Moshe-Mordechai van Zuiden
Psychology, Medicine, Science, Politics, Oppression, Integrity, Philosophy, Jews -- For those who like their news and truths frank and sharp

Could a Minister of Justice ever disobey the Supreme Court?

Fresh from his appointment as Justice Minister, Amir Ochana declared in a TV interview that in case of mortal danger, he may disobey a verdict by the Supreme Court. The High Court had once opposed the IDF flattening some buildings for security reason but as a result, innocent citizens were murdered. Now he was appointed to a position of power in the justice sphere, he vowed that he would obstruct such mistakes.

Immediately after seeing his own interview, he made a U-turn. He declared that such liberty cannot exist. He had always respected any court decision and would keep doing so. His boss, Netanyahu, also right away, declared such disobedience not possible.

This retraction was the same evening published by Arutz 7, followed the next morning early by the Times of Israel and later by World Israel News.

However, this did not stop a kangaroo court of prominent Israeli public players from condemning him, for the unprecedented and irresponsible promotion of anarchy, for being a threat to democracy, for not appreciating that laws are “a guarantee for the protection of the right of every citizen of the state” (as if the law is not foremost to protect the interests of the powerful with individual protection merely a footnote to that) and even using an anti-Semitic image that he had poisoned the well (the Jerusalem Post!) and invoking that he’s Gay (Haaretz!).

Now Haaretz has even started immaterially hairsplitting that a definite demolition order was never given. Rather, the Court had only temporarily blocked the state’s intention after which it got discouraged and left it.

This was all already after Boteach had put Ochana in his trophy cabinet as of high integrity and in deep love with Israel and all Israelis.

In any case, the issues at hand are not as simple as a faux pas, retraction and unfair criticism.

1. It’s undisputed that the High Court has been a tower of strength for human rights often annoying and frustrating the political establishment.

Ochana (his name is not Ohana) is of the same school as his predecessor, Ayelet Shaked. They both are situated towards the secular extreme right.

They are both of the opinion that Israel’s Highest Court has been politicized. Too many of its justices were extremely left-wing whose goal and action have been to circumvent any right-wing discussion by a lawful government. Shaked has appointed so many right-wing justices that the political balance in the court is now about 50/50.

So, Ochana’s statement was oil on the fire of the current tension between right-wing politicians and left-wing justices.

2. Ochama’s reserve regarding the final word being from the court system smacks of a Trumpian novice. A political appointment of someone who doesn’t know what’s going on at all. Yet, Ochana is an experienced lawyer. So we must reject the idea that he spoke out of total ignorance.

More likely, it had pained him when people had died because of a High Court of Justice decision and now that he was appointed to a position of power, he would obstruct such mistakes.

This, of course, cannot be. The Court weighs security aspects too. The IDF must make its case. If the Court is not enough impressed, it may rule against the IDF. In hindsight, that may be a mistake but it’s always easy to be Monday morning’s quarterback.

3. Ochana walks around bareheaded but as part of the Arab majority in Israel, as a Mizrachic Jew, no doubt he knows the principle that preventing danger to life goes above almost all principles of Jewish Law.

But again, such a case must be made in court and the responsibility for the last say lies with the court.

4. This is not much different from G^d standing by while we make mistakes. If He would always interrupt as soon as we err, human responsibility and improvement (regret) would be dead letters.

5. There is no such thing as knowing that the court was wrong. Unless one has objective knowledge. One can only be strongly convinced but no more.

6. Law is not really holy. There are evil laws. Going against them is then holy. But in a democracy, a justice minister always has the possibility to resign, to seek ways to appeal or circumvent a verdict or to secretly dodge a verdict and bear the consequences when discovered.

Respect for the law is important even when it is flawed. There is no perfect law. Not every guilty person can be convicted. Some general law may do injustice in individual cases. What seems fair now may turn out bigoted later. But in any case, laws must be improved, not abandoned.

7. Of late, attacks on the Justice System are gaining popularity. This is bad. Surely, courts do everything in their power to disregard the common man and violate common sense and arrogantly decide who is right and who is wrong. Thus they create much disrespect for the law. But attacking the law is a bad thing. Try to change it — don’t destroy it.

8. After serving at length in the IDF and security apparatus, he knows the idea of blindly obeying orders by superiors. Even if you think that an order is totally stupid, you must obey. Unless you know that it’s immoral. Then you must disobey. Every Israeli soldier knows this through and through.

Without such obedience, an army can’t operate. Nor the law.

9. The giant elephant in the room is that Ochana is a right-winger. All the vicious attacks on him are because of that. But it’s never mentioned.

10. His remark that he is ready for the prosecution manufacturing a false case against him (like against Netanyahu) has been called paranoid. It is often overlooked that, as Kissinger famously said, paranoids may have enemies too.

* * *

In unrelated reporting, Haaretz’ headline “Hundreds March as Tel Aviv Pride Parade Kicks Off” is technically not faulty but strange as rather 100,000s were expected. One needs to read the article to find the better description of “Hundreds of thousands.” Freudian, malicious or sloppy?

