1.
Are you following Kalman Libeskind's latest columns? If there is a journalistic text that is "must read," it is the material he published in Maariv over the past month about the Supreme Court justices. These are not just another long, pointed Kalman columns about the hypocrisy of the media. We have become accustomed to this. We have even become addicted to it. These are a series of investigations that expose week after week the double standards, hypocrisy, and also the lies - real lies - of the Supreme Court justices.
This cannot replace reading the full columns, but nevertheless, here is a taste of the headlines. First article: "Judicial Activism: The Complete Collection of Conflicts of Interest by Supreme Court President Esther Hayut." Subheading: "Litigants' Referral to Her Friend for Mediation; Her Former Assistant Promoted to Judge; Accepted to Intern at Her Friend's Daughter's Office; Sitting in Court in Cases of Companies Her Husband Represents." And these are just the headlines for a long article that contains 2,731 words and a not-so-small number of interests and conflicts of interest in the Supreme Court President's legal resume.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Second article: "Supreme Court Justice Anat Baron discusses the matter of donors to an institution run by her husband." Subsection: "Various individuals from the fields of law and business have been donating in recent years to the Conservatory of Music, headed by the judge's husband, and in which their son is immortalized. The judge, it turns out, finds no problem discussing their matter." Here, Libeskind deals with a story that requires special sensitivity. 17 years ago, Ran, Judge Baron's son, was murdered in a terrorist attack at Mike's Place in Tel Aviv. His family commemorates his memory at the Conservatory of Music where he studied, and is very active in its management. A positive and worthy thing, of course, but why does Judge Baron think there is no problem with her discussing matters of individuals and entities who donate to a center that is so dear to her heart and that is headed by her husband?
Third article: "Far from the truth: Judge Meni Mazuz's problematic versions." Subtitle: "Mazuz discussed a petition related to his daughter's workplace, and provided an explanation that does not connect with the facts. Add this to his lies regarding Minister Ohana, and you will understand who determines for us what is reasonable and what is proportionate." Well, here we are talking about a saga that, if it were not shocking, would be funny. How a supreme judge lies and changes versions with a determined forehead without getting confused. Actually, with getting confused, but without blinking.
2.
You read about the exploits of Hayut, Baron and Mazuz and you simply cannot believe it. Conflict of interest, lack of cleanliness of hands, a series of behaviors that simply do not align with common sense. If this is not true - the judges should have sued Libeskind for libel. After all, it was printed in the newspaper. But the judges and their spokesmen not only do not sue him for libel, but they give embarrassing, smeared, and above all, untrue answers. When you read their responses to the personal stories that have been revealed about them, you can learn a thing or two about the character, the ego, the sense of superiority of the people behind the great and outrageous rulings of the High Court of Justice.
And the question that recurs with every such column: Why, for God's sake, is the media ignoring such serious revelations? What needs to be published for a storm to erupt? Will a video of a Supreme Court justice picking someone's pocket also be received with sleepy silence? Who decides what becomes a "storm" that requires responses and condemnations from politicians, calls for investigation and correction, and what sinks into the abyss of oblivion? Who determines which item will live, and which item will die? Who will be humiliated and who will be exalted?
3.
And then it finally happens. All the news broadcasts open with a report on the Supreme Court justices. But oops, the dramatic reports are not about the shocking findings of Libeskind's investigations, but about some garbled threatening letter, excuse me, that Judge Baron received. Of course, I absolutely condemn threatening letters against judges, or even against ordinary people. But how about some proportion? A Supreme Court justice who behaves in an extremely problematic manner (allegedly) is not worth reporting and following up, but what kind of idiot sent a letter of slander to the judge (the content and subject matter of which were not even made public) affects the entire public agenda?
""The ongoing attack on the judicial system is dangerous - and endangers the strength of the State of Israel," responded new Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn, adding: "There are judges in Jerusalem, and they will continue to do their job without fear.".
No, Mr. Minister. It's not the attack on the judicial system that is dangerous, there is something that greatly endangers the strength of the State of Israel: the way in which the judges conduct themselves.
4.
And from the courts to the courts. On Monday of this week, a mysterious photo was published on the back cover (which is probably read more than the front cover) of Yedioth Ahronoth: three rabbis wearing masks, sitting in the Great Rabbinical Court in the dead of night.
Below it is written: "The Great Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem has never looked like this: empty pizza trays in the hallway, disposable cups with leftover black coffee and cigarette butts on the tables, rabbis, lawyers and one divorcing couple - all wide-eyed. Finally, after almost 48 hours of marathon discussion, including a sleepless night - the long-awaited divorce was also obtained. As far as is known, this is a record set by the court.".
