The judges diligently questioned the representatives of the parties and the Attorney General • The impression was that they wanted to avoid the clash • Interpretation

• Diligent investigation by both parties. Preparing for a High Court hearing yesterday

  Photo: 

  Oren Ben Hakun

The composition of the High Court of Justice on the coalition agreement between Benny Gantz and Benjamin Netanyahu is difficult to assess. Both the representatives of the Rabello and Hallo parties, as well as the representative of the Hon. Helman. 

The impression was that they wanted to prevent a constitutional train accident, which meant that the government's move would continue until its establishment, but at the same time the court leaves its doors open for further petitions. That is, they do not say to the coalition political train "stop", do not raise a red flag, but direct the movement with red and green flags suits. For that, they have Attorney Eliad Shraga, who will probably move into the Supreme Court building in the next year and a half.

Second High Court of Appeal // Photo: People

On the other hand, President Hayes and Justice Mazuz made comments that expressed opposition in principle to the way in which Adv. Holt-Lechner presented her claim. Holt-Lechner certainly represented the accepted approach in certain social circles that the elections have no weight. That the significant electoral achievement is named after the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is inconceivable to Holt-Lechner, Eliad Shraga and some of the judges, that voters did not go to the polls to vote for or against the President of the Supreme Court or Attorney General or Carmi Gillon. They explicitly and emphatically voted in the race of several well-known parties and leaders. Therefore, the repeated claim that Netanyahu will be dismissed in favor of a High Court ruling is a public leap. The president seems to be alive and some of the judges, including Judge Daphne Barak-Erez, expressed a marked dissatisfaction with this petitioner's approach. The judges discuss political agreements. 

High Court Summary Summary: A special zoom meeting with the best commentators

The many questions the judges posed may be intended to clarify to themselves (and to the parties' attorneys) what is meant by each section; And yet, the feeling is that they do not understand the act of the politicians being held for unity government. It is possible to compare the complex agreement and legal procedures that support it to build a sand palace - a lot of effort and perseverance and gentle and balanced work. Some kids from another neighborhood come and ask the kids who built the palace: Give us a reason we won't dance a twist on your sand palace. The destruction can be done with one kick. 

In fact, all convoluted arrangements are nothing compared to the unwritten arrangement where Attorney Eliad Shraga is an arm to which the High Court outsources work orders. The Supreme Court, as Dr. Joash Meisler defines, is a passive parasitic body. It needs an external body to activate it and make it active and governing power. The judges are heavily influenced by the narratives raised in the media against the unity government; On the political level, Mazuz stated this explicitly to Petitioner Holt-Lechner: "This is a court."