To the editor:

I share some of Thomas Friedman's distaste for the current Israeli coalition. As a dual citizen, I voted in the last Israeli election but the party for which I voted is not in the coalition. I wish Netanyahu had been able to put together a very different coalition, but Friedman completely misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents - or both - the proposals for judicial reforms.

The proposals, even if adopted in their original form, would not have been a threat to Israeli democracy; indeed, they would have brought Israel's judicial system closer to that in the United States.

The current system has elements Americans would never accept, including:

The president of Israel's High Court effectively has a veto power over the choice of new justices. This is equivalent to giving John Roberts a veto over Supreme Court appointments.

Israel's High Court can rule on anything it chooses, taking any case brought before it by anyone, and it often does. Plaintiff's do not have to have any standing in Israel's system.

Israel's High Court can overrule any government policy or decision it doesn't like, even if there's no basis in law for doing so. And it has. It can invalidate legislation it doesn't like, unlike the United States Supreme Court which can only do so on Constitutional grounds. And it has.

Israel, like the United States, needs checks and balances. Unfortunately, today the Israeli High Court of Justice has a blank check and there is no balance. The original proposals may have gone too far in the other direction, but would still have been more balanced than the current situation.

Virtually all those political leaders today opposing judicial reform previously supported it. The real problem in Israeli politics today is the same as the real problem in American politics today: proposals are supported or opposed based on the identity of their sponsors rather than on their merit.

Sadly, it appears Thomas Friedman is also clueless about that.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein