Micha Goodman, one of Israel's most important public intellectuals and authors, on why the "Right" is really two opposed camps—genuine "conservative" and messianic—and a frightening doomsday scenario
I am quite tired of hearing from "public intellectuals" who claim that Israel is "losing its soul" every time the hegemony of the left (in politics and/or the various institutions of the state and civil society) is threatened. Of course, for much of the left(and even some on the "secular" right), all religious people are "messianic" (whatever that might mean), and just another segment of the population to disregard. Do all these "public intellectuals" get upset over splits in the left (Zionist, anti-Zionist, for example), or moan and wail about a scenario where Israel is simply a nation "of all its people" (as many, for example, on the academic and political left support). The fact that there is no balance of power between the branches of government here, has led to a totally undemocratic situation where the legal fraternity, the supreme court, and other branches of the court system have taken it upon themselves to determine which policies and laws that the people's representatives enact are "Kosher". Arrogance knows no ideological boundaries, but, apparently "public intellectuals" condescend to us and claim we are "losing our soul" for the simple reason that much of the public holds attitudes and political and social positions they ("public intellectuals") disagree with/abhor!
Instead of persistently comparing to the American political structure, a more useful reference would be to England, a parliamentary system without a constitution. Many of us are ignorant about the U.K. I hope that the consistent comparisons and references to the U.S. system are not simply pandering to your American audience. What are the checks and balances in parliamentary systems without constitutions?
It seems to me a possible compromise to have some semblance of checks and balances is to give the authority of cancelling ordinary laws that donot agree with the Basic Laws to the Supreme Court , but to give the authority of passing Basic Laws to the Knesset . The Supreme Court should not have the ultimate authority of passing judgements on the Basic Laws that the Knesset passes. This way they each have some authority. Jakob
This American Zionist thanks you for providing a written transcript of this fascinating, informative conversation. Can hardly wait for the next chapter.
This comment may be too late but here’s something to consider that might be a political off-ramp. Whatever one’s views on the doctrine of judicial review (it exists in the US by Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution as set out in the 1803 Marbury case, it does not exist in the UK), the US Constitution provides for an amendment process that allows a defined activity to become constitutional (whether in the negative sense, such as outlawing slavery, or the positive sense, such as granting women the rights to vote).
As far as I know, there is no procedure in the Basic Law to “amend” the Basic Law. The reason is that there was no need until the Barak “Revolution” made it an issue. Perhaps the Knesset can submit a new Basic Law creating such a procedure by providing for an amendment process that allows the Knesset to overrule the Supreme Court by some set supermajority (such as 60% of the MKs). The Supreme Court upholds this law and is bound by it. So everyone gives a little.
If the nuclear option comes to pass, Israel will be facing a combination of President Jefferson’s experience (he couldn’t do anything about the Marbury case as it was decided in his favor and judicial supremacy was not deployed again for decades) and President Jackson’s experience (where he ignored a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the Cherokee Indian tribe whose removal West he was engineering, and was credited with saying “Mr. Chief Justice Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.” The Court did nothing of substance and Jackson’s actual comment was not quite so eloquent).
Should the worst happen, something will have to give. But what? Let’s hope cooler heads prevail. I’m certain PM Netanyahu is fully aware of the stakes.
PS: I find Micah Goodman to be very levelheaded and insightful and learned much from his multi-part lecture on Moses’ final speech.
1) Agree with person below...why any time countries swing right they're "losing their soul?" If the majority of voters voted for this, perhaps it IS the soul. In times past, war/rape/slavery was part of the soul of most (if not all) cultures...should we cry that part of the soul has been lost? Are people/countries allowed to change their views without being lambasted as soulless?
2) Dunno about Israel but in the US, the Supreme Court was *never* intended to have Judicial Review under the Constitution, that is an assumed power and a terrible one as well, clearly, as 9 *unelected* people can sway the country based on their personal interpretation of the law. Article 1 of the US Constitution clearly states "The power of the people is in the legislature." The Supreme court was only supposed to say "guilty" or "not guilty" based on Congress law, not declare a law "unconstitutional." This is as abhorrent as Christians belief in the resurrection. And for those who think it's OK for a branch of government to assume a power not prescribed to them by the Constitution, a) what if the president decided to pass their own laws without congress or b) the supreme court says abortion can be banned...yea, not too happy about that one, right? lol
3) I feel like the last three interviews are with people whining about the governments shift to the right (by all of 2 votes..), it's reminiscent of American leftists meltdown when Trump was elected (including Mr. Gordis, albeit not a meltdown, I recall enough Lamentations to fill a novel despite a roaring American economy). Paul Krugman said US would collapse economically (we thrived under Trump). We had new tax laws passed benefiting the middle class, a new US/Mex/Canada trade deal that benefitted Americans, prison reform and many other policies that improved the lives of many Americans, so, perhaps the whiners can just wait a few minutes before claiming we're in Gehenna because there won't be toilets for trans ppl. I get the laws regarding marriage and kashrut are frustrating to many, and I agree it seems they should be redone (tho I'm an American living in the US, so, it's up to Israelis at the end of the day), but to emotionally collapse about laws that have been in place for 50 years seems absurd. Most humans want calm, not rocking the boat...I don't see major swings to the hard right or left so perhaps we can wait before preparing for Armageddon.
I don't know enough about England's political system, but having unlimited power within the hands of the government, is devastating. That will be the situation in Israel if the reform will materialize. This is not a theoretical situation, what could stop the Knesset from unlawful legislation? or a very anti minorities one?
Was interesting to listen to, but you forgot that the most important issue is the supremacy of law. Not the Knesset or the supreme court, but the law, and if the court can not maintain Judicial Review on the Knessset (who will?), than the Knesset is, by definition above the law. Hence, the power to cancel law, must stay in the hands of the supreme court.
