A wag of a pond correspondent wondered how prattling Polonius might be coping with the news of Phillip Adams standing down and bête noire David Marr taking over the late night RN slot that should - in Polonius's alternative universe - have rightly been his fiefdom.
The pond rarely looks at Polonius's version of Media Watch, where he lets his hair down, pretends to be a dog and delivers doses of bile purporting to be lemon acid wit, but it seemed the only way to discover how Polonius was feeling.
The note about Adams' departure consisted of a few feeble comrade and leftist jokes ...
...on Thursday, “Late Night Leftism” concluded its time as Comrade Adams’ little wireless program. Here’s how it was promoted:
In Phillip Adams’ last Late Night Live, Laura Tingle turns the tables and interviews Phillip. They discuss how the political conversations and media landscape has changed since Phillip started at the ABC back in 1991, and what his hopes are for Australia.
Two leftists talking to each other.
In The Guardian Australia on 28 June, Amanda Meade reported that the ABC chair Kim Williams did not attend the pre-recorded function – but ABC managing director David Anderson did.
As Comrade Meade reported:
“I’m already on the record as not being a great fan of Kim Williams,” Adams told Weekly Beast. “Kim and I have a lot of history. I’m not happy that he got the big job. Although Kim wouldn’t have been my first, second or third recommendation, I wish him well in trying to save the joint. It’s in pretty terrible shape.”
Could Comrade Adams be softening? For example, he was quoted in the June 2024 issue of The Monthly as saying this “I prefer Kim Jong Un to Kim Williams. He’s not a team builder, he’s a team wrecker.”
Given a choice, Media Watch Dog would rather be on Kim Willliams’ (sic, he's the Graudian in disguise) Team than on that of the Norh (sic, even the Graudian isn't this bad) Korean communist dictator Kim Jong Un.
Given a choice, Media Watch Dog would rather be on Kim Willliams’ (sic, he's the Graudian in disguise) Team than on that of the Norh (sic, even the Graudian isn't this bad) Korean communist dictator Kim Jong Un.
Never mind the shameless filching from the venerable Meade.
The resolute inability to understand a joke, and respond in a humorous way, is one of the singular and charmless features of Polonial scribbling.
The idea that Adams might have been joking about Kim and Kim simply can't penetrate the humourless noggin or elephant hide.
As for Marr, he only scored a mention in relation to another matter:
As avid Media Watch Dog readers will recall, during his recent appearance at the Sun-Herald’s “5 Minutes with Fitz” column, David Marr was asked by Peter FitzSimons why he was no longer a panellist on the ABC TV Insiders program. Your man Marr replied that, towards the end of 2019, he learnt that the powers-that-be at Insiders had determined that the program needed more journalists who reported Australian national politics from Canberra and fewer blow-ins from places like Sydney or something like that....
...And so it has come to pass that, these days, Insiders tends to consist of Canberra-based journalists talking to each other about what went on in Australian national politics the previous week.
...And so it has come to pass that, these days, Insiders tends to consist of Canberra-based journalists talking to each other about what went on in Australian national politics the previous week.
The bitterness is barely concealed, and for Marr, we must of course read Polonius, still hurt at being thought of as a Sydney blow-in of the Marr kind.
But there was nothing about Marr getting behind the mike at RN. That pain, that open wound, might take months to heal.
As for this week's outing, there was nothing more in the runes about the Marr affair marring Polonius's week, though the pond was startled to be reminded that Polonius, born in 1945, was now c. 78 and would never get a gig at the ABC again, and all that was left was for him to stand outside the fish bowl, looking inside with a deep yearning, writing obsessively and compulsively about his lost chances and his lost loves ...
On the upside, Polonial grief about his loss was much more entertaining than other forms of gerontocracy currently doing the rounds, because there's never been a situation or a crisis where the ABC isn't involved in some disreputable way, at least in the Polonial alternative universe...
This elaborate set-up is of course just to show how generous Polonius is - he allowed Scott to prattle, but will the ABC ever allow Polonius to prattle? - and to set the stage for a stabbing behind the arras, as the betrayals rise to the surface, in the form of a "However", a genteel form of billy goat buttism ...
"Appeasement" and "activists" seem to be the new reptile way to disapprove of anyone who disapproves of genocide ...
To continue the theme, garrulous Gemma was also out and about ... and oh dear, Emilia Tortorella decided to contribute an artwork as a discussion starter, with attached blather about ideas, genuine ideas being birthed, when in reality that genuine idea, Le Penseur, had been birthed way back in 1904, and in a much better way ... if that's cancelling the censors and living dangerously, just give the pond a quiet, sedentary life ...
At this point, the pond decided it would indulge in some counter-programming, involving Haaretz ...
For example, here's Carolina Landsmann scribbling In Its Campaign of Revenge in Gaza, Israel Is Digging Its Own Grave (strict paywall).
The grass in the soccer fields of the Euro 2024 championship has never looked as green as it does this year. What fun to be normal. To live on a normal continent, in a normal country. To live a normal life. To enjoy normal things.
It's fun to be young in Europe. Young people there live a life that has three time periods – past, present and future. Not like here, in Israel, where there's only one aggressive, domineering time period – a past that never passes, that castrates the present, that murders the future and succeeds it, over and over again.
