"It is convenient for this petition that was not filed more than filed," in these words, Justice Handel opened his opinion in the hospital's leaven test, against the majority's position that it rejected Litzman's intention to place guards to prevent hospital visitors from putting chametz in their files. "This case, clearly, should not have reached a judicial decision but should have ended in social compromise."

One of the important revolutions that has happened in the legal world in recent years is the mediation and compromise revolution. This is a revolution that happened because of the system's recognition of its structural limitations. The justice system throughout the world has come to realize that the quest for pure justice is rarely realized, and that it often results in frustration on the part of the parties and a huge waste of public money. Take two good friends, put them on two sides of a trial and see how they turn into jury opponents within an hour. The standard system is pre-built to prevent the parties from cooperating and sharing interests. 

This revolution has been so successful that today, even in standard procedures, it is a reference to mediation and compromise in civil law, in family law, and more recently in criminal law. There is only one major area of ​​law and it is important that this revolution has not yet reached - precisely in the most critical place - public, constitutional law. Or in plain Israeli - to the High Court. 

For some reason, it is precisely in public matters that we think that a group of judges who adhere to strict legal criteria is the one who will solve our problems. Of course, that doesn't happen. Many of us have a feeling that the High Court has long since become a babysitter, and even worse, an agenda-holder - and so to speak, gently, which does not necessarily represent the public.

The affair of the Chametz security guards could be solved by dialogue. The people of Israel, when the ultra-Orthodox and secular extremists do not intervene, know how to live together with mutual consideration. In a real dialogue where public representatives are looking for an agreed solution, a creative solution could be found. Instead of security guards who would only exacerbate the sense of religious coercion, flight attendants could be asked to politely ask the public to consider and not bring chametz into the hospital as it has been for years.

It is time to remove the High Court from the role of babysitter and return to the public the responsibility to solve the problems between the sectors themselves.

Adv. Ofir Tubol is the founder of the Golden Age movement