From reading almost all your books, I know that you have or had a good relationship with Nadav Shnerb, who is also a very smart person.
I read his views on Facebook and see that he thinks completely differently from you, despite the very similar things in your worldviews, so that’s interesting. (Just as an aside.)
Do you really think the balance is reasonable and that it leads to sensible outcomes in the country? (For example, the recent Eritrean incident.)
Don’t you think the government is almost completely neutered when it comes to setting policy?

Not at all neutered, at least not by the court. Sometimes there are deviations this way or that, but the balance is pretty reasonable. It can be improved, and that’s why I support reform, but not in the form this coalition wants, and not anything that this horrendous coalition would do.

Do you support changing the composition of the committee for appointing judges?

Don’t you accept the assumption that sovereignty is indivisible, meaning that in the end there is only one body whose view is accepted, and if the High Court has the power to override the Knesset, then it is sovereign and not the Knesset?

It depends what change. Obviously, under no circumstances if it gives the coalition a majority.

Absolutely not. That kind of black-and-white way of looking at things is childish, with all due respect.

How can the Rabbi write now that the balances are reasonable, if the Rabbi wrote more than once over the years that they were not so (in several different posts)?

I don’t remember writing otherwise.

Applying to a parliamentary democracy principles from a system foreign to it causes an ongoing failure. Parliamentary democracy does not accept Montesquieu’s principles of separation of powers (he was feudal anyway), and therefore the artificial separation between the executive and the legislature, which it does not have, is not a problem from its point of view. Why is this so hard to understand?

I’m here to remind Michi of what he wrote in the past (in the column “Desert Oasis”) praising the Zehut party (which of course included a total overhaul of the judicial system, next to which Levin’s original reform looks like child’s play).

Well then, this is what Michi wrote:

“Bennett and Shaked are also a relatively reasonable option, since they too are intelligent people who from time to time talk about ideas, though they are much less formed and deal with a much narrower slice (‘like the world of an ant’). But in my assessment, beyond continuing to deal with balancing the judicial system, there is nothing relevant on the table in regard to which they have an agenda with added value.”

According to what is written here, it דווקא seems that you very strongly support action that would indeed balance the judicial system.
That is, in your opinion today it is very much not balanced.
And not only that, but you apparently see this as very important.

The reminder.

Y.D., even in parliamentary democracies today there are mechanisms for decentralizing power.
Before you jump to New Zealand, I’ll respond already:
There is not much similarity between our system of government and the system in New Zealand. There the prime minister serves by virtue of the king’s confidence, not parliament’s. As a rule they do not have statutory powers; rather, there is the royal prerogative that parliament legislated. The king delegates most of his powers to the prime minister, and he delegates powers to ministers. The cabinet is not even a statutory body but a committee of the king’s privy council, and the delegation of powers to the prime minister is accompanied by his undertaking to consult with the cabinet. Because of the district-based system, coalitions of many small parties are very rare there (the government is one or two parties), and political-coalitional extortion there is a rare event. Since the prime minister serves by virtue of the king’s confidence, minority governments are also not uncommon there. As long as parliament has not expressed no confidence, the government continues to serve.

In short, the entire system of decentralization of power and checks and balances in New Zealand, as in Britain, is completely different from Israel’s. As a last resort there is the king, who is formally the head of the executive branch but delegates almost all of his powers to the prime minister. The king is commanded by law in New Zealand to protect democracy. He is also part of parliament. He has authority to dissolve parliament, though this is delegated to the prime minister. So in New Zealand, as in Britain, there is something far more extreme than the High Court. There is a person who received his role by inheritance and has unchecked authority (apart from governmental tradition) to dismiss the prime minister and the whole government and dissolve parliament. Opposite him is parliament, which has sovereignty and can change the royal prerogative. That same person also appoints the judges there (though on the recommendation of the justice minister or another minister). Tradition requires that he respect the recommendation, but as noted, all the traditions there are maintained because everyone maintains them. That is, the government and parliament do not go wild in a way that endangers democracy there, the recommendations for judicial appointments are sensible and are based on professional recommendations. Everyone’s incentive to keep maintaining those traditions is that if someone breaks them, everyone will break them, and their fate at the end of such a process is unknown. But ultimately they have a completely different governing culture there, and it is considered utterly immoral there not to uphold the governing traditions.

