On video: Demonstrations against the legal revolution/Ziv Oren.
Tal Guterman, Neta Dekel, Efrat Safran
It is said about S. Y. Agnon that when they asked him what he meant by this or that story he wrote, he would answer: "Ask Kurzweil." He was referring to the literary scholar Prof. Baruch Kurzweil, who became known for his interpretation of Agnon's work. In the case of the verdict handed down yesterday ( Fourth) in the hands of the Supreme Court, regarding the reasonableness of the tenure of the former criminal, Itamar Ben Gvir, as minister in charge of the police - there is no need for legal "Kurzweils". Judge Noam Solberg takes on both the role of Agnon and the role of Kurzweil.
As you will immediately understand, Solberg's interpretation of the verdict, which he is one of the signatories to, stands in direct contradiction to the evil campaign led, for nine months, by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Constitutional Committee Chairman Simcha Rothman; The evening of October 7. Let's recall that Solberg is exactly the same judge that Levin, Rothman, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu relied on in his deceitful texts to justify their destructive actions.
In those nine cursed months, we heard a lot about a Supreme Court that got out of control, that became imperialist, that violated the balances the Democrats, who actually controls the country. Time and time again, the brainwashers were explained how far-fetched their claims were, of course to no avail. They came drunk, marked the target in advance, and were motivated to use their power as much as they could.
But what will really frustrate anyone who understands anything about the processes that went on The Supreme Court in the last 16 years - was the distance between the description of the court in 2023 and its current composition and the real worldview of almost half of its judges.
If it weren't for the "Sa'ar Law", he too would not have been elected to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Noam Solberg/Official website, Shlomi Gabai
Has the High Court gotten out of control? Absolutely not. Supreme Court Justices at the hearing on the cancellation of the reason for reasonableness last September/screenshot, spokeswoman for the Judiciary
The law that changed everything
The truth is that since 2008 the Supreme Court has become more and more conservative.
The reason for this is simple.
In the same year, the "Sa'ar Law" was enacted, the law that requires a majority of seven members of the committee for selecting judges (out of nine) to select a Supreme Court judge.
The meaning was that, unlike in the past, the committee since then needed the votes of the politicians in selecting judges for the Supreme Court.
And considering that all these years the government was in the hands of the right, the court became, quite simply, more and more conservative.
The verdict given yesterday in the case of Ben Gabir summarizes the story well.
We will recall that the court discussed the plausibility of appointing Ben Gabir to the position of Minister of National Security, responsible for the police, considering his criminal past (53 indictments, 16 convictions, support for a terrorist organization, etc.).
It is true that the High Court overturned the Knesset's legislation, which forbade the judges to use the reason of reasonableness; but as Solberg pointed out in yesterday's ruling, and rightly so: "At this time, the majority of the quorum and the majority of the judges of this court believe that we would do well if we reduced the limit of Reasonableness.
Even if it is 'self-restraint';
A judicial restriction that we, the judges, take upon ourselves."
They incited an entire public against the judicial system.
Rothman and Levin/Knesset Speaker, Noam Moshkowitz
Solberg explains in his words that the fact that even more activist judges, such as Judge Amit (who supported the repeal of the Knesset's legislation regarding reasonableness), share the position that Ben Gabir should not be disqualified - proves that the court in its current form is going in the conservative direction.
"If there is a case suitable to be used as a precedent in which this court narrows down the applicability of the reason of reasonableness, then this is the case before us," Solberg wrote.
At the end of his opinion he sharpened the point: "Since a petition is brought before us that seeks to invoke the reason of reasonableness in order to order the Prime Minister to fire a minister of the government, it deserves to be used as a refreshing precedent. We must delineate the limits of the reason of reasonableness, and declare: That's it! (the reading mark in the original; BK)".
Because of a lie, the nation is torn in two.
