Behind the "judicial deadlock" doctrine, the one that brought down Aryeh Deri at the High Court, is the 11th commandment for elected officials: "Thou shalt not lie" - tell the truth. It is the most fundamental and elementary, and much clearer than the vague term "judicial deadlock". Deri fell because He deceived the president of the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, and tricked him into believing that he would retire from political life. The supreme judges, even the conservative ones, could not bear this kind of fraud.
But Deri is not alone.
The High Court's ruling in his case sheds light on a norm that many of our politicians, from all camps, are guilty of: sometimes it involves obscuring the truth, and sometimes outright lies and stealing the opinion of the people and the voters. Many of our party leaders say different things in different places, at different times and under different circumstances. Verify as if it were permission, and juggle it.
Deri
He deceived the president of the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
In order to establish governments, for example, we distinguish in our places between a substantial promise and a non-substantial one, between an empty promise and a true promise, between a promise that can be assessed in advance as impossible to keep - and one that can be kept.
There is a core promise and a fringe promise and an ideological commitment and a political commitment.
There is a transparent lie, and there is a hidden one.
And a convention has already been established that in order to form a government the elected must break some kind of promise, and you just have to choose which one.
Deri's story, which fell first and foremost for not telling the truth and plagiarizing a judge's opinion, should be leveraged so that politicians from all camps make sure to tell the truth.
We, the public, too, and not only the court, deserve to be told the truth, and not to steal our opinion.
Deri's sentence in the Magistrate's Court,
There was once a judge in the Supreme Court, his name was Edmond Levy, who, unlike his colleagues, was not ready to assume in advance that politicians' lies are destiny and part of the pattern of their lives and our lives.
It happened in disconnection.
Levy, in a minority opinion, was then the only one who accepted the petition against Sharon's scandalous plan.
By the way, Levy referred to the principle aspect of violating a fundamental election promise.
He relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court from 1991, in which it was determined that parties, like individual members of the Knesset, are "constitutional units", and therefore play a constitutional role.
"The petitioners", wrote the late Levy, "were caught in an unreasonable situation, if not to say their place, when they found out that by voting for one party, they actually brought about the implementation of another party's platform, and as a result, they caused their own evictions from their homes and the destruction of their settlements.
And this is exactly the result that the petitioners sought to prevent by voting for the Likud party."
It is a shame that the spirit of the rule of silence in its broadest meaning, which Judge Levy then applied to the secession fraud, has not been adopted by most of his friends since then.
Chief Justice Edmond Levy.
was not ready to accept lies from politicians,
Perhaps now, after the majority of the High Court of Justice judges have applied the rule of silence to Deri, it will be possible to apply it to the unwritten contract between the public and its elected officials. , of telling the truth according to the law is binding - whatever its legal name is - will also be extended outside the walls of the court; into the public field.
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