The following incident should have happened, although it might not have. It was at the annual convention of comedians held somewhere in the Catskills. A bunch of old-timers and their families would gather round and regale themselves with stories and punchlines that were all too familiar. They each knew the repertoire of their fellow comedians so well that they had assigned a number to each joke that anybody told. All a performer in their midst had to do was grab the mike and rattle off a number to be followed by the appreciative laughter of their colleagues and their guests. It so happened one year that a fledgling performer came on stage and confidently announced, ‘number 27.’ To his chagrin, there was deathly silence – not a peep. (known in the trade as ‘Mount Rushmore.’) Mortified, the novice returned to his seat in the audience, unable to fathom why he had just bombed on stage. An hour later, a more seasoned comedian took the mike. ‘Number 27,’ he began, followed by five minutes of people laughing, guffawing, proverbially ‘rolling in the aisles.’ The young man, totally stunned by this turn of events, turned to his neighbor, a veteran jokester. “I don’t get it; I told the same joke, number 27, an hour ago, and nothing. This guy, they’re laughing so hard, they’re wetting themselves. What is he doing that’s so different?’ The older man turned to him and quietly explained, ‘It’s all in the timing.’

Speaking of timing, we are now in what can be described as recess, intermission, or simply summer vacation. During the last week of July, the majority in the Knesset passed the Law to Cancel Reasonableness Standard to prevent the Israeli Supreme Court from overruling governmental policy that the court considers unreasonable. On September 12, all fifteen justices will convene to hear a challenge to this Basic Law that was just passed. Not surprisingly, groups on both side of the issue have filed Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) briefs to ‘assist’ the court in making the ‘correct’ decision.

But there is always the ‘court of public opinion’ with lots of stuff out there from partisans from both sides of the debate – not just about the ‘reasonableness’ standard but of the entire judicial ‘reform’ being proposed by the Knesset majority. In a nutshell, the ‘democrazia’ side believes that the changes the government wants to make would send the country down the road to rack and ruin, whereas the ‘loyalists’ insist it’s the disruptions themselves that are causing all the problems, and if only the other side would come to its collective senses. On and on. Pick up any day’s edition of the Jerusalem Post and inevitably there will something that someone has to say on the subject – as if anybody’s mind will be changed by any of these articles.

Of course, if it’s in the newspapers, it’s also on Facebook, except that there if you don’t like it, you don’t have to lump it. One of our friends, a ‘loyalist’ from the southern region, weighed in on the topic, causing another friend, a ‘democrazia’ guy from up north, to respond, whereupon…. You get the idea.

I think I have a way of dealing with the problem that will improve big time the life of some of us in The Land, but before I present it, let me make a few observations and ask a few pointed questions. As we all know, the current ruling coalition intends to use its razor-thin majority to make sweeping changes in the rules of government. But this is Israel. You tell me: how long does any government last around here? What happens when the other guys take over? What’s to stop them from using their razor-thin majority to undo all the changes the current solons plan on making? Here’s one interesting sidelight. The first part of the Tel Aviv light rail system, first bruited about during the reign of Golda Meir, opened to the public earlier this month. It will not operate on Shabbat. That’s because Likud’s Miri Regev is the Minister of Transportation, and she’s a ‘no’ vote. What happens when Merev Michaeli from the Labor Party is restored to that position? Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. 2023-2024, no service on Shabbat; 2025-2026, service on Shabbat; 2027-2029, no service. Whatever is your opinion on this matter, can we agree that this is no way to run a railroad?

Something else struck me recently. I read in our local papers that a) the Ministry of Education, to deal with a shortage of qualified teachers, decided to shorten the school day for autistic children; b) this decision was immediately challenged in court; c) the High Court of Justice voided the ministry’s decision. (See here.) I have to assume that anybody out there who knows of families with kids ‘on the spectrum’ will understand that the ministry’s decision was not a good idea – to put it mildly. My question is, if the Law to Cancel Reasonableness Standard goes into effect, what recourse would families and organizations have to appeal the follies of said ministries? Think about that.

And while you’re thinking, let me return to my original topic: solving this vexing problem of well-meaning disputants here in The Land talking past each other about ‘judicial reform,’ or for that matter, any other contentious topic. With a little bit of work, my solution can be retrofitted to work even where there seems to be little hope, The States, for example. Here goes. Each side in the ‘judicial reform’ debate is to appoint a committee of experts in the field. Each group will come up with a list of reasons – no more than 30 – as to why its side is right and the other side is wrong, with the two lists being circulated as widely as possible. Then, if something is bothering our ‘loyalist’ friend, and she feels the uncontrollable urge to weigh in on the most convenient social media platform at her disposal, all she has to do is look at her list and type in, ‘pro-16.’ Our ‘democrazia’ friend, somewhat annoyed by her reasoning, will pull out his list and respond, ‘anti-11,’ which will generate another response by a third party, ‘pro-19.’ You see how this works. There are some clear advantages to my approach. Think of all the time and effort that will be saved. Plus, in consulting the various lists, it will probably become apparent that, whatever points you plan on making, someone else has done the job more cogently, with greater elan, than you would have done – even if the results don’t leave you rolling in the aisle or cause you to wet yourself. And my Facebook page will be slightly less cluttered. That’s enough of a reason, I say.