Five years after Menachem Begin's death, a conference was held in memory of the Knesset. Aharon Barak, then Supreme Court President, was invited to lecture. It was natural. He was a close advisor to Prime Minister Begin, was involved in drafting the Camp David Accords, and before that played a crucial role in ousting Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the eve of the 1977 elections that brought Begin to power. As we shall see, there was also ideological logic in his invitation.

Prof. Barak made a triumphal speech there and concluded with a theoretical essay the upgraded process that was later called the "Constitutional Revolution". The revolution - or perhaps better: the Barak-rated coup - started with two moves. First, a postmodern or "relational" set of rules for the interpretation of laws were governed. They gave judges the ability to legislate or, in fact, to ignore the language of the law and its reasoning. 

Second, the so-called "public right" of petitioners on behalf of the "public" appeared before the Supreme Judges as a "High Court of Justice" (High Court). It allowed petitioners 'and judges' judges to replace the elected officials (without quotes). Knesset to establish new norms or allocate resources as they see fit and leap over the norms or budgeting determined by the Committee. all this happened in the late 70s and 80s and the 90-year dominance of the Likud.

the third move and critical damage accumulated sovereign citizens through elected representatives took place When the Supreme Court has created itself, it has the important authority to pass laws that contradict fundamental laws. The process in 1992, the year of Begin's death, at the end of Likud leader Yitzhak Shamir. Likud Minister of Justice Dan Meridor and Chairman of the Law, Constitution and Law Committee of Likud Uriel Lin, prominent judiciary advocates ever since, have brought Knesset approval Two Basic Laws ("Human Dignity and Liberty" and "Freedom of Occupation"). 

Three years later, the High Court first passed a Knesset law - without any law conferring such authority on it - and thus placed the judges above the Israeli elected officials. No structural balance or broad control, beyond a limited time limit, was imposed on this authority - for example, a disqualification bill. This would be accepted by a large majority of all the top judges, which would have been hijacked by one party, the judges. The introduction of silence, to its disgrace, resulted in an unbalanced regime, as Justice Moshe Landau warned, and therefore unstable and unpublished. In the Hall. "

This coup sought to establish Barak's founding speech, which he carried on for another five years, in 2000. He had a problem (formal) Only, but the jurists have a weakness for formal problems): There was no legal back to the authority he had taken to disqualify laws. In instructive, Begin was the backbone he found himself in. He relies on Begin's insistent demand at the beginning of the state that judges be authorized to disqualify laws based on "law. thorough. " 

indeed coup's regime Aharon Barak - a coup, because it was smuggled not adopted on the basis of a discussion worthy decision by citizens - was based on political ideology of respect and students. the main points are the main points are essay" outlook on life and national view "of respect of 1952, if For it is unjust to attribute its excesses or its decisive performance. This honor is reserved for his students Meridor and Lin. 

Thus, intellectual right-wing speakers today, such as Erez Tadmor or Ran Baretz, mislead us as they complain about the slackness of the right-wing leadership versus the judiciary. Judging was simply a Likud venture. So there is also no point in the allegations that Netanyahu allegedly neglected the handling of the problem. His weeks of loyalty (up to the current conflict) to the justice system were in the spirit of his movement's ideology. 

A recent Gantz statement on the supremacy of the judges also in the spirit of Menachem Begin and not in the spirit of David Ben-Gurion. It reflects a deep reluctance to govern, a preference for the High Court to be a "supreme government." The Likud, on the other hand, wants to rule, but has fallen into the pit of its own accord. It is his duty, but also to all citizens, regardless of view, to correct what has been spoiled. We will face constitutional judges, not just lawmakers, on their way there,

Prof. Avi Barali is a lecturer at the Ben-Gurion Institute for Israel Studies and Zionism at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev