Given the essentially political nature of its decisions, Israel’s Supreme Court should be made up of justices from across the political spectrum.

Two days ago a list of candidates for the Supreme Court was released – for the purposes of public debate. The problem is that there is no debate. The list includes former attorney general Menachem Mazuz, but does not mention – nor has it in the past – former attorney general Michael Ben-Yair. A few days ago, Ben-Yair accused Israel of staging Hamas’ ceasefire violation so that it could then kill the group’s military leader Mohammed Deif.

The former AG’s position raises the question of whether it is necessary to examine the political stances of a given candidate. The standard Pavlovian response is to declare that political positions are out of bounds. But this issue does merit some reconsideration.

The Supreme Court makes decisions on issues that in any proper country would be seen as nonjusticiable, and sometimes the debate in court is entirely political. So let’s drop the disingenuousness, and concede that this is an issue worthy of discussion.

Also on the list of candidates is District Court judge Ruth Ronen. Not too many years ago, she ruled on a petition by the Gisha NGO, which has for years worked to end the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Ronen decided to rule in favor of the Gisha petition, thereby forcing the state to release data on internal Defense Ministry discussions regarding the amount of food transferred to the Gaza Strip.

Let us for one moment ponder the decision and Ronen’s role. The problem is that Gisha is supported by the New Israel Fund, for which Ronen’s husband is a board member.

The Legal Forum for Eretz Israel filed a complaint with the state ombudsman for judicial affairs, retired justice Eliezer Goldberg. The complaint was made on the grounds that the identity of the petitioner, as a leftwing charity, should have led the judge to “request any clarification from the petitioner as to whether there was any connection between it and the fund of which her (Ronen’s) husband is a board member.”

Following an appeal by Ronen, Goldberg determined that “the existence of this duty was not apparent, and, therefore, now it has been determined, there is a precedent.” This statement causes some unease, given that Supreme Court President Asher Grunis had determined in a separate appeal that the demand for clarification of this kind does already exist.

This is not just a legal issue, but rather a public one too. Judge Ronen did not issue a political position, she merely heard a petition from an extreme left organization whose sponsor is managed by her husband. Even if Goldberg had believed her plea of ignorance, it still does not smell good. Not good at all. What would happen if a judge had received a petition from an extreme right organization calling for Jews to be allowed to pray on Temple Mount, and the judge’s spouse was on the board of a fund that helped that body?

In courts that deal solely with legal issues, in a country where there is a real separation of powers, where there is no judicial activism, political views are irrelevant. But the Israeli Supreme Court is apparently the world leader in judicial activism, which is essentially political activism.

Despite praise-worthy restraint in recent years, Israel is still at the pinnacle of such activism. Different countries have different methods for the appointment of judges. For as long as this applies to the constitutional court, there is justification for having a balanced and varied bench.

In Germany and the United States, for example, the selection is clearly political. This is not to say that Israel should adopt a political system, nor does it mean that Judge Ronen should be disqualified. It simply means that in the Supreme Court in Israel, which deals with constitutional and essentially political issues, there should be a balanced and varied bench.

This should be carried out in an informed manner, and it is quite clear that there should be no ostrich policy in this case. For the attention of the nation’s legislators.

Reprinted with author’s permission from Ynet