Q&A: A Practical Look at the Reform
A Practical Look at the Reform
Question
I wanted to ask the Rabbi to what extent practical considerations are relevant when formulating policy for judicial reform in our neck of the woods.
A. If we assume that a reform would seriously damage Israel’s image and make things harder for IDF soldiers abroad (whether justifiably or not), is that in itself a good enough reason to oppose it, even if in some theoretical reality it is actually justified?
In other words, do decisions of this kind need to be made behind a “veil of ignorance”? Is a consideration like that treated as part of such a veil or not, and must these considerations necessarily always be evaluated only through a veil of ignorance?
B. It seems quite clear to me that judicial reform will only screw up our future in this country. It will give the Haredim an opening for large-scale rampaging, let the messianists celebrate with no accountability at our taxpayers’ expense, and move us further away from liberal values, etc. Shouldn’t considerations of this kind also be taken into account, even if in some utopian reality the system is not sufficiently balanced?
C. Isn’t it also worth taking the economic consideration into account? That is, it could be that the reform that is theoretically appropriate to enact would still be very harmful in practical economic terms, and then it would be better to retreat from it.
D. Isn’t there also room to take our governing culture into account? We do not live in Britain or New Zealand; our country is corrupt to the core and lacks any significant democratic culture compared to those countries (partly even in a built-in way through the Chief Rabbinate, for example). Shouldn’t that too be taken into account when, say, deciding that the Attorney General’s position is not binding?
Conceptually, it may really be preferable for her position to be merely advisory, but doesn’t the Rabbi worry that given our governing culture, if her position is only advisory, we will deteriorate drastically in the scope of corruption? Where, in practice, does the “veil of ignorance” come in in cases like this? Is the character of the state, its citizens, and its culture something that should be taken into account?
Thank you!!
Answer
A. Of course it is! What possible logic is there in instituting a reform that will harm us? The purpose of the reform is to improve our internal situation. If it turns out that there is external damage that outweighs the internal benefit, then of course that must be taken into account. The reform is not a value in itself, about which one could talk in terms of a veil of ignorance.
B. Obviously yes. I wrote exactly that. In my opinion it is very important to carry out reform, but not necessarily in the damaging way it is being done now. The distortions can be corrected (and there are distortions) without causing such damage. By the way, I saw today that a petition by professors supporting the reform was published. The presentation there is of course distorted and tendentious. They support reform—with a shva under the bet, not a patach. In other words, they support change and correcting the distortions, but not necessarily in the way this is being done. As for some of the signatories, this is not my assessment but a published fact. For example, Ron Shapira, Oman, and others. You understand that almost everyone would have signed the petition in that sense. The whole argument is about the dosage and the ways of solving the problem. There is almost no dispute that there are distortions that require correction. I think the number of those who hold that there are no distortions and everything is excellent (that no reform at all is needed) is far smaller than those who support it in its current form (Levin and Rothman’s version).
C. It is definitely important to take that into account. See section A (and also B).
D. You are repeating my point from the second-to-last column (548). It is entirely devoted to this point (and it also appears in the previous columns on the reform: 534, 544). I suggest that if you want to know my opinion, first read the columns I wrote about this, and then ask or comment.