Israel would've been ready with quite a strong entry. As you would expect from a nation that is to Eurovision as Brazil is to football. Or Usain Bolt is to running really fast.
In order to understand Israel's effort you need to know a little bit about the recent history of the Song Contest.
Around the time of the 2021 US Super Bowl/Oscars I found myself being firmly shoved back in the direction of Miley Cyrus. Obviously a task of that scale involves the efforts of a large number of people. All acting for their own, individual reasons. However there were really two broad camps.
One was led by the US intelligence community, the CIA. I think we all now know what their objective was. Thinking that putting around the rumour that Miley Cyrus might be bisexual along with the fact that she menstruates. That would be enough to shock the World from its axis. Causing it to fall at the feet of its new Messiah, Joe Biden.
The other sizeable camp had a different motivation. They could see that Miley Cyrus' career was already all but over. As a last chance she was being sent to me in the hope that I could use my well established excellence in putting the broken things back together. Rihanna being the part of my portfolio that's probably the easiest to Google.
The Eurovision community were very much in this second camp. So while it certainly wasn't the main theme of the 2021 Song Contest. The potential for a relationship between me and Miley Cyrus was certainly amongst the main themes. As it was, by far, the one I was most qualified to comment on it ended up being the only one I was able to cover properly.
Coverage which you can all still read here. Parts 1 through to 7;
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-1.html
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-2.html
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-3.html
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-4.html
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-5.html
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-6.html
https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/07/eurovision-2021-miley-me-part-7.html
The 2022 Eurovision Song Contest was always going to be challenging. Unusually there was not one but two Olympics/Para-Olympics between the 2021 Song Contest and the 2022 Song Contest. The delayed 2020 Summer Games and the 2022 Winter Games.
One of the main roles of the Song Contest is to allow the nations of Europe to gather together to discuss what they see as the big issues of the day. Particularly through the ceremonies one of the main roles of the Olympics/Para-Olympics is to gather the nations of the World to allow them to discuss what they see as the main issues of the day.
Due to their status as part of the World. Some of the issues discussed at the Olympics/Para-Olympics also effect European nations. So are often discussed again, in more detail, at the following Song Contest.
Two Olympics/Para-Olympics between Song Contests provides for a lot of extra topics and a lot of extra detail to discuss.
Added to that the Winter Games always tend to take place in February through to March. Which is right at the end of the window of opportunity for nations to submit their entries to the Song Contest. It's quite hard to continue a discussion which hasn't actually started when it's your turn to speak.
Adding to those already significant challenges. Really from the moment that famous US 'President' shot and killed Ukrainian cinematographer, Haylna Hutchins, back in October 2021. It was clear to all that US-led NATO were absolutely desperate to start/resume their wholly illegal war against Ukraine, the Donbas Republics and Russia.
From the near daily briefings the US was giving on the matter from October 2021 onwards. It was quite clear that the US wanted to launch/resume its war during the 2022 Winter Games. Which were being held in Beijing, China. Just as NATO started its illegal war against Georgia, the Republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Russia during the 2008 Summer Games. Which were also held in Beijing, China.
I'm not even sure whether we should be talking about NATO's plan to launch its war against Ukraine, the Donbas Republics and Russia. So much as talking about NATO resuming its war. NATO's war has continued, at a much lower intensity, since it started during the 2014 Winter Games. Which were held in Sochi, Russia.
That seems to be the way of the World. If the Olympics/Para-Olympics are being hosted by a country which NATO doesn't like. Then NATO simply starts an illegal war against someone in the middle of them.
As with the Winter Games they set out to disrupt. This much trailed NATO war was promised to arrive just at the end of the window of opportunity for nations to submit their Song Contest entries. Forcing them to do so not knowing if the war would actually happen. If it did would it be over by the time of the Song Contest in May? If it had ended how would it have ended?
Strange as it may seem. Things actually happen in Europe because of the Song Contest. It is not an overstatement to say that wars have been started and ended.
Since the 2014 start of NATO's illegal war against Ukraine, the Donbas Republics and Russia. Certainly the biggest thing to happen because of the Song Contest has been efforts to de-Nazify Ukraine.
Perhaps with the Eurovision community knowing the power of the Song Contest Ukraine hosted in 2017.
Faced with the prospect of having to protect their people as they physically travelled to Ukraine. This forced the NATO intelligence agencies to finally start being honest with themselves. About whether they actually believed their own claims about a popular revolution. Or whether they knew the problems were entirely the fault of heavily armed Nazi and Neo-Nazi militias they've been directing.
The result was heavily armed Nazi and Neo-Nazi militias suddenly being reigned in. Not fully stopping NATO's war but certainly dramatically reducing its intensity.
The 2019 Song Contest was hosted by Israel. Everyone knew that there was no way that Ukraine, a nation still so proud of its role in the Nazi Holocaust, could ever go to Israel. A nation founded as a direct response to the Nazi Holocaust.
So Ukraine withdrew its proposed entry. Officially on the grounds that their chosen performer, Maruv, had once performed in Russia. Not only did she refuse to apologise. She refused to take the standard pledge of allgiance to Ukraine. To exterminate all members of the Russian ethnic group. Particularly the Jews.
It was against this backdrop of shame at its citizens Nazi past and current Neo-Nazi views that Ukraine held its 2019 election. Resulting in the token Jew, Volodmyr Zelensky being elected President.
So added to the concern that everyone felt at the prospect of NATO resuming its war against Ukraine, the Donbas Republics and Russia. The Eurovision community was also faced with the frustrating prospect of years of their hard work going up in flames.
Faced with such uncertainty and difficult questions most nations retreated to the safe territory, for them, of the potential for a relationship between Miley Cyrus and I.
However on this occasion it wasn't a discussion. It was a competition for style points. Over who could most brutally break the bad news to Miley Cyrus. She'd blown her last chance, her career was already over. I'm pretty sure that competition was won by Finland. With their entry; "Jezebel" by The Rasmus.
Despite that collective retreat to safety. The difficulties were more than the Song Contest could cope with. So it collapsed into such an administrative disaster they weren't even to provide a result.
The Song Contest is hosted by the previous year's winner. So with there being no result, let alone a winner, in 2022. The 2023 Song Contest wasn't able to go ahead.
Even if they had been able to solve that problem in time. Then the greatest screw-up in the 72 year history of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) would have, inevitably, led to the 2023 Song Contest being extremely acrimonious.