In recent months, on every side, I've heard people talking openly about leaving. I noted that they didn't use the word laredet (literally, "to get down" – the traditional Hebrew word for emigrating from Israel, and the opposite of the word to immigrate to Israel, which literally means "to rise up"), but la'azov ("to leave"). Maybe that's because someone who "gets down" does so from a country he leaves intact, whereas now, the feeling is that our house is going up in flames and we have to leave it before it collapses on our heads. We have to save the children and escape before it's too late.
But when do you know that the time has come to leave? And what do people do if they don't know, or can't leave?
In his foundational speech to the Israeli people four days after the October 7 massacre, U.S. President Joe Biden described his meeting with former Prime Minister Golda Meir a few weeks before the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
Biden said he was concerned for Israel's future and related how Golda had reassured him. She whispered in his ear, "Don't worry, Senator Biden. We have a secret weapon here in Israel. We have no place else to go."
Even though Biden has told this story more than once or twice before, this time, it was imbued with new life, as if it had been reunited with the circumstances that gave birth to it – an existential threat. A threat of the kind that caused so many people to ponder alternatives for living in a world in which there was no Israel (as if without it, we would have somewhere to go).
But Biden, it's important to remember, didn't tell that story to put us into a mood of existential threat. His goal was the diametric opposite – to keep us from falling into that mood. He wanted us not to feel that we were facing existential danger, and certainly we weren't doing so alone. He wanted us not to act out of a fear of collective death and not to respond out of a desire for vengeance. Biden was trying to reassure us, to dispel our fears.
Yet Israel didn't listen to Biden. It gave itself over completely to its existential fear and embarked on a campaign of vengeance that will soon have lasted for nine months and has taken the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians, most of whom were innocent of any crime.
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves," Confucius warned. And Israel, in its madness, agreed. It dug two graves before it embarked on its campaign – one for the enemy and one for the hostages, whom it abandoned and left to die.
But it's not only the hostages whom it abandoned. The campaign of vengeance Israel launched has led it straight into an existential danger, one it created with its own two hands through its own crazy behavior. From day to day, the security situation is getting worse, our international isolation is growing and the threats are multiplying. And that's without even mentioning the thousands of Palestinian orphans Israel has pushed into the cycle of vengeance. Israel is digging a grave for itself, and dragging Diaspora Jewry into it along with it.
This madness knows no bounds. Flatten the Gaza Strip, "the center of Beirut will look like the center of Gaza City" (former senior army officer Giora Eiland), attack Iran, set the West Bank on fire, take over the Philadelphi route along the Gaza-Egypt border and thereby scoff at Egypt, scorn the Jordanians, be insolent to the Americans, give the United Nations and the two international courts in the Hague the middle finger. We shall dwell alone in Dimona.
And because the victory that would calm us down is unachievable (a quick glance at any map of the Middle East is enough to realize that), Israel isn't leaving itself with any choice except losing – a painful, cruel, crushing defeat. But until then, we'll kill, blow up, shell, assassinate, pulverize, destroy and topple. Who will stop us?
Now there's a different perspective, from someone actually living in country, as opposed to someone blathering about cancel culture in the usual lizard Oz way ... shortly to be followed by a complete misrepresentation as to the meaning of Zionism.
Zionism is complex, as a glance at its wiki will confirm ...
...The term "Zionism" has been applied to various approaches to addressing issues faced by European Jews in the late 19th century. Modern political Zionism, different from religious Zionism, is a movement made up of diverse political groups whose strategies and tactics have changed over time. The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine. The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar political strategies and approaches to dealing with the local Palestinian population, especially regarding the use of violence and compulsory transfer. Advocates of Zionism have viewed it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of an indigenous people (which were subject to persecution and share a national identity through national consciousness), to the homeland of their ancestors as noted in ancient history.Similarly, anti-Zionism has many aspects, which include criticism of Zionism as a colonialist, racist, or exceptionalist ideology or as a settler colonialist movement. Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.
And so on, but if you're a mindless hammer, all you tend to see are a few nails, and so simpleton Gemma comes up with simplicity, in a way only the simple-minded can...
The pond kids, but if you read Amos Harel's Netanyahu Is Waging Three Wars of Attrition: Against Hamas, Hezbollah and the Israeli People (strict paywall), you don't find much by way of redemption, love and forgiveness, but plenty of barking mad fundamentalism ... The Israeli prime minister wants his people to remain in a fog of uncertainty, making them even more reliant on their dysfunctional government.
The concluding note caught the pond's eye ...
...The Jordanians are apprehensive that Iran and Hezbollah are bent on operating cells of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood on their soil to mount attacks on their security forces and perhaps also against U.S. troops. Iran explicitly threatened Jordan after the latter's contribution to thwarting the missile attack on Israel in April. Concurrently, efforts to flood the West Bank with more advanced weaponry continue, with a dual aim: to undermine the stability of the Palestinian Authority and to exacerbate the confrontation with Israel there.i
In this sense, it's being said in the General Staff, there's an indirect and uncoordinated partnership of interests between Iran and Hamas, and members of the coalition in Israel. The far-right wing in the Netanyahu government is also working overtime to ignite the West Bank and topple the government of the Palestinian Authority. Minister Bezalel Smotrich is stepping up his demands to strangle the PA economically and is demanding that Netanyahu allow him to legitimize four settler outposts as punishment against the PA for its involvement in the proceedings against Israel in the international courts in The Hague.
