The judges of the Supreme Court showed in the High Court hearing that if there is any reason not to interfere in the political act and not to prevent a citizen's basic freedom in Israel, they will depend on it in order to favor openness and freedoms. They did this when they allowed the establishment of the unity government in 2021 and allowed Binyamin Netanyahu to serve as prime minister They also did this when, in the context of Muhammad Bakri's film "Janin Janin", they preferred freedom of speech even when it includes false anti-Israeli propaganda. If there was any surprise, it was that the decision allowing Amichai Shikli to run on the Likud list was accepted by an overwhelming majority Yes, and not at the expense of Cole.
Those who followed the hearing last Thursday could see that the three dominant judges, who have a hidden ally among them, are President Esther Hayut, Judge Solberg and Judge Fogelman.
It seems that they were not enthused by the constructions built by Attorney Eliad Shraga. The theory of chelantism, as interpreted by Meretz and Shraga, was not convincing in this case. Perhaps we should even apologize to the judges who were suspected of preferring the defense of their colleague's ruling to the Supreme Court over discretion The matters as presented to them, especially the Shikli matter, which has become such a charged and tense issue in the political arena.
President of the supreme animal.
accepted Shikli's petition, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
The fundamental question that legal scholars will try to analyze in the future is whether the court is making a new move here on the issue of judicial activism.
It is not meant that the theory of activism has faded, but perhaps following a liberal outline that tries to avoid interference in the political arena and Knesset legislation and retains the judicial authority to expand liberalization in Israel only when it comes to government decisions - or to legislative interpretation in accordance with the spirit of the fundamental law: human dignity and freedom.
The one who has claimed for years that this is the right path to the Supreme Court is Prof. Menachem Mautner.
It should be noted that this is the second time in a month that the High Court has given a slap in the face to Legal Adviser to the Government Gali Beharve-Miara. When such an important appointment is clearly political, it seems that the adviser is leading those who rely on her down the wrong path. She was wrong about Judge Mazuz, And according to the High Court's ruling, she erred in her run to defend the ruling of the chairman of the election commission to disqualify Shikli. Did she even have to enter this minefield?
The panel of judges discussing the disqualification of Amichai Shikli (archive), photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Anyone who will look with a critical eye at the deep attitude of the top of the Likud towards the judicial system compared to the attitude of the current Minister of Justice and a friend of his, will see that basically the Likud has much more respect for the system.
Sa'ar, Gantz and their partners see the judicial system as a political tool that should be used with instrumental cynicism to strike political opponents or to carry out kidnappings.
Whereas the Likud led by Netanyahu and Rival Levin intends to introduce reforms that may actually help preserve the independence of the judicial system in the future.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us