Added to that. If the EBU had been able to stage a Song Contest in 2023 then it is likely that Russia and Belarus would have been excluded as they were in 2022. Something which is utterly unprecedented within Song Contest history.
One of the main roles the Song Contest serves is to function as something of a safety-valve. Allowing nations to blow off steam about any problem they may have with other nations. So if you've got a problem with another Song Contest nation you're expected to sing/scream abuse back at them. Not have them banned.
Seeing how difficult even the outside possibility of a 2023 Song Contest would be. Israel decided to give everyone the option of staying on the safe ground of the 2021 conclusions and 2022 consensus regarding Miley Cyrus.
If there had have been a Song Contest. Then Israel would have been represented by Noa Kirel (נועה קירל)with the song; "Unicorn."
Miley Cyrus has a sister, Noah Cyrus, who we're also being asked to pretend is a popstar. The thing is that; "Noah" is a male or boy's name. The exotic Hebrew name she was aiming for is; "Noa" (נועה).
Can you imagine anything as utterly useless? As not even being able to spell your own name.
Noa Kirel isn't actually Noa Kirel's birthname. She was initially named "Noya Kirel." (נויה קירל) A big difference, despite being the sort of small spelling error that would befuddle a Cyrus.
Very much in the style of one of those sob-stories. Which have become the hallmark of Western TV talent shows like the X-Factor. Noya Kirel was born with some sort of severe Kidney disease. While undergoing treatment the family's Rabbi suggested they change her name to Noa to signify wellness. Clearly the treatment was a success. You can even see her dance these days.
"Noa" is actually a Hebrew word meaning; "Movement." Which is also one of the meanings on the Chinese character "Wu (吳)." As in; "Wu Xing (五行)" or; "Five Movements."
Allowing for further safe discussion. About the similarities between Jewish, particularly Israeli, and Chinese culture. Along with the many obvious problems with the US rap group The Wu-Tang Clan.
Topics which were raised throughout the Olympics/Para-Olympics near decade long stay in Asia. Then continued with the recent US movie; "Everything Everywhere All At Once." If anyone needs further discussion.
At around 17:45 on 28/6/23 (UK date) I'll try and pick this up tomorrow.
Edited at around 17:05 on 29/6/23 (UK date) to tidy the above and copy and paste;
Of course I was banned from Twitter back in June 2019. Officially for urging the @SkyNews account, as an inanimate object, to commit suicide. Within a discussion about Assisted Suicide. Specifically @SkyNew's incorrect reporting of the suicide of Dutch teenager Noa Pothoven.
I think that most people are, at least, aware of the story of Noah, the Great Flood and his Ark. Shared between all of the Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Particularly within the Catholic Christian interpretation of the story Unicorns are an allegory or lesson about the perils of the sin of Vanity.
Apparently Unicorns really existed at the time of the Great Flood. However they were such vain animals that while Noah was loading the animals, two-by-two, onto the Ark the Unicorns were too busy admiring their own reflections in the ever growing puddles of water. So didn't make it onto the Ark and drowned. Which is why we don't have Unicorns anymore.
Despite Unicorns being quite ugly characters in the story. The term; "Unicorn" has entered much of modern culture. Often used to describe something which is extremely rare.
In the world of financing and investment, particularly investment in Tech companies (FinTech), a; "Unicorn" is a start-up with a USD1billion valuation. Although looking at examples like Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos, Martin Shkreli's MSMB Healthcare, Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX and many others. That also seems to be a lesson about the perils of vanity.
In the creepy world of wife-swapping, swinging and sex parties a; "Unicorn" is a single bisexual female. If you are a single bisexual female or just happen to know one socially. You will quickly find out just how sleazy the people who use the term in that context are. They can't seem to help but keep introducing themselves.
During the Olympics/Para-Olympics near decade long stay in Asia we touched on the fetish that some, often White, men have for Asian women. Reducing their entire identity and worth down to the simple fact that they are Asian.
Swinger's attraction to their Unicorns is much the same thing. On the rare occasions they encounter the Object of their fetish they become so excited they seem incapable of taking any sort of hint from the woman, her girlfriend, her boyfriend. Fire extinguishers etc.
Of course I've been in two successive relationships with bisexual women. What these days would be termed; "Throuples" whereby I had a girlfriend who also had a girlfriend. In the first Throuple the bisexual woman was also an Israeli Jew. One who really was not keen on serving in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) during the Second or Al-Aqsa Intifada.
Sadly that means that if the 2023 Song Contest had gone ahead. Then I would have had no option other than to view Israel's planned entry as a personal attack.
I appreciate that if you're not able to laugh at yourself, then Eurovision really isn't the place for you. Isn't that right, Turkey.
However Israel's proposed entry isn't laughing at me. It's laughing at her. Simply because she had the brief misfortune of dating me almost a quarter of a century ago.
It turns out that there's not a right way to discuss the intimate, private details of someone's life on the Internet without their permission. Constantly having to compromise between different versions of wrong is an extremely irritating task.
Also I think you'd be surprised how little knowledge of either Judaism or Israeli culture the relationship left me with. If I was being crude I'd say it certainly wasn't the thing in the relationship which kept coming up, time-and-time again.
Even back then all those in the relationship knew that her Israeliness wasn't something you casually brought up in polite conversation. Particularly not with Western Leftists. No-one would bother to find out whether she was Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Druze. The mere fact she was Israeli was enough for the abuse to start.
During the relationship her sister was caught up in the June 1st 2001 (1/6/01) Tel Aviv Dolpinarium nightclub bombing. We eventually discovered that she'd arrived late, in time for the immediate aftermath. Rather than the bombing itself. I seem to remember that being the only time the fact she was Israeli came up in any meaningful way.
Even then it was only me overhearing half of telephone conversations in a language I still don't understand. You don't need much emotional intelligence to know. That's really not the time to be starting an earnest discussion about the politics of it all.
It was actually a bit of a strange moment for me, being forced to research the Tree of Life and its role in Kabbalah (קַבָּלָה) by Israel's 2019 Song Contest entry. Realising that how I've always broadly seen the World/Universe is actually a big part of an ex-girlfriend's culture. Perhaps explaining why we got on so well in the first place.
So really nothing I ever say about Judaism or Israel in any context has anything to do with this ex-girlfriend. It's all things I've learnt since. Such as through reading an Israeli newspaper/site everyday for the best part of a decade. Or through the forced learning of having to research Israeli Eurovision entries.