Netanyahu himself has actually moderated his approach to the PA of late, at least outwardly. Television news broadcasts this week quoted comments by Netanyahu in "closed conversations," saying that the PA's positive actions should not be ignored and that toppling its rule is not in Israel's interest at this time.
According to another report, Netanyahu's circle is hinting that he intends to include in his speech to Congress a slightly more positive message regarding the two-state vision, in the hope of still being able to integrate Israel somehow into the American-Saudi deal, even though Washington expects the deadline for that to be at the end of the month.
As the U.S. presidential election approaches, the Democrats will have a hard time enlisting Republican senators and members of the House in a move that will hand President Biden a rare foreign policy achievement and will likely anger his opponent, Donald Trump.
Oh dear ... remember that quote?
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves," Confucius warned. And Israel, in its madness, agreed. It dug two graves before it embarked on its campaign – one for the enemy and one for the hostages, whom it abandoned and left to die.
And then read those lines again ...
In this sense, it's being said in the General Staff, there's an indirect and uncoordinated partnership of interests between Iran and Hamas, and members of the coalition in Israel. The far-right wing in the Netanyahu government is also working overtime to ignite the West Bank and topple the government of the Palestinian Authority. Minister Bezalel Smotrich is stepping up his demands to strangle the PA economically and is demanding that Netanyahu allow him to legitimize four settler outposts as punishment against the PA for its involvement in the proceedings against Israel in the international courts in The Hague.
And so to the final garrulous Gemma gobbet ... and yep, such is the din of incessant reptile repetition that once again "appease" and "activist" make an appearance ... not to mention "thought police" because mindless stupidity and simplistic notions are a requirement for any lizard Oz columnist, and Gemma qualifies with exceptional ease ...
The pond isn't going to give garrulous Gemma the last word.
That can go to a few excerpts from Gidi Weitz's interview, 'Make No Mistake, Israel's Coup Is Alive and Kicking': A Stunning Warning by Supreme Court Justice Anat Baron, Justice Anat Baron, who retired from the Supreme Court days after October 7, says that Israel is at its lowest point; in these dramatic times, she doesn't feel she has the privilege to remain silent (strict paywall):
...Baron mostly specialized in civil law and in particular in class-action lawsuits. In September 2014, following the broiling-hot summer of Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip, she was appointed a Supreme Court justice. Over the years she was perceived as a liberal figure on the bench, which in the past decade has become probably the most conservative and passive in Israel's history.
Baron often found herself being targeted by the far right in the wake of judgments they could not abide. In 2020, in a ruling by a one-vote majority, she and her colleagues overturned the decision of the Central Elections Committee to disqualify Israeli Arab lawmaker Heba Yazbak from running for the Knesset on the Balad ticket, due to controversial posts on social media. Baron also served on the panel that ordered the government in 2019 to allow the entry into Israel of Palestinians, to allow them to attend the annual alternative Memorial Day ceremony of the Combatants for Peace organization and the Israeli-Palestinian Parents Circle – Families Forum, a nonprofit founded by bereaved families. Right-wing fury particularly surged against Baron when she voted in recent years against a number of Supreme Court judgments regarding the demolition of homes of terrorists.
Her grief for her son was also exploited by those who opposed her decisions. For example, "The Shadow" – far-right blogger and activist Yoav Eliasi – whose brother was a close friend of Ran's, once declared that "her surreal decisions are influenced by her gigantic loss." On the other side of the political divide, too, some did not hesitate to pour salt into the wound. In 2015, Baron was a member of a High Court of Justice panel responding to a petition that aimed to annul a government decision to re-incarcerate prisoners (who had been freed in the 2011 deal in which 1,027 Palestinians were released in return for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit) because they had allegedly violated the terms of their release. Prior to the court's deliberations, the petitioners' lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, had submitted a request for Baron to recuse herself, for fear that "her personal tragedy will affect her objectivity." Feldman was well acquainted with the justice's tragedy: His own son, Yotam, had been in high school with Ran.
The recusal request staggered Baron, as it did the presiding justice, Elyakim Rubinstein, and the third member of the panel, Neal Hendel. "They were shocked," she recalls. "Of course I decided not to recuse myself. I find it inconceivable that Feldman thought there were grounds for recusal. What do you want me to say about it? That bereavement was used as an excuse to disqualify a judge in Israel? I'm at a loss for words."
There was an expectation that the immense price you paid for a terrorist act would influence your judgments.
"No one prepares you for a loss like that. His death changed my life but not who I am or my worldview."
That expectation was particularly in evidence when it came to the demolition of terrorists' homes. The Supreme Court has for decades permitted those demolitions and you opposed the state's request in most cases. Why?
