A very brief overview here: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/sksdv5hbs

One thing I will write after all.
The discussion of this question can take place on two different planes: 1. What ought to be done from the standpoint of democratic thought, theory. 2. Whether it is right in present-day Israel. These are different questions, and the answer will not always be the same. Our political system is completely rotten, and handing it power is a very dangerous thing. There isn’t a drop of responsibility or substantive judgment there, and if you give them unlimited legislative power, that’s a proven recipe for endless trouble. They change laws every other moment according to whatever suits them, including Basic Laws. This is not the normal conduct of a responsible system; in fact, it is the destruction of the legal system in the state. Citizens have lost trust in the laws and their validity because they see that the legislator is not subject to the law but twists it as he wishes and according to his convenience. Why should a citizen obey that law? The law loses its meaning if the politician can violate it whenever he wants by changing it with one accidental majority or another and according to one interest or another. Therefore I would try very hard to deny them power as much as I can, though of course that is not up to me. I’m certainly not thrilled that the power be handed to the court, which was not elected by the public, but that is a principled and theoretical difficulty, whereas opposite it stand practical difficulties.
It somewhat reminds me of Lapid’s claim that he did not bring the Lebanon agreement to a vote in the Knesset because, according to him, the opposition was acting irresponsibly. I gave a similar answer about that: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F

A few questions about what you wrote regarding legislation:
1) What is the problem with changing laws every other moment according to whatever suits you? What is the difference between changing them infrequently or frequently, or for reasons of convenience / other reasons?
2) Why should the legislator be subject to the law if he is the one who creates it? The mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted.
3) Do you have an example of this kind of conduct?

1. The problem is that a law is supposed to be something principled, not something that serves some temporary interest of this person or that person. The result of such a policy is problematic, as I explained here briefly. Why should a citizen pay taxes if he knows they are being spent on some narrow, accidental interest with no thought whatsoever for the general good, and without any ability to foresee what will happen to the money a month from now when a different conjuncture arises? Thus, for example, the problematic arrangements with the Haredim ought to be the result of broad agreement, not of an accidental conjuncture that comes and goes. This is even more true when governments change every year, and the Knesset has no power at all (the government decides everything. In Israel there are only two branches, not three). Every 61 who happen to take power for two months change the constitution. Then 60 others come and change it again. Every passing breeze changes the legal situation in Israel.
2. Equality before the law is a self-evident principle. The legislator is not God, who by His utterance creates the heavens and by the very act of speaking creates binding norms. He is supposed to represent me and create laws that benefit society, not himself. He acts in my name, not as my exclusive and totalitarian ruler. After the correct and proper laws are created, he too is supposed to keep them. “The mouth that forbade” only means that his act is legally valid and effective; it does not mean it is proper. It is like a person who lies and says that he borrowed and repaid when there are no witnesses to the loan, even though he did not repay. He will claim that he has “the mouth that forbade,” and that is his justification for lying and for why the money indeed belongs to him. The religious court will accept it because he has “the mouth that forbade,” but that does not make his coercive act proper. The same applies here.
3. The various draft laws. All the laws passed in the current term that will be repealed in the coming term (tax on disposable goods, the cellular reform, and the like). Basic Law: The Government (regarding the number of ministers and parity arrangements), and many more.
   In the United States, to touch the constitution or add one amendment or another, you have to move heaven and earth. It almost never happens, even though there are many strong and justified interests in all directions (healthcare law—Obamacare, gun ownership, and more). Therefore the attitude toward the constitution there is also very serious and respectful. In Israel the attitude toward the law is completely dismissive, and nobody will talk to you seriously about obeying the law. You obey if there is a fear of getting caught. And that isn’t only because of “Israeliness”; it is also because of how the laws are passed.

But in the United States too, many laws change when power changes hands. For example, when Trump was in power he withdrew from the climate agreement, and when Biden came to power, on his very first day he immediately rejoined the climate agreement. Do you also see that as improper? The same thing happened with Obamacare, which Trump repealed when he took office.

And also, I don’t understand what alternative you are proposing. After all, it is the public that chose that same legislator whom you claim twists the law according to his will and convenience. If you have a problem with the will of the public, you can choose to leave it or choose to stay with it and accept its will.

The climate agreement is with other countries and not an internal law. But it has internal implications. Trump really is part of the problem. I don’t have an algorithm, but the current situation is intolerable. A law is supposed to reflect a more stable state than an accidental constellation. And again, the problem is not formal, since such a law is valid. The problem is that it is not proper to act this way, and the consequences are problematic. Of course, if Trump does one thing, now the question arises whether Biden is not supposed to pay him back in the same coin, because otherwise the criminals will always win. It takes two to tango.

I also remember that in the past you said you oppose entrenching laws by some special majority (like 80 Knesset members), and that 60 Knesset members ought to be enough to change any law, including Basic Laws or a constitution, because otherwise the minority ends up ruling the majority.