I also have to view Israel's planned Song Contest entry within the context of a much wider, sustained personal attack. One the CIA thought would begin with Rihanna's performance at the 2023 Super Bowl. Within the broad artistic gestures of Eurovision Rihanna just about counts as another of my exes.
The personal attack would continue through to now really. As I struggle to cover the 2023 Song Contest while keeping track of all the fallout and things actually happening as a result of the Song Contest.
In the Jewish version of the story of Noah and his Ark. Noah sends out a Raven to see if it can find land, a sign that the waters of the Great Flood are finally receding. Apparently at the time Ravens were White. However this Raven spotted land and decided to feast for itself, rather than returning to the Ark. So Noah punished all Ravens by turning them Black and forcing them to feast only on the dead, carrion.
"The Raven" is probably the most famous poem by American poet Edgar Allen Poe. It tells the tale of a man who is mourning a lost love. He is confronted by a Raven which can speak, yet only the one word; "Nevermore." Essentially it's the story of a man slowly driving himself mad by asking questions. When he really should know what the answer is by now.
Probably the second most famous Edgar Allen Poe poem is; "The Tell-Tale Heart." This is the story of a man who kills someone, hiding their body beneath the floorboards. He is then driven mad by guilt. Which manifests as his auditory hallucination that he and everyone else can still hear his victim's heart beating through the floorboards.
I think all versions of the story of Noah and his Ark end when the waters of the Great Flood have receded and God displays a Rainbow in the sky. A sign of God's protection over the Earth. A promise that he will never again allow it to be destroyed in such a way.
A key figure within the Kabbalah strand of Judaism is Shimon bar Yochai (שמעון בן יוחא), attributed as the author of the key text the Zohar (זֹהַר). It is said that no Rainbow was even seen during the life of Shimon bar Yochai as there was never any need for God's protection or the Rainbow. Shimon bar Yochai provided all the protection that was needed.
If the 2023 Song Contest had been able to go ahead at its traditional time of May. Then it would have occurred around the time of the Jewish festival of Lag BaOmer (לַ״ג בָּעוֹמֶר). This marks the 33rd day of the counting of the Omer. The sacrifice (of grain) offered to God on Passover.
However the Kabbalah strand of Judaism also believe it marks the anniversary of the death of Shimon bar Yochai. While the Rishonim (ראשונים) strand of Judaism believe it marks the end of the plague that killed 24,000 of Rabbi Akiva's (רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא) disciples. Shimon bar Yochai being considered one of Rabbi Akiva's most important disciples.
Generally Lag BaOmer is seen as a day of holiday. A day off from the work of counting the Omer, the plague or mourning. So it's the one day during the 49 days of the counting of the Omer where you're allowed to do things which are forbidden during mourning. Such as lighting fires or getting a haircut. Often Jewish children are given bows and arrows to play with. A play on the Rainbow, God's shield.
At around 17:40 on 29/6/23 (UK date) I'm still not in any great rush to be doing any of this.
Edited at around 16:05 on 30/6/23 (UK date) to tidy all of the above and copy & paste;
Of course if you've got one Jewish friend, don't ask them to explain any of that. They won't be able to. Chances are their Rabbi will have to Google most of it. As with the Book of Enoch, Noah's Great-Grandfather, which predicted the Great Flood. This is all very advanced Judaism.
As one of the minor or lower Jewish holidays LagBaOmer is really only celebrated by Ultra-Orthodox or Haredi Jews. To be a true Kabbalahist, rather than a Madonna, or Rishonim you, really, already have to be a Haredi Jew.
Other Jews have been known to refer to the Haredi as; "The Jewish Taliban." Which isn't a wholly unjustified comparison. For example back on June 3rd (3/6/23) three Israeli soldiers, two male and one female, were killed in an attack along the Egyptian border. Or as it was reported in the Haredi media two soldiers and a candle were killed. Due to women not being allowed to be mentioned, let alone seen, in public in any way.
This is something Iceland explored in their beautifully provocative 2019 Song Contest entry; "Hatiro Mun Sigra (Hate Will Prevail)" by Hatari. My coverage of which can still be read over two parts.
Here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/01/eurovision-2018-asie-israelpalestine.html
And here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2021/01/eurovision-2019-asie-israelpalestine.html
Rather like as with the Eurovision community and the Gay community. The Israeli Haredi community and the Israeli Settler community are two different groups. However there is certainly a lot of overlap between the two groups. Many Settlers believe it is a religious mission of theirs to expel Palestinians from Palestine.
So if the 2023 Song Contest had been able to go ahead. If anyone felt like stepping off the safe, stable platform that Israel has provided them with. The 2021 conclusions and 2022 consensus on Miley Cyrus. Then it would now be very easy to segue into the big thing that's been going on in Israel at the moment. The 2018-Present Political Crisis.
Perhaps puffed up by Israel's 2018 Song Contest victory. All of Israel's mainstream, centrist politicians and their supporters decided that Benjamin Netanyahu (בִּנְיָמִין נְתַנְיָהוּ) has to go, at all costs. He does have this nasty habit of being Prime Minister. When they all really want to be Prime Minister.
So despite Netanyahu's centre-right Likud (הַלִּיכּוּד) routinely being the largest, democratically elected party in Israel. All of the other mainstream, centrist parties refused to join it in coalition. Israeli governments are always coalitions. Extremely complex, multi-dimensional coalitions.
At the first 2019 General Election
Likud again emerged as the largest democratically elected party. However
they were only able to match the 35 seats won by Blue and White (כָּחוֹל לָבָן), itself a three-party coalition. Due to the decision that Netanyahu must go, at any cost, no government could be formed.
At the second 2019 General Election Blue and White were able to edge out Likud with 33 seats to 32. Due to the decision that Netanyahu must go, at any cost, pretty much all of the other elected parties formed a coalition with Blue and White. An 11-party coalition which saw the Arab/Palestinian United Arab List ( הַרְשִׁימָה הַעֲרָבִית הַמְאוּחֶדֶת/القائمة العربية الموحدة) trying to work with the pro-Settler but anti-Haredi Yisrael Beiteinu (שְׂרָאֵל בֵּיתֵנוּ).
Funnily enough that coalition collapsed in 2022. Blue and White dissolved with its leader Benny Gantz (בִּנְיָמִין "בֵּנִי") contesting the November 2022 General Election as leader of a new two-party coalition, National Unity (המחנה הממלכתי).