"There seems to be some confusion among the public about the purpose of demolition – people don't distinguish between punishment and deterrence. Home demolition constitutes collective punishment and is contrary to the basic principles of Israeli law. The notion that the parents sinned and the children are punished is unconscionable. Although the military commander [in the territories] is authorized to order home demolitions, the question is: In which cases? That is an issue of judiciousness and of proportionality. Generally, the perpetrator is killed during or after an attack, and if not, he will face criminal trial and receive the severest sentence that can be handed down against those who commit criminal deeds of this sort.
"It follows that the perpetrator will no longer live in the house that is slated to be demolished. Those who do live there are in many cases innocent family members, including minors. Accordingly, I set the criterion for myself of examining the family's involvement in the attack in each case. Was there such involvement? Did they know about it? Could they have prevented it? Did they celebrate after the attack? In the event that the family didn't know and wasn't involved, I would oppose home demolition. Naturally, in each such instance, I tried to imagine the families of the victims of the terrorist attack, for whose loss there is no consolation. No one can say that I don't understand what they are going through."
As to the issue of deterrence, Baron explains that, "as justices, we were given access to reports of the Shin Bet [security service] on the subject, and I can say that I didn't see in those documents [any evidence of] deterrence of those who might become terrorists in the future. Many security personnel also thought that home demolitions do not necessarily effect deterrence, but the opposite: that they actually spur more terrorism."
That's surprising, because in many rulings handed down by your colleagues, they write explicitly, when authorizing the demolitions, that they were basing themselves on Shin Bet reports that state unequivocally that demolition spells future deterrence.
"That is my impression from the reports, and I stand behind it."
Baron often found herself being targeted by the far right in the wake of judgments they could not abide. In 2020, in a ruling by a one-vote majority, she and her colleagues overturned the decision of the Central Elections Committee to disqualify Israeli Arab lawmaker Heba Yazbak from running for the Knesset on the Balad ticket, due to controversial posts on social media. Baron also served on the panel that ordered the government in 2019 to allow the entry into Israel of Palestinians, to allow them to attend the annual alternative Memorial Day ceremony of the Combatants for Peace organization and the Israeli-Palestinian Parents Circle – Families Forum, a nonprofit founded by bereaved families. Right-wing fury particularly surged against Baron when she voted in recent years against a number of Supreme Court judgments regarding the demolition of homes of terrorists.
Her grief for her son was also exploited by those who opposed her decisions. For example, "The Shadow" – far-right blogger and activist Yoav Eliasi – whose brother was a close friend of Ran's, once declared that "her surreal decisions are influenced by her gigantic loss." On the other side of the political divide, too, some did not hesitate to pour salt into the wound. In 2015, Baron was a member of a High Court of Justice panel responding to a petition that aimed to annul a government decision to re-incarcerate prisoners (who had been freed in the 2011 deal in which 1,027 Palestinians were released in return for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit) because they had allegedly violated the terms of their release. Prior to the court's deliberations, the petitioners' lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, had submitted a request for Baron to recuse herself, for fear that "her personal tragedy will affect her objectivity." Feldman was well acquainted with the justice's tragedy: His own son, Yotam, had been in high school with Ran.
The recusal request staggered Baron, as it did the presiding justice, Elyakim Rubinstein, and the third member of the panel, Neal Hendel. "They were shocked," she recalls. "Of course I decided not to recuse myself. I find it inconceivable that Feldman thought there were grounds for recusal. What do you want me to say about it? That bereavement was used as an excuse to disqualify a judge in Israel? I'm at a loss for words."
There was an expectation that the immense price you paid for a terrorist act would influence your judgments.
"No one prepares you for a loss like that. His death changed my life but not who I am or my worldview."
That expectation was particularly in evidence when it came to the demolition of terrorists' homes. The Supreme Court has for decades permitted those demolitions and you opposed the state's request in most cases. Why?
"There seems to be some confusion among the public about the purpose of demolition – people don't distinguish between punishment and deterrence. Home demolition constitutes collective punishment and is contrary to the basic principles of Israeli law. The notion that the parents sinned and the children are punished is unconscionable. Although the military commander [in the territories] is authorized to order home demolitions, the question is: In which cases? That is an issue of judiciousness and of proportionality. Generally, the perpetrator is killed during or after an attack, and if not, he will face criminal trial and receive the severest sentence that can be handed down against those who commit criminal deeds of this sort.
"It follows that the perpetrator will no longer live in the house that is slated to be demolished. Those who do live there are in many cases innocent family members, including minors. Accordingly, I set the criterion for myself of examining the family's involvement in the attack in each case. Was there such involvement? Did they know about it? Could they have prevented it? Did they celebrate after the attack? In the event that the family didn't know and wasn't involved, I would oppose home demolition. Naturally, in each such instance, I tried to imagine the families of the victims of the terrorist attack, for whose loss there is no consolation. No one can say that I don't understand what they are going through."
As to the issue of deterrence, Baron explains that, "as justices, we were given access to reports of the Shin Bet [security service] on the subject, and I can say that I didn't see in those documents [any evidence of] deterrence of those who might become terrorists in the future. Many security personnel also thought that home demolitions do not necessarily effect deterrence, but the opposite: that they actually spur more terrorism."
