the advisement of the legislative body. They are appointed by a committee of other judges.
What Israel’s current government passed today was the first step in undoing Justice Barak’s surreptitious move. We can call this, “Judicial re-reform.” The government’s view is that the judicial branch of government has usurped the role of the executive branch in appointing the judges and usurped the role of the legislative branch in creating an ability that lies beyond “interpretation of the law.” Rather, the unelected court can apply its own definition of these four terms to the laws that it wants to nix as they see fit.
The media, the leftist members of the Knesset, and sadly – even the president of the United States are trying to paint this as a repeal of democracy. But is it? If anything, it seems to be strengthening democracy.
Short and sweet. This is the type of explanation the right-wing media must offer if the truth has a chance of shining forth.
Well said thanks for the context
This is on-point, but not fully accurate. At least some of the doctrines listed did, in fact, exist on Israeli jurisprudence before Aharon Barak – but he expanded their application to areas that had previously been viewed as not subject to them, as well as getting rid of the need for “standing” to bring a matter before the courts. As to who appoints the judges – it is not judges that appoint judges, it is a committee of nine where judges have only three seats – but as being appointed requires seven of the nine votes, the judges have an effective veto. That is how Aharon Barak kept Ruth Gavison, one of Israel’s most respected legal minds off the Supreme Court – he did not want her there due to her more conservative views on the court’s role.
The problem is the center and conservatives don’t know how to use the press to their advantage. They allow the left snd socialists to control the narrative
In the USA, the Supreme Court can cancel a law IF it contradicts The Constitution.
In Israel, the Supreme Court can cancel ANY law, simply because they don’t like it.
Stated another way:
The USA’s Supreme Court can cancel a law, IF there is legal basis to do so.
Israel’s Supreme Court can cancel ANY law, even if there is NO LEGAL BASIS for them to do so, simply because they want to.
This unjust-system-of-justice gives judges who were never elected more power than members of Knesset, who were all elected.
Don’t stop doing what’s right, Israel. No country anywhere around the world has the UN-ELECTED JUDICIARY REBUT decisions voted into law by the ELECTED LEGISLATORS of the State of Israel.
It’s almost like the TAIL IS WAGGING THE DOG !!!
It is simple on the other side – Since there is no “constitution” in Israel to give every individual his rights, the only thing standing between his rights and the Goverment is the Supreme Court.
Touch the Supreme court and he feels he will be subject to the whims of every Govt. that comes around to his detriment