Disregarding Millions of Democratic Votes

Ma’ariv, Israel, August 6

I am deeply worried about the chaos that Supreme Court Justice Esther Hayut is causing. Her brazen decision to fuel the fire of controversy is evident and far-reaching. Her determination that all Supreme Court judges must participate in the hearing over the petition to annul the amendment to the recent basic law passed by the Knesset appears to be a de facto declaration of war on the democratically elected government, and its implications are mysterious. The impending retirement of the justice has prompted her to seek to leave a legacy, even if it will create controversy for years to come. In my opinion, her behavior is clear and direct: she has made it plainly known how she views the necessary changes to the judicial system. This poses a blatant conflict of interest, one that no legal system should allow. A justice announcing how they will rule on a case before it has been heard is unfathomable. The sheer audacity of it is beyond description. Hayut is aware simply by discussing the issue could lead to widespread unrest. Unthinkable, then, is the possibility of what may happen following the judges’ decision on the matter brought before them. Instead of informing the petitioners on the unsuitability of the Supreme Court to debate the legality of a basic law passed by the Knesset, Hayut has established a “legal phalanx” of 15 justices. There is no other way for me to describe such a panel. Nine judges, headed by Chief Justice Hayut, unanimously decided to “amend” the so-called Tiberias Law, stating that the law will only come into effect following the upcoming local authority elections. Hayut requested that the discussion be broadcast to the public in real time, making it a revealing experience. Although the respondents’’ arguments were not warmly received by the judges, someone made a comment rather quickly, which made it clear that their opinion had already been independently formed. Furthermore, the legislator’s intention was not seen as binding on the judges. Recently, the Supreme Court invalidated a law that sought to incentivize foreign workers to return to their home countries upon the end of their employment in the country. It is clear that some seek to sow division rather than foster solidarity. Furthermore, there have been petitions calling for the repeal of an amendment to the basic law, which relates to the impeachment of a prime minister. Removing an incumbent prime minister in such a manner would certainly be a contested move. The absurdity of this situation is deeply concerning. It is unacceptable that millions of citizens’ votes at the ballot box could be disregarded and discarded. Such an affront to democracy is without comparison in the international arena. Logically, one would expect courts to show more intellectual rigor when approaching a decision of such magnitude; however, the failure to do so renders their deliberation highly questionable from the get-go. —Haim Misgav (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)