"It does not matter what sort of reforms Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann proposes, or whether some of them could improve the functioning of the legal system," begins the Haaretz editorial published on August 3. This sentence is hard to swallow. Let's be serious - it doesn't matter? It really does not matter what sort of reforms he proposes? It does not matter whether some of them might be beneficial? If a proposal, even one made by Daniel Friedmann, has value - would thwarting it not be "punishing" the public?

One could imagine people so satanic that even their beneficial proposals should be rejected. But one should not rush to draw such a conclusion. Haaretz readers surely would have been very surprised had one of the paper's editorials called, for instance, for rejecting out of hand any cease-fire proposal from Hamas, on the grounds that the group is a bitter enemy, and therefore "it does not matter what sort of cease-fires Hamas proposes, or whether some of them could improve the security of Israel's citizens."

The Knesset did not adopt this approach when a large majority - which included some of Friedmann's fiercest opponents, such as Ophir Pines-Paz - recently enacted Friedmann's reform to set term limits for district and magistrate's court presidents. The new law states that they will be appointed for one seven-year term instead of a four-year term that can be extended indefinitely, as was the case until today. This move clearly strengthens judicial independence: Someone whose term may or may not be extended is less independent in his decisions.