Politics disguised as Justice

How the Israeli justice system has become a strong, unsupervised, political body, that is not held responsible for the consequences of its decisions and why this situation endangers the future and existence of the State of Israel.

06-05-2020

By Prof. Elisha Haas, former chair of Professors for a strong Israel

A Jewish state is, by definition, an unusual body among states. Its existence is contrary to natural geopolitical conduct; therefore, its existence arouses forces acting both internally and externally to do away with its uniqueness or its very existence. Therefore, there will always be within her and in the environment, tension between the natural aspiration for normalization and the unnatural aspiration for uniqueness, according to Jewish tradition. This is the source of the abiding existential danger that lurks for the Jewish state.

This tension erupted with great intensity in the year 1977, due to the general passing of the generation on one hand, and on the other, the reverberation from the Yom Kippur War, which crushed the Zionist  Left’s vision and gave rise to the post-Zionist Left. In 1981, a right-wing government came to power again. The Left concluded that 1977 was not an accident, but reflected a profound change in the public and that it would be difficult to return to power democratically. Therefore, there was no choice but to act in ways to circumvent democracy.

The New Israel Fund was created, whose main  goal is to eliminate the Jewish state (to turn it into a “state of all its citizens”) and it focused on methodical, long-range penetration of the justice system. The plan to eliminate the Jewish state was aided by the right-wing politicians’ lack of awareness and when Prof. Aharon Barak was admitted to the High Court, he considered himself the Left’s emissary in the circumvention.

In the first generation of the state it was acceptable for the High Court, which is a court of appeals, could also sit as the High Court of Justice, whose sole function is to give support to the private citizen who was suffering from the government’s arbitrary behavior. This is the “right of standing”, which is limited to the private citizen. Aharon Barak, acting very wisely and patiently, step by step, turned the High Court of Justice into a tool of power and political actor, not subject to public scrutiny and bearing no responsibility for the results of its decisions. In the first phase, he abolished the restrictions on the “right of status” and invited any organization or citizen to request involvement in the decisions of any body in the state. Gradually, Barack and his judicial clones repealed laws, determined de facto what was legal and what was not legal, repeatedly ignoring explicit laws (that is, they openly broke the law in the name of “the rule of law”), emptied laws of their content, invented “reasonability” tests in order to interfere in every public and private matter, illegally. They lorded the ideology of “the enlightened man” over the public.

They were aided by three factors: 1. The unique method of judicial appointment, where judges control the appointment of judges, which made possible the “cloning” process. 2. The awe and negligence on the part of politicians who were afraid of harming the court, exploited its undeserved immunity to the nth degree, which it retained thanks to the merit of the first generation, and 3. Barak enacted most of these precedents by harming only the haredi public, so that the general public did not feel harmed and paid no attention to the seriousness of the precedents.

The result: in the 72nd year of its existence, the Jewish state has lost the title “democratic”, because a group of appointed judges who could not pass the public scrutiny broke the boundaries of the separation of powers and imposed their political ideology to the public without taking any responsibility at all. The court dragged us into elections by overturning the Tal Law, and the heavy cloud that was created over the judicial executive branches paralyzes the systems without even touching them.

By the very fact that they meet to discuss the appeals that undermine the ability of the person elected by the public to serve as prime minister or as minister, the judges do away with the essence of democracy, in which the people are the sovereign and they are their servants, not their masters (regardless of the decision, which is affected, in any case, by political considerations). The moment that they did not immediately reject the appeals that were served before the 72nd Independence Day, the judges revealed the dangerous situation into which they have drawn the Jewish democratic state.

This is a most dangerous situation because actually, the power of the public to decide fateful matters for the existence of the Jewish state is nullified. Their involvement in the existential debate between the Zionist Right and the post-Zionist Left, which is a great step in the path of circumventing democracy, endangers the ability of the Jewish public to protect the existence of the Zionist project, which is under constant danger by opposing forces.