At that 2022 General Election Likud again emerged as the largest, democratically elected party with 32 seats. So should have been able to easily form a coalition with its ideological partners. The centre-right, secular Yesh Atid (יֵשׁ עָתִיד), 24 seats, and the slightly too rightwing for my liking but still secular Yisrael Beiteinu, 6 seats. Unfortunately the decision that Netanyahu must go, at any cost, made that impossible.
Still riven by the infighting which brought down the previous government. All of the other centrist, mainstream parties were unable to form a new coalition.
This led to Likud forming a six-party coalition with some of Israel's smaller, more fringe political parties. Such as the Haredi Shas (ש״ס) and the primarily anti-LGBT Noam (עם) who, personally, I don't find all that pleasant.
Most alarming has been the inclusion of Otzma Yehudit (עָצְמָה יְהוּדִית) or; "Jewish Might." Their 6 seats earned their leader Itamar Ben-Gvir (אִיתָמָר בֶּן גְּבִיר) the role of National Security Minister in the current Israeli government. Which is about the last place anyone would want someone like Itamar Ben-Givr.
Itamar Ben-Givr is a former member of and Otzama Yehudit is the ideological successor to Kach (כך). Which was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City, US in 1971. As an attempt to legitimise the paramilitary organisation he'd founded in 1968, the Jewish Defense League.
Prior to Israel's 2022 General Election Kach was designated as a terrorist group by the US, the EU, Canada, Japan and, most importantly, Israel. It is still designated as a terrorist group by Canada, Japan and Israel.
More than any other the act which saw Kach designated as a terror group was the February 25th 1994 (25/2/1994) Hebron Massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs/Ibrahimi Mosque. In which US Jew and founding member of Kach, Baruch Goldstein gunned down 154 Muslims as they were at prayer in a Mosque during Ramadan. Killing 29 of them.
An act every bit as cowardly as the March 15th 2019 (15/3/19) attacks against Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Or the October 27th 2018 (27/10/18) attack against the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, US.
Although it's possible to consider it an insult to the Afghan Taliban. It certainly would not be inappropriate to compare their ideology to that of Rabbi Kahane.
The "Kahanist" ideology to which Itamar Ben Givr subscribes. It believes that Israel should be a Jewish Theocracy in which non-Jews are to be granted no rights at all. They don't just mean Muslims. They mean the Christians and Druze too. Or anyone who goes against their extreme interpretation of Judaism by daring to do something like being gay or a woman.
I think it would actually be possibly to play a fun little game. In which you switch around the words; "Jews" and; "Muslims." Then ask people to guess who said it; the Taliban or Ben-Gvir?
At around 16:30 on 30/6/23 (UK date) I'm tempted to leave this now until the commoners have recovered from their white-line fever.
Edited at around 16:30 on 17/7/23 (UK date) to tidy the above and copy & paste;
Itamar Ben-Gvir first caught the public's attention during the 1995 protests against the Oslo Peace Accords. Which required Israel to dismantle illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip.
These are events that Benjamin Netanyahu should remember well. He fired up protesters in Jerusalem, leading them in chants of; "In Blood and Fire we will get rid of Rabin." Along with attending a mock funeral for then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (יִצְחָק רַבִּין).
During those protests Ben-Gvir stole the hood ornament from Rabin's Presidential limousine and brandished it in front of national TV news crews. Declaring that; "We've got his car. We will get him too."
Around five weeks later, on November 4th 1995 (4/11/1995) Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated. By the pro-Settler terrorist Yigal Amir ((יגאל עמיר.
In recent years it has been a recurring theme at the Song Contest to challenge this idea that, particularly, Western Leftists have. That all Israelis are all the same person. A Jew who is also evil. When in reality there are around 10 million people in Israel. Meaning that at any given point there are at least 1 billion opinions flying about.
A good example of the problem is actually Israel's 2021 Song Contest entry. At that time the big thing going on in Israel was the dispute over the expulsion of Arab families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Which rapidly escalated beyond anyone's expectations into; "Operation: Guardians of the Wall."
That year Israel were represented by Eden Alene (/עדן אלנהኤደን አለነ), a Jew from the Katamon neighbourhood of Jerusalem.
As they always tend to do things got jumbled up during the 1948 war. Arab residents were forced out of neighbourhoods like Katamon and into neighbourhoods like Sheikh Jarrah. While Jewish residents were forced out of neighbourhoods like Sheikh Jarrah and into neighbourhoods like Katamon.
The protest that Israel was making. Was that while certain sections of Israeli society were demanding Arabs be forced out of Sheikh Jarrah to allow the Jews to return. They weren't demanding that Jews like Eden Alene be forced out of Katamon to allow the Arabs to return.
By that point I think the delicate artistic types you get at Eurovision had all just been petrified by the explosions. However what would normally happen is that they would all loudly boo Israel's entry. In protest of all Israelis and in support of the Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah.
Which is every bit as exhausting as it sounds.
However Itamar Ben-Gvir is the person that Western Leftists think all Israelis are. His only policy seems to be to kill Arabs. Whatever the issue is his answer always seem to be; "Kill Arabs!"
As is customary when the current Israeli government was formed the spouses of the party leaders were invited to a reception at the President's official residence. Which is hardly a non-secure location. This didn't stop Itamar Ben-Gvir's wife, Ayala Ben-Gvir (איילהבֶּן גְּבִיר ), turning up with a handgun proudly strapped to her waist.
A deliberate gesture in support of her husband's sole policy. That it is a religious duty of Jews to establish illegal settlements on Palestinian territory in order to expel the Arabs. They should be allowed to have as many guns as they want. In order to make it as easy as possible for them to kill Arabs.
Given the long shadow which the assassination of Rabin continues to cast over Israeli politics. It also seemed to carry an element of threat to Israel's President Isaac Herzog (יצחק הרצוג) and Israel's other politicians. Particularly given Itamar Ben-Gvir's role in the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin.
It almost goes without saying that Itamar Ben-Gvir has been investigated and indicted for various, serious criminal offences over the years. Such as Insurrection, violence and incitement to violence. He proudly claims that he has been indicted at least 53 times. However he has only been convicted once, in 2007, of incitement to racism.
A law graduate that 2007 conviction initially prevented Ben-Gvir from taking the Israeli Bar Exam to practice law. However after a lengthy series of appeals and the settlement of three other outstanding indictments against him Ben-Gvir was finally allowed to take and passed the Bar Exam. Building a career defending fellow Jewish terrorists. Such as Kach member Ben-Zion Gophstein (בן־ציון גופשטיין) and at least two of those involved in the infamous June 2015 Duma Arson Attack.
