A culture war is raging all over Israel. One of the main controversies involves the High Court of Justice and its function. The long-standing debate surrounding the highest court in the land is reignited whenever its activity grabs the spotlight. The fact that the same sparring partners emerge on either side of the divide every time proves that the debate is not over the issue at hand but about the ultimate outcome. I believe the court is a strong beacon of justice that protects every Israeli citizen both in Israel and (no less importantly) overseas. This is the legacy of two former chief justices: Meir Shamgar and Dorit Beinisch. The constant erosion of the court's status, however, could hurt Israel's standing among democratic nations in the West. It would be shameful if our justice system were to go down the same path as the Turkish judiciary under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The recent conflagration between Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Chief Justice Miriam Naor is ostensibly about the stipulation that the most senior judge becomes chief justice when the seat is vacated. Shaked wants to do away with this system, but the truth of the matter is that she just wants concessions in return for letting the next chief justice-designate, Justice Esther Hayut, rise to the top spot. She has also been clever enough to say that Hayut is qualified for the job. There is no point in having another debate about the merits of the seniority system. If Shaked can live with it this time around, why have this academic debate about the pros and cons of the system? Everything has already been said; there is nothing new to add to this debate. Those who prefer that a committee comprising politicians and lawyers select the next chief justice will end up humiliating judges by forcing them to pander to the very people they are appointed to judge in various court cases. I don't want any future chief justice to have to court Interior Minister Aryeh Deri because he or she needs to swing the Shas party representative on committee in their favor. Neither would I want a future chief justice to court a politician who is not considered controversial, say someone like Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon. By all means, let us engage in a debate over how to appoint a chief justice. Let's invite the best scholars to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and have a conference on the matter. But let's do it only after we appoint Hayut, not before. Shaked insists that it is unnecessary to choose a chief more than 100 days before he or she is sworn in. Why therefore is it so important to her to know who will fill the two spots that are expected to be vacated well over 100 days before this actually happens? Hypocrisy. Yes, it is important to determine who the next two justices are going to be. Shaked wants to make the court more balanced by appointing someone from the Right, but I believe the court doesn't have a left-wing bias to begin with. She envisions a much less active court, but I believe this could have adverse repercussions for many years to come. That said, both viewpoints are legitimate. This debate is a debate worth having for its own sake. Shaked has established herself as a worthy adversary who knows the fine details of the issue at hand. She is a pro and she has earned the respect of those who disagree with her. But when she links the appointment of the chief justice to the selection of the next two justices, to the point of conditioning one on the other, she is stooping down to a level of haggling that is more appropriate in a marketplace than in a government. She needs to separate the two issues and deal with each appointment in its own time.
