David Friedman, former US Ambassador to Israel and an ally of former President Donald Trump, has confirmed his opposition to the judicial overhaul being pushed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Friedman’s opposition was revealed in an Axios report, where he pushed back on one of the overhaul’s key architects, Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman’s claims that the proposals would make Israel more like the US.
During a private session of a conference organized by conservative think tanks, Friedman said, “You compare this to the US, but it doesn’t work like that in our system,” drawing applause from many in the room. He also singled out the “override clause,” which would let the government re-legislate laws struck down by the courts. Friedman added that in the US, the courts exist to protect minority rights, and the override clause will prevent the Israeli courts from doing the same.
Speaking to The Times of Israel, Friedman said that his concerns were made “respectfully” and were part of an “attempt to find common ground.” He added that protecting “minority rights are an important aspect of the US government and should be for any government.” Friedman’s comments come at a time when Netanyahu’s government is facing criticism for its efforts to change Israel’s judicial system.
The proposed overhaul would give politicians greater control over the appointment of judges and limit the power of the Supreme Court. Critics say that the changes would undermine Israel’s democratic values and weaken the judiciary’s independence. Supporters argue that the overhaul is necessary to rein in the power of the courts, which they say has become too great.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
11 Responses
This former American diplomat Friedman shouldn’t be meddling in the internal affairs of Israel.
The Israeli court system is broken. It needs fixing in a big way. It is not a judicial system but a corrupt system. It is an internal Israeli issue and Mr. Friedman, if he was sincere, would voice his opinion in private. This open condemnation seems disingenuous on its surface. I’m surprised at him.
Friedman is an experienced lawyer, but on this subject he has no idea what he’s talking about.
“You compare this to the US, but it doesn’t work like that in our system,”
That’s right. In our system sitting judges have no say in appointing their colleagues and replacements. It is considered unethical for them to even attempt to influence this. Judicial appointment is entirely a matter for the political branches. So the proposed Israeli reform doesn’t go far enough.
in the US, the courts exist to protect minority rights, and the override clause will prevent the Israeli courts from doing the same.
Wrong. In the US the courts exist to enforce the law; to protect minority rights, those rights must first be entrenched in law. Courts in the USA have absolutely no power to make up “rights” and then protect them, just because they feel like it. The USA has no need for an “override” clause, because the courts have no power to strike down valid laws in the first place; and for a law to be invalid, it must violate the constitution. Israel has no constitution, so when the courts strike laws down they are simply exercising power they have never been given by the Knesset or by anyone else. They have seized that power in what can only be called a coup d’etat, for which Aharon Barak should have been imprisoned for life, or hanged. The “reform” still allows the courts to do this, subject to the Knesset’s override, which means it still gives the courts more authority than they have in the USA.
who are you mr. ding bat….a jew from America NO COMMENT
“protecting “minority rights…” that’s precisely what it’s all about – the not so “supreme” court trampled on the rights of the religious and chareidy minorities, which is why the system needs fixing – it’s their fault and blame it all on Barak and his successors.
Ujm
You are right only reform, terrorists can meddle in Israel business
Jews have no rights to.
Right ?
He can say that the override clause isn’t detrimental only if there was an actual functional court system. Now it’s כמאן דליתא דמי
*is
What minority rights is he talking about? Who exactly doesn’t have rights? Perhaps it’s the minority political parties who lost big in the election that are complaining. No “minority rights” are threatened by improving the judicial system where current Supreme Court huddles appoint their own replacements.
Funny how even smart people have this all wrong.
I don’t know the details of the proposed legislation, but the status quo is untenable
Milhouse, spoken like someone with a real grasp on the situation.