As politicians with intolerable educational pretensions preach to us from above, "rulings must be respected." But for respect you have to work. And just as the person who invented the distinction between "procedural democracy" and "substantive democracy" invented, let us make a distinction between "procedural respect" and "substantive respect" for a moment.
Government representative Attorney Bombach notes that the Declaration of Independence is not an authority: "The Declaration of Independence was urgently signed by 37 people who were not elected at all" (Archive)
The ruling of the High Court of Justice must be respected and acted upon. So much for the procedural side. On the essential side: we must remind ourselves time and time again of the great pressure exerted in order to "meet the deadlines," that is, to reach the desired result before the balance of power changes. This is not an honorable decision, in the essential sense of the word respect.
This means that contrary to the prevailing feeling, as if Justice Esther Hayut brandished her sword and toppled the dream of reform in one fell swoop, the business is not dead. Borrowing from war jargon: you can eliminate the work plans of the architects of reform – but you can't kill the idea.
President of the Supreme Court, Justice Esther Hayut, photo: Alex Kolomoisky
This ruling, which reaches the finish line with a lot of sweat on its forehead and back, panting, straining, squeezing, and at an unfortunate time, only fuels the perception that there is not and has never been a principled and substantive conflict here, but rather a power struggle.
Suddenly, context does matter
In the end, if, after so much advocacy, speeches, commentaries, home circles, emergency meetings, panic conferences and urgent meetings – with the consciousness-forming elites in Israel recruited in the background as we have never seen before – academia, economics, media, army – if at the end of all this the operative decision on the disqualification is split half-and-half, then apparently regardless of the opinion on the quality of the law, the matter is nevertheless controversial.
It is amusing, almost ironic, to read retiring Justice Anat Baron's comments regarding the context in which the ruling is published. Suddenly, it is important for the court to raise its head and address the reality outside. Without being confused, the judge packs together the two "existential dangers" that "hover over the State of Israel": cruel terrorism on the one hand, and the amendment to Basic Law: Judiciary, meaning the remnants of reform.
The justices who supported and the judges who dissented, photo: Oren Ben Hakon, Noam Rivkin Fenton, Jonathan Zindel/Flash 90, Dudi Vaknin, Courts website,
This crude and inelegant parallel between a terrorist attack and a legislative move by elected officials is not signed by eager protest activists who have just finished a Zoom call with Ehud Barak or Dan Halutz, but by a Supreme Court justice. Interesting. For an entire year, the heads of the judicial system – not the justices of the High Court of Justice, not President Hayut, not even the Attorney General – did not bother to tweet a single word about the context in which the event was taking place.
Protest, media campaigning, and a consistent and clear slide into the realms of illegal calls for disobedience, civil disobedience, insubordination (sorry again, non-volunteerism), divestment – not to mention the consistent blocking of roads, disruption of public events, and incessant harassment, on the verge of physical harassment, to elected officials. During all this period, we did not hear from them, even by virtue of their status, a single normative statement.
Demonstration against legal reform (archive), photo: AP
Not sure "consent" will work
Not for crossing the boundaries of protest, not for walking on the threshold of breaking the law, and not for the terrible damage to the democratic fabric – which is done in their name and in the name of the system they head. On the contrary, they personally became heroines of protest on signs and T-shirts, in a struggle that directly served their interests. And down the road, they hand one side of the political debate a huge victory in consciousness, with the other side marked as an "existential danger."
This may indicate that this ruling has no real issue with eliminating the cause of reasonableness. It has an interest in burning the consciousness of a "victory picture" over Yariv Levin, and creating deterrence in the face of the broad public demand for reform of the judicial system and balancing relations between the authorities.
Minister of Justice Yariv Levin. The High Court of Justice annulled the law passed as part of the reform, photo: Alex Kolomoisky
The profound purpose of the ruling is to burn into the collective memory of Israeli society a ringing defeat that will reverberate for years to come and push future initiatives to balance the authorities into a security zone called "consensual reform."
And "agreement," in fluent Israel, requires years of negotiation, futile bargaining, compromises and smears. Not sure it will work. Anyone whose ear is attentive to Israeli society, and not to the echo chamber, knows that for many, this ruling will not be the end of the story.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us