The sheer number of criminal convictions amassed by members of the current Israeli government has meant that some level of reform to the laws regarding how Israel is governed has become necessary.
Back in 2000 Aryeh Deri (אַרְיֵה דֶּרְעִי), the current leader of the Haredi Shas party was convicted of taking US$155,000 in bribes while serving as Interior Minister. For the next twenty years this did not prevent him from serving as a minister in every Israeli government. Including the 2019-2022 broad anti-Netanyahu coalition.
However following the 2022 General Election Deri and Shas joined the coalition with Netanyahu's Likud. Due to the agreement that Netanyahu has to go, at any cost. Deri's 2000 conviction suddenly became a problem. The Supreme Court ruled it constituted; "Moral Turpitude." Thus preventing him from taking up the role of Health Minister.
The Israeli Parliament responded by passing a law stripping the Supreme Court of its ability to intervene in the appointment of ministers. Something which has become known as; "The Deri Law." The Supreme Court responded by ruling the Deri Law invalid.
This started a huge conflict between the Judicial branch and the Legislative and Executive branches of the Israeli State.
Rather like with sharing the intimate, private details of someone's life on the Internet without their permission. There isn't really a right way of doing constitutional law. Instead you are constantly trying to compromise and balance differing degrees of wrong.
I think this is best illustrated by Israel's attempts to reform how members of the Judiciary are selected. The Judicial Selection Committee.
On one hand you want everyone to be equal before the law. So you want a judiciary which is independent from and able to hold politicians to account. Otherwise you end up being somewhere like Poland or Turkey. Where the Courts are only there to give the government the illusion of legitimacy. A government which will make sure that it can never be voted out of power.
On the other hand you don't want to live under the Tyranny of Lawyers. In which a small group of people who are elected by no-one and answerable to no-one are able to ride roughshod over the views of the electorate. Something which most certainly isn't Democracy.
You might be tempted to say that the answer is for members of the judiciary to be directly elected by the public. However the law is a highly complex and specialised profession. So it is unlikely that the average member of the public would be able to understand the issues involved in making sure that someone is qualified to act as a Judge. Why would you expect anyone to just know something which requires several years of intense university level study to learn?
Added to that the costs and complexities of conducting election campaigns mean that, even if you legislate against it, Judicial elections will still end up being dominated by the established political parties. Leaving you with that first problem. A Judiciary which is not able to hold the Government to account.
Currently Israel balances this conflict through a committee made up of nine members. Three of whom are sitting Supreme Court Judges. Two of whom are members of the Bar Association, lawyers. Two of whom are members of Parliament and two of whom are members of the Government, the Cabinet.
The appointment of any lower Court Judge requires a simple majority of the committee, five votes. While the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge requires a super majority, seven votes. Effectively giving both the Supreme Court Judges and the Government a veto over each other's candidates. Forcing them to appoint candidates they can both agree on.
The proposed reform would see the Judicial Selection Committee expanded to eleven members. This will keep the three sitting Supreme Court Judges. However the number of members of the Bar Association will be reduced to one. With the other lawyer's seat being taken up by a member of the public, chosen by the Minister of Justice.
The two members of the Cabinet, Ministers, will retain their place on the committee. While the any two members of Parliament will be replaced by three specific members of Parliament - the Chair of the Parliamentary Justice Committee, the Chair of the Parliamentary State Control Committee and the Chair of the Parliament Committee. Along with the Minister of Justice.
The problem with the existing Judicial Selection Committee is that the three sitting Supreme Court Judges also have to be members of the Israeli Bar Association. Meaning that in practice the unelected, unaccountable Bar Association has a total of five seats, giving it a simple majority. While the elected, accountable Parliament only has four seats. With them being split equally between the government and opposition parties it is far from guaranteed that they will agree. Even if they do they cannot block the Bar Association's majority.
The proposed reforms dilute
the Bar Associations dominance over the committee and see them lose one
seat to a member of the public. Obviously the Bar Association is utterly
furious about this. However I don't see it as much of a problem.
Ideally I'd want to see perfect balance between the unelected and
unaccountable lawyers and the elected, accountable politicians. Settled
by randomly selected members of the public. Not that I'd want to be the member of the public randomly selected.
What may present more of a problem is that the Chairs of Parliamentary Committees are elected by Parliament so tend to be members of the governing party. So replacing the two members of Parliament with three Committee Chairs could see power shift from Parliament in general to the Government specifically. A problem worsened by the inclusion of the Minister of Justice in addition to the retained two Ministers.
However it's certainly not a rule that Committee Chairs have to be members of the Government. Due to the fact that Israeli governments are always complex multiparty coalitions. Even if Committee Chairs are all members of the Government it's unlikely they'll be members of the same political party. It's certainly not unheard of for parties in the governing coalition of oppose each other more vigorously than the opposition parties oppose them.
So I can't say that I'm hugely alarmed by the proposed reforms to the Judicial Selection Committee. Which I see more as a slight shift in balance. Rather than the collapse into dictatorship which the anti-Netanyahu coalition and the Israeli Bar Association are attempting to portray it as.
Really the worst charge you can level at the proposed reform is that it will make the Israeli system more like the US system. Where all Judges are the political appointments of the ruling party of the day. America only has two political parties to choose from.
So it is rather entertaining watching the rampant hypocrisy of Americans, particularly Democrats, condemning Israel's proposed reforms. It seems to be an open admission of their own corruption.
At around 17:05 on 17/7/23 (UK date) I will pick this up tomorrow.
Edited at around 17:30 on 18/7/23 (UK date) to add Sheikh Jarrah above, tidy all of the above then copy & paste;
Almost immediately the current Israeli government took office. The anti-Netanyahu coalition demanded the Attorney-General declare the Prime Minister to be; "Incapacitated" - as per Basic Law Article 16. Almost exactly as how US Democrats demanded that President Trump be removed from office using the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution.
In both cases that is a clear and extreme abuse of power. Someone holding a political view which is different from your own most certainly isn't a sign of mental illness or a lack of mental capacity. However the inability to even entertain the idea that your point of view may be wrong actually is a symptom of mental illness.
Faced with such an extreme abuse of power this forced some reform to the role of the Attorney-General and government legal advisers more generally.
I think most people are familiar with the role of the Attorney-General in most Western democracies. They are a political appointment, a member of the party of Government. Their job is to invent a legal justification for the government's actions. Then defend the Government's actions in Court should they be subjected to legal challenge.
