Comment by yosefk
1 year ago
Not exactly. They sent the guy who controls the local judiciary because not doing so would be impossible due to his immense political power. The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself and having given itself the power to cancel any law or demand any changes to laws/policy on any arbitrary basis; since this state of affairs is backed up by a sufficient number of powerful institutions, it is effectively impossible to challenge.
Barak ruling to resupply the enemy (it is widely documented that "humanitarian aid" goes first and foremost to Hamas) in an international court is entirely consistent with his lifelong tendency to gradually reduce Israeli independence and voters' impact on policy and to increase Israeli compliance to the policy of outside parties, first and foremost the US. (Resupplying the enemy was required by the US from the start. It is interesting to see other examples where civilians are prevented by the international community to leave the area of hostilities and instead they are supposed to be provided with resources in this area where the monopoly on the use of force belongs to one of the sides in the conflict.)
While the exact requirements placed on Israel by larger powers are somewhat unique, having highly influential people in the country effectively work in the interest of larger powers is a common condition for smaller powers. In this Barak is similar to many other high-profile people and organizations in many other countries enjoying limited sovereignty at best.
> The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself
this is at most lie and at least misconception. Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President of Israel, from names submitted by the Judicial Selection Committee, which is composed of nine members: three Supreme Court Judges (including the President of the Supreme Court), two cabinet ministers (one of them being the Minister of Justice), two Knesset members, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Appointing Supreme Court Judges requires a majority of 7 of the 9 committee members, or two less than the number present at the meeting.
In practice, the 3 Supreme Court Judges, the two representatives of the Israel Bar Association, and the 1 Knesset member "traditionally" representing one of the two major political camps [the one aligned with most Supreme Court Judges] always vote together, so most of the judiciary is appointed according to the wishes of the Supreme Court Judges. The veto on appointing Supreme Court Judges adds a modicum of balance, but given that the country can be set on fire at will by the Supreme Court like we've seen in 2023, I don't believe that this veto is that effective at changing appointments (if an appointee is declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court, the country will be paralyzed by protests; and more prosaically, you promote to the highest court from lower courts and everyone appointed to these was appointed by a simple majority without the 7-out-of-9 veto.)
The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention. This is taught in schools as a good thing because there's "a majority of professionals rather than politicians." I presume that this idea is so effective and consistent with the principles of democracy that it should also work for nominating governments and lawmakers.
>The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention.
Judges in England and Wales (including supreme court judges) are selected entirely by unelected officials; The government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with their decision. Given the influential nature of English law, I would be very surprised if this was unique.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_o...
1 reply →
[flagged]
Don't quite understand that? Aharon Barak was chief justice, but retired in 2006 and is 87 years old.
Most of the judiciary are his loyalists. An example of his ongoing influence is the ridiculous legal doctrine invented just this year where the Israeli declaration of independence was retroactively declared to be the supreme law of the land, akin to a "meta-constitution"; his opinion on the matter was published after many months of campaigns where people would declare their "allegiance to the declaration of independence."
I feel like this is an over-simplification that's not going to be well understood by people not familiar with Israel's judicial history and systems.
He has some influence but I don't think "loyalists" (or the other terminology used in your earlier comment) is that accurate. The supreme court justices today have a range of opinions and are largely independent and interpret law (and some other universal principles, like human rights, is really what Barak brought to the table).
The interesting bit to me here is this signals that if those cases were brought in front of Israel's supreme court the outcome would likely be similar to the ICJ (except Israel's supreme court's rulings must be followed, it's not optional or requires security council approval). I think that was partly the intent in sending Barak and really the main argument that people that oppose the government initiatives to restrict the Israeli Supreme Court have. And so there's really no need to take Israel to the ICJ since its independent supreme court would e.g. enforce the same standards anyways.
Wasn't that struck down? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/1/israels-supreme-cour...
[flagged]
> The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself and having given itself the power to cancel any law or demand any changes to laws/policy on any arbitrary basis;
1. Not completely. There are quite a few countries with fully independent judiciary, with judges appointing judges.
2. Courts with power to initiate, and prosecute a case by themselves also exist in other countries.