Q&A: The Rabbi’s View on the Judicial Revolution
The Rabbi’s View on the Judicial Revolution
Question
From what I see in your posts on the subject, it seems that you oppose the revolution in the judicial system, and you even called on people to demonstrate against it.
But from the general spirit of what you write, that doesn’t really fit you. I’ll explain..
Look at the Supreme Court rulings—what wickedness comes out of them, such as requiring payments to the family of a terrorist, requiring the granting of an award to a BDS supporter,
canceling demolition orders for terrorists, and many more cases like these—endless injustices against the people dwelling in Zion. I’m sure you’re aware of all these facts.
So I’m really puzzled that you, who always take care in everything you write to present things truthfully, with good judgment and in the ways of truth—how can someone like you come to terms with, or oppose, a move that the coalition is leading in order to fix this situation? What’s bad about it? Maybe the way they did it is flawed, maybe a constitution is needed. But to oppose it, including demonstrating?
Answer
I’ve explained this explicitly in several places. As is the way of supporters of the reform, you point to the difficulties and failures that make reform necessary. I agree. But the question is whether the proposed reform is the right one, or whether a different solution should be adopted. For that question, what matters is the consequences of the reform, not the problems that make reform necessary. The move being led by the coalition is a horror, just like its approach in almost every area. Not because there are no problems in the judicial system. There certainly are, and I’ve written about them more than once. But their reform makes it clear that what really interests them is neither the judicial system nor the state. It’s like killing a fly with a cannon. True, you’ll kill the fly, but you’ll create much worse problems.
And regarding the list of problems you raised, you weren’t right there either. A demolition order is not always justified, and every case needs to be examined on its own merits. They could also issue a demolition order against you, and you wouldn’t want there to be no system that reviews such decisions. People have rights, and it is important to protect them, even when deterrence and punishment are needed. And there is more to discuss here.
More generally, it is very convenient for the coalition to dump everything on the Supreme Court. But no reform is needed to solve all those problems. Let them pass a law saying not to pay a terrorist’s family, and that’s it. They don’t legislate, but then they come with complaints against the Supreme Court. Too bad people are taken in by their demagoguery.
That doesn’t mean every one of the Court’s decisions is reasonable and sensible. But there are many decisions that people declare to be mistaken and miserable without reading them and without hearing the reasoning behind them. It isn’t always so.
Discussion on Answer
This is hysteria with no real justification. Politics fuels it. Try for a moment to step outside the atmosphere you live in and think coldly.
Far more people are harmed in car accidents, and no one would dream of restricting civil rights regarding travel on the roads. Taxes on sugary drinks can save far more lives than preventing terror attacks, and for some reason here there’s a debate over whether that’s appropriate or not. Judicial oversight allows us to demolish homes because the world does not set international legal institutions on us, since they trust our internal checks. Everyone who understands anything says this, including the most experienced and most right-wing security people (Yoram Cohen, Alsheikh). But the right ignores them and labels them all brainwashed leftists.
And beyond all that, nobody has proven how many attacks would have been prevented if houses had been demolished more aggressively. It may be that the opposite is true. Controlled demolition does indeed deter (though not completely). Denial of rights and uncontrolled demolition are harmful because they create hatred and greater motivation to attack. The assumption that more force always works better should disappear after age 20 (in the Armored Corps they say that what doesn’t work by force works by even more force). It’s childish and fits Ben-Gvir, not serious people. The arsonists who dance on the blood and every time there’s an attack explain to us that all restraints should be removed and we should go wild—these are destructive forces. Don’t forget that if the restraints are lifted, they will also be lifted with respect to Jews who break the law, and certainly with respect to hilltop youth and the like. And then of course everyone will cry about violations of civil rights. You’re not a terrorist, but a policeman or soldier could decide tomorrow that you are. Or you, or your cousin who is hilltop youth. Who will limit that? Preserving the framework of law and rights is very important, even when we are angry. Institutions without checks and without limits are very dangerous. By the way, that is a distinctly right-wing position. The right advocates rights and freedom, a strong court and a weak government. The left advocates the opposite. But as usual אצלנו they call left right and right left.
I’m not saying there is no room to discuss security policy and legal constraints, but the situation is far from what you describe. It’s worth pausing for a moment and being willing to think calmly and sensibly, and not let emotion and anger (justified though they are) run us.
It doesn’t matter. In practice you can see that hilltop youth really don’t have human rights in the eyes of the judicial system. There’s no getting around it—it seems that people really are sitting in the judicial system who hate settlers (students of Aharon Barak), and they hide behind an allegedly objective veneer of law enforcement (rather pathetically, it must be said). Especially after what Mordechai brought in one of the columns here. That’s the simple impression. The right knows this very well, and therefore it doesn’t matter how they throw them out—as long as they throw them out.