That's surprising, because in many rulings handed down by your colleagues, they write explicitly, when authorizing the demolitions, that they were basing themselves on Shin Bet reports that state unequivocally that demolition spells future deterrence.
"That is my impression from the reports, and I stand behind it."
* * *
In the past nine months, a vast number of noncombatants in the Gaza Strip have been killed.
"The scenes from Gaza are extremely difficult, to put it mildly, and we are exposed to only a small part of them. The [Israeli] media don't broadcast the scenes the whole world sees. This is a war that was forced upon us by a cruel terrorist organization that uses human beings and institutions such as hospitals as a shield for terrorists. As long as we are waging a war of defense for our right to live securely in the country, that is our full right. But it is absolutely forbidden for the fighting to be driven by revenge.
"This can be seen as related to the issue of home demolitions, if you like. In Judea and Samaria, too, injustices are taking place that are getting a footnote at best. Israeli rule over millions of Palestinians for almost 60 years is the country's most burning and critical problem. We're talking about a population of millions who aren't about to disappear. There is no doubt that Israel is today at the lowest point in its history, both domestically and in the way the world sees us."
Before the war, the opponents of the government's so-called judicial reforms maintained that the High Court and the country's strong, independent gatekeepers would prevent international intervention in the laws of war. That argument has now crumbled. International intervention has reached a peak – arrest warrants are in the works against the prime minister and the defense minister.
"The principle of complementarity applies in the international courts in The Hague. What does that principle say? That the international courts will not act as long as the local court system can be relied on. As long as the system of enforcement and law – the national system – of the country in question is independent and professional. The judiciary here is professional, and as of today it is also independent.
"But the international courts, even though they are supposed to be free of politics, represent countries that have political stands. And they saw and heard the plan for the judicial upheaval that was launched on January 4, 2022. They discern the attempt by the present government to politicize the judicial system, the attempt to terrorize the judges; they've seen the delegitimization to which the attorney general and the gatekeepers are being subjected. The grave statements by the country's extremist and messianic ministers also make their way overseas. The leadership has by its conduct shattered the judicial 'Iron Dome' that protected the defense establishment for many years. I am not justifying the orders issued [by the international courts], but I don't think that anyone in The Hague would have conceived of issuing them without everything that happened here in the months before the war."
Do you think the war should be stopped in order to return the hostages?
"Everything must be done, including stopping the war. They have been abandoned once, they cannot be abandoned a second time. There is no doubt here."
Do you favor the establishment of a state commission of inquiry?
"Today, especially with all that's happening in connection to us in the courts of The Hague, it's important to establish a state commission of inquiry [with respect to the events of October 7].
"The times are bad and tough," Baron continues. "To paraphrase [the late poet] Haim Gouri, 'I am pained by the State of Israel.' There is no argument between right and left that the country's situation is not good. The hostages are rotting in captivity, soldiers are losing their lives every day, many of them being wounded in body and mind, and tens of thousands of evacuees are exiles in their country. We have not defeated Hamas, the northern border is burning up, the country's credit rating is down, Israel is isolated in the international arena. There is no doubt that the person who has led us since Black Saturday and to this day bears responsibility for the present state of affairs, and it is his duty to turn to the people and seek their confidence again."
* * *
Like most of the chapters of Baron's career, her retirement from the Supreme Court also occurred in wartime. A festive farewell ceremony was scheduled for October 12, 2023 – five days after the massacre took place in southern Israel and the war broke out. She canceled it. In those awful days, she penned two judgments in her home. They dealt with petitions to annul the initial legislation enacted last year by the Knesset as part of the government's judicial coup: cancellation of the reasonableness criterion in court judgments, and the amendment to the incapacitation law regarding the prime minister. Baron was among those who ultimately decided, by a majority of one, that the law voiding the reasonableness standard should indeed be overturned and that the draconian incapacitation formula should not be applied until the next Knesset.
Has the thought occurred to you that October 7 was actually the outcome of the judicial coup?
"I think the coup made a significant contribution to the situation in which we found ourselves on October 7. In the shadow of the coup, the state was at an unprecedented nadir, which our enemies discerned and exploited well in their criminal attack."
Maybe it was actually the protest movement that weakened the country? Maybe the calls not to serve in the army against the background of the judicial overhaul created the weakened image and invited the assault?
"No one urged refusal to serve. There were people who said that they would not agree to volunteer for reserve service in a dictatorship. And if there was a question mark in this context, when the war broke out and the massacre of October 7 occurred, there was a 200-percent mobilization of everyone serving in the army and volunteering for reserve duty. You can't turn the tables here. That does an injustice to the truth and an injustice to history. The responsibility to prevent a domestic rupture lies with the leadership. That was true then and it's true now. When the leadership betrays its responsibility toward the public, it's impossible to blame the citizens who protest against it, or to call the protest the place from which the refusal to serve emerged. The real refusal, in my view, is the evasion of [army service by] the Haredim, which is incomprehensible given the very steep price the war is exacting from us as a society."
Do you go to demonstrations?
"No. I took off my judge's robe just a few months ago, and I don't think the timing is right. It might also do more harm than good. It's too soon. Maybe the day will come when I'll decide differently."
What was your feeling on January 4, 2022, when Justice Minister Yariv Levin launched the regime coup?
