Israel's Top Court Deals Netanyahu and His Band of Thieves a Decisive Defeat

[Israeli]

By a single vote, Sunday's Supreme Court ruling restored the adjective 'democratic' to the description of the State of Israel

by Yossi Verter
Jan 2, 2024 6:00 am IST

Sunday's Supreme Court ruling, which was decided by a single vote, restored the adjective "democratic" to the description of the State of Israel. It removed from above the heads of the Israeli service members who risk their lives in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank the threat of arrest and prosecution in Europe. It also put in their rightful place the leaders of the government coup, who dealt a mortal blow to the economy, security, international standing and social solidarity of the state on October 7.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin's reaction to the ruling shows that he has not surrendered. The dangerous extremist who is identified with the damage wreaked by the "reform" more than any other individual is not satisfied with the disaster he has already caused. He has vowed to try again. If he and his fellow members of the terrible coalition of 64 lawmakers are not ousted after the war, there is a chance that they will succeed next time: The Supreme Court currently has a conservative majority regarding relations among the branches of government.

If Dery and his partners in the Prime Minister's Office thought they would get the wheels of legislation rolling and the High Court of Justice would lie quietly and let them bully the Knesset and its committees while the court wait until the January 12 deadline, they don't understand the world they live in. This is a war for Israel's character, and the Supreme Court is the final fortress.

The right rampaged repulsively last night, as is its wont, about former Supreme Court President Esther Hayut, who led the majority opinion. But the right bears full responsibility for the result: Levin and Simcha Rothman and Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who opposed any compromise in the language of the law. (Netanyahu apparently supported a compromise but capitulated to the others' threats.) If the law had been softened, the bottom line in the Supreme Court might have been different.

Source : Haaretz

https://archive.md/dZFHQ