The article discusses the recent actions of the Israeli Supreme Court (Bagatz) in confronting the Minister of Justice, describing the judiciary's attempts to persuade the minister's representative to act more humanely in the face of systemic governmental bullying. The author emphasizes the inappropriateness of trying to negotiate with someone perceived as aggressive and compares it to an impossible attempt at reforming a bully into a gentleman. This analogy underscores the frustration felt by the judges, who are compelled to seek logic and strong evidence in dealings with a hardline political figure.

Moreover, the article criticizes the legal justifications presented by the Minister of Justice, labeling them as mere smoke screens—false pretenses meant to obscure the underlying issues. The author argues that when judges encounter overt government aggression, their response should not be gentle persuasion or flowery language, but rather unequivocal decisions and sharp rulings. This sentiment reflects a broader concern regarding the encroachment of governmental power on judicial independence and the rule of law, urging the courts to take a stronger stand in defense of judicial integrity.

In conclusion, the author calls for a more assertive judiciary that issues clear rulings against governmental overreach, highlighting the importance of maintaining an independent judicial system. The article serves as both a critique of current judicial practices and a rallying cry for a more robust response to protect against efforts that threaten the judiciary's role in overseeing executive power. The implications of this discussion extend to the ongoing struggles within Israeli governance, marking a crucial point in the preservation of democratic principles and the balance of power.