Q&A: Hypocrisy on the Border of Illegality???
Hypocrisy on the Border of Illegality???
Question
Good evening!
1 – If the government were now to pass a law circumventing the High Court of Justice, there would likely be protests asking how it could possibly do such a thing in wartime. Yet the High Court is supposedly allowed to do so because it is not driven by politics, but only upholds the law, nothing more.
But now that we officially know that the High Court is a political player (after all, it did not have to publish now, and especially since it was leaked that the judges were pressured to finish now. In other words, Esther Hayut did not come merely to uphold the law, because if so then nothing would have happened if the judges after them had done it. Rather, she sees herself as protecting light and justice, and therefore insists on being and creating the “right side”), and now it has issued a ruling that may be one of the most important rulings ever in democracy anywhere in the world!!!
So it acted illegally, since its job is to be a judge and not a politician. If so, ostensibly the ruling should be invalid (beyond the legal question of whether it is valid and whether the High Court even has such authority), simply by virtue of being an openly political ruling?
In my opinion, it may be that not only should the ruling be void, but perhaps she is also in breach of her duty as a judge and should be held accountable, no?
2 – Yesterday I watched Channel 12, and they were shocked by the case in which Orit Strook asked whether it could be that there are conscientious objectors in the squadron. The military spokesman replied that this is a question he does not even want to answer, and Bibi responded that first of all he is of course right that there are no such cases, and second, Bibi remarked that one does not speak that way to a minister.
On Channel 12 they cried out over how Bibi spoke that way and did not also attack and mock those conspiracies.
Isn’t that hypocrisy, consciousness engineering, and unbelievable nerve? After all, it is obvious that Bibi detests Strook’s nonsense, and as he made clear in defending the IDF, but he behaved in a statesmanlike way and respected her in her role as a minister.
I keep noticing that despite the claims that Bibi is not statesmanlike, it is exactly the opposite! True, he is a consummate liar, but he is always statesmanlike and respectful; he does not burst into other people’s speeches. That is statesmanship, isn’t it?
Thank you very much!
Answer
I debated whether to delete this. The question marks should certainly be deleted here, because they appear only to enable publication of your position under the guise of a question in the responsa section. For now I’ll leave it.
Discussion on Answer
Still, let me summarize my claims again, though I would be glad if the Rabbi would address the broader questions:
1 – My claim is that the High Court acted politically in an openly declared way (since it leaked that pressure was applied to the judges), and if so it has been proven that they are cynically using the claim that they are only upholding the law, whereas now it has been shown that they are a political side.
The conclusion that follows from this is both that there is no authority for this ruling (I do not mean because of the ruling itself, where one can discuss whether it is within the High Court’s authority), and therefore it should in principle be void. And also that the judges exceeded their role and therefore should bear the consequences (whatever those may be)?
2 – My claim is: am I right that in this case it was דווקא Bibi who behaved with the required statesmanship?
Thank you very much!
I was referring mainly to the question marks inside your question, not in the title. I have no problem with your reasoning; I just don’t see a question here, only the expression of a position (albeit a reasoned one).
1. I do not know what pressures you are talking about. There are public pressures in all directions, of course, and there are also pressures from the government and the Knesset. I don’t think the politicization here is clear-cut enough to say that the ruling is void, even though I strongly oppose it, as I answered just now:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%9e%d7%94-%d7%93%d7%a2%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%91-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%a4%d7%a1%d7%a7-%d7%94%d7%93%d7%99%d7%9F-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%91%d7%92%d7%a5-%d7%9c%d7%91%d7%99%d7%98%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%97/#answer-84468&comment=78888
2. What does Bibi have to do with this now? I agree that one may ask anything, and I agree that there is no point in pouncing on someone who asks something that is not to my liking.
1 – If it leaked that the judges were pressured to finish now, isn’t that completely political (after all, if all they care about is “the law,” then what is wrong with the law being implemented by the judges afterward)?
2 – I asked two different questions; one of them was about Bibi. And my question was: was his response appropriate?
Thank you very much!
1. Who pressured them? They themselves needed to publish a ruling by the president and Baron within the time set by law. As far as I know, this was the judges’ own decision and not pressure from outside. As for the question whether to leave it to other judges, there is logic in finishing it with the panel that addressed the question from the outset. There is not necessarily anything improper in that.
2. Obviously yes. What is the question? This is exactly an example showing that these were answers, not questions.
Now I see that the title indeed does not necessarily fit both questions; if that matters, they can be split.
And in general, when Levin is not convening the committee for appointing judges and it is unclear when additional Supreme Court justices will be chosen, the time when there will be replacements is far from clear. So the government expects them to postpone the decision for more years, and thus the amendment to the law will become entrenched without review? These are just tendentious and disingenuous arguments.
Is one allowed to ask any question?
Would we accept a situation in which a minister asks whether it is true that settlers prepare matzah from the blood of small Palestinian children?
Would the prime minister then say that the answer is no, but that one should respect the minister and answer the question?
If he has a significant concern that this is indeed the case—not only is it permitted to ask, one must ask. The comparison you are making between this case and what happened with Orit Strook is part of that same cheap demagoguery that I objected to here.
If Orit Strook has data, she is welcome to share it with us.
If all she has are conspiracies she heard from her friends, then she should quietly clarify it with the prime minister before spreading slander.
If she just wants to spread a blood libel, then there is no difference between her question and mine.
That is exactly what she did. She clarified it with the prime minister and army officers to see whether there was anything to it. Whoever leaked it did so in order to stir up this stupid pile-on.
There is no way I wrote the question marks in order to publish my position, but only to give a more interesting title, as I always do when I ask—and I ask quite a bit!
I think I definitely asked worthy questions. I explained myself and made the effort to present my position clearly (which I am always prepared to change). Also, I did not get inflammatory at all or express an emotional position; rather, I presented an argument that seems to me valid and worthy.
So I would absolutely be glad to hear the Rabbi’s opinion. And yes, by all means, the question marks can be deleted.
Thank you very much!