... But it's a lot more complicated than that. This week we try to sort through the debate taking place about Israel's judicial system.
Love how you present different and often opposing view points.
Even a teacher and disciple, even a father and son, when they sit to study Torah together become enemies to one another. But they do not move from there until they have become beloved to one another. Therefore it says “Waheb in Suphah”, meaning: there is love at the end.
My guess is that most of the Americans who look at this argument will not understand it, and will sympathize with the critics who are shouting anti democratic.
Their problem is that the US is unique. The Constitution was created by the several states which pre existed the Federal Government, and it can only be amended with the consent of a super majority (3/4) of the states. There is therefor a body that is superior to the Federal Government and its constituent bodies and officers.
Israel follows the Westminster system based on the government of the United Kingdom, but it has no king, no peerage, and no House of Lords. The Kenneset is therefor the complete sovereign (in the Hobbsean sense of the word) of the State of Israel. The Kenneset embodies the democratic will of the people and there can be no power superior to it.
If Israel wants to have a constitution then they must write it and implement it a way that there is a limitation on the power of the Kenneset. The only way that i can think of that happening is by a referendum with a super majority approval.
Until that happens it is silly to declare that anything the Knesset does by a majority of a quorum to be undemocratic. It is democratic by definition.
I am not rejecting claims that there is a divine law (e.g. Halakah) that the Knesset can violate. But as a matter of practical politics, until such time as the Sanhedrin is reconvened by the Messiah, there is no one who has the authority to assert such a violation.
Nor do I reject claims of natural law, but they are subject to the same objection. Who shall be judge?
More than 300 years ago the outstanding English theorist of natural law, John Locke, answered this question in his 2nd Treatise of Government:
Sec.240. Here, it is like, the common question will be made, Who shall be judge, whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? ... To this I reply, The people shall be judge; for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well, and according to the trust reposed in him, but he who deputes him, and must, by having deputed him, have still a power to discard him, when he fails in his trust?
Sec.243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again ... when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men ... the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; ... when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; ... the people have a right to act as supreme ...