WSJ Columnist William Galston Cites David Ben-Gurion in Defense of Binyamin Netanyahu's 'Judicial Reform'

  

It's not often that a veteran Wall Street Journal columnist cites a departed social democrat to make a point. But William Galston did just that by invoking Israel's first prime minister to demonstrate that, just like Binyamin Netanyahu, David Ben-Gurion favored a weak Supreme Court.

Good enough for Ben-Gurion? Good enough for Netanyahu? Should be good enough for conservative pro-Israel readers of the Journal.

Galston, citing Yeshiva University and Tikvah Fund scholar Neil Rogachevsky, writes that in 1949 Ben-Gurion told a Knesset committee that he opposed enshrining overarching democratic values -- the kind that would not be subject to popular whim. As far as Ben-Gurion was concerned, a simple majority should always get its way. "In a country such as ours, imagine for yourselves that the nation wants something, and seven people designated with the rank of judge cancel something that the nation wants! . . . This, in our country, would lead to revolution. For the people would say: we will do what we want," Ben-Gurion said.

Ben-Gurion then, like Netanyahu's Justice Minister now, Yariv Levin, opposed giving the court the power to "decide whether the laws are kosher or not kosher." That should be up to the Knesset (controlled in his day by Ben-Gurion and by Netanyahu today). Galston concludes that Ben-Gurion was right, and the court under former Chief Justice Aharon Barak should not have given itself expanded powers of judicial review. He says that today's chasm in Israel's body politic only proves that it would have been better if Ben-Gurion's advice had been headed.

Galston, a self-described "phlegmatic Jew," espouses the stance taken by similarly situated American Jewish social, economic, and political conservatives that the last thing Israel needs is an interventionist liberal Supreme Court that will hamper the majority's passions.  Frankly, it surprises me that Galston is one of those conservatives who parts company from James Madisonian.

Telling me that Ben-Gurion would have supported Netanyahu only strengthens my feeling that I should oppose the Israeli government's regime change drive. Ben-Gurion was a strong leader convinced that he could bend the majority to his will. Our first PM did not brook internal party challenges or solicit the policy views of others; he was ruthless in crushing anyone in his way. And he liked to be in control – of the labor unions, the media, and the Jewish Agency.

What comes across from Tom Segev's brilliant A State at Any Cost The Life of David Ben-Gurion is that he was uneasy with political power being concentrated anywhere but in his own hands. When he could, he humiliated Chaim Weizmann offering him Israel's presidency shorn of power. He distrusted Yitzhak Sadeh and the Palmach leadership because they aligned with the Mapam Party. He feared and detested Menachem Begin. He made himself supreme commander of the Haganah and would not rest easy until the fledgling IDF military command was dominated by his Mapai Party.

He could also be cold-hearted. In 1947, he took no steps to discourage the British from hanging Irgun operative Dov Gruner. And in 1948, he authorized an attack on the Irgun arms ship Altalena because he convinced himself Begin was planning a coup.

"The smoke that rose over the Altalena had not dispersed when Ben-Gurion went back to subduing the Palmach," writes Segev. Why look for enemies on your own side during wartime? Because as Segev explains, "Ben-Gurion tended to become addicted to his hatreds."

Galston and the Jewish Americans who think like him (some of whom are funding the movement to change Israel's regime) are unlikely ever to move their families here. For them supporting Bibi's "judicial reform" must seem like a culturally and politically fascinating lab experiment. Let's see what happens when you concentrate power in the hands of one man in a country with no constitution or bill of rights, with a fragmented population and a considerable Arab minority. Where a big chunk of ultra-Orthodox men and women do no national service. And where West Bank settlement policy is now more than ever a seat-of-the-pants affair.

Galston and his amen corner would like to change the subject to talk about judicial philosophy. But here in planet Israel, "judicial reform" is the cornerstone of a regime change scheme driven by Netanyahu's frothing coalition comprised of his own post-Jabotinsky Likud Party, the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionist parties (Shas and UTJ), and the messianic, red-cow, settler ethno-nationalists (Jewish National Front, Religious Zionist Party, and Noam).

Israel's Supreme Court held its first session in September 1948, its five members having been personally selected by Ben-Gurion's Justice Minister. Sure enough, another element of Netanyahu's judicial "reform" is not just giving rabbis and politicians more control over the media, banks, and civil service but over how judges are selected.

No one will accuse Ben-Gurion of changing his mind to stay out of prison. But they will remember what Netanyahu said in more honorable days about the judiciary:

"I believe that a strong, independent court allows for the existence of all other institutions in a democracy…

"I ask that you show me one dictatorship, one undemocratic society, where a strong independent court system exists. There's no such thing…

"In places with no strong and independent court system, rights cannot be protected…