The Referendum On Israeli Legal Enforcement System.

Sixty years ago, Mr Schiffer ruled over the Leeds Jewish community. Mr Schiffer’s word was law. No one dared contradict him or stand in his way. Sometimes people would imitate him, many people would complain about him, but it was to no avail. What Mr Schiffer said went. No one would have dreamt of derailing Mr Schiffer. And Mr Schiffer, the owner of the largest Jewish poultry store in Leeds, was a wily old bird. I want to mix a metaphor; this wily old bird ruled the roost. It didn’t matter what he did, it was moral, or it was not moral; Mr Schiffer did what he wanted when he wanted, how he wanted, and only the angel of death stopped him.
In many respects, you would think that I am referring to Mr Schiffer to illustrate our present Prime Minister. And, unfortunately, you would be wrong. Leeds Jewry had no judicial apparatus. In Israel, we most definitely do have one. As opposed to the Leeds Jewry we, in Israel, have a democracy, and we have a say. We go to the election booth, and we place our vote. If we have the reason, we can replace any latter-day Mr Schiffer with whoever we see fit. But we must have a major political issue to do so.
But something has gone wrong.
Unfortunately, in Israel the legal system had its own Mr Schiffer; it had its own man who ruled the roost and though he has long left the roost his crowing can still be heard, and his chickens have come home to roost. Aharon Barak was a gifted and highly motivated jurist. He caused a revolution by stating, correctly, that everything should be reviewable. Nothing should be left unquestioned. In this respect Barak was right. But Barak went one step further and said how everything should be reviewed.
In a transparent society, one would expect that every aspect of our lives should be open to review by the relevant review boards and regulators. They should be part of every service. Unfortunately, Barak hijacked this whole process, and instead of saying reviewable he said judgeable.In other words, almost everything that happens in Israel is now under a legal review either before or after being done. In my profession, psychiatry, we have reached a pitch whereby doctors and lawyers together decide whether a patient should be treated or not.
The military sits with lawyers and decides who should be bombed and who shouldn’t. The legal profession’s tentacles have extended in every direction and every which way possible.
Yet, the legal profession itself is deeply distrusted by many of the Israeli population.
You may ask why.
The answer is that two things happened. Barack, like Mr Schiffer, left the scene. A powerful, highly intelligent man left behind a system which did not have personnel of the same calibre to fill his place. Instead, he left behind a ramshackle highly inefficient bureaucracy which had gained access to almost everything. It was soon quickly and widely felt that the legal profession was advancing itself, in power struggles and yet had very little if nothing to add apart from bureaucratic messes.
Things got even worse when the Guild representing the legal profession-the so-called Lawyers Office became an axiom for infighting, and some very disturbing characters seemed to be of great influence. There was no doubt that the Lawyer Office was intent, or so it seemed, in furthering the lawyer’s interests.
The legal profession forced the government successfully to accept that it must be the primary decider in appointing judges.
Even more confusing, the nebulous defined and all-encompassing role of the Legal Adviser to the government became overwhelmingly powerful. On the one hand, the position enabled the holder not only to advise what might be legal and what not but to also enforce his opinion. On the other hand, if the government or members of the government were challenged legally after the decision had been made then the adviser would decide whether the challenge was justifiable and should be continued.
In any other circumstance, this would be a distinct conflict of interests. The contradiction ballooned even more, when de facto the man appointed by the Prime Minister to advise him, will now have to decide whether the Prime Minister should be put on trial. Even more alarmingly having decided to put the PM on trial the adviser will decide whether to defend the PM. In the closed shop which is the legal profession of today, we have yet another disturbing set of circumstances. Along with the press, the legal profession is widely regarded as being left-wing and certainly opposing, in spirit, the Likud government. At this point, it is not important how true this is. Not only has justice to be seen to be done but rumours have to be seen to be not true.
The general feeling of the Israeli population is that there is a power struggle between right and left. The legal profession which has metastasised into so many government functions is now seen to be in a permanent political struggle attempting to overthrow the Likud government.
In all probability, it is not true, but it doesn’t matter. The left-wing of the political spectrum claim via its affiliates, the legal professions to be the guardians of democracy. The right-wing camp scratches its head in wonder. How can the non-democratically and self-appointed legal profession be the guardians and overrule our democratically elected government? It doesn’t seem right. And we are witnessing a power struggle using the emotive concept of ‘defence of democracy.’ We do not know where the truth lays or who lies. What is true is that we are witnessing the end of the Netanyahu era. The things that Netanyahu is accused of pretty much what you expect to see at the end of a long era. An era where an ageing powerful man is surrounded by cliques tending to promote their own interests. There is a sense of decadence. In normal circumstances, in a normal society and democracy, we would want a change.
Netanyahu’s era is under threat.
Netanyahu seems to be sensing where the battle lines are and acting accordingly. I have little doubt that Netanyahu will attack the process which is about to put him on trial. Netanyahu in all probability will play on the distrust that the public has for the legal system. The present holder of the office of the legal adviser is now in a situation whereby if he does not place Netanyahu on trial he will be hounded by his legal profession. If he does put Netanyahu on trial, he will be hounded by those who have been aggravated and now contest the power of the legal profession.I have little doubt that Netanyahu will be put on trial or at least indicted. The battle lines will be drawn. And be election will be decided by the virtual referendum to be held in the voting booth. The loser will not accept any outcome of the vote, and we will be in a virtual civil war.
There is only one way out of this tremendous impasse, and that is for Netanyahu to step down and accept clemency for himself and his family. The next government must then set as a priority the reformation of today’s legal system. The next Knesset most certainly must take back the ultimate power and authority invested in it by the will of the people. We expressed our will on election day when we vote for our Knesset. We do not agree that our will be sojourned or denied.
In a similar matter, the role of the legal adviser to the government must be split into two where he is no longer head cook and bottle washer. He can no longer both advise and execute. The referendum on the Israeli legal system in these elections must be avoided at all costs. If it isn’t, I fear a debilitating civil war. The democracy is that of the peoples. We are the guardians. We will decide who makes the laws. And if we do not like the laws, then we will change those who made them.
The Netanyahu era is at an end. Decadence and death are similar. Over a length of time, they both are inevitable. Decadence is the forbearer of the death of the political body. The need for legal reform cannot and should not be used to postpone the inevitable downfall of Netanyahu. Hopefully, Netanyahu will leave the stage with grace. I fear he may not do so but instead set it on fire. There are enough pyromaniacs to help.

I wonder what old man Schiffer is thinking as he watches.