An almost trivial truth is that citizens in a democracy must respect their judges, even when there is criticism of them.
Without respect for the judges, we will drift into dangerous anarchy and lose our common sovereignty.
Therefore, there is justice in the words that Benjamin Netanyahu wrote to Judge Esther Hayut, in which he clarified that he dissociates himself from the words of David Amsalem.
For the same fundamental reason we owe respect not only to the judges, but also to the authorities who guard us, who defend from within and defend from enemies from without.
The ancient folk law "Congratulations to the IDF" can be extended and applied to everyone. It is an innocent and beautiful civil law, and not at all militaristic, on the contrary - but the heart is sour as it sounds old-fashioned and nostalgic and inappropriate today, days of crisis in almost all our important state institutions. .
Therefore, in the same breath, Netanyahu is also very wrong in his letter to the judge.
In the face of a severe distrust of a very broad public in our state institutions, a stenciled repetition of the duty to respect them even while criticism achieves the opposite of its purpose.
Today, the protection of state institutions, the fate of which indeed depends entirely on their preservation and therefore also on their repair, necessitates harsh criticism of them.
True, criticism should be polite and MK Amsalem did not excel at it. At the same time, the reality that Amsalem criticized is outrageous and also tests the nerves of people who are more temperamental than him.
On the face of it, things are contradictory, but in reality the contradiction lies in reality itself, and more precisely in our own state institutions: in the Supreme Court, in the police, in the State Attorney's Office, and to a lesser extent, perhaps, also in the military and civil service.
They are all very expensive and even essential instruments for cultivating our sovereignty, but in all of them there have been serious and disorganized processes: our institutions have begun to act against their own logic.
The logic of the institutions called police and prosecutors in a democracy is to protect the freedom and dignity of citizens.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the police practiced after them under the auspices of the State Attorney's Office.
It is more likely that the police practiced after criminal organizations.
It is unlikely that she will pursue civilians, assuming they are prone to crime.
It is not possible for her to place this on public representatives or senior officials, so much so that she will follow them in the format of a Stalinist police state.
And if there was a suspicion that this had happened, according to the sources of Calcalist reporter Tomer Ganon and journalist Yoav Yitzhak, then the police themselves, if they were true to their own purpose, should have demanded that the accuser be a competent and external source, neither she nor the prosecution.
The police and the prosecution rely on public trust, and they cannot expect the trust to sit on them based on the self-credit they will issue to themselves.
When this is what is done - the police and the prosecutor's office are harming themselves, neither Amsalem nor Netanyahu.
The logic of the courts is their subordination and subordination of citizens to the law.
When they began to illegally assume legislative powers, according to the creative legal interpretation theory developed by Aharon Barak, they began to act against their own logic.
This was the deep warning of Supreme Court President Moshe Landau.
A court in a free state - unlike an oligarchic state, that is, one in which an elitist minority is the sovereign - is not the source of the norms.
The public sets its norms through its representatives.
The court applies norms to private cases and often decides whether a particular law contradicts the constitution.
But it does not legislate a constitution, but is subject to it, so the Supreme Court headed by Hayut violates its own purpose when it declares that it has the power to amend basic laws.
Barak's legal coup based the Supreme Court on a profound contradiction: he was supposed to be subject to the law, but took on the authority to violate it.
Therefore, he is the one who undermines himself, and not people's deviations from politeness.
Only the reversal of Barak's domineering trend may correct our state institutions and the public's respect for them.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us