Is this what the rebelious opposition wants to retain ?

“If the so-called “champions of democracy” succeeded in obstructing the judicial reforms, democratic rule will be replaced by mob rule and Israel will be tottering on the brink of an Orwellian dystopia.”[Martin Sherman, Israel National News, March 24, 2023].

As informed by Adv. Aharon Garber of Kohelet, in past decades the Supreme Court has empowered itself in a manner that completely violates the balance between government branches. One of the foundations of republican government is the principle of checks and balances, with different branches of government serving to restrain the power of the others. In such a system, a key element is an independent judiciary whose job is to compel adherence to law and to prevent other actors from exceeding their legal authority.

For the 1^st 3 decades of Israel’s history, its courts – as is the practice in all democratic legal systems – avoided judging the substance of administrative actions and intervened only when a government agency exceeded its legal authority. Israel’s legislative body, the Knesset, initially regarded the courts as such benign institutions that it misguidedly passed a law in 1953 allowing judges to play the dominant role in determining judicial appointments.

The effect of that system, unique among democracies, was slowly but inexorably making the Supreme Court to become ideologically homogeneous, thereby rendering its long record of judicial prudence vulnerable to dramatic reversal

The major catalyst in this reversal was Aharon Barak. Following graduation from Harvard, during 1973 through 1978, he served Israel as attorney general. He then joined the Supreme Court, becoming its chief justice in 1995. From his perch on the court, he launched not one, but two revolutions. In the 1^st, beginning in 1981, the court weakened the previous limitations on its interventions in state policy in state policy.

In the 2^nd, less well-known, but more insidious, it empowered a judicial-bureau complex to nip government policies in the bud – before they could even reach the courts.

“In his initial revolution, Barak broadened the grounds on which courts could intervene in state policy and then eliminated 2 crucial limitations – in legal jargon, ‘standing’ and ‘justifiability’ – on the sorts of cases they could hear. As regards ‘standing’, even after 1981, a petitioner wanting to bring a case before the court had to prove that he was directly harmed by the law or policy he was challenging.

Following a series of reversals, Barak proceeded to cite his theoretical abolition of both ‘standing’ and ‘justifiability’ as established jurisprudence. As regards judicial intervention in security matters, “Mishael Cheshin, Barak’s colleague on the Supreme Court, once observed that ‘Justice Barak is willing to see 30 or 50 people blown up for the sake of human rights.’ “. The Supreme Court’s stunning extension of its own authority has been duly noted by observers in Israel and abroad. Among American experts, both Robert Bork and Richard Posner would write scathing reviews of Aharon Barak’s 2006 book, “The Judge in a Democracy.”

“The machinations of the legal bureaucracy embedded in ministries and other agencies of government – Barak’s 2^nd revolution – take place behind closed doors, preventing cases from even reaching court; the chilling effect is consummate.”

Moshe Koppel’s categorical proclamation, “Israel’s justice system is in desperate need of reforms that can end this tyranny of the legal bureaucracy” is no understatement.

The Kohelet Forum published, “Why judicial reform is essential” on February 19, 2023. Apparently, it is not what former Prime Minister Ehud Barak nor President Isaac Herzog are able to comprehend.`

In the past decades, the Supreme Court has empowered itself in a manner that completely violates the balance between government branches. Against the basic concept of rule of law according to which the Court judges, the Israeli Supreme Court has designed its own rules, and unilaterally taken unauthorized power, without any public legitimacy.

The Supreme Court has invented new legal grounds to review the “reasonableness” of government actions and even to disqualify government appointments. It has declared on its own authority that the Basic Laws are a constitution – “the sole such case in the world.” In advancing the idea that they are authorized to interfere in the Basic Laws themselves or to strike down legislation – “ideas that are completely rejected in other democratic countries.” Legal advisers claim that they can block government legislation that they oppose, and even to prevent the Knesset from regulating their powers. “There is simply no comparison anywhere in the world.”

A situation in which public value decisions are taken by jurists and not elected officials is one that violates basic democratic principles of majority rule and individuals’ ability to influence policy through choosing elected officials; a situation in which the court bends all laws, decides on the content of Basic Laws through which it strikes down legislation, and even flirts with the possibility of striking down Basic Laws – “violates the principle of rule of law; and principally – a court that acts without legitimacy loses public trust, and cannot fulfill its crucial social functions.”

