It should be noted at the outset: this is a preliminary article that will discuss one petition and its possible results. In this article I chose to discuss the petition concerning the amendment to the basic law: the judiciary; An amendment which deals with the cancellation of the "reasonableness cause" which was a tool in the hands of the courts to exercise judicial criticism against the Israeli government, its minister or even its head. The state of things until the amendment to the law which abolished the "reasonable cause" was that the courts, especially the district courts in their sitting as courts for administrative matters and especially the Supreme Court, exercised judicial review of the decisions of the government, its head and ministers and examined, among other things, whether the decision against which the petition was filed is indeed extremely unreasonable. The amendment to the Basic Law seeks to deprive the courts of this tool. Assuming that the petition in this matter will be accepted, the High Court of Justice orders that the amendment to the Basic Law is null and void and should not be followed. Let's assume that the Prime Minister publicly announces that he and his government do not intend to comply with the ruling. So far, in his words, there is no violation of a judicial order, because no "do or don't do" order has been given, therefore it is not possible to act against any person according to a contempt of court order. This order, which was enacted by the British Mandate government back in 1929, gives the courts tools to enforce do-and-don't orders given as part of a legal process. But things will be put to the test when the government, its head or any of its ministers, makes some decision and a petition is filed to cancel that decision because it is extremely unreasonable.

If this petition is accepted, it means that the decision in question is null and void. If, despite the order, the government continues to act according to the same annulled decision, the government, or its head or any of the ministers, will be found to be violating a judicial order. Then, and only then, the court may, at the request of an interested party, rule according to an order in contempt of the court, and oblige, with imprisonment or a fine, the party who refused to obey the judicial order, as written and worded. It is understood that the court itself is unable to implement its ruling. Those who will have to act to enforce the order are the enforcement authorities: the police, the Shin Bet and, in extreme cases, the army. The question arises: who will the enforcement authorities obey: the government or the court's orders?

From statements recently heard from the heads of these organizations, who are in office today, as well as from their predecessors, it can be clearly understood that all of them as one will act according to the orders of the court, meaning that they are all subject first and foremost to the law, from which the Israeli public and political structure derives. If we do come to this, and those enforcement authorities arrest the prime minister or one of the ministers, constitutional questions will arise that we never needed to discuss: Does a prime minister who is arrested according to a contempt of court order (unlike if he is banned after a criminal conviction) continue to serve in his position? If so, can he function from a prison cell? And if he ceases to reign, who will replace him? Does the Knesset session dissolve and elections are announced? These are only the tipping points that a constitutional crisis may raise.