Last Tuesday, Israel’s Supreme Court heard the opening arguments concerning an amendment to the Basic Law governing the court’s own function, passed by the Knesset on July 24. The Basic Laws function in the lieu of a constitution, as the Jewish state does not have one. According to the amendment, the court may no longer countermand the government’s decisions on the grounds that they lack reasonableness; the petitioners hold that this amendment is itself unconstitutional, and the High Court should strike it down. Herewith, an excerpt from the government’s brief stating its case before the court. (Translation by Mida.)

The Government of Israel contends that, the state of Israel being a democracy, the source and authority of all government agencies is the sovereign—meaning the people, the citizens of Israel. Israeli citizens are represented in the Knesset, in a manner established in Basic and regular laws, thus authority and its source are derived from the rules established by the Knesset—the Basic Laws—and none supersedes them.

The Government of Israel contends that as Israel abides by the rule of law, no person or body stands above the law. And should the law be subject to Basic Laws, as per the doctrine developed by this esteemed court, then no man or body stands above the Basic Laws. . . .

The petitioners ask the esteemed court to deviate from preeminent foundational precepts, premises widely accepted up until recently. It has always been obvious that in a system of law, judges are subject to the law as established by someone other than the judges, to whom they must defer. Judges are not masters of themselves, nor are they masters of the law; their actions are circumscribed by the law and the Basic Law; just as are the other government bodies. At times, if the letter of the law is clear they cannot give succor. Their politics or values cannot supersede a clear law or find their way into its language.

The creator of laws is the legislature. It is it that must aspire to just laws. However, modern democracies are not content to trust the legislature. Many of them create mechanisms that check and balance the governing power, including the legislative authority, in order to prevent a slide into harmful and unjustified government use of power. The courts review the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government. However, in their turn, the courts do so within the bounds of the authority invested in them, the source of which is also of the sovereign’s direction through its representatives.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.