Many of the most contentious problems facing the country today, such as confrontation with the Palestinians, problems of State and the civil rights of minorities, end up being judged by the courts and, at most, by the High Court, which is made up of the Supreme Court judges of the court.
It is not surprising, therefore, that among the bitter ideological divisions among Israel’s opposing political blocs that are particularly notable in the run-up to the November 1 elections, one of the most intimate and ultimate considerations is the role of the judiciary in public life, and the position and authority of the High Court of Justice in particular.
In recent years, court decisions concerning land ownership in the West Bank, civil marriage, immigrants and asylum seekers, ultra-Orthodox enlistment, etc. , have generated frenzied public debate and political tensions of the first order.
The right has unleashed impassioned rhetoric opposing the High Court for rulings deemed too liberal, insufficiently respectful of Israel’s Jewish character, and an undemocratic boundary on the Knesset and elected government, which have leaned decidedly toward its political spectrum over the past decade.
Israel’s centrist and left-wing camps, excluded from the force for much of recent years, have hailed the court’s interventions, viewing the siege as a critical brake on attempts by right-wing and devout parties to push their legislative agendas through the legislature. .
Right-wing and devout parties, especially those aligned with Likud and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu, have made no secret of their preference for removing this center-left lever of strength, advocating legislative responses to overturn court rulings and a general overhaul of how judges are selected.
On October 18, the leader of the Zionist party, Bezalel Smotrich, threw a grenade into the latent debate about the role of the court, not easy nor a derogatory clause of the High Court and a reform of the judicial variety as non-negotiable situations for his party at the entrance of the government.
Smotrich also announced that his party would seek to abolish the crime of “fraud and breach of trust,” which Netanyahu faces in his ongoing trial (as well as a corruption charge), and grant immunity from prosecution to prime ministers, ministers and lawmakers. for any offence he may commit in connection with his office in the course of office.
This stated purpose and the broader war over the role and prestige of the judiciary, highlighted days before Israelis returned to the polls, have propelled the court’s long road amid the hustle and bustle of politics.
Parties in the existing coalition, in addition to those on the right, vehemently oppose the kind of sweeping adjustments sought through Smotrich and others in the pro-Netanyahu bloc, arguing that they would fundamentally undermine the checks and balances of Israel’s democratic formula and give the government unlimited power.
On opposite sides of the debate are devout Zionist MK Simcha Rothman, one of the leading far-right voices in favor of judicial reform, and Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar of the National Unity Party, who is also a longtime advocate of judicial reform but opposes giving the full government on judicial appointments and abolishing the precept of judicial review.
Rothman, a career lawyer who has written a book about his view of the Israeli justice system, told The Times of Israel that he remains vehemently opposed to the existing judicial variety process.
The judges are selected through a panel composed of the minister of justice, a minister of the moment, two members of the Knesset, two representatives of the Israel Bar Association and 3 judges of the High Court, the presiding judge.
A majority is required to appoint judges for Israel’s district magistrates and courts, and a seven-of-nine majority is required to appoint a High Court judge.
“This is a self-perpetuating court,” Rothman said, noting that the elect are in the minority.
A 2008 law introduced by Sa’ar, then a Likud member, increased the majority required to appoint a High Court to pass sentence to seven out of nine, giving the procedure more balance, he admits, but he worries that it still provides unelected votes to civil servants, and even the High Court cadre makes judgments on themselves. A genuine veto on the variety of new passing sentences.
Rothman and the Religious Zionist Party’s proposal for a review of the judicial variety procedure is to radically replace the composition of the judicial variety committee, so that the government would appoint six of the nine members of the committee.
Rothman argues that such a varied formula would give elected officials access to the procedure and ensure that the resulting composition of the judiciary better reflects and constitutes the will of the people.
“Most other Israeli people will have the strength to appoint judges, just like any other country in the world,” Rothman said, stating that in many countries, such as the United States, judges have no say in who they assign the percentage to. banco. con.
Another central reform that Rothman and Zionism say they will adopt is to set limits on the legal prestige of who can take government moves to court. such as anti-settlement watchdogs that make petitions on behalf of Palestinian landowners.
Rothman argues that the formula for judicial activism is opposed to government and the legislature.
“You see this in Judea and Samaria,” he said, using the biblical term for the West Bank.
“Show me that some of your rights have been violated through this law,” he added, pointing to demanding legal situations to what is known as the 2017 Settlement Regulation Law, which would have allowed for the retroactive legalization of settlements built on personal Palestinian land. The law, which the attorney general had warned lawmakers might not appear in court, was struck down by the High Court in 2020, in response to a petition by Adalah, an Israeli organization that advocates for Palestinian and Arab civil rights.
“The other people who defied the law didn’t want any evidence that they were affected by it,” he said.
“In the Supreme Court, in the United States, there is a clause in the statute that the court will deal with and disputes. In Israel, there is no case, there is no controversy, and the courts decide.
But Rothman, Smotrich and the Religious Zionist Party must go further. As a component of the legal reform platform that was published last week, a High Court exemption bill would be passed that would allow the Knesset to re-legislate a law that the High Court struck down. for violating Israel’s Basic Laws.
