Such a confrontation has not yet been seen: the micropaths of the Knesset Constitution Committee have suffered a lot of shouting this year. But such a confrontation has not yet been seen. On the eve of Yom Kippur, Israel Hayom initiated a spectacle like never before seen and brought together Simcha Rothman, chairman of the Constitution Committee and one of the leaders of legal reform legislation, and one of the founders of Brothers in Arms, Ron Scharf, who led many protests this year, including blocking roads outside Rothman's home.
The task was impossible and the conversation was charged and emotional. "Pit", "superficial", "liar", "rude", "power-drunk", "anarchist", are just some of the protests that the parties divided into each other. But amazingly, at the end of the conversation the two shook hands and Rothman even gave the book "The Bagetz Party" that he wrote about the judicial system.
We are now publishing part of the two-hour conversation with videos illustrating what happened in the Constitutional Committee room between the two.
Exclusive confrontation between the founder of Brothers in Arms and Simcha Rotman // Yoni Rikner
One of the founders of Brothers in Arms raised the concern that the government would not obey the High Court of Justice in petitions against the Reasonableness Abolition Law, asking: "Will you obey the High Court ruling?"
Rothman: "I don't have to obey the High Court of Justice, I obey the law. If the High Court rules according to the law, great, but if the High Court does not obey the law? What happens if the Supreme Court doesn't obey the law?"
Scharf: "There will be anarchy."
Rothman: I agree with you.
Scharf: "What law does the High Court not adjudicate?"
Rothman: "To the Basic Law of Judgment (Reasonableness)."
Scharf: "It's nonsense. You can do the Sewage Basic Law tomorrow in '61, you're creating anarchy."
Rothman: "You just said you stopped serving because we passed a law, so don't you dare talk to me about anarchy. You're an anarchist."
Scharf: "You're not even willing to say you'll obey the High Court. Why would a criminal obey the court if you're not willing to say you'll obey? Shame and disgrace. Shame on you."
Rothman: "By the way, if there wasn't your protest, it would have been much harder for me to get 64 fingers for reasonableness.
Scharf: "The protest is blocking the coup. Without the protest, you would be wallowing in your unlimited power."
Rothman: "What balances the Knesset is the elections. The government is balanced by the Knesset as well as the court. But what limits the court?"
Scharf: "The Law."
Rothman: "Fine, now the question arises: What happens when the High Court of Justice decides that the law does not require it?"
Scharf: "I don't see such a situation."
Rothman: "But that's what you asked me. If the High Court of Justice does not comply with the Basic Law on Judiciary, which is the only mechanism that limits it, then it is like the dilemma it raised about what will happen if the Knesset cancels the elections. And I answer: It's anarchy."
Scharf: "So in your view, if the Supreme Court rules out the reasonableness, it's anarchy?"
Rothman: "Of course, a court that says 'a law does not restrict me' is a definition of anarchy, just like a Knesset that says elections do not limit it."
Scharf: "You're not willing to say you'll obey the court, because you're an outlaw." Rothman begins to laugh, to which Scharf replies, "I'm kidding you."
Rothman: "If you're kidding me, then you can't continue the conversation."
Scharf: "The masks have been removed, you're not going to obey the law. You can make a Basic Law that will cancel the elections or violate minority rights."
Rothman: "You're violent, even if you didn't hit anyone. You are not a democrat because you say that only parties you trust are allowed to make Basic Laws. You ask me theoretical questions about the annulment of elections and about human rights, but what happens if, in theory, the Supreme Court rules to stone LGBT people? Will you obey him?"
Scharf: "No."
Rothman: "I know I won't obey, I don't know about you."
Scharf: "It's demagogy."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us