Correct. There is no contradiction. A stable majority of 61 is good; an accidental majority of 80 is bad.

You didn’t answer two questions: 1—What is the problem with the legislator changing laws? After all, he comes by the power of the people, who are not obligated to choose him and nevertheless choose him. The force of the law is only by the power of the people, isn’t that so?
2—What is the alternative—that the court, which does not reflect the will of the people, should decide on its own?
(Although there really is a principled problem in balancing the branches: on the one hand it cannot be that the court, which is an unelected minority, determines things for the majority; and on the other hand there needs to be someone who protects the minority too.)
Thanks!

I addressed both. It’s worth reading before asking.

The court has no army, no budget, and no appointments, and therefore it has less of an interest than the government.
The power of the court is (supposed to be) negative power and not creative power—a power that stops bad conduct, not a power to produce conduct of its own.

Theoretically, one could randomly choose 9 people from the street and appoint them to the Supreme Court as a negative body opposite the creative body of the government.
Maybe it would even be proper for their identities to be concealed and for no one to know who they are (there are cryptological tools that could work here).

The worst thing that could happen is to grant one person and his gang of servants absolute rule without limitation (because any limitation they could cancel with an override clause).

But by the very nature of the coalition system, there is a kind of give-and-take regarding laws. For example, regarding the draft law, I assume that Likud is in principle in favor of drafting Haredim, but it is willing to give up on that issue in order to advance other laws that are important to it, such as restrictions on the judicial system and a free market. In other words, in a coalition system, the formation of the majority group is by definition “accidental” in the sense that each subgroup looks for the “trading partner” that is most worthwhile for it in terms of the values and laws it is trying to advance.

In other words, if we return to the example you gave of someone who evades repaying his debt just because he can legally do so—there it is clear that the person who does it is aware of the moral wrong in what he is doing. But in our case, and in Israel’s legislative system, I don’t see what moral or meta-legal value the legislators are violating by the way they conduct themselves, especially if one tries to judge them on their own terms. At most, they are harming one value (if there even is such a value being harmed) in order to advance another value that is more important in their eyes (say, Torah study without interference from the army).

With God’s help, 15 Cheshvan 5783

I do not understand why there needs to be another vote in the Knesset on a law that the High Court justices claim is void. After all, the tenure of the judges is conditional on a “declaration of loyalty to the State of Israel and its laws.” If so, a judge who writes in black and white that a law of the state lacks validity has thereby nullified his declaration of loyalty to the laws of the state, and his status is that of one who has resigned.

There is therefore no need for any repeat vote. A judge who has canceled his commitment to one of the laws of the state ceases at that very moment to serve as a judge. His “ruling” and his resignation come as one!

With blessings, Shefatyahu Abu-Shahada the Long-Winded

The judge’s role is to be a brake against injustice.
Injustice done by the government (the majority). That’s what he is paid for.
When he nullifies a law because it contradicts another law or a Basic Law or runs counter to justice, that is precisely when he fulfills his role of being an attentive ear to anyone harmed by the government.
(When he justifies the government, his salary is unnecessary, since in any case that is what the government-majority wants. His whole job is to say where the mistake is, just like another arm called the State Comptroller, whose role is to warn about failures, not to hand out compliments.)
It’s exactly like the pedal that stops the driver,
out of the understanding that driving without brakes ends in death and destruction.
So every decent society appoints for itself balancing brakes to stop it where it is sliding.
Without brakes, they will certainly accumulate power that accumulates more power, and in the end tramples individuals and publics, and ultimately smashes society until there is no choice left—civil war.

Politicians are hard to trust.
For example, Bibi and his gang voted against the law that makes it possible not to grant citizenship every year to thousands of Arabs who uprooted themselves from Gaza and Shechem to Jaffa and Ramle (the law preventing family unification, stopping Arab migration to the State of Israel).
For example, Bibi and his gang voted against the Judea and Samaria regulations law that enables normal life for Israelis beyond the Green Line.

It allows the police to operate there and issue fines and in practice apply the sovereignty of Israeli rule (over Israelis), and it allows the arrest of terrorists there and their transfer into Israel for interrogation and the prevention of attacks, etc.

Again we see that it is dangerous to rely only on politicians, because at times desire and personal interest come before the good and peace of the public.

Without someone supervising from above and stopping things when they go too far and commit injustice, we will probably cease to exist here.
Especially since there is no division of power here—upper house and lower house, midterm elections, etc.
Rather all governing power will be concentrated only in a prime minister who also has the majority in the Knesset. That is a recipe for the destruction of Israel…

Sorry for the nagging, Rabbi, but is a column on the override clause that’s shaking the country expected to come out soon? Both addressing the law in an ideal reality and addressing the law in today’s political reality

Very soon. On the whole legal controversy.