The Supreme Court has for many years referred to the concepts of "reasonableness, good faith and proportionality" as the central criteria that guide its conduct. Thanks to the fog and blurring of their boundaries, these concepts allowed the heads of the judiciary an almost boundless leeway to act as it wished, as if it were no longer subject to legislators, or even relationally. They took a one-dimensional view of the Knesset's laws as if they were only a preliminary draft that they could interpret as they wished. To their understanding, lawmakers have finished their work and set before the judges a sort of starting point for interpretation, rather than an end point. As a result, Israeli rule of law has become a mechanism whose decisions, authority and, most importantly, its legitimacy are eroded, and the loss of trust in it has spread in public opinion and in the Knesset. 

Across the legal world outside of Israel, senior judges who are not subject to the legal elite's inclusion in the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have deeply understood Justice Aharon Barak's moves. They did not hesitate to simply call it a "legal buccaneer". They wrote critically about his legal enterprise and considered it the most activist legal system in the world, and thus "the most anti-democratic legal system in the world." They argued that the Lightning system created a situation that meant removing the people's hands from politics and passing it on to the judges. This authoritarian-tyrannical approach to the concept of power in power sought to secure the control of the courts in society.

Alongside establishing the supreme court's position as a supreme ruler, the State Attorney's Office became the executive arm. Were there "reasonableness, good faith and proportionality" in the action of Attorney Liora Glatt Berkowitz of the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office, which tried to lead the ousting of Prime Minister Eric Sharon in 2003? elections. activity is revealed the power and the power given to the group is shaping our lives judicial and public areas. the danger from the conduct unrestrained a lawyer from the prosecution raised a warning sign on the question is so simple: Who will protect us guards? which mechanisms that control we have in front of them? 

we all remember The road accident in 2005, in which the young man Gal Beck was killed Did the investigation proceed with "reasonableness, good faith and proportionality", so that within two weeks of the investigation, the prosecutor's office decided to close the case for insufficient evidence? What energy and efficiency did we get when it was clear that there was a difference in the speed of driving outputs? An alcohol and drug test driver did not test her cell phone, which could have corroborated or denied use of the device while driving. Evidence of a driver's wild driving prior to the accident did not lead to an inquest witness to submit their version. Shi Nitzan, the state's attorney, was the one to end the investigation, following a public protest in 2015 following four young men who testified that Gal Beck was riding a motorcycle to a junction in green light. Nitzan has closed, but with us, the Beck Beck affair is still alive, kicking and causing tears that refuse to forgive.

Then comes the case of Ruth David, the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office in the Criminal Division, who was charged with corruption and riveting hair after completing her role as District Attorney. Heavy question marks are hovering over many incidents that have taken place during her tenure, leading to portfolio biases, biased decisions and unlawful closing. In 2016, the case was closed, in the absence of sufficient evidence of conviction. 

The Supreme Court and the Attorney General always "win" these cases, and many others have puzzled. But in recent years, the impression is that this is a Pyrrhic victory. Because one thing the legal system has yet to internalize: that the public enters as an involved and active player in the legal field, the one whose affairs were once perceived as the sole property of scholars, that "a foreigner will not understand it." But this tyrannical conduct cannot remain forever in the professional journals and closed symposia. Slowly a critical, lively and opinionated discourse is developing in Israel. The loyalists of the judiciary see every expression of this critical public discourse as a threat to democracy and a deliberate move to crush public trust. But in practice, this is a welcome change: Israel's legal discourse is open to public debate. Call it democratization.

Dr. Uri Cohen is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at Tel Aviv University