And after the literary description of the court, reporter Kobi Nachshoni provides the details: "Moshe and Orna (pseudonyms) were married 14 years ago and had children. About three years ago, the woman asked for a divorce, but the man opposed it, claiming that he still hoped to achieve 'peace in the home.' Since then, they have been living separately and have been conducting legal disputes between them in almost every possible court, religious and civil. About two months ago, the court ruled that Moshe must divorce his wife, but the husband appealed the decision. The longer the delay continued, the more Orna feared that the incident would turn into a serious case of refusal to divorce, and that she would find herself bound, imprisoned in the marital relationship that had broken down. Ahead of another date for the divorce hearing, which was set for last Tuesday, Chief Rabbi David Lau, who serves as the president of the Great Rabbinical Court of Appeals and a member of the panel hearing the case, announced that he would not sign off on the hearing until an agreement was reached between the couple - it would take as long as it took.
""The parties sat down in the courtroom at 1:00 p.m., Orna accompanied by her attorney, Rabbinical advocate Mordechai Sheinin, and Moshe representing himself - and they did not leave even after the lights were turned off in the courtroom near midnight. Only at 1:30 did Rabbi Lau agree to release them for a break, demanding that they return in the morning with answers. The next day, Moshe and Orna returned to the courtroom - and this time they were not released from it even at night. Rabbi Lau also left there only for short breaks, to hold a chuppah, give a Torah lesson and pray - and even ordered pizza trays for the litigants and courtroom employees who had to stay there for long hours. Unusually, he even allowed Moshe to smoke cigarettes during the negotiations - all in order to reach the long-awaited get.".
And here comes the happy ending: "The breakthrough was recorded early in the morning, and at 5:09 an agreement was signed against all odds. At first, the judges thought to settle for that, but Rabbi Lau insisted on not taking the risk and carrying out the divorces on the spot. At 7:00 it was announced: 'The get has been delivered, at a good and successful time.'".
5.
Warm congratulations to Orna (pseudonym) on finally receiving a divorce from Moshe (pseudonym). I used to read these stories about the rabbi who managed to get a divorce from a recalcitrant - and I get excited. In fact, I still get excited today. Every story, every agunah, is a whole world. May God bless Rabbi David Lau, the Chief Rabbi and President of the Great Rabbinical Court, for the great effort and the pizzas. But recently a new world has opened up before me that I didn't know about before. If I were to ask you, for example, what are there more in Israel - women waiting to get a divorce, or men waiting to give a divorce, what would you say? Well, of course. Men are the great anchors.
Fact: Every so often we read in the newspaper about another angry man who refuses to give a divorce and the court allows his name and picture to be published so that they can confiscate it so that he can finally free the woman from her bondage. Well done. Very important. But what can be done? According to official data from the court administration published in recent years, there are more men desperately waiting for a divorce than women.
It's inconceivable, huh? We are so used to public discourse about "get refusers" and "agunat," that it now takes me a moment to think about how, linguistically, these titles are converted from masculine to feminine: an aguna man? Agaun? S. Y. Agnon? But yes, it's true. There are, as mentioned, more agunat, or however they say it, than agunatat. But our language does not use these words, because our language is influenced by political correctness. And political correctness, even in rabbinical courts, is determined, unfortunately, by feminist organizations whose entire agenda is to introduce into our discourse, and from there into our consciousness, that men are always the cruel, violent, and evil ones, and women are just desperately waiting for a get.
This agenda fits well with the secular premise that according to Torah law, the man is the only one who can divorce or retain a woman. But this is a mistake. Rabbi Gershom, the same Rabbi Gershom who does not allow two wives, also does not allow a woman to be forcibly divorced. Therefore, in practice, any woman can put a stop to her husband's life and say, just like that refuser from this week, that she is not getting a divorce because she still hopes for "peace in the home." And what will the dayanim do in such a case? Will they fight the same woman who refuses to get a divorce as they fight the man who refuses to get a divorce?
I'm waiting for the day when I read a big story in the newspaper about a nightly hearing at the Great Rabbinical Court, in which the Chief Rabbi and President of the Great Rabbinical Court sat with Orna (a pseudonym) who has been refusing to accept a divorce from Moshe (a pseudonym) for years, and at 7:03 in the morning he managed to convince her to accept a divorce, not before ordering her a pizza with olives.
• The column is published in the newspaper 'Bisheva''
