Sunday, March 5, 2023

Supreme Reforms in Israel and Other Pressing (and not so pressing) Issues

As  we head into Purim 2023 (5783 according to the Jewish calendar), which starts tomorrow night - there is so much going on that it has  been difficult for me to find the time to write some updates.  I am back in Israel for a bit - and planning to read from Megillah Esther tomorrow night at our shul in K'far Saba.  We will also have the chance to read Tuesday morning, followed by a festive meal in the afternoon - a "Purim  Seudah."  

Here in Ra'anana, it was hotter than 30c today (more than 86F outside).  The streets of Ra'anana were  closed for the "Adloyada" parade - with floats of kids in costumes, loud music, and all kinds of festivities.  We took a walk and it was simply bustling and  vibrant - with kids (and sometimes their parents) in costume starting the Purim celebrations.  A nice distraction  I suppose from everything that is going on politically.

I don't intend to  dedicate  this blog  to  a full and detailed analysis of all of the political events taking place  here but I do want to spend some time dealing with a few major issues.

Israel's "Judicial  Reform"

First of all, the headline event in Israel is the proposed  "judicial reform."  You may have read or heard a variety of opinions  on this from different commentators - including  a  podcast by Elliot Abrams - or a Conrad Black article in the National Post.  You can also read any of a number of different articles in Haaretz or other publications  with other viewpoints.

The bottom line is that no matter what spin some of the right wing  commentators might try to put  on this, the current Israeli government's proposals amount to a dramatic weakening  of the power of the Supreme Court - and the transfer of that  power to any bare majority of the Knesset.  

The proposed legislation, which has passed a first reading  and may well pass second and third readings this week - involves four main proposals.  

The first proposal is to remove the power from the judges to conduct a judicial review of legislation on the basis of certain grounds that  have  been defined under  decades of Israeli law - including the ground of "reasonableness."  Although Israel  does not have a formal written  constitution, Israel's "Basic Law" has developed quasi-constitutional status and has provided the framework for judges to overrule legislation if it is deemed to violate the basic law.  The current governing  coalition argues that this tilts the state's power into the hands of the judges  rather than the  elected representatives.  The Netanyahu coalition would like to remove that power from the courts and, essentially,  allow the government  to pass any  type  of legislation it likes, with a bare majority and  with no judicial oversight.  They point to Canada's "notwithstanding  clause" in support of this  concept and the second  proposal.

The second proposal is to allow the Knesset, with a bare majority of any type, to overrule any decision of the Israeli Supreme Court.  As I mentioned, the proponents of this change cite Canada's "notwithstanding clause" as their source of inspiration for this legislative idea.

The  third proposal is to change the way judges are appointed so that the government in power is able to override other stakeholders and install any judges that it wants to install.  Here, the proponents of this idea rely on the  American experience.   Although the U.S. Senate can reject judicial  appointments, it rarely happens.  Trump is clearly the example of  how, in one term, a President can completely reshape the court politically.  The Netanyahu government is salivating at the prospect of installing a  "yes" court of the type that Trump managed to install in the U.S.

The fourth proposal involves turning the Attorney General position  into purely a political appointment and requiring appointed legal advisors to provide the advice and support that the  government is requesting - rather than  objective and legally supportable advice.

There are reasonable arguments about these proposals - especially when examined  individually.  

Defining the limits of "judicial review" in any democracy is an extremely important issue.  Ideally, a country should have a written constitution  to set  these limits and Israel does not.  But even in the absence of a specific written  constitution, the common law system  builds legal jurisprudence over time in the form of precedents.  Judicial review in Israel has been defined and delineated by Supreme Court Judges for more than 30 years and, in some cases, since the 1950s.  The idea of simply taking away power from the courts and overturning a wide range of judicial precedents, legislatively, does seem somewhat questionable.  Especially if it is for a particular political  goal.

The "notwithstanding" clause is less defensible. Sure Canada has one but nobody really points to it as one of highlights of the Canadian Charter.   In fact, it is probably one of the  key flaws, even though it was  part of a political compromise used to reach agreement on the Charter in the first place.  But  over the past few years, its use  has become ever  more frequent.  What use are a bunch of fundamental  guarantees of rights if they can  simply be overridden by a thin  majority?  Once the use of a notwithstanding  clause becomes politically acceptable and common, protected rights  lose their value. They  are no longer "protected."  Some members of the Israeli opposition - even  some on the  right - have proposed, at a minimum, a law that would limit the use of  this "notwithstanding" clause  to  situations where 2/3 or  3/4 of the Knesset would support it.  That  would be  better and might be the basis for a compromise on this issue but it is not currently being  proposed.

