Did you hear about the fellow who kidnapped a hostage and then threatened to kill himself if his demands were not met? That is essentially what the BIG chain of shopping stores is doing by threatening to close all its stores on Tuesday if any part of the judicial reform package is passed in the Knesset. “I have a gun to my head! Don’t make me do it!”
And if they close? Well, I personally would go to the mall across the street to do my shopping, and probably continue for the indefinite future. No one can force BIG to remain open, just like no one can force any consumer to shop there anytime. Fortunately, Israel has no shortage of malls and shopping centers that accommodate the needs of every consumer and does not wish to irritate more than half the population.
-Isn’t BIG aware of the backlash in the United States against major corporations because of their unwelcome and short-sighted intrusion into polarizing politics?
-Hasn’t BIG heard of the boycott of Bud Light, once one of the most popular beers in America, which has now fallen well out of the top ten because of its embrace of woke idiocies?
-Ditto with the chain of Target department stores that has lost billions of dollars of valuation and seen its stock plunge.
-And Disney has provoked its own boycott because of its opposition to certain legislation in Florida that protected parental rights in education.
A BIG strike on Tuesday could leave BIG very SMALL on Wednesday, and for days and weeks afterward. And for what?
The judicial reforms have been so watered down that they amount to tweaks rather than real reforms. The legislation proposed this week will modify the “reasonableness clause” that Israel’s Supreme Court has used for decades to nix legislation, policies, and appointments. The proposal will only deprive the Court of the right to invalidate government appointments. This legislation is far less a threat to democracy than is a Supreme Court that is unelected, unresponsive, and unaccountable to the people, and deigns to rule from on high (indeed, it occasionally sits as the High Court of Justice) imposing its personal preferences on the people and the politicians the people elected to govern.
Should the Court be able to disqualify a nominee because it is “unreasonable” that such a person serve? The predicate is the attempt to appoint Aryeh Deri, a convicted felon, to a ministry. Is it “reasonable” that a convicted felon serve in any government capacity? Notwithstanding that Jews believe in repentance, the appropriate procedure in a refined democracy would be to pass legislation barring a convicted felon from serving in such capacity. There is no such law (which I would support); this government will not pass such a law, but the preceding left-wing government also did not pass such a law.
A nation that relies on an unelected, unaccountable, and homogenous (i.e., left-wing) Court to substitute its own rulings for Knesset legislation is not a real democracy. Knesset, pass a law if that is the will of the people, but the Court should not have jurisdiction over government appointments.
Nor should the Court have jurisdiction over government policies, over the identity of award recipients, over freely entered business contracts between two parties. This is what makes the partial amendment of the “reasonableness clause” a contrived controversy that is generating artificial protests engendered by the two main drivers of this domestic strife: hatred for Netanyahu and hatred for the Haredim (and religious Zionists).
The opposition to judicial reform is irrational; few can even articulate plausible grounds to oppose this diluted legislation and so resort to empty slogans such as “an end to democracy,” “down with dictatorship,” and sometimes just “1933.” If the protesters had even a minimal awareness of what they are opposing, why, and how, they – who are trying to overthrow the results of the recent election, shut down the society, and trample on democratic norms - should be questioning on which side of the 1933 divide they are actually on. Sadly, it is the side of the anti-democratic anarchists, not the side of the democratic, voting public.
It is ironic that such a BIG deal is being made this week over this minimalistic adjustment. It is merely fine-tuning a legal principle that was never passed in legislation but just unilaterally assumed by the Court. This is democracy in action, not the masses of rioters, anarchists, criminals, and lawbreakers who are trying to “save democracy” while, in fact, weakening and even destroying it. They are mocking the rule of law.
-The Attorney General who refuses to enforce the law equally against all protesters should be summarily fired.
-The police who are refusing to follow the orders of their superiors – whether commanders or responsible minister – are sowing the seeds of such societal discord in the future that it should be patently clear that the protests are destroying democracy rather than function as the presumed trigger for the protests. \
One hopes that the Prime Minister, whose commitment to judicial reform is somewhat tenuous, will not again surrender to these threats.
The bottom line is that the proposed changes to the “reasonableness clause” will not affect the life of a single Israeli. The substantive changes that are necessary are twofold: first, limitations on the Court’s jurisdiction to allow it to rule only on “cases or controversies” as in the American system (real people who are affected by real legislation and government policies) rather than the unlimited jurisdiction it now has to hear the grievances of every nudnik. This will preclude the Court from intruding on matters that are political and not justiciable. It will also, at long last, serve as a check on the Court’s powers, for which there are now none.
And second, change the composition of the selection committee to reduce the Court’s influence to choose its successors. Make such nominations the province of politicians.
The government should just do it already and stop pussyfooting, stop delaying, and stop allowing itself to be intimidated by the mobs. Once the legislation is passed, the protests will die down within a week or two. (Of course, they will never completely end as long as Binyamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister.)
It is time to govern, in accordance with the norms of every democracy.
As the BIG chain holds a gun to its own head, it would be prudent for them to consider whether they want to be merchants or political activists. I do not know the franchise arrangements and whether individual stores have the right to decline to join this ridiculous strike. I hope the stores can defy the corporate order. Merchants should appeal to the broadest base they can, not hack away large segments of their consumer base because of ill-advised forays into frenzied politics.
The Haredi boycott of Angels Bakery worked; does BIG want to go down that road?
Like the protesters who consistently threaten to destroy their own country, come what may, BIG wants to make a statement by destroying itself. They should think again, BIG time.
Rabbi Pruzansky was a pulpit rabbi in the United States for 35 years and an attorney. Today he is the Israel region Vice President of the Coalition for Jewish Values and the author of six books, including “Road to Redemption” (Kodesh Press 2023).