Demonstration against the legal revolution last September/Ruben Castro
The ship has long since turned
And then comes the moment when Solberg turns into Kurzweil, and writes the following text, the text that interprets the meaning of the judgment that he himself is among the signatories: "Even if in the last 40 years the ship of Israeli justice sails methodically and consistently towards the 'activist' pole, there is no It is impossible to slightly divert the course of the ship, bit by bit, even in a different, more conservative direction, without the need for a 'revolution.' Rejecting a petition like the one before us, may be a first step in the right direction. A small step for a person, a big step for public law, if let it be".
There is an incorrect detail in this important text, and it is from the 40 years of sailing towards activism that Solberg enumerates.
First, Solberg rightly attributes the beginning of activism not to the beginning of Aharon Barak's term as president, but to the beginning of the term of his predecessor, Meir Shamgar (1983).
Rightly so, because Shamgar, and not Barak, is the father of activist law in Israel, and he is also the one who, at the end of his term, headed the group that wrote the verdict that formed the basis for the constitutional revolution - the Eastern Psad.
In the verdict concerning the plausibility of his tenure, Solberg reveals the truth.
Minister Itamar Ben Gabir/photo processing, Yonatan Zindel/Flash 90
Where is Solberg's mistake?
The journey bit by bit towards the conservative direction does not really start now, but began as mentioned in 2008, when an emergency law was passed that strengthened the influence of politicians on the selection of Supreme Court justices.
The best proof of this is Solberg's own tenure on the Supreme Court.
The conservative Solberg would not have been elected to the court if it were not for this (justified) law.
If only a majority of five committee members were required, as was customary until 2008, the president of the Supreme Court at the time, Dorit Binish, would not have promoted Solberg from the district to the supreme court.
The fact that Solberg serves today on the Supreme Court and can de facto reduce the reason for reasonableness, is the product of a (completely legitimate) deal that Beinish made with the then Minister of Justice, Yaakov Naaman - the super-activist Dafna Barak Erez in exchange for the super-conservative Solberg.
He too relied on Solberg's texts to justify destructive measures.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu/Flash 90, Yonatan Zindel
Therefore, it would have been more correct if Solberg had written that the Supreme Court strengthened itself as an activist, both in its rulings and in appointments for 25 years (from 1983 to 2008).
However, the journey towards the conservative coast "Tipin Tipin", as he defined it, does not begin now, but began already 15 years ago.
True, in these years there were also decidedly activist rulings, since still the tiny majority in the composition was activist, but it is clear that the trend was the opposite.
Not only due to the fact that more conservative judges were appointed, but also due to the fact that the campaign against activism bore fruit.
The most tangible and clear example of this matter is of course the so-called 11:0 verdict - an overwhelming majority against the petitions to disqualify the possibility of a criminal defendant forming the government.
Would such a result have been accepted in Barak's or Binish's Supreme Court?
of course not.
Solberg holds office by virtue of her (legitimate) deal.
Former Supreme President Dorit Binish/Adrian Herbstein
What "if only" one teaches
If so, the rejection of the petition against Ben Gabir's tenure as Minister of National Security is not the "first step" for conservatism, as Solberg claims;
The step was taken a long time ago.
But Solberg is right that the change in the Supreme Court has already been done "little by little", and that the ship has sailed in a clear direction.
In my personal opinion, I do not share Solberg's prayer of "may it be", that this cruise will continue towards the realms of conservatism.
But it's good that he presented Rothman and Levin with the mirror that reveals their big lie.
This dangerous duo incited an entire public against the judicial system, while creating the false impression that since Shamgar and Barak the court has only become more and more imperialistic, even though it has long since changed direction.
Any blind supporter of this duo's extreme plan should open their eyes with this Solberg text and finally understand how they worked on him, and how these two power drunks tore this nation apart for nothing.
More on the same topic:
The legal revolution
Noam Solberg
Reasonableness
Supreme Court
High Court
Itamar Ben Gvir