The new buzzword in the Israeli Judicial crisis has been in the last few days “Compromise”. The president, Yitzhak Herzog, has published a “Compromise“ proposal to replace the “reform” proposals by the government. This compromise is supposed to become acceptable to all sides, including both the Fascist extremists in the government, as well as the opposition, including the half a million Israelis that are twice weekly taking to the street to protest the destruction of their Democratic country.
However, what is a “Compromise”? According to the Dictionary Brittanica, a compromise is “a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute”. In the case of the Israeli judiciary conflict, there has been no discussion between the opposing parties and certainly, no agreement was reached, with the Fascist government insisting on moving the legislation destroying Israeli democracy forward as quickly as possible. And even if some of the opposition indicated that aspects of the proposal by the president would be acceptable, without a partner to discuss the issue, no compromise can be reached.
There are instances though, where a compromise is not possible for the simple reason that there is no middle ground. And Democracy does not have middle ground. If basic rules and definitions are not met, there is no democracy. There is no such thing as “half a Democracy”. Or as many in Israel claim a “Jewish Democracy”. Democracy is an all-or-nothing situation, which leaves no room for compromise.
The methods used to choose judges
The methods used to choose and appoint judges may vary, and the world over, different formulas are used to appoint judges, some considered better than others. But the moment when politicians, i.e. the executive and legislative branches of government obtain control over the appointment of judges, the basic rule of democracy, i.e. the separation between the three different branches of government, is violated, and politicians will have control over the judiciary branch and thus over who will judge them and their actions. This is unacceptable and no compromise over this is possible or should be accepted. A discussion about the methods used to choose judges may be helpful and it is not impossible that a better method may be found than the one in use currently in Israel, as long as the ground rule, that politicians cannot be involved is obeyed.
Judicial Oversight
The task of the judiciary branch in a democratic system is to ascertain that the legislative branch does not approve laws that are in conflict with existing laws (the Constitution, in a real democratic state). Israel does not have a Constitution (the reasons for this involve the opposition of those who want a “Jewish” state) but there are so-called “Basic Laws” which take the place of a Constitution until such is written up. Once of the core demands of the “Judiciary Reform” is the “Override Law”, which would allow the legislative branch in Israel to pass laws and enact them after the Judiciary branch has declared them illegal. This opens the door to the legislation of laws that ignore basic rights of minorities, laws that gives rights and privileges to some population groups while denying them to others, and laws that will curb the personal freedom of all Israelis. There is no need to explain why the two extremist parts of the current government (the Fascists and the Religious) demand this law as quickly as possible.
The neutralization of the Judiciary system will give the legislative branch, and with that, the executive branch, near-unlimited powers to pursue their policies, also if they are illegal. Compromise is not an option here, not even if the president of Israel himself does advocate it. This does not mean that discussions on the methods used in Israel to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, are not possible and may even be important. A review of the ground rules and the work methods that are in use today may very well result in a better functioning system. As long as the intentions of the participants in such discussions are intend on improving the system, not to destroy it.
And, while at it, it would be a benefit to all if they would attack and finally dispel what is no doubt the basis for most of the pressures on the democratic system in Israel: “Israel is a Democratic and Jewish State”. The Big Lie, that was started in 1948 has only led Israel becoming less and less democratic and more and more Jewish. Because it simply cannot be both.
I hope you found this article interesting and I welcome any comments you may have.
If you register on the site, you will be receiving a notice when new articles are posted.
