The hearing on the grounds of reasonableness in the Supreme Court was hailed as a democratic celebration. Yet it was evident that "the people" or "the sovereign" was not part of it.
With remarkably coordinated juggling (or manipulation), the Declaration of Independence replaced "the people" as the sole source of authority for any Knesset legislation. The justices, like Aharon Barak in an article published only two days before the hearing, require us to give legal validity to a document written before there were Mizrahim here, and signed by 37 people – two of them women, two who are not from Europe, four ultra-Orthodox and zero Arabs. They equally demand that we accept them themselves as a moral beacon. It doesn't matter that then, as now, those who set moral norms are mostly secular Ashkenazi men and some Ashkenazi women.
The first Mizrahi woman deemed worthy of a seat in the hall, Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, was appointed only in 2022 and remained silent throughout the discussion. The broadcast discussion revealed to the public not only the views of the justices and a taste of their personalities, but also the course of events in the Supreme Court. Despite their homogeneous composition and the fact that they deal mainly with petitions of the Ashkenazi and left-wing milieu, the Supreme Court justices naturally assumed guardianship of all the publics in the country. In contrast to their continued silence on social issues of discrimination and inequality in Jewish society, this time their social statement was clear: We are the landlords. Even if we are elitist Ashkenazim, we do everything for you.
"There is no such thing as a 'small citizen,'" Judge Hayut told the claimant of the "Courage" movement, who he said represented the small citizen, "even children are not small," she concluded didactically. But the ordinary citizen is absent from the discussion. Absurdly, the court that fights for the public interest denies in the same breath the existence of the public, its desires and needs. Ostensibly, it represents the will of the public, but not the will of the voters. He is not mentioned, nor are the 64 seats that elected the current government. Thus, public legitimacy, which is supposed to be the source of the High Court's power, becomes meaningless. But more than that, there is an attempt to obscure the idea of the people in order to recode it. "'People' is an amorphous concept," Justice Alex Stein said at the hearing.
Finally, the discussion turns to the question of trust in elected officials versus trust in the judicial system. Therefore, the public needs protection not only from unreasonable decisions by the government and its ministers, but also from unreasonable decisions by the courts. A good example of such a decision is freezing food stamps two days before the holiday (starting next year) for the amorphous people celebrating the amorphous holiday.
The liberality and progress of the Supreme Court are nothing more than a show. The clear division of Ashkenazi-Mizrahi judge still exists, but is denied. The very existence of the Mizrahim, and even the existence of the people itself, is also denied.
Absurdly, the court that fights for the public interest denies in the same breath the existence of the public, its desires and needs. Ostensibly, it represents the will of the public, but not the will of the voters
It can be said that denial in Israeli society is a trend, and even a policy, that exists in relation to many issues. For example, as the jurist and researcher Prof. Yifat Biton points out, over the years the legal system has refrained from explicitly dealing with Mizrahim, even in cases of discrimination against Mizrahim on the basis of their identity. Instead, it turned to technical and formal grounds, such as reasonableness, arbitrariness, and authority, and did not allow the development of rulings regarding racism or inequality towards Mizrahim. Thus the problems remain unanswered and, worse, denied.
In an open letter published by President Hayut in response to Minister David Amsalem a year and a half ago, she did not even bother to address allegations of discrimination or under-representation of Mizrahim. On the contrary, it has adapted itself to the ongoing policy of the judicial system: erasing Mizrahi Judaism and creating false equality among all Jews in the country. At last week's hearing, Hayut was outraged by Simcha Rothman's claim that the judges are fighting, among other things, for their dignity and status. "It's a pity that my lord slips into notions of honor," she scolded him.
Later I noticed that her chair was high above everyone else.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us