The legal system in Israel has not provided Palestinian nationals with any protection from discriminatory legislation or a system that gives one group of people the advantage over another.
It is understandable for any oppressed minority to be alarmed by the actions of the governing authorities to undermine judicial monitoring, which enables courts to nullify legislation that violate fundamental human rights.
Despite the fact that the continuing legal issue has provoked large-scale protests among Jewish Israelis, the judicial system has never been viewed by Palestinian residents of Israel as one that affords any protection against discriminatory legislation and a system that prioritizes one set of people over another.
In general, it is of little to no value to have constitutional rights in a system of justice that is unable to protect them. Constitutional rights stand out due to their special status, which prohibits any interference with them except in the most extreme circumstances.
Typically, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether a particular law is constitutional.
The Israeli constitutional system has shown to be fundamentally flawed in this situation. The Supreme Court has been forced to treat the rights outlined in its Basic Laws as constitutional rights because there isn’t a formal constitution. As a result, it was required to defend these rights and stop any blatant violations by granting itself a power not expressly granted by law: the right to overturn any legislation that violates fundamental human rights.
The lack of a separate constitutional authority or higher court than the Supreme Court, similar to the European Court of Human Rights, is another flaw in the Israeli constitutional system. The latter’s decisions, which declare arbitrary laws to be entirely or partially null, have become a crucial reference not only for the nations under its purview but also for any jurisdiction aspiring to implement a judicial system aimed at protecting individuals and groups from arbitrary laws.
The problems that arise in the Palestinian incident are as follows.
How fair have Israeli courts been to Palestinian petitioners who sought to intervene to appeal judgments and lawsuits affecting their constitutional rights? But do we really lose an important means of guaranteeing minimum conditions to protect our constitutional rights?
To answer these questions, we must first refer to the judgment in which the Israeli Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that a law or specific provision enacted by the Israeli parliament should be repealed.
There is no remedy
In 1995, the Israeli High Court previously perceived its position to refute regulations that were considered illegal and gone against the Fundamental Regulations. The pivotal case United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal marked the beginning of what came to be known as Israel’s “constitutional revolution.”
The United Mizrahi Bank case established a legal precedent that allowed the court to effectively overturn laws. In a case involving investment managers who petitioned to overturn a law requiring them to obtain a license to work in investment management, the first time was in 1997. At the time, the court acknowledged that the provision blatantly violated the managers’ right to work freedom and struck it down.
Since then, the Supreme Court has overturned 21 laws, bringing the total number of times the court has intervened to just 22 by the end of 2022.