I am quite tired of hearing from "public intellectuals" who claim that Israel is "losing its soul" every time the hegemony of the left (in politics and/or the various institutions of the state and civil society) is threatened. Of course, for much of the left(and even some on the "secular" right), all religious people are "messianic" (whatever that might mean), and just another segment of the population to disregard. Do all these "public intellectuals" get upset over splits in the left (Zionist, anti-Zionist, for example), or moan and wail about a scenario where Israel is simply a nation "of all its people" (as many, for example, on the academic and political left support). The fact that there is no balance of power between the branches of government here, has led to a totally undemocratic situation where the legal fraternity, the supreme court, and other branches of the court system have taken it upon themselves to determine which policies and laws that the people's representatives enact are "Kosher". Arrogance knows no ideological boundaries, but, apparently "public intellectuals" condescend to us and claim we are "losing our soul" for the simple reason that much of the public holds attitudes and political and social positions they ("public intellectuals") disagree with/abhor!
Instead of persistently comparing to the American political structure, a more useful reference would be to England, a parliamentary system without a constitution. Many of us are ignorant about the U.K. I hope that the consistent comparisons and references to the U.S. system are not simply pandering to your American audience. What are the checks and balances in parliamentary systems without constitutions?
It seems to me a possible compromise to have some semblance of checks and balances is to give the authority of cancelling ordinary laws that donot agree with the Basic Laws to the Supreme Court , but to give the authority of passing Basic Laws to the Knesset . The Supreme Court should not have the ultimate authority of passing judgements on the Basic Laws that the Knesset passes. This way they each have some authority. Jakob
This American Zionist thanks you for providing a written transcript of this fascinating, informative conversation. Can hardly wait for the next chapter.
This comment may be too late but here’s something to consider that might be a political off-ramp. Whatever one’s views on the doctrine of judicial review (it exists in the US by Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution as set out in the 1803 Marbury case, it does not exist in the UK), the US Constitution provides for an amendment process that allows a defined activity to become constitutional (whether in the negative sense, such as outlawing slavery, or the positive sense, such as granting women the rights to vote).
As far as I know, there is no procedure in the Basic Law to “amend” the Basic Law. The reason is that there was no need until the Barak “Revolution” made it an issue. Perhaps the Knesset can submit a new Basic Law creating such a procedure by providing for an amendment process that allows the Knesset to overrule the Supreme Court by some set supermajority (such as 60% of the MKs). The Supreme Court upholds this law and is bound by it. So everyone gives a little.
If the nuclear option comes to pass, Israel will be facing a combination of President Jefferson’s experience (he couldn’t do anything about the Marbury case as it was decided in his favor and judicial supremacy was not deployed again for decades) and President Jackson’s experience (where he ignored a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the Cherokee Indian tribe whose removal West he was engineering, and was credited with saying “Mr. Chief Justice Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.” The Court did nothing of substance and Jackson’s actual comment was not quite so eloquent).
Should the worst happen, something will have to give. But what? Let’s hope cooler heads prevail. I’m certain PM Netanyahu is fully aware of the stakes.
PS: I find Micah Goodman to be very levelheaded and insightful and learned much from his multi-part lecture on Moses’ final speech.
1) Agree with person below...why any time countries swing right they're "losing their soul?" If the majority of voters voted for this, perhaps it IS the soul. In times past, war/rape/slavery was part of the soul of most (if not all) cultures...should we cry that part of the soul has been lost? Are people/countries allowed to change their views without being lambasted as soulless?
2) Dunno about Israel but in the US, the Supreme Court was *never* intended to have Judicial Review under the Constitution, that is an assumed power and a terrible one as well, clearly, as 9 *unelected* people can sway the country based on their personal interpretation of the law. Article 1 of the US Constitution clearly states "The power of the people is in the legislature." The Supreme court was only supposed to say "guilty" or "not guilty" based on Congress law, not declare a law "unconstitutional." This is as abhorrent as Christians belief in the resurrection. And for those who think it's OK for a branch of government to assume a power not prescribed to them by the Constitution, a) what if the president decided to pass their own laws without congress or b) the supreme court says abortion can be banned...yea, not too happy about that one, right? lol
3) I feel like the last three interviews are with people whining about the governments shift to the right (by all of 2 votes..), it's reminiscent of American leftists meltdown when Trump was elected (including Mr. Gordis, albeit not a meltdown, I recall enough Lamentations to fill a novel despite a roaring American economy). Paul Krugman said US would collapse economically (we thrived under Trump). We had new tax laws passed benefiting the middle class, a new US/Mex/Canada trade deal that benefitted Americans, prison reform and many other policies that improved the lives of many Americans, so, perhaps the whiners can just wait a few minutes before claiming we're in Gehenna because there won't be toilets for trans ppl. I get the laws regarding marriage and kashrut are frustrating to many, and I agree it seems they should be redone (tho I'm an American living in the US, so, it's up to Israelis at the end of the day), but to emotionally collapse about laws that have been in place for 50 years seems absurd. Most humans want calm, not rocking the boat...I don't see major swings to the hard right or left so perhaps we can wait before preparing for Armageddon.
I don't know enough about England's political system, but having unlimited power within the hands of the government, is devastating. That will be the situation in Israel if the reform will materialize. This is not a theoretical situation, what could stop the Knesset from unlawful legislation? or a very anti minorities one?
Was interesting to listen to, but you forgot that the most important issue is the supremacy of law. Not the Knesset or the supreme court, but the law, and if the court can not maintain Judicial Review on the Knessset (who will?), than the Knesset is, by definition above the law. Hence, the power to cancel law, must stay in the hands of the supreme court.