The pogrom that was not and will not be Israel today

"Pogrom according to the regime", this is what Dina Zilber, a former very senior in the prosecutor's office, called the reform planned by Justice Minister Yariv Levin this week.

The reform is similar to an attack on the Supreme Court with tanks, slammed retired Supreme Court President Aharon Barak.

Thus, from all sides of the "enlightened public", respectable speakers competed in exaggerating the descriptions of farts, and directly or implicitly called for rebellion.

In vain, because of the necessary correction in the judicial system, we were labeled as Turkey, a hollow democracy, not to mention a dictatorship.

In the past week, many have mentioned, rightly, the things said and written by the former president of the Supreme Court, Moshe Landoi, in order to understand to what extent all the senior members of the justice system, academics, respected lawyers and of course politicians and journalists, who shout and foam at the mouth, are simply not telling the truth.

They are trying to use threats to prevent an important reform like no other, relying on the lack of understanding of the majority of the public.

The unprecedented attack of Supreme Court President Ester Hayut on the government // Photo: Shmuel Buchris

In summary, we will recall that President Landoi presented Judge Aharon Barak as a liar, in light of his statement that the Knesset brought about a constitutional revolution through the two basic laws of 1992. He stated that a constitutional revolution "neither existed nor was created, but rather existed".

Landoy defined how truly democratic, objective and pure the situation was in the era of Barak's constitutional revolution, when he stated that the constitution that the Supreme Court created in vain "is surrounded by a thick fog of uncertainty and lack of clarity", and therefore it will "lead to the control of the opinions of the judge, and of every judge".

And this is exactly what happened to the normative issues that were placed on the High Court's table - the rule of the judges. Landoy was not a judge of the government, but as an experienced judge, as a democrat and a wise man - he understood where the Barak camp was going.

But one need not go far to the late retired president of the Supreme.

It is enough to read things said and written by today's highly respected Supreme Court judge, Noam Solberg.

Solberg came out against the expansive way in which the Supreme Court uses the reason of reasonableness.

He severely criticized Judge Barak's founding judgments, known as the "Deri and Panhasi Rule", and suggested significantly reducing the use of the reason for reasonableness.

focus it on the reasonableness of the government apparatus, and less on the elected echelon.

Judge Solberg illustrated how this ground creates uncertainty, and causes the court to enter a minefield of value issues, rather than legal issues.

Levin attacked Hayut: "Her words - a call to set the streets on fire" // Credit: Kontakt

Criticism of the rule of judges was not limited to the right-wing camp.

It is worthwhile to be exposed to the positions of the late Prof. Ruth Gavizon, who precisely criticized the integrity of the Barak revolution, and therefore was not accepted into the upper club.

Not to mention Prof. Daniel Friedman and other senior jurists.

Thus, the attempt of the camp opposed to the Levin reform to give their position a veil of sanctity - one that if they touch it, the country will be destroyed - is false and inclusive.

This is a legitimate debate, in which the demons of division and fratricidal war must not be unleashed.

From 0 to 100 in a week

Still, there is a difficulty in digesting Levin's counter-revolution, and all the reforms that the incoming government is trying to carry out on steroids.

The reform of the Minister of Justice touches on many correct points, but going with all of them to the end would be destructive.

For example: it is enough to diversify the composition of the Supreme Court, and limit the disqualification of laws to a very broad composition of the High Court, so that the superseding clause is enacted but not used. It is enough to curb the power of the legal advisers in the government ministries, to prevent a situation in which the hands of the ministers are tied and before At the High Court, positions are presented that contradict the government's positions.

It is enough to reduce the cause of reasonableness - it must not be eliminated completely.

In general, such a massive and profound reform must be done in moderation, and also - with dialogue.

This does not mean that one should surrender to those who try to sink the ship of reforms, but in no way lead a predatory lightning move, which will fuel the false accusations of those who are trying to revolt the public.

"Abolition of checks and balances between the authorities".

Esther Hayut, photo: Herzi Shapira

Equally important - the legal reform is intended to purify the way of political-value and legal conduct.

Therefore it cannot involve corrupt people and motives.

The fact that they are discussing the application of the aggravation clause and the cancellation of the probable cause precisely to qualify the convict Aryeh Deri, tarnishes the entire reform.

So is the reform's touch on what could help Binyamin Netanyahu get out of his legal troubles.

The involvement of the ultra-Orthodox business in changing the system is also outrageous, and thwarts the reform from its roots.

That is why it is important to build a legal reform with support, which is not based on those who try to use it to enact a path for exploitation and evasion.

And in general, for so many years the Likud and Netanyahu were in power and did not rule.

And here - in the first two weeks of their new coalition term, they are trying to close all the past failures?

Go from 0 to 100 in a week?

It's pretentious, improbable, a definite recipe for failure.

Not to mention the division and fueling of the intimidation industry that operates on the public.

In praise of the culture war

The legal reform was not necessary to feel that we are in a culture war, but this is not necessarily negative.

I myself have been in an internal culture war since my youth, as someone who used to move between the religious-settler Kiryat Arba and the secular parts of Jerusalem.

And later on, life in Jerusalem in general is one big culture war, an enriching and usually wonderful war.

I remember our sense of awe in our youth, when we went from visiting the Western Wall in Tikkun on Shavuot to the pub in the center of the city within a quarter of an hour;

From the weekly prayer to trips and spending time on Shabbat and holidays.

In general, the spectrum of positions and opinions, the tug of war, is the name of the game for the entire Zionist history, from its beginning.

It began in the 1880s, around the first aliyah, and increased with the change of direction of the pioneers of the second and third aliyah.

Then, before and after the establishment of the state, Jews who were so different arrived here that a melting pot was not built strong enough to eliminate their differences.

Rather, the pulls in such diverse directions led to a rich mosaic,

Levin attacked Hayut: "Her words - a call to set the streets on fire", photo: Kontakt

The conflicts of the last generation are not necessarily negative either.

For example: the feminist and LGBT revolution, and even the linguistic and gender trolling from Merav Michaeli, pushed positions that outraged many to the limit, but created a counterweight to chauvinistic and discriminatory trends that needed to be corrected.

On the other hand, the ultra-conservative attacks from the Avi Maoz school counterweight the heavy distortions that attack the Western world today around issues of gender and family.

Both poles are distorted and extreme, but the confrontation between them calls for the possibility of finding a reasonable middle way.

Therefore, we should all take a deep breath - and stop talking in terms of apocalypse and war.

We are at the beginning of another phase in Zionist history, which if we manage it responsibly - will only strengthen and deepen the wonder.

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