"Shock. I couldn't believe my ears. And he did that with support from above for that ruinous move. What I saw in his nightmarish speech was the government declaring war on democracy in Israel – an effort to deliver a blow with an axe."
Did you think that implementation of that plan would spell the death of democracy?
"Let's recall that Levin presented the first stage of his plan and already at the outset determined to destroy everything that existed, to destroy the judicial system by politicizing the gatekeepers [i.e., the police chief, state comptroller, ministerial legal advisers, etc.] and the Judicial Appointments Committee. People must understand the grave implications: Once you politicize the appointment of justices, you've lost the court, you've lost democracy. With the way our government is structured, it controls the Knesset. It's mainly the judiciary, through its judicial review system, that remains vigilant. Now, the moment the government appoints people on its behalf to the Supreme Court, and ensures that there will be no judicial review of what it does, in practice only one branch of government remains – and the result is a totalitarian regime."
Have the protests, the judgments in the cases of the reasonableness standard and the incapacitation issue involving Netanyahu, and the war blocked the regime coup attempt?
"The coup hasn't stopped. Now, and under cover of war, the regime coup is continuing to rampage in other ways. Without press conferences, grandiose bills and fireworks, but under the radar, in a series of steps all of which are eroding democracy. I view this development as nothing less than an existential danger, and I don't have the privilege to remain silent in the face of what I see."
In what ways do you discern the continuation of the coup?
"There's a sort of guidebook for a takeover, according to which a regime acts in unacceptable ways to wrest control over centers of power and to entrench its rule. It involves voiding the content of central systems such as the police, the media, the judiciary – and first and foremost the Supreme Court – the attorney general, the gatekeepers and the Shin Bet. The sole purpose of such acts is to entrench the government, and the consequence of implementing the guidelines is formation of a de facto totalitarian regime, which is a place we don't want to be in. The horrific massacre of October 7, the war and the fate of the hostages, the heart that's torn apart anew each day – they are sapping all our strength and all our attention. But make no mistake: The regime coup is alive and kicking."
Those sound like generalizations. Could you go into more detail?
"An alarm light is flashing. Unfortunately there are many examples; I will list just a few. There is more than one sign of the politicization of the police and the implications are grave: depriving citizens of protection, when the very mission of the police is to protect them. The so-called spirit of the commander as embodied by the responsible minister [Itamar Ben-Gvir] is apparent, for example, in the violence being used against the demonstrators. The minister summons the police commissioner [Kobi Shabtai] to a hearing solely because the commissioner warned that the minister is acting against High Court rulings and contrary to the way the police force is supposed to be run – as an independent body, not dependent and not political.
"The summons to a hearing is effectively a warning not only to the police chief himself but to all those who hold command ranks and are candidates for future promotion: toe the line, and if you don't, it will be reflected in your promotion. These are not false alarms – they are real.
"The communications minister [Shlomo Karhi] is trying to seize control of the free media, including taking over the Kan public broadcaster. The government is trying to outflank the attorney general [Gali Baharav-Miara], to empty her position of content, among other ways by having private counsel represent government ministries before the High Court of Justice. The attacks and incitement by cabinet ministers against the attorney general are catastrophic in and of themselves. But she is standing rock-solid in the face of this.
"An attempt was also made to [have the Regional Cooperation Ministry] take over responsibility for government companies and their directorships, to the point where the director of the Government Companies Authority, who tried to fight for the autonomy of those companies, was forced to resign. Government ministries also tried to take over the Postal Authority and remove its chairman, until the High Court prevented it. The pace of the events is dizzying.
"Some say that the heads of the country's defense branches should have resigned as a result of the failure of October 7, but here too there is a serious suspicion that they will be replaced by political appointees. I don't want to even imagine a situation where the head of the Shin Bet is not independent but serves as an arm of the government – when it comes to dealing with political opponents. That happens only in countries that we do not want to resemble, in dictatorships."
Do you think that the failure to appoint Justice Isaac Amit as president of the Supreme Court is part of the regime coup?
"Definitely. The failure to appoint a permanent president of the Supreme Court is one more way to degrade the independence of the justices whose rulings the government doesn't like. That is also reflected in the fact that the two slots that became vacant upon the retirement of the court's president, Esther Hayut, and of myself, are not being filled. This poses a threat to the Supreme Court, it's a sword at its throat, with a message: 'Toe the line with us when it comes to rulings and to appointments.'"
The government, and particularly Minister Levin, is refusing to appoint Amit president and wants to eliminate the seniority system in the Supreme Court. For the first time in the country's history, a Supreme Court justice, Yosef Elron, has defied the system and announced that he's competing for the post. How do you see this?
"I am a friend of Justice Elron and I told him what I think – that it's a mistake on his part. The seniority system has substantive advantages. Until today there has been no competition between the justices over who leads the court when the president retires [at the mandatory age of 70] and a new one has to be appointed. The elimination of the seniority system is liable not only to bring about fierce internal competition in the court, but also competition over who will try to curry favor with those who do the appointing, and above all the politicians. Heaven help us if rulings will be aimed at pleasing the politicians. Now, I wouldn't dare think that anyone would hand down a ruling like that consciously – but doing so unconsciously is also very dangerous."
