Israel Hayom is a media organization founded on the belief that the Israeli public deserves better journalism—more balanced, more accurate, and more reliable. Journalism that speaks rather than shouts. Journalism that is trustworthy, objective, and matter-of-fact. A different kind of journalism, offered free of charge. The first print edition was published on July 30, 2007, and in 2010 Israel Hayom became the Israeli newspaper with the highest weekday readership. The newspaper’s publisher is Dr. Miriam Adelson. Its Editor-in-Chief is Omar Lachmanovitch, and its founding editor is Amos Regev. Israel Hayom’s Hebrew and English websites, as well as its Android and iOS applications, provide around-the-clock news coverage, exclusive content, breaking news and updates, analysis and commentary, video, podcasts, and live broadcasts. The digital platforms of Israel Hayom include news and opinion channels covering culture and entertainment, lifestyle, technology, sports, business and consumer affairs, health, military affairs, food, Judaism, tourism, and automobiles. In 2021, a new Hebrew-language website and mobile application were launched to provide users with a fast, up-to-date, secure, and convenient experience. The content of the newspaper’s print edition is also available online through a daily digital edition and can be received via newsletter. “The Israel Hayom Clique,” the publication’s exclusive benefits club, offers website users discounts and special promotions on products and services. Israel Hayom welcomes feedback, criticism, and suggestions for improvement from its readers. You can contact the organization by email at hayom@israelhayom.co.il

Walter E. Block

Walter Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and a professor of Economics at Loyola University, New Orleans.

The Supreme Court's unreasonable approach

Among many other things, the Supreme Court of Israel insists upon its right to vet the personnel decisions of the Knesset in the names of reasonableness. In other words, it will substitute its tastes, desires, goals, preferences for those of the duly elected representatives by the electorate of that nation.

 

There is nothing wrong with reasonableness. It is reasonable, after all, and what could be better? Unreasonableness? Perish the thought. Nor can there be any serious reservation about the use of this criterion for the Supreme Court of Israel. That country has no Constitution, or Bill of Rights that in other nations with such documents would bind their Supreme Courts. What other criterion may for the Supreme Court of Israel apply, if not that? Certainly not unreasonableness. That would be unreasonable and should be rejected on that ground alone.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Among many other things, the Supreme Court of Israel insists upon its right to vet the personnel decisions of the Knesset in the names of reasonableness. In other words, it will substitute its tastes, desires, goals, and preferences for those of the duly elected representatives by the electorate of that nation.

To many, this appears to be the height of unreasonableness. After all, given at least some semblance of respect for the democratic processes, members of the Knesset were duly elected, while those of the high court were merely appointed.

But this does not yet even begin to get at the deviations of these sorts of rulings from the niceties of democracy. For who appointed the members of the Supreme Court of Israel? Why, other members, previously appointed ones! That is to say, the Israeli Supreme Court is a self-perpetuating organization, pretty much completely independent of the wishes of the voters of that nation.

Suppose that the constituency wishes a 180-degree change in policy, in what is considered "reasonable." Posit that this is a super majority of 99%. It is almost unanimous. At the very next election, the membership of the Knesset will alter so as to reflect this sea change in preferences. But membership of the court will not change by one iota. It will march blithely forward, totally unaffected. This system thus begins to resemble dictatorship, not anything associated with democracy.

Posit that the membership of the court was initially based upon appointment by the Knesset and thus at least indirectly by the voters. Then, this system resembles nothing so much as one vote, one time.

There are two possible remedies to this lamentable state of affairs. First, Israel moves from a unicameral system to a bicameral one. At present, the Knesset is the only legislative body. This way of dealing with the imbroglio is to consider the Supreme Court as a second, and equal partner in this vein. There would be not one but two "houses" each one voted upon, directly, by the entire citizenship. The result would be similar to that prevailing in the U.S., where there is both a Senate and a House of Representatives. Together, they comprise the Congress.

Another possible solution would be to borrow a different leaf from US practice. Maintain the court exactly as it now is. Let them, by all means, use "reasonableness" or whatever else they wish (dice, Ouija boards, tarot cards, coin flips) in their deliberations. But instead of allowing themselves to self-perpetuate, require that all new members be appointed by the Knesset. In that way, at least a vestige of (indirect) democracy will have been attained.

But the Israeli Left and their supporters in the U.S. and elsewhere maintain that the present system is democratic, and any radical change, such as depicted in either of these proposals, would be in effect fascist. The US legal system is fascist? Have all these people graduated from Harvard, MIT, or Penn where black is white, white is black, and never the twain shall meet?

This is not to say that the US system is perfect. But to reject it as democratic on these grounds beggars belief. And yet tens, hundreds of thousands of Israelis, marched in the streets in protest against any alteration in this direction.

Is it possible that the horrid events of October 7 were at least in part due to these massive demonstrations? After all, what better time to attack a country when it appears that it is greatly divided? We will not likely ever know for sure whether or to what degree this is true. But this cannot be only an idle speculation.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Related Posts

The new "witch hunt"

A crisis of confidence is taking hold throughout Israel. More seriously, mistrust is also growing between the head of government,...