A Jewish state is not a natural entity, so it is in danger of being destroyed by opposing forces, from within and without. Therefore, there is no choice but to rectify the crazy situation that we have come to as a result of the long process that began in 1983. The public must demand that its political representatives totally rectify the situation: 1. Change the method of appointing judges, by passing the selection to elected representatives only. 2. Renew the separation of powers by legislation restricting the court. 3. Enact a law to limit the right of standing. 4. Meanwhile, to not obey political decisions of the court.

The court “has no wallet and no sword”. Its entire power is built on the public’s trust and compliance with its decisions. The public’s trust has eroded. In such a situation, if the court does not return to the boundaries from the era before the regime change led by Aharon Barak, the politicians must act immediately with disobedience followed by legislation. Since the entire power of the court is in speech alone, it also knows how to recognize when it is facing a resolute power and it will know how to retreat, so that it will be possible to have an effect even without actual disobedience. Aharon Barak himself, when he understood that he went too far in allowing the import of pork, suggested to the Knesset to enact a law to nullify his own decision.

The Zionist public must declare to its elected representatives that only someone who commits himself to enact laws restricting the High Court will get their support. We must call on our present representatives to stop obeying the court and stop honoring black-caped politicians, thus restraining them.

Comments
facebook comments
This site is run by volunteers, all donations accepted
Support for the idea of sovereignty
More Articles
All Articles >
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Religious Zionist Rabbis to Netanyahu: Don’t Miss the Opportunity for Sovereignty
10-09-2025
Religious Zionist Rabbis Appeal to the Prime Minister, Calling for the Application of Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and Supporting the 82% Plan
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Restrain Me! Don’t Let Me Apply Sovereignty!
Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar
09-09-2025
Once again, Israel’s leaders are turning the Land of Israel into a political bargaining chip—once again, we return to this national disgrace. Time has come to shake off this weakness, awaken, and lift up the dignity of the nation. Apply sovereignty!
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
From Reacting to taking Decisive Action
09-09-2025
The Prime Minister's interview with "Abu Ali Express" exposes the weakness of a defensive mindset. Now, approaching Israel’s 80th year, the country requires leadership that acts and shapes the future — not one that merely reacts and waits. an important article Attorney Michael Sperber wrote
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Partial Sovereignty – A Historic and Strategic Mistake
02-09-2025
In light of reports about government moves to apply partial sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, the Sovereignty Movement issues its response
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Will We Eat The Rotten Fish -And Also Also Be Expelled from the City?
Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar
29-08-2025
A call to the Prime Minister: Apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria before the UN recognizes a Palestinian Arab state.
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
​The Knesset Has Spoken: Sovereignty Is the Realization of the Nation’s Vision
23-07-2025
With dramatic support from the Prime Minister and Members of Knesset from both coalition and opposition, the Knesset approved a motion calling on the Israeli government to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. The Sovereignty Movement welcomes the decision and calls for immediate action.
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Likud MKs Call for the Application of Sovereignty: "Between the Sea and the Jordan There Will Be Only One State"
21-07-2025
Ministers and Knesset members from the Likud held a special conference in the Knesset to promote full sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Deputy Prime Minister Minister Levin: "We are once again at a historic opportunity that must not be missed to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria."
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
MK Osher Shkalim: Sovereignty is not a privilege, it is our duty
10-07-2025
Likud MK Osher Shkalim Makes an Impassioned Plea from the Knesset Podium for the Application of Sovereignty
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Youth to Likud Ministers and Knesset Speaker: Thank You for Your Determined Call for Sovereignty
08-07-2025
Representatives of the Sovereignty Youth Movement presented Likud ministers and the Speaker of the Knesset with certificates of appreciation for their letter urging the Prime Minister to immediately apply sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
ריבונות - כתב עת מדיני
Policy Paper Ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Visit to the White House and the Expected Pressure Campaign
03-07-2025
Just before the Prime Minister departs for his visit to Washington, the Sovereignty Movement is releasing a position paper outlining the principles and values that must be upheld—even in the face of significant friendly pressure.