And the Knesset would do so with an undeniable majority of just 61 MPs, meaning that no opposition member would be needed to overturn the High Court.
Moreover, the High Court can only overturn a law if a panel of 15 judges unanimously rules that the law in question violates a basic law, which is an incredibly high bar.
Rothman noted that no law explicitly authorizes the High Court to exercise judicial power over legislation.
“There is no basic law that is more powerful than the legislation that is passed. “
“There is no basic law that is more powerful than the legislation that is passed. No charter has ever been made for the State of Israel limiting the strength of parliament and the court has usurped force and acts not as a court but as a parliament. ” Rothman argued.
Asked whether his party’s planned adjustments would remove checks and balances from Israel’s governing formula that ultimately protects minority rights, Rothman insisted that the courts are not for that purpose.
He argued that courts in countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and do not have the right to annul the law and that nevertheless the rights of minorities in those countries have been respected.
When asked about the fact that the Netherlands has a 200-year-old bill of rights and Britain a 300-year bill of rights, and that Israel has no formal charter, Rothman insisted that the majority governs enough to protect the rights of minorities in a Jewish state.
“The other Jewish people had democracy long before Britain had democracy and Israel is the geographical region of the other Jewish people,” he said, without clarifying the ancient rationale of the first component of the statement. “We have practiced democracy more than any other country, and we know how to make a resolution through majority voting. “
Rothman asked about the law passed in the early 2010s that forced African asylum seekers to stay in open detention centers indefinitely, as Israel did not absorb them and could not deport them.
The High Court struck down the law in 2014 for disproportionately violating their rights to freedom, freedom of movement and autonomy, as set out in Israel’s Basic Law on Human Dignity and Respect for Man.
But Rothman said the court deserved not to intervene because it was the majority’s right to the country’s law.
“Most will have much greater human rights than the judiciary. “
“Most will have much greater human rights than the judiciary. “
Many of Rothman’s criticisms of the court and the judiciary are familiar to Sa’ar, a former Likud stalwart who continues to hold right-wing positions. However, he disagrees with the responses proposed through the Zionist MK, which he described as radical rewrites that would deprive the judiciary of its independence and “destroy” Israeli democracy.
“The opposition is the conservatives, they are anarchists and revolutionaries who need to destroy the existing formula and update it with something new,” he said.
As justice minister for the past year, Sa’ar has struggled to convey many of his priorities, but has managed to introduce some transparency into the judicial variety process by making public hearings for Supreme Court appointments. This addressed right-wing considerations that the appointment procedure was subject to internal transactions and too open to manipulation through the legal establishment.
While in the past he shared considerations that the court was full of liberals, he says his 2008 push to give lawmakers more votes on superior court appointments resulted in a “gradual but really extensive change” in the court’s composition.
“This replacement has allowed more varied, heterogeneous and balanced judges to be appointed to the High Court because, for that majority, compromises are wanted from all parties,” Sa’ar told The Times of Israel.
But giving the government complete control of the judicial variety procedure would “totally politicize” the court and place the judiciary under the control of the ruling regime.
“This proposal will give the government the High Court and is a concentration of harmful force in the hands of the executive and more accurately in the hands of the executive leader, i. e. the prime minister,” Sa’ar said.
It is the reform of the formula but the destruction of the formula. . . of the democratic formula of the State of Israel.
And he also rejected arguments put forward through Rothman and others that cited the American example of judges decided only through politicians, noting that the United States also has a written letter protecting citizens’ rights.
“They only take one element, the one that gives strength to the executive, but they don’t need to have the same elements that give strength to the citizen,” Saar said.
Adding the Knesset’s ability to overturn the High Court’s decisions with a majority of just 61 deputies would further damage Israel’s checks and balances formula, Sa’ar argued.
“The combination of full judges with the general ability to replace each and every resolution will leave the full force of our governing formula in the hands of the executive. It is not the reform of the formula, but the destruction of the formula. not only of the judicial formula but of the democratic formula of the State of Israel,” he said.
The minister describes himself as a conservative who opposes judicial activism and needs to see as little judicial intervention as imaginable in government activity.
Sa’ar with Rothman on the need for lawmakers to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions, but believes he deserves to arrive only with a special majority of 65 lawmakers. It also needs to raise the bar and require a two-thirds majority of judges for the court to repeal the legislation.
Such reforms only pass through a new Basic Law, Sa’ar said, which would enshrine the precept of judicial review in Israel’s legal formula while addressing right-wing considerations of judicial overreach.
“The judiciary will not be able to repeal a Knesset law without problems, and the Knesset will not be able to easily overturn a High Court decision,” he said.
Do you depend on The Times of Israel for accurate and insightful facts about Israel and the Jewish world?If so, sign up for The Times of Israel community. For as little as $6 a month, you:
That’s why we introduced The Times of Israel ten years ago: to provide discerning readers like you with the must-have politics of Israel and the Jewish world.
So now we have a request. Unlike other media outlets, we have not set up a paywall. But because the journalism we do is expensive, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become vital to help our paintings join the Times of Israel community.
For just $6 a month, you can help our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel WITHOUT ADVERTISING, as well as access exclusive content only for members of The Times of Israel community.
Thank you, David Horovitz, founding editor of The Times of Israel.