Beyond that, Prof. Anat Scolnicov shows that New Zealand also joined the UN human-rights treaty mechanisms that allow individuals to file direct petitions. Israel is not a member of these mechanisms, which clearly would also accept complaints from residents of Israel and the territories under its control much more broadly than the court here would (in Britain, as is known, there is also a House of Lords and subordination to the European Court of Human Rights).

And the most important thing:
Democracy is first and foremost a governing culture and an established tradition. The British and New Zealanders have a long democratic tradition, and they are more liberal countries than Israel, with a governing culture that is far, far less corrupt and with a different situation in everything connected to religion and state (there is no religious coercion there, no corrupt, coercive, rotten Chief Rabbinate there) and to the security situation. Is this a comparison between apples and oranges? In my opinion the answer is yes. Here, I have no doubt that reform of the judicial system will make the State of Israel less liberal, with greater governmental corruption and greater extortion by exploitative minority groups (and it is obvious whom I mean first and foremost), and, as stated, with no oversight mechanisms over democracy, unlike even the situation in New Zealand as I described it.

“Political-coalitional extortion” as absolutely exists in Israel, according to the Israeli situation of course.

Thanks for the reminder. I’m here to help you with reading comprehension and rescue you from your bias.
All I can do is remind you of what I wrote here at the beginning of the thread (I’m sure that if you weren’t so determined to help and remind us what was written here in the past, you would have managed to remember what was written just now):

“Sometimes there are deviations this way or that, but the balance is pretty reasonable. It can be improved, and that’s why I support reform, but not in the form this coalition wants, and not anything that this atrocious coalition would do.”

Glad to help.

I apologize, Michi, I read the current quote, but I wasn’t convinced.

There is no fit between the quote in your current article and the previous quote, from which it implies that you strongly support a very serious reform in the balances (Bennett’s plan, and even more so, Feiglin’s plan). That is, you hold that there are no good balances, and therefore the court’s power should be greatly weakened, and you even recommended voting for Zehut because of this (and praised Bennett for pushing this issue).

I actually think that you are the one changing your mind, and your hatred for Bibi and Likud is suddenly causing you to say that “I think the balances are reasonable.”
Of course you won’t admit that, for obvious reasons 🙂

By the way, it’s not just me; the fact is that at least one other reader reminded you of this.

But who am I to decide—the quotes are before the readers.
Let them read and judge which of us is right.

All right, I went back to read what I wrote there. And in light of what I found, it seems to me that I haven’t seen such a biased reading as yours in a very long time.
I supported Feiglin throughout that whole column mainly because he has a platform (though I pointed out the dangers of a platform that is too fully formed). Nothing whatsoever was mentioned about the judicial system (!).
Only in footnote 3 did I write two sentences:

“Bennett and Shaked are also a relatively reasonable option, since they too are intelligent people who from time to time talk about ideas, though they are much less formed and deal with a much narrower slice (‘like the world of an ant’). But in my assessment, beyond continuing to deal with balancing the judicial system, there is nothing relevant on the table in regard to which they have an agenda with added value.”

That’s it. That was my entire reference there to balancing the judicial system.
From this you inferred that there is a contradiction between that and the following sentence that I wrote here:

“Sometimes there are deviations this way or that, but the balance is pretty reasonable. It can be improved, and that’s why I support reform, but not in the form this coalition wants, and not anything that this atrocious coalition would do.”

If anyone manages to find a difference, even under a microscope, I’ll lead after him the desire of my heart to the bathhouse.
Oh, and I forgot there is a majority against me (because there was one more person here who wrote like you). Again the scum from the protest are stealing from you the voice of the majority. Where is democracy? It reminds me of the Kotzker’s saying on the midrash on the verse “And truth was cast to the ground.” There was a debate between Truth, Peace, and Justice over whether to create man. There was a tie between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Justice, and between Truth and Peace, so in a democratic move He chose to cast Truth to the ground and decide by majority to create man. And the Kotzker asks: why did He cast down Truth specifically and not Peace? And his answer: if Truth had remained above in the minority, the majority would have been of no use. Against the truth there is no majority. Mark this well.

In summary, your apology is accepted. Indeed there is no fit between my positions here and there (which are completely identical) and what you keep insisting on putting into my mouth because of your bias. I understand that it is very hard for you to retract a simple and obvious mistake. That’s okay, we’re all human.
It seems to me I’m done with this trolling discussion.