“The legal reforms announced by Justice Yariv Levin seek to heal the governmental system in Israel and balance the relations between the branches.”

“Democrats are hurting Israel’s democracy” appeared in the Jerusalem Post of May 13, 2023, authored by Yaron Schwartz. His introductory remark reads, “US President Joe Biden and other key Democrats have taken sides in Israel’ internal debate. By doing so, they are compromising the prospects for compromise.” Biden’s wisdom extends to “He [Netanyahu] cannot continue down this road. Netanyahu won’t be invited to the White House in the near term.” As a counter, House Speaker and leading Republican, Kevin McCarthy said that Netanyahu’s White House invitation was overdue and “if that doesn’t happen, I’ll invite the prime minster to come meet with the House. He’s a dear friend.”

Irony grows when looking at the main gap between the sides. It relates the manner by which Supreme Court justices are appointed. The opposition in Israel asserts that the judges should decide who replaces or joins them on the bench, while the government is of the opinion that – like in the US [and most democracies], elected officials – the representative of the people should transparently appoint judges after public hearings are held.

The latest meddling by Democrats under the guise of concern for Israel’s democracy is not without irony: Senate Democrats in a hearing of the Judiciary Committee before the US Congress made the case for US Supreme ethics reform and reduction of Supreme Court powers.

Israel has enjoyed cold comfort from the US previously, thanks to Clinton and Obama. ”Israeli’s don’t take well to such meddling – or in the words of the late Menachem Begin: “Israel is not a banana republic.”

Haaretz, hardly a Right-Wing extreme newspaper published, “The Eight Ways Herzog is Damaging Israeli Democracy” by Uri Misgav on Mar. 9, 2023:

[1] In his very 1^st speech on the issue, Herzog created a false symmetry between supporters of the coup and its opponents. But there is no symmetry between dictatorship and democracy.

[2] “No branch of government should be immovable.”[3] “The fact that Mizrahi judges aren’t sufficiently represented on the Supreme Court has troubled me for many years.” Where can one find this recorded?

[3] “The fact that Mizrahi judges aren’t sufficiently represented on the Supreme Court has troubled me for many years.” Where can one find this recorded?

[4] “We are moments away from an explosion” and urged that legislation be halted for the sake of dialogue. Herzog backtracked on his precondition, appearing as a mediator whose word can’t be trusted. [5] Throughout his political career, Herzog excelled at forging coalitions and behind-the-scenes, he apparently fell in love with his own abilities in this field. But the president isn’t an arbitrator, a UN official or a synagogue sexton.

[5] Throughout his political career, Herzog excelled at forging coalitions and behind-the-scenes, he apparently fell in love with his own abilities in this field. But the president isn’t an arbitrator, a UN official or a synagogue sexton.

[6] The “outlines” leaked from the talks are clearly tilted toward the coup, and the dialogue is being led by people who have been critical of the legal system and have supported weakening it. [Daniel Friedmann, Yuval Elbashan, Yedidia Stern]

[7] His brother Mike is still serving as the coup government’s ambassador in Washington.

Unfortunately, the president doesn’t appear to be a fair, unbiased mediator, and he ought to stop working against the interests of the liberal democratic bloc in which he was raised. Enough already.

Times of Israel Staff posted, “Smotrich: ‘Leftist’ Herzog can’t act as fair mediator in judicial overhaul talks” on 20/6/2023. The Far-right minister says president ‘100% aligned with the left’, charging that the president was therefore unable to act as an unbiased mediator in talks for a potential compromise on judicial reform .Further, he said ”I thought that going into the talks at the President’s Residence was not democratically correct —–there is a Knesset. The very fact that they took the discussion out of the parliament is an undemocratic decision.”

On February 25, 2023 the Jewish Pess published. “Ehud Barak Calling for Civil Revolt as Anarchists Disrupt Traffic Across Israel.”

Yet another Labor leader failure, this former Prime Minister and former IDF Chief of Staff told protestors in Haifa that “the protest must increase and move to civil revolt, and non-violent civil disobedience.” According to Barak, “The script for civil disobedience has already been written by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and others. I call on the citizens of Israel to prepare to act, and when the call comes, respond to it.”

Interestingly, further back to March, 2015 , Commentary responded to Aharon Barak, “Yet in almost every other democracy worldwide, Supreme Court appointments are controlled by the executive and/or legislative branches. Only in Israel are justices instead chosen primarily by unelected legal officials.”