Evelyn Gordon Has Spotted Hypocrisy

In dealing with Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann's bill to limit judicial review, which the cabinet approved on Sunday, a bill whilch would permit the Knesset to reinstate legislation that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional, as long as this move was approved by at least 61 MKs, with supporters outnumbering opponents by at least five votes, Evelyn Gordon points out hypocritical argumentation:-

...Sunday's cabinet vote on the bill was illegitimate [it is claimed] because the prime minister has already announced he will resign following next week's Kadima leadership primary, and a lame-duck government has no right to make far-reaching changes; it must confine itself to strictly necessary business...

...Adherents of this view cite repeated Supreme Court rulings declaring that a lame-duck government must exercise restraint in making major decisions unless delay is untenable. The problem, as all the experts making this argument know perfectly well, is that the seminal ruling on this matter is the one that upheld [Ehud] Barak's Taba negotiations. At that point, Barak had already resigned, so the restraint incumbent on lame-duck governments certainly applied. Nevertheless, the court ruled that offering far-reaching diplomatic concessions in no way violated this restraint.

Most Israelis undoubtedly remember what Barak offered the Palestinians at Taba: almost all of the West Bank, plus a "safe passage" slicing through Israel to connect the West Bank and Gaza; much of east Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and most of the Old City; and the absorption of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Israel. Needless to say, these concessions would have been completely irreversible had Yasser Arafat actually accepted them, and even after he refused, they became the starting point for Palestinian demands during the inevitable next round of talks, thereby constraining future governments' options.