Two interviews were the focus of this week, the week of proposed reforms in the judicial system.
The first is of course the interview given by the former president of the court, Prof. Aharon Barak, to several media outlets.
He repeated in interviews, more or less, the same things.
Of course, he announced that the reforms promoted by Minister Levin are dangerous (not now but in the future), repeated the intimidation that Israeli citizens lose their individual and minority rights, talked about tanks and wondered why the minister had not consulted him earlier.
He didn't talk about only one thing: about Aharon Barak.
President Barak repeated a regular pattern that characterizes the side that now fears the end of democracy: he analyzed the situation as if there was no other side.
In the moments when he bothered to confront a second party, he confronted an imaginary second party.
This pattern is repeated in almost every attack on the demands of the right in the field of law.
The treatment of the other side, the criticizing, screaming side, is either as a herd of criminals seeking to harm the justice system in order to save their master (Netanyahu) from indictments (I have not yet understood how exactly this is supposed to be done), or as a herd of fools who do not understand what democracy is.
For example: President Barak, like others, came and brought examples of rulings against Knesset decisions and proved their minority and their relevance - but this list of examples is irrelevant.
One sentence is enough, and actually you don't even need it.
The Supreme Court's declaration of intent is enough for anyone who holds democracy dear to their hearts to cry out and revolt and demand the change of the system. But those who are crying out these days from the left, including the heads of law schools at universities,
Making sure that this clear voice is not heard.
Aharon Barak sat there as a commentator.
He should have sat there as the one who understood all this commotion.
The consistent criticism of the right is not against the judges of the Supreme Court nor against his status. It is against Judge Barak's concept of activism, which he dominated when he was president, and which remains dominant to this day. The debate is solely Barak-not Barak. It is true that the basic concept of the right gives, as an ideal , the primacy of a democratic decision over the decisions of the court, but without the rapacity of the activists led by Barak, who distorted the national consensus and made the court a danger to democracy, no one would have thought of the need for a superseding clause and the elimination of reasonableness. That is why this interview was extremely important Precisely because of something he was not in. It turns out that the president does not know at all that he is actually the subject and in fact also the subject of the whole journey.
But there was another interview.
Retired judge Oded Modric Ruain, according to his testimony, told News 12 and said, surprisingly, that he does not see the Levin reforms as a judicial coup or the end of democracy.
He criticized parts of the proposal, but by and large lived with it.
Have you seen such an interview?
me neither.
According to Modric, his words were distorted and some of them were mistakenly framed as criticism of the reforms.
And, it's already getting sad.
Because a question that has been throbbing in my heart for a long time is: where?
Where are those who think differently from within the system?
Where are the people I know who are not part of the choir?
Why are their voices not heard?
And the answer: He is heard.
The only question is what happens to him on the way to the panel and the release.
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