There is also a reasonable argument about how judges are appointed.  It is unclear which country has found the ideal approach to appointing judges.  One would hope that they would be appointed because of their  legal and academic qualifications and their experience  and not simply because of their viewpoints on certain political issues.  In Israel, 3 judges currently sit on the panel that appoints judges to the Supreme  Court - and any appointment has to get past these three judges - since  three members of the committee can  veto an appointment.  The Netanyahu government argues that this means the judges "appoint themselves" to the bench.  This is simply not true.  At the same time, there is a reasonable  argument that judges should not have  deciding power in appointing new judges to the Supreme Court.

The current proposals aim  to Americanize  the Israeli system and allow any sitting government to appoint the  judges it would like to see on the bench. This is a marked departure from the way things have  been  done in Israel since the  1950s and would represent a  significant degradation of the level of judicial independence  in Israel.

There are also reasonable legal arguments about the role of the Attorney General.

But the bigger issue, aside from examining each of these  proposals individually, is to look at the whole bundle of changes as  one  group of proposals and  to   assess the effects of these  changes and the context.

You have a current Prime Minister, who is, himself, facing a series of criminal charges  and  an ongoing criminal trial that is still in progress. As the  Prime Minister, he is forging ahead with a plan to weaken the court system, install new judges, limit the power of the court itself and then  provide that a bare majority (which he  now has) can override any decision of the Court.  

Moreover, he is also looking to pass legislation to reinstall Aryeh Deri, a thrice convicted criminal, into a senior cabinet  position in the  Israeli government even after the  Supreme  Court ruled 10-1  that he could not serve as a  cabinet minister because of these convictions.

In short, there is little argument that this whole "judicial reform" plan is a calculated  effort to weaken  the power of the courts, eliminate judicial oversight and allow Netanyahu and his government to  take control over the  courts, presumably as first step towards eliminating his own legal challenges.

Having a strong, independent judiciary is one  of hallmarks of a liberal democracy.   For  this reason, this power grab by Netanyahu and his cronies  has  caused so much backlash in Israel. It is a  recognizable and  transparent attack on Israel's liberal democratic character and the type of step that could  move Israel along the path towards Turkey, Mexico, Russia or other  autocratic countries.

As the  Netanyahu government continues  to advance these legislative initiatives, the  number of protesters continues  to increase. This past Saturday night, there were more than 200,000 demonstrators in Tel-Aviv and hundreds of thousands in other places across the country.

Despite some of the spin - this is not simply "sour grapes." Although Netanyahu and his supporters  won the election and earned the power to form the government, they were not  granted the power to gut the Israeli Supreme Court and pass legislation that would significantly erode the liberal democratic nature  of the state.  I would expect that the size  of these demonstrations  will continue  to increase and that we  will see other types of protests including general strikes and  other disruptions.

Terrorism  and Palestinian Issues

There  has  been a significant increase in the  number of Palestinian attacks on Jewish  Israelis in Israel  and in the  territories.  But that increase, at this point, cannot be  blamed on this relatively new  government.  There had already been a growing number of attacks under the previous government.

However, under previous  governments, the response  to these attacks was controlled by responsible  members of  government, even though there were certainly excesses from time to time.  Israel now has extremists in position of authority, controlling the  police and the army - or trying to, at least.  (The lines of authority are not entirely clear in Netanyahu's cabinet).

Following  an attack last week in which terrorists killed two  Jewish Israelis, Israeli settlers went on a rampage and attacked the town of Huwara (the town where the  terrorists were from), killing at least one resident of the town and injuring  more than 100, some  critically.   The government and the army failed  to stop  or prevent the attack.  Since then, two of the attackers have been arrested.  But one  of Netanyahu's Ministers, Betzalel Smotrich, said that the whole  town  should have been burned  down.  He later retracted his comments.   

The attack was nothing less than a "pogrom" and must be condemned  in the strongest of terms.  Going on a rampage and attacking innocent  civilians cannot possibly be part of the policies of any supportable government.  