Completely aside from that, the houses need to be demolished at least from the standpoint of simple justice, not only from the standpoint of deterrence. There’s no point in establishing a state if we take international law into account. Oversight takes far too long. And the Arabs hate us in any case and are only afraid. There’s no need to look for reasons why they’ll hate us. As a collective (the residents of the village from which the attacker came, or the clan), they are guilty of every nationalist terror attack (especially the Palestinians).
And indeed all these “right-wingers” are not right-wing at all. They’re just power-hungry. Aside from being in power, they believe in nothing, like Gallant (and Dichter and Barkat). They’ll do anything to stay in power, and their environment is indeed leftist, and since they are not people with a developed critical sense (they are not philosophers, to put it mildly), then at the moment of truth they will be leftists. For the sake of quiet they will do anything, and justice does not interest them at all (see Gallant’s administrative detentions).
I don’t know why we need to take into account the human rights of people who do not take our human rights into account (in their eyes our blood is forfeit).
B, it’s hard to miss that you’re bitter and angry, and it scrambles your arguments. Endless conspiracy theories that can’t be disproved, and each time you burden us again with the same clichés. Please spare us these sermons. It may give you catharsis, but I don’t think anyone really learns anything from it.
And yes, I know I didn’t raise arguments here. Simply because, in my assessment, there’s no point. Talking to a wall is not one of my hobbies. It’s hard to argue with trolls.
Sorry for the bluntness, but the quantity and repetitiveness are already bordering on trolling (from the wrong side of the border).
Regarding what you wrote in the original answer: at the level of principle you’re right that significant percentages of the problems blamed on the Supreme Court are also the politicians’ fault (though in my opinion not to a degree that completely exempts the Supreme Court of responsibility, but only adds the politicians to the blame, including those on the right). But the specific example you gave is mistaken. The Knesset did in fact pass a law revoking citizenship from terrorists, whose purpose was to prevent National Insurance payments to them and their families, but the Supreme Court decided that revocation of citizenship is only declarative, and that the National Insurance payments must continue despite the law.
I’m no longer bitter or angry—I’ve not been for a long time already (I got past that stage two years ago. I no longer have any expectations of fairness whatsoever from the left). It is indeed regrettable for the Jewish people (which the left does not exactly belong to at the moment), but it doesn’t affect me personally, since I haven’t been in the army for a long time, I don’t pay taxes at all, and I don’t live in the settlements. That’s a problem for those on the right who do those things and serve as slaves to the left. In any case, I say what I say as I see it, and that’s it—the voter will choose. At the very least it is my duty to present things as they are. I don’t know why you call these conspiracy theories. That really is how I see things (and I’m not the only one). I look at the person behind the words. When someone presents me with an argument, the first thing I care to know is whether he is deceiving me (and himself) and doesn’t really believe what he’s saying. That comes before everything. There’s no point discussing human rights with someone if I’m convinced that the person talking about them doesn’t believe in them at all. The fact that it can’t be disproved means nothing, because this is an immediate impression (like an axiom). And anyone who disagrees has permission to disagree, but I write this in order—again—to cause other people to look at things and see for themselves. The problem is not even turning one’s gaze there at all, not in what one sees. You have no trust in politicians—that’s your right. Did I come to you with complaints about that? So I have even less trust in bureaucrats.
Also, I’m not insulted by the bluntness (what you said wasn’t really that blunt). I don’t know why you call it preaching. There’s no problem repeating things many times if it’s from different angles that shed new light on the issue. And preaching is not a dirty word either. Sometimes things need to be repeated in order to make people look and see whether the outcry is justified or not. Preaching arouses that kind of interest.
Let people read and form an impression. I don’t know why you’re getting so worked up about it.
Seeking Truth,
Even in that example, the Knesset could have amended the law and clarified that it was not merely declarative. The final word is always in its hands.
But that’s the problem—if they pass a law, it won’t be worth much, because the Supreme Court is very liable to strike it down or interpret it differently and gut it.
Like they do all the time when the government approves demolishing terrorists’ homes and they cancel it (one example out of many).
By the way, I’m not sure that in the extreme situation we live in, it’s possible to go into all the details—for example what you said, that a demolition order isn’t always justified. There is a situation here of threat to civilians unlike probably anywhere else in the world, and apparently there’s no choice—if we want to reach a point where people will see and fear—to do such extreme things. Every case should be examined on its own merits—that’s a correct rule, I agree—but there’s another rule, that in extreme situations this kind of conduct erodes deterrence. Obviously I wouldn’t want them to demolish my house, but I’m not a terrorist, my family aren’t terrorists, and the overwhelming majority of our people are not like that.
Among our cousins, sadly, the situation is completely different.