I particularly remember the legal argument offered by then UK Attorney-General Dominic Grieve to justify the then UK Government's desire to bomb Syria in 2013. In support of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups.
Attorney-General Grieve advised that the UK was legally authorised to attack Syria under; "Responsibility To Protect (R2P)." However Responsibility to Protect just doesn't exist as an international law. As it doesn't exist it doesn't authorise anyone to do anything.
I honestly think that if Dominic Grieve was a ChatGPT-style AI. Then his creators would have been forced to pull the plug long ago. Due to their inability to stop him from wildly hallucinating.
You could argue that increasingly in Biden's America the Attorney-General is a political appointment. Their job is to persecute the Democrats political opponents. Or to appoint Special Prosecutors to persecute the Democrats political appointments.
The role of the Israeli Attorney-General is very different and, I think, unique amongst democracies. They are not a political appointment. Rather like a civil servant they are entirely independent of both the Government and Parliament.
Rather than attempting to justify the actions of the government the Israeli Attorney-General's job is to advise the Government on whether its proposed actions are lawful or not. Their advice is binding on the government. If they say a proposed action is unlawful then the Government can't do it. The Attorney-General can refuse to represent the Government in Court. Leaving the Government, or any Government Minister, without legal representation.
An example I can think of which shows the difference is the issue of Enhanced Interrogation.
During the First Intifada the Israeli Security Bureau, Shin Bet (ס ב) was allowed to use Enhanced Interrogation techniques. Such as physically shaking detainees. On one occasion they were interrogating a suspect who although an adult was quite a small man. They ended up shaking him so hard they killed them. A rarely seen case of Shaken Baby Syndrome, in a 35 year old.
Although I think it was all done under gag-order this led to a big scandal over whether Shin Bet could continue using shaking. Shin Bet wanted to continue while the Prime Minister wanted to at least reduce the number of bus bombings. However the Attorney-General decided that shaking was illegal so Shin Bet had to stop.
Following the September 11th (11/9/01) attacks the US decided it wanted to use Enhanced Interrogation techniques, going far beyond shaking. Most notably at Guantanamo Bay. The US Attorney-General's opinion didn't matter. The then US Government decided they wanted to do it so did it. If anyone objected they had to challenge it in Court. Where it would be up to the Attorney-General to attempt to defend the Government's actions.
As always with matters of constitutional law I wouldn't say that either example was the right answer. However in the US example both sides get to lay out their arguments before an impartial third party. If either side disagrees with the decision of the third party they both get to lay their arguments out before another impartial third party, in the Court of Appeal. If one side still isn't happy they both get to lay their arguments out before another impartial third party in the Supreme Court.
That certainly places the issue under much closer scrutiny and more careful consideration than a heated argument between two people in a secret Cabinet meeting.
The proposed reforms don't go so far as to bring the role of the Attorney-General in line with what it is generally considered to be in Western democracies. It will be left as an independent position rather than a political appointment.
However the Attorney-General's advice will no longer be binding upon the Government. If the Government disagrees with the Attorney-General's advice they proceed anyway. The Attorney-General is still entitled to refuse to defend the Government in Court. However if they do then the Government is entitled to retain its own counsel to defend it.
The reforms also allow for the appointment of legal advisers to Government ministries below the level of the Cabinet and the Attorney-General. They are to be political appointments and their advice is also non-binding. Essentially it's just allowing Government ministries to appoint their own lawyers. Or allow Ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir to represent themselves. Something which always seems to entertain the Courts.
The
other large area the proposed reforms deal with are various aspects of
Judicial Review. If and how the Courts can review laws and other actions
of the Government. If the Courts can overturn laws and other actions of
the Government. If the Courts can how can the Government respond. Something which is largely driven by the Deri Law.
This is another area where Israel is rather unique amongst comparable western democracies.
Most Western democracies operate under the principle of Parliamentary or Legislative Supremacy. It is only the Legislative branch of government, typically a Parliament, which can pass or revoke laws. Courts are strictly forbidden from being part of Parliamentary proceedings in any way.
Admittedly the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) might frequently give the impression that it is able to revoke laws. However that is misleading. As per Marbury v. Madison (1803) the US Constitution is considered the Supreme Law, it has Super-Legal Status. All other laws are subordinate to the Constitution. Therefore they must obey the Constitution.
So it is
actually the US Constitution which revokes or strikes down laws. SCOTUS'
role is merely to interpret the Constitution. A process which due to
all US Judges being political appointees seems to become less perfect
with each passing day. Even they though would not dare attempt to intervene in the appointment of a Minister.
Like the UK Israel doesn't have a written constitution. It has its Basic Laws which were intended to, one day, become a written Constitution. However it is wrong to say that the Basic Laws are Israel's Constitution. For a start not all Basic Laws are equal.
Only two, Human Dignity and Freedom From Occupation, have Super-Legal Status. The ability to strike down any law which contradicts it. It is even debatable whether the Freedom From Occupation Basic Law actually has Super-Legal Status.
Written Constitutions like the US Constitution certainly can be changed and amended. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times. However doing so is an extremely difficult process. It requires a two-thirds majority from both houses of the Legislative Branch. Followed by ratification by three-quarters of States, typically through a public referendum.
If the Israeli
Legislature wants to change a Basic Law they just change it. Some
require a two-thirds majority while others only require a simple
majority. De facto giving the Executive, the Government, Cabinet, the
power to unilaterally change them. With the exception of the two with
Super-Legal Status if any new law contradicts an existing Basic Law then
that Basic Law just becomes invalid.
Even where there is the principle of Legislative Supremacy some Judicial Review is allowed. However it is restricted to, really, Apparatus of State which are otherwise immune from Civil Law. Such as Government Authorities from the national down to local level, the Courts themselves and non-Judicial Tribunals.
Even then the scope of Judicial Review is strictly limited. Such are where the authority may have acted Ultra Vires (beyond its power). Such as a local education authority suddenly deciding to dig all the roads up to remove the gas pipes. It has failed in its Statutory Duty, such as a local gas authority refusing to dig the roads up to fix leaking pipes. Or it has acted beyond the scope of; "Natural Justice." A clearly defined, written down, legal term normally meaning the failure of Nemo Judex In Causa Sua Protest or Audi Alteram Partem.
A Judicial Review case I noticed from the UK just on Friday (13/7/23) saw 13 Trade Unions challenge the Government changing the law to allow agency workers to cover striking workers. The Judicial Review did not rule on whether Government could change the law in this way or whether it was reasonable for it to do so. Instead it ruled that the Government had a Statutory Duty to hold consultations before changing the law in this way but had failed to do so.