There are several other issues but I will leave  some of them for a later blog.

And Now For Something Completely  Different: A few Other Issues:

Sports

As you know from  some of  my earlier blogs,  I do enjoy watching  NFL football and  I am  big fan  of the Buffalo Bills.   A very  promising season came to a disappointing ending, but I digress.  I came across an interesting  article about the  issue of violence in football and how  it meshes with Jewish values.  I found  it to be thought provoking, though I did not agree and  still watched the  game (which was a very exciting  super bowl).  Here is the Article - entitled American Football:  A Case  Study in the  Limits of Halakha.  Ultimately, my take is this.  The learned Rabbi uses  violence and the risk of injury to propose barring  the watching  of spectator sports from a perspective of Jewish law.  But  note that the Rabbi does not cite any alternative  sports as a more gainful pursuit.  He mentions hockey but indicates that  he knows nothing about  it.  Ultimately, his main point is that observant Jews should  simply spend their time studying  Torah  or engaged in other pursuits and presumably shouldn't waste their  time watching any spectator sports.

Many  sports involve the  risk of  injury - whether that includes  Olympic  diving, cycling, gymnastics, skating competitions  or the major competitive sports like football, hockey,  basketball and  soccer.  When competitors push themselves to the limit - in competitions that test the "Swifter, Higher, Stronger" motto, there are bound to be injuries.  Sometimes, recognizing the fact that these athletes are out there on the  edge is what makes  their accomplishments so exciting and so compelling.

I take the point that the  NFL may have more of an obligation to address  long  term injury  including brain injury.  I for one, would also support, for example, a rule that all hockey players have to wear  full face protection.  

But  overall, I'm not sure that I am prepared to agree with the  Rabbi  that all spectator sports are intrinsically a waste of time - though he  is not the first one  to make this argument.

I would  reject that argument, especially, as a Toronto Maple  Leafs' season ticket holder -  who continues to hope that the Leafs' Stanley Cup drought, which has  been in place since 1967, will  end  eventually  and the Maple Leafs will host a Stanley Cup  parade.   Ice Hockey is,  of course, a religion of  its own in Canada.  As  someone  who has played, coached and attended hockey games since the age of 6, I am not prepared to  conclude that involvement in hockey, as a whole,  somehow clashes with  any particular Jewish values.  In fact, when our kids were  growing up in Toronto,  all of the Jewish day schools participated  annually  in a one day ice hockey tournament - with as many as 12-14 teams participating from different Jewish day schools.   

The Toronto Conservative shuls, for  years, also ran a shul softball league.

Finding ways for people to stay in shape, often by getting  involved in different  group sports is probably something that should be encouraged and in accordance with  Jewish values, even though we  might prefer those sports that are less likely to lead to serious injury.  Often people who play the sports are also spectators of the professional versions.  

From the  perspective of a Torontonian, as you might know, the Maple Leafs made a host of trades and roster changes at the NHL trade deadline  to try and improve their playoff chances.  Unfortunately, they did not pick up a new  goalie.  Although I am hopeful that these changes  will improve the team, the  Leafs will have to play Tampa and Boston  in the first two rounds (Boston only if they beat Tampa).   I am not  entirely optimistic that they will be able to beat Tampa, let alone Boston.   But one  can always  hope.

This will involve some  very late night  viewing when  I am  in Israel.  The games tend to start at 2 a.m. or even 3 a.m.  Israel time.  I guess I will have to keep Toronto hours, even while spending time in Israel.

I think that is about all I have the time or energy for at this point, but I will take the time to wish everyone a happy Purim and hope that you all get the chance to eat some really good hamentaschen, hear the Megillah and, yes, have a drink or two, despite the new Health Canada guidelines (which propose eliminating all alcohol consumption).

I will try to address some other issues shortly including Israel's perspective on the Russia-Ukraine War, other proposals of the Netanyahu government and whatever else comes to mind, including perhaps my take on this year's Oscar candidates (I have gotten through 9 of the 10 nominees).  For now, as Torontonians emerge from 25-30 cm of new snow - I plan to enjoy the hot weather here in Ra'anana over coming weeks.








1 comment:

  1. A very concise and clear explanation of the main political concerns in Israel. Thank you. May there be a halt to legislation and negotiations start!🙏🏽

    ReplyDelete