Reading comprehension:

No one said anything about the minority having their way at the cost of the majority, but rather about protecting the rights of the minority AS WELL...

Democracy is definitely about the will of the majority. Fairness to minorities is a separate issue. At times of conflict and war when the safety of the majority is at stake fairness to certain minorities who jeopardise that safety may have to be suspended. All democratic nations have recognised that principle. The US isolated Japanese citizens in detention camps as did the British did to Germans living in the UK during WW2. Democracy is about maintaining freedom as a principle to future generations and not about fairness to those who may possibly destroy it.

It's not for the courts to decide if a democratic decision is undesirable - they are then putting themselves above the Knesset.
A judges function is to uphold the law - not decide on it's content.
I think this Judge is taking her position a bit to far and allowing her political leanings to stick out - which is nonjudicial and a violation of ethics and morality.

It is really sad that such an ignorant person should be on the Supreme Court. She sure doesn't know what the word means

1. Taking into consideration that United Nations General Assembly partition plan of Palestine, Resolution 181, was just a proposal, as UNGA resolutions are never binding, all the more that it has been rejected by all the Arab states. 2. Taking into consideration that the so-called Green Line (drawn with a green pencil) indicates the cease-fire line of 1949. Both parties, the Israeli and the Jordanian, signed that this cease-fire line will never be considered as a final border. I would be grateful to get a straight answer from you, Supreme Court Chief Justice Miriam Naor, to the following question: which borders, conform to International Law, do YOU Mrs. Naor apply to the state of Israel? In my humble opinion, not being a Supreme Court Justice as you are, Mrs Naor, I would say that the only susceptible borders conform to International Law are those voted unanimously by ALL the 51 members of the League of Nations in 1922, a resolution called the "Mandate for Palestine". This Mandate gave the Jewish people the Irrevocable Right to settle anywhere on the territory between the Sea and the Jordan River, including the Golan Heights embedded in Article 80 of the United Nations' Charter. In 1924 the United States signed a Treaty with Britain, the Mandatory of Palestine, to guarantee the implementation of the Mandate. In accordance to the principle "Pacta Sunt Servanta" (Agreements must be honored) I consider, although not being a Supreme Court Chief Justice, the League's borders as the only legal borders according to International Law. I would appreciate, Mrs Naor, to read in this paper, your answer to my question, an answer I consider imperative!

The vote of the majority is the defining feature of a democracy - anywhere. Period. It becomes a tyranny only when the minority that disagrees is prevented from emigrating.

is not democratic

the justices of the high court are not appointed democratically.
therefore, whatever their decisions, they do not represent
a democratic state.
if the high court wants to be respected and have the people's
confidence, the nominating process to the high court must
be changed.