In short the Judicial Review concluded that the Government had to do a specific something, written down in law, in order to change the law. It had not done so. Therefore the law had not been changed. The Government is still free to change the law. Just as long as it follows the written procedure needed for the law to be changed.
Again the proposed Israeli reform doesn't go so far as to bring it in line with comparable Western democracies. Introducing the principle of Legislative Supremacy. Preventing the Supreme Court of reviewing, passing or striking down laws in any way.
Unfortunately at around 18:30 on 18/7/23 (UK date) my slightly fried brain will have to pick that up tomorrow.
Edited at around 17:20 on 19/7/23 (UK date) to quickly copy & paste;
Instead Israel has proposed giving Parliament some sort of power to override rulings by the Supreme Court. An Override Clause. Which seems a uniquely Israeli approach to an Israeli problem.
Israel doesn't have a written Constitution. With the exception of Human Dignity and, possibly, Freedom From Occupation its Basic Laws do not have Super-Legal Status. Allowing them to invalidate subsequent laws which contradict them.
However in its Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village (1995) ruling Israel's Supreme Court decided that its rulings on matters relating to Basic Laws do have Super-Legal Status. Allowing the Supreme Court rather than the Basic Laws themselves to invalidate, or strike-down, other laws.
Although I understand how the Israeli Supreme Court was able to do this. I still do not understand how the Israeli Supreme Court ever felt it was able to do this.
It means that Israelis go through the trouble of voting for members of Parliament at elections. Those elected members of Parliament then go through the trouble of organising themselves into a governing coalition and opposition. That Government then goes through the trouble of devising and introducing laws. Which Parliament then goes through the trouble of debating, amending and either passing or rejecting those laws.
Israel then renders all of that effort completely meaningless by then handing sole control for the passing of laws to the Supreme Court. Whose 15 members are elected by no-one and answerable to no-one. With there being absolutely no oversight mechanism it's not even possible to check that the Supreme Court's Super-Legal rulings actually have anything to do with the Basic Law its citing.
That's not Democracy. It's Tyranny.
So my best advice to Israel would to scrap the Bank Mizrahi precedent entirely. Bring itself back in line with comparable Western democracies by reintroducing the principle of Legislative Supremacy. If it wants that principle upheld through a written Constitution. Then it should adopt a written Constitution.
Exactly what impact this override power would have is difficult to gauge. Although various suggestions have been made no actual defined proposal has been put forward. One suggestion has been that it applies only to Supreme Court rulings made by only a majority of Judges. While another suggestion is that it applies even to Supreme Court rulings where the Judges have been unanimous in their decision.
Another thing which makes it difficult to assess the impact such an override power would have is that not all of Israel's Basic Laws are equal. If the power allows Basic Laws to be overridden by a simple majority in Parliament, de facto the Government, then that would have a massive impact on Basic Laws with say they can only be changed by a two-thirds majority. Whereas is would have absolutely no impact on Basic Laws that can be changed by a simple majority anyway.
It's that which makes me wonder what the point of an override power is. While the rulings of the Supreme Court are Super-Legal, they can't be overridden by Parliament. The Basic Laws themselves can be revoked by Parliament. Either through a simple majority or two-thirds majority, depending on the law. While the Supreme Court ruling would still stand if the Basic Law it refers to no longer exists then the ruling wouldn't apply to anything.
I suppose if the override power allowed Basic Laws to be changed by a simple majority. Then was used on a Basic Law which would otherwise need a two-thirds majority to change. It would make the process slightly simpler. However I'm really not seeing a power which is either being introduced or taken away by the suggestion of an Override Clause.
The lack of clarity over how an Override Clause would work. Along with the absence of any clear purpose to an Override Clause. That leads me to think this was suggested as something to promote public debate about the balance of power between Parliament and the Supreme Court rather than a law which was actually going to happen.
The suggestion was actually withdrawn on June 30th (30/6/23). I'm not aware of any attempts to reintroduce it.
Instead Israel now seems to be focused on abolishing the use of the; "Reasonableness Doctrine" in Judicial Review of administrative decisions. This passed its first reading in Parliament on July 10th (10/7/23) and Israel in the midst of planned weeklong protests against it.
Now at the committee stage the bill has received a record 27,676 reservations and amendments. A deliberate attempt by the anti-Netahyahu coalition to block the bill. As with the suggested override powers the sheer number of variations of what law this bill could become makes it almost impossible to assess its impact.
However in broad terms it is not intended to remove the power of Judicial Review. Just to removes one of the grounds, the Reasonableness Doctrine, on which Judicial Review can take place. It is very much focused on the Government as the Executive branch using its administrative powers. Specifically its power to appoint Ministers. It is really direct response to the Supreme Court's striking-down of the Deri Law. Although I assume it will apply to all levels of Judicial Review. From the national Executive down of local Authorities.
The Reasonableness Doctrine is an aspect of British or, strictly speaking, English Common Law which Israel inherited when it ceased to be a British Colony, Mandated Palestine.
English Common Law came into being during the Medieval Era. When Britain was going through its Game of Thrones phase. So you had a single Monarch who, in theory, ruled over the entire country. However in practice you had powerful Lords ruling over their own part of the country. A sort of King of the North or King of the Iron Islands etc.
All of these different Lords used slightly different rules to rule over their own fieidoms. Changing them as they saw fit. However there were standards of behaviour which were accepted as common to all. The; "Common Law."
At the time very few people in Britain could read. So these Common Laws aren't written down or defined anywhere. Instead they're more of a broad agreement that we have shared standards on things like sexual behaviour and public nudity. Behaviour which is outside of those shared standards is considered to damage society and is therefore banned as an outrage against it. The crime of; "Outraging Public Decency" in matters relating to sex and nudity.
How Common Laws are defined is through case law and precedent, So if someone walks nude through a town's main square. Other people may accuse them of outraging public decency and put them before a Court. If the Court agrees their behaviour has outraged public decency then the precedent is set and that behaviour becomes a crime.
However each case is decided on its own individual merits. So another Court on another day may decide that such behaviour doesn't outrage public decency. Meaning it is no longer considered a crime.
Although it's said to be law common to us all. Not only do you need to be a lawyer you need to be a lawyer who is really up-to-date on their reading to keep track of what is and what isn't a Common Law crime.