Of course there’s no problem with your saying that this is childish thinking, but Nadav Shnerb raised the argument itself and has been trying to explain the whole thing for a long time, and I don’t think his thinking is childish.
In any case, in any group of people that has an army, there is some body that tells the army what to do and the army does it; it can be a king, parliament, commanders, judges, whoever is stronger, or Yuval Hamebulbal, whatever. It can be some combination of them (on Tuesday the army itself and on Wednesday the government), but if there is one body that decides x (the government) and a second body that decides y (the court), and in every case the army will do y, then sovereignty lies with the second body and only with it. It can consult the first ones or accept their view, but its decision is the one that determines.

I think at least one thing can be inferred from the article about “Zehut”:
You strongly supported what Bennett and Shaked were running on in 2019—cutting back the court—“Shaked will beat the High Court” (published in every corner of the country). Here I feel this is pretty certain.
In addition, I’d bet that you also knew what Feiglin wrote about the courts and supported him partly because of that too (even more extreme than Bennett and Shaked), but here I feel less certain.

In a few lines I’ll simply copy here what Bennett and Shaked wrote in their platform.
It should be noted that this goes further than Levin’s original reform (link below).
And as stated, from your article about “Zehut” one can understand that you supported this with all your heart, mind, and soul, and even noted it to their credit in the case of Bennett and Shaked.

So yes, Michi, there is a huge difference between Shaked and Bennett’s platform (and certainly Feiglin’s) and your definition that “the balance is pretty reasonable.”
I’m truly convinced that you don’t really think the balances are reasonable. In the past you strongly supported a reform deeper than Levin’s reform, and you simply changed your mind because right now your “beloved ones” from Likud, from the messianics, and from the Haredim are in power, and because the whole nation has turned on them, and you are biased and going along with whoever is against Likud-Haredim-messianics for reasons that are not logical-intellectual reasons, but other reasons.

And I very much request that you not call a legitimate and very serious analysis I am carrying out regarding your clear flip-flop “trolling.”

I also believe that a large part of the readers here on the blog agree with what I’m writing, but they simply respect you and won’t comment that it seems to them that I’m right.

Let the readers judge what you praised Bennett and Shaked for. Here, please, from the New Right platform:

“We will act to regulate the relations between the Knesset and the judicial branch through a general override clause accompanied by special arrangements limiting the very possibility of invalidating primary Knesset legislation and an explicit prohibition on discussing the legality of Basic Laws.
We will act to limit the grounds for court intervention in government policy to illegality alone, and not broad claims of ‘reasonableness’
or ‘proportionality’.
We will continue the revolution of judicial restraint led by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked in the 20th Knesset.
We will act to anchor the activity of the institution of legal advice to the government through explicit authorization in primary legislation. The new law will regulate its modes of operation, its responsibility, and the duties of the advisory system toward the government. The law will determine the ways of advising and the manner of the government’s authentic representation vis-à-vis the other authorities so that the friction created between the government and its advisers will be significantly reduced.
We will act for greater flexibility in appointing senior officials in the public service, in order to increase the government’s governability.”

יש ללחוץ כדי לגשת אל %D7%94%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A2.pdf

The Reminder,
What you quoted from Bennett and Shaked doesn’t look like such a radical reform. In addition, he added a side sentence in the article on this subject, and it was not at all a central issue in the article. Besides that, the wording was very mild: “continuing to deal with balancing the judicial system.” I’m not hearing radical reform or extreme change from that.

Defender,
I don’t know whether what Bennett and Shaked proposed is considered radical. I have to measure it relative to Levin’s reform.

It is more far-reaching than Levin’s reform. There is a proposal here for the total abolition of reasonableness and proportionality.

There is a clear statement here against the legal advisers (and a promise to deal with them). And also a pretty clear hint that there would be a change in the composition of the judges, so that it would be more convenient for the government to govern.

To me this looks like a clear declaration, מצד Bennett and Shaked, that the current situation is not balanced.

Now, if indeed Bennett’s reform > Levin’s reform, and there is agreement that Levin’s reform claims that the situation is not balanced, then all the more so Bennett’s reform also holds that there is imbalance.

Therefore, how do you explain that Michi supported Bennett’s reforms, and even declared that this is the main thing Bennett and Shaked do correctly, when today he holds that the current situation is relatively okay?

To Y.K.,
I wasn’t talking at all about the sovereignty of the people versus the courts, but solely about the fact that the principle of separation of powers is not relevant to a parliamentary system in which the government intentionally comes out of parliament (and only thus earns its confidence).