Did all the justices agree with you about Elron's move? Was there a consensus?
"The overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court justices think as I do."
You're talking about the dangers of politicizing judicial appointments. But the episode of Efi Nave, the former chairman of the Israel Bar Association [who is being investigated by the police on suspicion of bribery, fraud and breach of trust], showed that even under the good old system, disgraceful manipulation to appoint judges occurred behind the scenes.
"That is very regrettable and gives a bad name to the system, but not justly. In no way is that the general rule."
Did you ever meet with politicians so they would promote you? With the chair of the bar association? Did you lobby?
"It never entered my mind."
With respect to the Supreme Court decision on the reasonableness law [an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary], a decisive majority ruled that the court is indeed authorized to review a Basic Law when it is seen as detrimental to democracy. But there were two justices – Noam Sohlberg and David Mintz – who sanctified the Basic Laws and stated that the court cannot intervene with regard to them in any case. What do you think about that approach, which nullifies the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding the core values of democracy?
"So long as we do not have a Basic Law on Legislation, which would regularize the relations between the branches – and I believe it is essential to enact it – the headline 'Basic Law' cannot validate all kinds of extreme situations that will deliver a mortal blow to democracy. Otherwise we're liable to find ourselves in a situation, for example, in which a law stipulating that an election will be held every eight years or maybe every 20 years will be passed, or in which a law affects women's enfranchisement. That is of course out of the question. In my view, the importance of the ruling in the reasonableness case lies in the opinion of the majority – the broad agreement of 12 justices [out of 15], and myself among them, which made it unequivocally clear that the High Court possesses the authority to conduct judicial review of Basic Laws as well."
What do you think of the efforts President Isaac Herzog made to get the different sides to reach a compromise regarding the judicial coup?
"A compromise over democracy is impossible. It's like someone holding a pistol to your forehead: You can't compromise over half a bullet. There's a range within the framework of which various things can be changed. But that wasn't the kind of change that was on the agenda. According to my understanding, what was on the agenda when they talked about a compromise embodied a significant erosion of the foundations of democracy. There's no way to compromise over that. You can say that the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee isn't sacred, and maybe some sort of change can be made there, but it's unacceptable to compromise when it comes to politicization of that committee. The fact that the attempts went on for so long caused great damage in itself."
And so on ...it's a long interview, and the usual problems with barking mad fundamentalist emerge ...
...In 2021, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling regarding a petition against the five-year plan of the Council for Higher Education. The council's plan sought to make higher education accessible to the Haredi population by including arrangements for gender-segregated academic studies. An expanded panel of nine justices ruled that it is illegal to discriminate against female lecturers when it comes to teaching all-male courses or to authorize segregation of the sexes outside the classroom. But as expected, the court did not go all the way: In a majority opinion, it decided that under certain circumstances, in the classroom, such segregation would be allowed.
In her minority opinion, Baron wrote that such a policy endangers a person's right to equality and therefore must be disallowed. "In the case before us, in the name of modesty and in order to prevent the danger of temptation, heaven forbid, it's been determined that undergraduate academic courses in which women are not permitted to sit among men, should be made possible," she noted in the judgment, adding that in her view, "separation between women and men in academia is dictated by the sex of the women and the 'dangers' their body poses to men. That notion undermines the recognition of women as having equal rights with men."
Do you perceive a connection between the exclusion of women and the motives underlying the regime coup?
"The present government is promoting with all its might a policy of gender separation in the public domain. We are witnessing this in various professional training courses, in cultural events, in parks, at natural springs and elsewhere. Women are disappearing from the public domain – the most flagrant example is their negligible percentage in the government and the Knesset. I believe that there are also no female directors general today in the government ministries.
"The ruling dealing with segregated academic courses was handed down about three years ago, in the pre-regime coup era, and already back then I wrote that I was concerned that the shock waves created by gender separation in one arena would trickle into other spaces. My position was and is that such separation constitutes exclusion of women. And the policy of 'separate but equal' – which was actually the idea underlying the idea of separate studies for Haredi men and women – is discriminatory and humiliating, an embodiment of the stereotypical perception of women 'interfering' with men who are trying to study.
"The goal of integrating Haredim in education and employment is an important one – but it cannot justify a disproportionate blow to women's equality. Regrettably, I was in the minority in this matter. There is no doubt that the degree of protection accorded to protecting women's rights is a litmus test for the democratic regime."
Your position in this context reflects the very heart of the accusations leveled by the Haredim at the Supreme Court. That you are trying to impose Western, liberal values on a large community that views such values as foreign.
"It's not a question of imposing liberal values. In the United States, Haredi men study together with Haredi women in institutions of higher education, and they are integrated in the employment market as well. In Israel there is a creeping process of separation. In this case too, there was initially talk about segregating only undergraduate degree courses, and afterward they also talked about courses at the master's level, and then we saw gender separation in cadets' courses and in driving courses. There's no end to it. It also led to a discriminatory approach in public libraries of universities, in public spaces.
