Astonishingly, in matters that have a value side and a political side, both of which are intertwined within one issue, the public arena is abandoned, and given to one significant factor, the parties. Such an issue is currently in the public arena, and it is the law that may lead to the reduction of the separation between the judicial and executive authorities, a separation that is the lifeblood of democracy.

How did it happen that the Israeli public arena is only in the hands of the parties? Where is the public? Where are the important public bodies, and why do many of them have no influence? Where is the justice system? Not only past judges but current judges? Where is the press? Not publicists and not in the opinion columns, but where are the editorial positions, that is, of the media itself?

 Regarding the public, we have already said more than once here, that the public at home, in the public sense, watches television and bites its nails when its fate is decided by the parties, in its absence. Once every four years the public emerges on its way to the polls, and again returns to the couch of absence.

Regarding the public bodies, there are many public bodies in Israel that address dual issues of values ​​and politics, but many of them are culturally unconnected, and their power is low; In their own eyes, they have a public status, but practically speaking, they have no real influence on the public arena and public decisions. Regarding the press, a separate article should be singled out for it; How parts of it were washed away by political and economic interests, to the point that, as bodies, many of them do not tend to decide, and they leave the dual issues in the hands of publicists. How many Israeli media will dare to carve out a systemic position regarding dual issues in which there is a distinct political component?

Influential public bodies such as universities, which if they had made a clear systemic voice regarding dual issues, their voice would have been heard, and would have reduced the decisive power of the parties, are silent in the public sense; Many academics make their voices heard, but in the public sense their influence as publicists is little; The universities are silent, probably because they are afraid of being politically colored and possibly getting into a public mess in which party members with rude statements swim like swamp fish. And perhaps they too were partly washed away by the interests of survival, economic and political. What is funny about the silence of universities, is that they themselves teach their law graduates that in matters that mix politics and values ​​in one issue, jurists must rise above their narrow political knowledge, and discuss the issue matter-of-factly. Many judges who studied in these institutions, are not in a hurry to disqualify themselves in discussions where there is a value issue with a political issue; If so, why does an institution that taught them to do this disqualify itself from deciding such issues and has no power to rise above political inspiration? Why do universities leave the arena to the parties, whose highest interest is the party and not the public, in such a way that their decision becomes an executive clause of the government? In this case, the weakening of the Supreme Court, and the reduction of the separation of powers.

But to our astonishment, even judges sitting on the throne, and who are not in a hurry to disqualify themselves in private dual issues, disqualify themselves, in a comprehensive and systemic manner, when a dual public issue of political value arises, in this case an issue that shocks the value of the separation of powers. From time to time the presidents of the Supreme Court express a position, but

the silence of the mass of judges is too loud and does not allow the presidential position to be the position of the legal system, or more precisely the position of the judiciary.

The position of the newspaper The Israeli Palestinian Post is that the parties and their result, the government, should not be allowed to enact the law of overcoming with a majority of 61, nor even with a majority of 81, and in general no changes should be made to the law in this context, certainly not now, and certainly not without a discussion with the participation of the public, public institutions and the press as systems , and should act in any legal way to prevent this. The Israeli public structure must also be changed, in order to make the Israeli public present in the public arena: to establish an upper house of electors next to the Knesset, a house that will express the presence of the public in its public arena. This house can be called Beit Atseret Am.