Author Accuses Former Supreme Court President Barak of "Leninist" Power Grab
Translated & summarized from Channel 9 by baba
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Author alleges Aaron Barak led a "state coup" to create a "progressivist dictatorship."
- The judiciary and bureaucracy allegedly usurped power from elected officials in the 1990s.
- Barak is described as a "Leninist liberal" hostile to democratic principles.
- The author criticizes the Supreme Court's alleged overreach and decline in public trust.
- The opposition's uncompromising stance against Netanyahu is linked to Barak's influence.
The author contends that a "state coup" orchestrated by former Supreme Court President Aaron Barak transformed Israel from a democratic society into a "progressivist dictatorship" by shifting power from elected officials to a bureaucratic and legal elite. This process, allegedly initiated in the 1990s, involved the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court (BAGATS), actively undermining national interests and opposing settlers, while simultaneously fostering bureaucratic power. The author cites lawyer Ilan Zion, who in 2020 reportedly detailed this power transit from elected bodies to lawyers supported by the bureaucracy. Zion also pointed to Liat Ben-Ari's writings, such as "Bureaucracy as Politics," which allegedly advocated for the bureaucratic echelon to shape policy, bypassing democratic processes.
The author initially viewed Barak and his associates as misguided idealists but now believes Barak is a "Leninist liberal" who is fundamentally opposed to "arithmetic democracy." He criticizes Barak's past statements about the judiciary's role, arguing that while Barak claimed the court merely interprets laws and lacks power, the Supreme Court under Barak's alleged influence asserted its right to deem legislative changes "reasonable" and effectively controlled policy. Barak's assertion that the court's power relies solely on public trust is also questioned, with the author suggesting Barak was more interested in "purse and sword." Public trust in the Supreme Court has reportedly declined significantly.
The author draws parallels between Barak's alleged actions and the current Israeli opposition's stance, particularly their unified boycott of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He claims the opposition prioritizes Netanyahu's removal over national security, even suggesting they would prefer Hamas leader Sinwar and others to remain powerful. The author cites an exchange with an activist who couldn't answer if they would allow Netanyahu five more years in power in exchange for the hostages' release, and quotes Thomas Friedman expressing conflict between wanting the Iranian regime to fall and not wanting Netanyahu to gain strength.
Ultimately, the author argues that the opposition's ultimatum-like stance, rejecting compromise and prioritizing their "own" Israel, is solidified by Barak's influence. He references Professor Moshe Cohen-Eliya, who reportedly stated that Barak's intervention in 2023 negotiations prevented national reconciliation. The author concludes that Barak, as the architect of the "Deep State," is responsible for the "diamond-hard" rejection of compromise by the opposition.