About the Author
MM is a prolific and creative writer and thinker, previously a daily blog contributor to the TOI. He often makes his readers laugh, mad, or assume he's nuts—close to perfect blogging. He's proud that his analytical short comments are removed both from left-wing and right-wing news sites. None of his content is generated by the new bore on the block, AI. * As a frontier thinker, he sees things many don't yet. He's half a prophet. Half. Let's not exaggerate. Or not at all because he doesn't claim G^d talks to him. He gives him good ideas—that's all. MM doesn't believe that people observe and think in a vacuum. He, therefore, wanted a broad bio that readers interested can track a bit what (lack of) backgrounds, experiences, and educations contribute to his visions. * This year, he will prioritize getting his unpublished books published rather than just blog posts. Next year, he hopes to focus on activism against human extinction. To find less-recent posts on a subject XXX among his over 2000 archived ones, go to the right-top corner of a Times of Israel page, click on the search icon and search "zuiden, XXX". One can find a second, wilder blog, to which one may subscribe too, here: or by clicking on the globe icon next to his picture on top. * Like most of his readers, he believes in being friendly, respectful, and loyal. However, if you think those are his absolute top priorities, you might end up disappointed. His first loyalty is to the truth. He will try to stay within the limits of democratic and Jewish law, but he won't lie to support opinions or people when don't deserve that. (Yet, we all make honest mistakes, which is just fine and does not justify losing support.) He admits that he sometimes exaggerates to make a point, which could have him come across as nasty, while in actuality, he's quite a lovely person to interact with. He holds - how Dutch - that a strong opinion doesn't imply intolerance of other views. * Sometimes he's misunderstood because his wide and diverse field of vision seldomly fits any specialist's box. But that's exactly what some love about him. He has written a lot about Psychology (including Sexuality and Abuse), Medicine (including physical immortality), Science (including basic statistics), Politics (Israel, the US, and the Netherlands, Activism - more than leftwing or rightwing, he hopes to highlight reality), Oppression and Liberation (intersectionally, for young people, the elderly, non-Whites, women, workers, Jews, LGBTQIA+, foreigners and anyone else who's dehumanized or exploited), Integrity, Philosophy, Jews (Judaism, Zionism, Holocaust and Jewish Liberation), the Climate Crisis, Ecology and Veganism, Affairs from the news, or the Torah Portion of the Week, or new insights that suddenly befell him. * Chronologically, his most influential teachers are his parents, Nico (natan) van Zuiden and Betty (beisye) Nieweg, Wim Kan, Mozart, Harvey Jackins, Marshal Rosenberg, Reb Shlomo Carlebach, and, lehavdil bein chayim lechayim, Rabbi Dr. Natan Lopes Cardozo, Rav Zev Leff, and Rav Meir Lubin. This short list doesn't mean to disrespect others who taught him a lot or a little. One of his rabbis calls him Mr. Innovation [Ish haChidushim]. Yet, his originalities seem to root deeply in traditional Judaism, though they may grow in unexpected directions. In fact, he claims he's modernizing nothing. Rather, mainly basing himself on the basic Hebrew Torah text, he tries to rediscover classical Jewish thought almost lost in thousands of years of stifling Gentile domination and Jewish assimilation. (He pleads for a close reading of the Torah instead of going by rough assumptions of what it would probably mean and before fleeing to Commentaries.) This, in all aspects of life, but prominently in the areas of Free Will, Activism, Homosexuality for men, and Redemption. * He hopes that his words will inspire and inform, and disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed. He aims to bring a fresh perspective rather than harp on the obvious and familiar. When he can, he loves to write encyclopedic overviews. He doesn't expect his readers to agree. Rather, original minds should be disputed. In short, his main political positions are among others: anti-Trumpism, for Zionism, Intersectionality, non-violence, anti those who abuse democratic liberties, anti the fake ME peace process, for original-Orthodoxy, pro-Science, pro-Free Will, anti-blaming-the-victim, and for down-to-earth, classical optimism, and happiness. Read his blog on how he attempts to bridge any tensions between those ideas or fields. * He is a fetal survivor of the pharmaceutical industry (, born in 1953 to his parents who were Dutch-Jewish Holocaust survivors who met in the largest concentration camp in the Netherlands, Westerbork. He grew up a humble listener. It took him decades to become a speaker too, and decades more to admit to being a genius. But his humility was his to keep. And so was his honesty. Bullies and con artists almost instantaneously envy and hate him. He hopes to bring new things and not just preach to the choir. * He holds a BA in medicine (University of Amsterdam) – is half a doctor. He practices Re-evaluation Co-counseling since 1977, is not an official teacher anymore, and became a friendly, powerful therapist. He became a social activist, became religious, made Aliyah, and raised three wonderful kids. Previously, for decades, he was known to the Jerusalem Post readers as a frequent letter writer. For a couple of years, he was active in hasbara to the Dutch-speaking public. He wrote an unpublished tome about Jewish Free Will. He's a strict vegan since 2008. He's an Orthodox Jew but not a rabbi. * His writing has been made possible by an allowance for second-generation Holocaust survivors from the Netherlands. It has been his dream since he was 38 to try to make a difference by teaching through writing. He had three times 9-out-of-10 for Dutch at his high school finals but is spending his days communicating in English and Hebrew - how ironic. G-d must have a fine sense of humor. In case you wonder - yes, he is a bit dyslectic. If you're a native English speaker and wonder why you should read from people whose English is only their second language, consider the advantage of having an original peek outside of your cultural bubble. * To send any personal reaction to him, scroll to the top of the blog post and click Contact Me. * His newest books you may find here:
Related Topics
Related Posts