Quote from the Metsuda translation of Eshter, chapter 8 as translated by The Metsudah Five Megillot, Lakewood, N.J., 2001
Esther spoke again before the king. She threw herself at his feet and wept, and pleaded with him to divert the evil decree of Haman the Agagite; and his scheme which he had devised against the Yehudim.
The king extended the golden sceptre towards Esther. Esther rose, and stood before the king.She said, “If his majesty deems it proper, and if I have gained favor before him, and the matter seems fitting before his majesty, and I am pleasing in his eyes; then let a writ be issued rescinding the documents conceived by Haman, the son of Hamdasa, the Agagite, that he wrote ordering the annihilation of the Yehudim who reside in all the providence of the king.For how can I possibly look on while catastrophe befalls my people? And how can I possibly look on while my heritage is annihilated?King Achashverosh said to Queen Esther and to Mordechai the Yehudi, “Here, I have given Haman’s estate to Esther, and he was hung from the gallows for attacking the Yehudim.Thus, you may issue a writ concerning the Yehudim as you please, in the name of the king and you may seal it with the king’s ring; for a writ issued in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s ring, is not rescindable.The royal scribes were summoned at that time, during the third month, which is the month of Sivan, on the twenty third of the month, and transcripts were made of all of Mordechai’s directives, to the Yehudim, to the envoys, to the governors, and to the ministers of the colonies which extended from Hodu until Kush, one hundred and twenty-seven colonies; each and every colony in its own script, each and every people in its own language. Also, to the Yehudim, in their script and their language.He wrote in the name of King Achashverosh, sealed it with the king’s ring, and dispatched scrolls carried by couriers on horseback, riders of the royal breed, fleet dromedaries bred from ramachim.Namely that the king authorized the Yehudim in each and every city to assemble and stand in defense of their lives; to destroy, slaughter, and annihilate the military forces of any people or colony oppressing them, their children and women; with their booty to be taken.On a single day, in all the colonies of King Achashverosh—on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.The terms of the writ would become legally binding in each and every colony, displayed conspicuously before all the peoples, so that the Yehudim would be poised, on that day, to exact vengeance on their enemies.The couriers, riders of the royal breed, the fleet dromedaries, rushed away by urgent royal command, and the decree was delivered in the capital city of Shushan.Mordechai emerged from the king’s presence attired in majestic garb of bluish techeiles wool and pure white, with a great golden crown, and a cloak of linen and purple, argaman wool. And the city of Shushan was blissfully joyful.
For the Yehudim, there was radiance, joy, delight, and glory. With this in mind I contend that before asking for changes in the law, for the next government in Israel, you first have to get rid of the judicial dictators and the hostile deep state beauracracy that interprets and implements the law.
For those who are completely unaware of the political situation in Israel, I asked Gemini Ai, give me 5 examples where the political right in Israel is claiming that the Supreme Court has changed the rules when they were in charge, to hurt their agenda.
Answer:
In Israeli political discourse, the right wing frequently argues that the Supreme Court—particularly during the “Judicial Revolution” led by former Chief Justice Aharon Barak in the late 1980s and 1990s—illegitimately expanded its own authority by altering core legal doctrines. Critics allege these changes unilaterally shifted power away from the elected Knesset and government toward the judiciary.
The political right in Israel routinely cites five key examples of the court changing the rules to undermine their conservative or right-of-center agenda:
-
Elimination of Standing (Zchut Amida) Rules
-
The Rule Change: Historically, a petitioner had to prove direct, personal harm to bring a case before the High Court of Justice. Under Aharon Barak, the court lowered and virtually eliminated standing requirements, allowing public petitioners and legal NGOs to challenge government policies even if they had no direct personal involvement in the dispute.
-
The Right’s Argument: Conservative critics argue this enabled left-wing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to bypass the legislative process and routinely drag right-wing government policies—such as settlement expansion, military tactics, or deportation orders—into court to be blocked or delayed.
-
-
Abolition of Non-Justiciability (Schitut)
-
The Rule Change: The court previously refrained from ruling on political, military, or foreign policy matters, deeming them non-justiciable (outside the court’s proper scope). The court shifted to a doctrine asserting that “everything is justiciable” (hakol shapit), bringing national security, foreign agreements, and parliamentary affairs under judicial scrutiny.
-
The Right’s Argument: Right-wing figures assert this allowed the court to micro-manage military operations, alter security fence routes, and review political appointments, stripping the elected executive branch of its core governance powers.
-
-
Creation of Constitutional Review without a Written Constitution (The 1995 Mizrahi Bank Ruling)
-
The Rule Change: In the landmark 1995 Bank Mizrahi ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the passage of two Basic Laws in 1992 (Human Dignity and Liberty and Freedom of Occupation) gave the court the authority to strike down regular Knesset legislation if it conflicted with these Basic Laws.
-
The Right’s Argument: The right argues that the Knesset never intended to grant the court the power of judicial review when it passed those Basic Laws by narrow margins late at night. They contend the court staged a “self-declared constitutional revolution” without popular mandate to invalidate right-leaning legislation (such as migrant detention laws and draft exemption policies).
-
-
Expansion of the “Reasonableness” Doctrine (I-Savirut)
-
The Rule Change: The court expanded the standard of “extreme unreasonableness” from reviewing minor administrative decisions to overriding high-level political decisions, ministerial appointments, and executive policies.
-
The Right’s Argument: Right-wing politicians argue this replaced objective legal benchmarks with the subjective political values of the judges. They point to instances where the court disqualified elected ministers (e.g., Aryeh Deri) or blocked ministerial appointments, arguing the court used “reasonableness” as a tool to impose its worldview over the democratic choice of voters.
-
-
Binding Authority of the Attorney General
-
The Rule Change: Through a series of rulings, the Supreme Court established that the legal opinions of the Attorney General (and ministry legal advisers) are legally binding on the government, and that the government cannot hire outside counsel to represent its position in court if the AG disagrees with them.
-
The Right’s Argument: Right-wing cabinet members argue this transformed legal advisers from professional consultants into unelected overseers with veto power over government policies, creating a situation where a right-wing administration is routinely blocked from advancing its platform by its own legal advisers.
-
-
Editor’s note: The Attorney General was appointed while the opposition was in power and the Supreme Court has vetoed efforts to remove her, despite the unanimous government decision to fire her.