A democratic miracle recently occurred in the state of "Bahbashtan".
After years of governmental instability, one of the blocs won free elections, and managed to form a stable government.
However, part of the people refused to accept the voter's verdict, and even went on a big demonstration.
Among the leaders of the resistance were three retired chiefs of staff who raised the possibility of civil unrest, civil war, and even refusing an order. The president of the Supreme Court joined them. In a defiant speech, she called the government's moves "an evil plan." Strangely, she and they justified their actions by maintaining on democracy.
Of course, the above course of events did not happen in the imaginary "Bahabashtan", but is still happening in Israel. The opposition, since the day it lost the elections, has been trying to fight the government and bring about its downfall - which is fine. But how is it possible for a legitimate political struggle to shock public figures who held the most senior leadership positions The foundations of Israel's democracy?
A demonstration against the legal reform in Tel Aviv, photo: Reuters
There is no other definition for the extreme statements of Benny Gantz, Ehud Barak, Bogi Ya'alon and Esther Hayut.
They undermine the foundations on which the young Israeli state stands.
To claim that they are doing this in the name of democracy is already a serious confusion of the creators.
See, for example, how the party leading the reform behaved.
The "legal revolution", as Aharon Barak called it, took place 30 years ago.
A big question mark hovered over its legitimacy, since the public was certainly not aware of the interpretation that Judge Barak gave to the fundamental law: human dignity and freedom.
President of the Supreme Court, Esther Hayut, photo: Herzi Shapira
Despite its many damages and the problem of its legitimacy, none of the opponents of the "legal revolution" called throughout all these decades to disobey the court's decisions.
No one threatened a civil war.
No one bet on the dissolution of the house, because of rulings that he did not like - and there were no shortage of such.
All other critics of the justice system did not bring such threats close to their lips.
They got angry, gnashed their teeth, wrote books and spoke from every stage, but aligned themselves according to the rules of the game.
The only one who refused to do so was Yuli Edelstein, but he also resigned and did not violate a court order.
In whose name and in the name of what do animals, Ya'alon, Barak and the others allow themselves to destroy what was built here with blood, sweat and tears?
their country?
It is not Levin who endangers Israeli democracy, but they and their supporters, in their refusal to accept the voter's law, and in their impudence to tattoo the thresholds of our lives.
High Court of Justice, photo: Reuters
Moreover, in democracies decisions are made in the discourse and not in the streets.
Levin and Rothman - as it should be - made it clear from the first moment that they are willing to hear any position and will even introduce amendments to the reform proposal they presented.
On the other hand, the one who rejected the outstretched hand is Supreme Court President Ester Hayut, who went beyond any norm, and in a clearly non-judgmental manner made a public speech against the government's policy based on publications in the media.
That's not how democracy works either.
The aforementioned angry reactions show that someone has gotten used to thinking that the state will silence him. This patronizing, arrogant and undemocratic attitude sharpens the necessity and urgency of reforming the balance of power between the three branches of government. Because someone has to protect Israeli democracy.
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
