The power of the legal system is the agreed principle of the rule of law. It states that the trial restrains all government authorities. Jurists operate in his service, and their authority is derived from his binding force. Concurrently, the imposition of the law and the judiciary on the government authorities and the institutions of the society also requires an expansive interpretation of the law and a restriction of its spheres of authority. 

The main tools by which the judicial system governs itself on political decisions of the state are four: early thwarting, total justice, appropriation of reasonableness, and boundless interpretation. The early thwarting of trends that do not match her preferences is realized through the public service legal system. These are all subject to the Attorney General, who is also the Attorney General, and whose name has become misleading. In recent times, their "advice" - which is their interpretation of the law - is actually a dictation. Government policies and even Knesset law may be rejected by them, claiming that they are illegal (there is a "legal bar" from their implementation). The elected officials, who strive to promote an agenda for which they have been elected, are afraid to appear as violators of the law, and sometimes criminal charges. In the norm of "Everything Judge" that the High Court has ruled on the public arena, there is a temptation to formulate clear political decisions in legal terms. Even when the judges choose not to rule them, they are careful to emphasize that they have authority to rule, and will do so at their convenient time.

Such decisions are about balancing goals and values, between which there is inherent tension. This is the heart of politics, and to decide the position of the balance in this (changing circumstances) politicians are elected by the sovereign - the people. This is precisely the decision that should normally be outside the scope of the jurists. They have no relative advantage in it. His sweeping deposition by judges, in fact, aggravates the need for elected elections and a democratic regime in general. This is the area where important parts of the law have expelled jurists from elected leadership and social and cultural mechanisms and forces. Only in extreme cases, should a court, which has built a sweeping trust in the general public (not just the "enlightened" according to the judges' preference), rule that this balance is so unlikely that the decision of the elected officials becomes illegitimate. When judges can decide on almost any issue, after creating a reality that any significant political matter can come up in front of them in real time as the supreme political appeal court, it's no wonder they have lost much of that trust.

In order to make such clear political decisions at the forefront of a legal decision, an almost unlimited space of interpretation is required, which does not shy away from disregard, share, and rule of law. Aharon Barak himself stated that "in the appropriate case it is permissible and proper to give a written commentary, even it seems to stand, contrary to the explicit words." When connecting this setting, the many cases in the High Court did the same practice and the conceptual framework of "substantive democracy" tailored for the purpose of this objective, we can prepare almost any diktat "legal" in almost every significant political decision, almost all because apparently the judges.

Among The justifications that the enlightened temples of the legal order give to the dispossession of national decisions by elected officials are worthy of revealing the failures of those who hold on to the foreign considerations of politicians, their evasion of important decisions, their hunger for power, the low personal level and the dysfunction of our political systems. In this sad picture, but the legal remedy First, the judges (as human beings - remember?) Have repeatedly shown that they are not immune from foreign considerations and power struggles. Second, the democratic regime (also "substantive democracy") favors the rule of the people even for better efficiency and function. To be more effective than the government in many areas and security is essential, but the General Staff champions do not strive to assert their wishes on the state. The "rule of law" and its justifiable application to decision makers do not require "rule of law" in all our lifestyles. 

Israel needs a strong and independent court in its legitimate sphere as a civil rights guard and the restraints of other authorities, but also recognizes its vitality and the limits of its own power. High Court judges are only "supreme" in the justice system.

Dr. Dan Shiftan is the head of the International Security Program at the University of Haifa, and lecturer in security studies programs at Tel Aviv University.