Israel Eichler
Photo: Alex Kolomoisky
Shlomo Cohen
Photo: Jo Kot
Aharon Barak
Photo: Niv Calderon
Who will judge the judge?
What is the better option? Torch of democracy, human rights for women and minorities – or a single ruler who overrules the elected Knesset, annuls laws and roots-out anything reminiscent of Jewish tradition?
| Israel Eichler |  | Shlomo Cohen | | | | |
Israel Eichler
A storm is brewing worldwide: the German Christian pope accused Islam of evil and violence. His address in Germany has created a token of sin depicting Christian evil and violence alongside Islamic evil and violence. Aharon Barak, however, never spoke out against the Muslim, Christian or Jewish faiths. Despite this Barak became the "pope of the judicial church."
חזור למעלהBy looking at the followers of the secular "judicial church" one can understand why the majority of people choose not to believe in this system.
Barak has turned ridding the burden of the Torah and Mitzvoth into a new religion. It is a religion based on rooting-out every Jewish, biblical value from Israeli law.
"The Torah Constitution" is alien to him just as the laws of Islam and Christianity are. The new religious values are determined solely by the priests of the "judicial church".
It rules according to the "normative man," who is naturally, the supreme or the lower court judge. This norm has turned Israel into a state that is neither Jewish nor democratic.
Indeed, the new religion, like any religion, overrules the foundations of democracy and the will of the majority. It has a constitution that no one authorized. But it serves as a warning light against elected parliament members, who are elected by an ignorant people.
The authority of the "judicial church" is not just to interpret lawmakers' meanings; it is obliged to also determine what lawmakers intended. Occasionally, there's a need to act against lawmakers' rulings and to annul the laws of the democratic parliament, all based on the "enlightened public's" values.
The criteria for belonging to this group is of course the absolute need to break away from the "New Testament" of the Torah's constitution and Jewish faith.
Ruling without being elected
Barak could have been a distinguished judge in a non-Jewish state but not in the Holy Land. It is said that he is a well mannered person; therefore we wouldn't have had any issues with him if he hadn't become a ruler without being elected.
The problem is that the judicial church has left Noah's generation in the Holy Land behind and has instilled the laws of Sodom and Gomorrah. And this is what the prophet Jeremiah cries out about: "I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable."
Secular coercion instead of religious coercion
Referring to the Christian pope in the Vatican, Stalin once asked "how many divisions does he have"? The only difference between the foreign churches – the Christian and Muslim – and the "judicial church" in the Holy Land are the tens of thousands of police and the army.
It is the only church in modern times where priests have an army and a police force at their disposal. Its role is to force its agenda on an entire people.
The civilian parliament determines laws passed either by a majority or a minority, according to the rules of democracy, whereas the "judicial church" presides above it in the name of the new "constitution," which is purely a fabrication. Instead of religious coercion, we have secular coercion.
The "judicial church" opted to risk the lives of Israeli soldiers in order to avoid implementing the so called "neighbor procedure," which used Palestinians as human shields before entering a home in the Territories.
Jews in Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip were killed as a result of a high court ruling that banned the demolishing of houses from which shots were fired at Jewish vehicles. The "judicial church" is preventing the building of the separation fence surrounding Jerusalem with methodical foot-dragging.
The Arab revolt succeeded as a result of the Israeli troops' fear of the "judicial church" and its commissaries during the Intifada. One of the judges admitted in a moment of weakness that Barak would prefer seeing 50 Israelis being blown up in a bus than building a fence on an Arab farmer's field.
Turning into non-Jews
The "judicial church" is operating a secular mission against the people of God who have been upholding the Torah for thousands of years. "Let them send their children to secular schools," the "judicial church" ruled against providing school meals to poor religious children. Within the service of reforms and the immigration of gentiles, the people of Israel are turning into non-Jews.
In the US, our "source of inspiration," judges are elected in democratic elections. In the "judicial church," however, a judge is not elected but rather "a friend brings a friend." The captive media chooses to silence any thoughts of atheism under the authority of the Supreme Court.
The high priest knows what's best for the ignorant masses. And it's all in the name of democracy, human dignity, and minority rights.
But we shall continue to follow our forefather's faith and we shall pray to the lord to realize Isaiah's prophecy: "I will restore your judges as in days of old, your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you will be called the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City."
Rabbi Israel Eichler, a Belz Hassid and former United Torah Judaism MK
Shlomo Cohen
Last week Supreme Court President Aharon Barak completed his term in office after more than 30 years of serving the Israeli public. Aharon Barak is highly praised for his professional acumen, not only by numerous justices and citizens in Israel and aboard, but also by his enemies.
חזור למעלהFollowing a meteoric academic career and being awarded the Israel Prize for Law, he was appointed to the post of attorney general. In this capacity, he ruled some very controversial rulings. He partook in the Camp David talks and was praised by many of the participants.
He served as a justice as well as the president of the Supreme Court. Along with his predecessor, Meir Shamgar, Barak initiated the constitutional revolution passed by the Knesset, a revolution that turned Israel into an enlightened, Jewish and democratic state in the spirit of Israel's prophets.
It is no wonder, therefore, that his rulings raised the ire of certain individuals and groups, who oppose Israel's democratic nature and who are seeking a rule without boundaries and that disregards basic rights.
Aharon Barak left his mark in every judicial field in Israel, both civil and criminal. He emboldened the right to privacy, created a balance between freedom of religion and conscience, the freedom of occupation, and the freedom of speech.
He banned discrimination based on sexual orientation; he determined that women have the right to serve on religious councils and to take part in male dominated pilots' courses. In light of the issues the court handled, it is somewhat strange that there would have been any disputes at all.
Aharon Barak believed that "law is in everything," and for this he was criticized extensively. There is no basis for this criticism, as it is difficult to fathom a more important value than the one the people of Israel instilled in human culture, such as the rule of justice as opposed to the rule of man.
On three things does the world stand, said the old sages "On justice, truth and peace." Peace – in all, truth - in all, and justice – no? Even politically controversial matters can be the cause for legal dispute.
Examples include the discriminate law pertaining to military enlistment, women's rights as well as the limits of authority the rabbinical courts exert etc. It is therefore evident that the court must take upon itself to handle these matters in order to uphold basic rights.
Impassioned rebellion
Those who think otherwise are seeking to take Israeli society and the judicial system back hundreds of years. For some time the Western world has followed Jewish heritage by taking the stance according to which the ruling power and even the legislators are not omnipotent. It's called a constitution, and its foundations were determined by the Knesset's basic laws.
Shamgar's and Barak's Supreme Court was particular about upholding minority rights and weaker groups. Meir Shamgar began this process when serving as the general attorney; he determined that the State could not act against those petitioning the Supreme Court.
Later on, the Supreme Court also opened its doors to public petitions, and matters that raised fundamental legal issues pertaining to the regime were also discussed there.
The impassioned rebellion against the Supreme Court in recent years is surprising, particularly as Shamgar and Barak's constitutional revolution is the second revolution in the history of Israeli law, not the first.
The first was presented by the court in the 1950s - and without a constitution, without basic laws, and without clearly defined authority - it succeeded in formulating Israel's basic laws. These laws included the Freedom of Expression and Freedom and Human Dignity and Liberty etc.
This was executed vis-à-vis a Jewish society that had no democratic tradition and was embroiled in security, economic and demographic hardships, as well as Ben Gurion's rule that bowed its head in obedience.
How fortunate it was that opponents didn't rise up to undermine the basic laws of Israeli rule and society as they do today.
Shlomo Cohen is the head of the Israeli Bar
