If it seems that in the matter of disqualifying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the wind is blowing toward non-disqualification in the absence of legislation that allows for judicial intervention, the second day of the debate on the coalition agreement heralds that intervention is possible, but the very fact that the High Court intervenes in a political agreement is scandalous, it is unjust.
Indeed, intervention can, in my understanding, only be an extremely extreme case, one that radically undermines the foundations of the regime. This is certainly not the case!
A. Representation of the opposition in Knesset committees:
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
The High Court of Justice may intervene in the distribution of Knesset committees on the grounds of a deviation from the practice that gives the opposition between 2-4 committees. Netanyahu's representative argues, rightly, that this is a rotational unity government and the comparison must be made with similar governments in which the opposition was not represented.
A government made up of 78 members is an explanation for the representation of the diversity of opinions and forces in the Knesset, even though the Knesset regulations and legislation only spoke of the State Audit Committee, which is reserved for the opposition.
I mean: there is no obligation in law or regulations for this practice.
B. Freezing primary and secondary legislation:
The fact that the agreement limited primary and secondary legislation to different half-year periods garnered numerous comments from the panel judges.
C. Freezing the appointment of senior officials:
Here too, the judges of the panel note that freezing the appointment of senior officials, primarily enforcement officials, is problematic and do not rule out intervention. In their opinion, the law prevails over political agreements.
D. The Committee for the Selection of Judges:
How could you not?
Here too, the practice becomes as if it were law. The judges are not comfortable with the fact that the opposition has no representation on the committee. This division is not fixed in either the law or the regulations, and it is not the practice, which has been abolished.
E. Finally:
1. I'm watching the debate and wondering who is the sovereign in the country? The people through their representatives, or perhaps officials and judges who become and function as a distinct and also quite biased political actor (and no matter the outcome of the debate!).
In my opinion,
2. There is no escape from going to a fourth election to restore order, and to teach the High Court of Justice as well as the Attorney General, through legislation and an expanded override clause - that the people are the sovereign, not officials and those wearing robes!
• The writer is a lecturer in political science at Ashkelon College.