"Among the petitioners who argued their case before us in this matter there were also some who represented a group of Haredi women. They argued that once separation exists [in the classroom], they will feel they cannot allow themselves to mingle at all with the general student body at the universities. That should not be the case. We are not a state of halakha [traditional religious law]. At home, everyone can behave as they wish, but we are talking about the public domain. Many seek to justify all these discriminatory practices against women by saying that they are carried out in the name of 'freedom of religion' – [by] imposing rules of modesty on women, relegating them to seats in the back of the bus, separate sidewalks and more. But freedom of religion cannot justify that.
"So I ruled, for example, that Laniado Hospital may not deny fertility treatments to women who are not registered as married, despite the hospital's religious character. The policy introduced by the hospital contains an implicit statement that brands unmarried women as inferior. In another judgment, I ruled that the Kiryat Arba local council may not prevent families who so wish to engage in coed swimming in the only public pool in the area. Imposing gender separation at a public pool, ostensibly in the name of freedom of religion, not only excludes women but also adversely affects the right to freedom from religion."The issue of drafting Haredim into the army is now on the agenda and could cause a serious clash between your own values. The draft law is liable to lead to segregation between men and women, because the army will try to adjust itself to the Haredi worldview. [This interview was conducted before the High Court ruling this week that the state must indeed draft Haredim.]
In her minority opinion, Baron wrote that such a policy endangers a person's right to equality and therefore must be disallowed. "In the case before us, in the name of modesty and in order to prevent the danger of temptation, heaven forbid, it's been determined that undergraduate academic courses in which women are not permitted to sit among men, should be made possible," she noted in the judgment, adding that in her view, "separation between women and men in academia is dictated by the sex of the women and the 'dangers' their body poses to men. That notion undermines the recognition of women as having equal rights with men."
Do you perceive a connection between the exclusion of women and the motives underlying the regime coup?
"The present government is promoting with all its might a policy of gender separation in the public domain. We are witnessing this in various professional training courses, in cultural events, in parks, at natural springs and elsewhere. Women are disappearing from the public domain – the most flagrant example is their negligible percentage in the government and the Knesset. I believe that there are also no female directors general today in the government ministries.
"The ruling dealing with segregated academic courses was handed down about three years ago, in the pre-regime coup era, and already back then I wrote that I was concerned that the shock waves created by gender separation in one arena would trickle into other spaces. My position was and is that such separation constitutes exclusion of women. And the policy of 'separate but equal' – which was actually the idea underlying the idea of separate studies for Haredi men and women – is discriminatory and humiliating, an embodiment of the stereotypical perception of women 'interfering' with men who are trying to study.
"The goal of integrating Haredim in education and employment is an important one – but it cannot justify a disproportionate blow to women's equality. Regrettably, I was in the minority in this matter. There is no doubt that the degree of protection accorded to protecting women's rights is a litmus test for the democratic regime."
Your position in this context reflects the very heart of the accusations leveled by the Haredim at the Supreme Court. That you are trying to impose Western, liberal values on a large community that views such values as foreign.
"It's not a question of imposing liberal values. In the United States, Haredi men study together with Haredi women in institutions of higher education, and they are integrated in the employment market as well. In Israel there is a creeping process of separation. In this case too, there was initially talk about segregating only undergraduate degree courses, and afterward they also talked about courses at the master's level, and then we saw gender separation in cadets' courses and in driving courses. There's no end to it. It also led to a discriminatory approach in public libraries of universities, in public spaces.
"Among the petitioners who argued their case before us in this matter there were also some who represented a group of Haredi women. They argued that once separation exists [in the classroom], they will feel they cannot allow themselves to mingle at all with the general student body at the universities. That should not be the case. We are not a state of halakha [traditional religious law]. At home, everyone can behave as they wish, but we are talking about the public domain. Many seek to justify all these discriminatory practices against women by saying that they are carried out in the name of 'freedom of religion' – [by] imposing rules of modesty on women, relegating them to seats in the back of the bus, separate sidewalks and more. But freedom of religion cannot justify that.
"So I ruled, for example, that Laniado Hospital may not deny fertility treatments to women who are not registered as married, despite the hospital's religious character. The policy introduced by the hospital contains an implicit statement that brands unmarried women as inferior. In another judgment, I ruled that the Kiryat Arba local council may not prevent families who so wish to engage in coed swimming in the only public pool in the area. Imposing gender separation at a public pool, ostensibly in the name of freedom of religion, not only excludes women but also adversely affects the right to freedom from religion."The issue of drafting Haredim into the army is now on the agenda and could cause a serious clash between your own values. The draft law is liable to lead to segregation between men and women, because the army will try to adjust itself to the Haredi worldview. [This interview was conducted before the High Court ruling this week that the state must indeed draft Haredim.]
It's the one thing that keeps the pond going... the chance to feature alternative insights and thoughts, triggered by the zealots in the lizard Oz rabbiting on about cancel culture, while cancelling anything interesting outside their own narrow bigotry and prejudices.
As religion has been the go this day, time to wrap up with a religion-themed 'toon ... which thoughtfully avoids noting the difficulty of explaining adultery to third graders by referencing the former president and the porn star, with "thou shalt kill with a Glock" so much easier to understand ...
And a message from god, what with She always being inclined to be frivolous ...
