The ultimate goal of the recent Prime Minister is likely to be to block the formation of a national investigation committee to investigate the obstacles until October 7, 2023, Hamas’ attacks on Israel. If this is what it is necessary for two gatekeepers to promote its establishment, the Chimbet (Israel Security Bureau) and the Attorney General, he is not worried about doing so.
Meanwhile, President Isaac Herzog is trying to encourage the establishment of a committee. He launched an extraordinary move that allowed Supreme Court Judge Norm Solberg to play a role in determining its composition. Netanyahu quickly rejected the proposal, paying tribute to his purpose.
If an AI program is asked to consider the appropriate attributes of an Israeli judge, it would probably suggest an individual with a very similar nature to that of Sohlberg.
When Sohlberg was first appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012, critics quickly pointed out his “religious settler” and his identity as a conservative, among other suspected flaws.
But after more than a decade on the bench, he demonstrated his ability to act according to his worldview, and at the same time gave his background a space for a distinctive source of inspiration – all within the system.
His voice enriched the collective intellectual and cultural wisdom of the Supreme Court in a way that better reflects the multiple identities of Israeli society, struck a unique, and sometimes dissonant chord within the judicial orchestra.
However, this was not important when Herzog’s proposal led to Hamas’ October 7 massacre, with the consent of Secretary Isaac Amit that they jointly decided to structure the National Commission on Inquiry on Disabilities that led to Hamas’ October 7 massacre.
His opposition to Amit is no secret, but why does he lack trust in Solberg? There are no small personal allegations against him. The opposition turned out to be the very idea that judges, the judges, are involved in the investigation. Judges are therefore deemed untrustworthy.
Politicization of trust
This is another clear and extreme sign of the serious illness that has plagued Israel’s democracy: the trust in state institutions and the politicization of its leadership. The right and left rifts regarding confidence in the courts, the Attorney General and the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court are well known and well documented.
An extreme example of a legal context is attitudes towards the state attorney’s office. Only a small minority between the right and central right Israelis was 3% and 23%, respectively) – mirror images of the left and central left individuals of overwhelming trust (83% and 81%, respectively).
Stay up to date with the latest news!
Subscribe to the Jerusalem Post Newsletter
This malignant polarization flows everywhere. A study by the Jewish Policy Institute (JPPI) reveals that public trust in national institutions, as part of the monthly Israeli Association Index, is once at the heart of the national consensus for its responsibility for our collective security.
The majority of right-wing and central-right Israelis have low levels of trust in the top IDF (19% and 42%, respectively) and the Sinbet leadership Echelon (13% and 43%, respectively). Conversely, the majority of left and left individuals hold a high level of trust in both IDF senior commands (63%) and thimbet top brass (83%).
Demand for enquiries
What goes beyond the controversy? Support for the National Research Commission.
Over three-quarters of the public are demanding it, including a huge share of right-wing voters in various shades.
The government is aware of this fact, but for obvious reasons it refuses to carry out the will of the people. The protests of tens of thousands of families who have been killed or injured as a result of a cascade of terrible mistakes, or who have evacuated from their homes, are unanswered by elected officials.
Until recently, the excuse to avoid investigating the biggest failures in our history was a lack of trust in Judge Amit. Herzog’s proposal aimed at remedying this obstacle, supported by the majority of Israelis, was rejected. Solberg, considered an Israeli “poster judge,” is suddenly unreliable in the eyes of the right-wing government. why? Because he is a judge.
The government is actually willing to establish a committee of inquiry whose composition is determined by the Knesset. However, this means that the coalition controlled by the Prime Minister has a veto power over the appointment of individuals who could objectively exercise the investigative body.
This is why existing laws approve independent bodies that are the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court to appoint members of the committee.
In the midst of its agony, the government argues that it should escalate its argument against the court and investigate its role in failure and therefore strip its appointing authorities. If the interests are not that high, you may find humor in this.
Judge Solberg’s stomping with the Racing Wagon of the Division is more than just a lesson in itself. It conveys something much broader. No institutions or people remain in public places where the legitimacy is not undermined by the politicization of our lives.
We are carefully stripped of our ability to identify real domains of consensus and how to reach agreements. This is a loss of the nation’s sense and an elucidation of the nation’s spirit. Social damage remains with us even after rebuilding the security system that failed in the October 7th fiasco.
The author is the chairman of the Jewish Policy Institute (JPPI) and a professor of law at Bah Iran University.