Using that case law and precedent approach Israel has developed the Reasonableness Doctrine in its own way. Far beyond the scope of what it is in British Common Law. Into something which is unique to Israel.
So expansive is Israel's version of the Reasonableness Doctrine it is almost impossible to define. However it's generally considered to go beyond both logic and rationality. Instead assigning philosophical weight in an effort to balance competing interests in line with undefined notions of fundamental values. By its own admission, under the Israeli Reasonableness Doctrine nothing is reasonable.
This vagueness and elasticity does have some uses. Particularly in criminal defence. I think most societies to consider murder and assault to be illegal. However agree that people have the right to use; "Reasonable Force" to defend themselves, their property and others.
There the Reasonableness Doctrine is applied at trial. Where the Jury, or sometimes just Judges, are asked to decide what they, as reasonable people, would have done in the same set of circumstances the accused found themselves in.
Even there though there has been a concerted effort to move away from vague, unwritten Common Law to clearly defined, written Statutory Law. So while you may still hear of people in the UK being arrested for murder, contrary to common law. They actually end up being tried under the Homicide Act, most recently updated in 2009.
With many circumstances considered and what a reasonable response would be written down it is much easier to determine if a law has or has not been broken. Meaning it increases the conviction of people who are clearly guilty while saving people who a clearly innocent the harassment of going through a trial.
Although the vagueness of elasticity of the Reasonableness Doctrine has some use in judging the actions of one individual in one individual set of circumstances. There is no right way of doing constitutional law. It is all one long process of attempting to balance differing versions of wrong in line with society's shared values.
At the constitutional level reasonableness and what those shared values are has to be decided by society as a whole. Through the democratic process of debate between elected individuals. Not dictated by a group of just 15 people who are elected by no-one and answerable to no-one.
Unlike Israel Britain operates under the principle of Legislative Supremacy and has done since the introduction of the Bill of Rights (1689). However prior to that, effectively, blanket ban on the Courts intervening in the affairs of the Legislative branch. There was a lot of discussion over whether the actions of the Legislative branch could be challenged in the Courts using the Reasonableness Doctrine.
This was a time of great religious strife in Britain. Between not just Catholic Christians and Church of England (CoE) Protestant Christians. Also, predominately by that point, between CoE Protestants and Protestant Puritans. Who are the Christian Taliban, although they have largely been inactive for the past 200 years.
The main argument being that it was completely unreasonable for the Legislative branch to pass laws which went against someone's interpretation of their God's will. Therefore the Courts should have the power to strike-down any such law.
Within Israel many opposed to abolishing the use of the Reasonableness Doctrine are doing so as they think it will allow the religious extremism of the likes of Itamar Ben-Gvir. When historically, certainly in Britain, abolishing the use of the Reasonableness Doctrine has been done to limit the power of religious extremists.
The seemingly utter lawlessness of the Haredi and, particularly, the Settlers has been a persistent problem for Israel since the 1970's. The 1984 trial of the Settler "Jewish Underground (המחתרת היהודית)" terror group being seen by many as a watershed moment.
It might surprise many these days to learn that the Israel Government didn't set out to build illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian territory. Instead groups of new, predominately American, immigrants took it upon themselves to build illegal settlements. With the Israeli Government being unwilling or unable to dismantle these illegal settlements they were instead forced to give them its backing. Eventually moving to building settlements itself.
These first Settlers were heavily influenced by the; "Homesteading" of the first Puritan Protestant Pilgrims to what became America. Those Puritan Pilgrims were very heavily influenced by John Locke's Labour Theory of Property. Which arose in Britain as part of that same period of religious strife.
It seems that much of the lawlessness of the Haredi and Settlers stems from the fact they believe it is unreasonable for the Israeli Government to pass laws which go against their interpretation of God's will. As the laws are unreasonable they don't have to obey them.
If those protesting are serious about protecting Israel from the religious extremism of the likes of Itamar Ben-Gvir. I think that rather than opposing the abolishment of the Reasonableness Doctrine their time would be better spent demanding that the Haredi and, particularly, the Settlers be reminded that Israeli laws most certainly do apply to them. Even the ones they think are unreasonable.
So I have absolutely no problem with Israel abolishing the use of the Reasonableness Doctrine in Judicial Review. It goes against what I consider to be the fundamental values of Democracy and Rule of Law.
Without the Reasonableness Doctrine Israel is still able to carry out Judicial Review. In line with comparable Western democracies. Using more defined grounds such as Ultra Vitres and Statutory Duty.
I assume that Israel's Apparatus of State from the national down to the local have clearly defined powers and Statutory Duties. It is pretty much impossible to write a law establishing an Apparatus of State without defining its powers and duties. If those definitions of powers and duties are not clear enough. Then it is really the normal work of the Legislative branch to change them so they are appropriate.
Judicial Review on the grounds of; "Natural Justice" also allows for some of the ideological consideration of the Israeli Reasonableness Doctrine. Only in a more clearly defined way. It is normally pretty easy to tell is someone has acted as the judge in their own cause. A Mayor's actions are clearly not lawful just because they've decided its lawful.
Likewise it's easy to tell when someone hasn't heard and considered (weighed) the other side. In that British Trade Union case the process in which all sides must be heard is clearly defined as a Statutory Duty.
At around 17:40 on 19/7/23 (UK date) I need to have a think about whether I need to start a new part.
Edited at around 15:30 on 20/7/23 (UK date) to add the Jewish Underground element above. Illuminate everything. Tidy everything. Then add;
One argument put forward for keeping the Reasonableness Doctrine. Is that without it the current members of Parliament would be solely responsible for writing the rules governing who can run for and become a member of Parliament. Something which is certainly true. However it is true of all comparable Western democracies which operate under the principle of Legislative Supremacy. So the US, Britain, every nation which has adopted British jurisprudence.
Obviously if Parliament were to write arbitary rules to prevent a popular candidate from running for a properly elected candidate from taking up their seat. Then that would cause a constitutional crisis.
However the same thing would be true if the Courts wrote arbitary rules to prevent a popular candidate from running or a properly elected candidate from taking up their seat. Arguably that is the constitutional crisis that Israel currently finds itself in.
That isn't the sort of problem you can really solve through legislation. You can only avoid such a constitutional crisis by all those involved being sensible. So Parliament/Courts being sensible enough not to introduce arbitrary laws. The political parties and voters being sensible enough not to put forward and elected clearly unsuitable candidates.
To be continued in Part 2.
17:40 on 20/7/23 (UK date).
