Jerusalem – Today Israel faces a serious internal crisis. The far-right ruling coalition is pushing through bills that would not only weaken the judicial system, but give almost all power to the executive of the day. Although these radical changes would not stop there. What specifically do these proposals dictate? Why are Netanyahu and his ministers acting against the Supreme Court and the protesters? What will be the impact? We explain it to you in this guide.
‘Democracy!’. There is no Israeli protest today that does not cry out, stretching each syllable, to protect rights and freedoms. This is due to the fear that instills the judicial reform plan promoted by the coalition of Benjamin Netanyahu that, if his bills go ahead, he would mitigate the counterpower exerted by both the Supreme Court like the rest of the courts of the legal system, in a state without a Constitution and a bicameral legislature.
The Parlament –the knesset– would thus achieve almost unlimited control of initiatives (and criticism), especially if, as is the case now, the government in power holds a parliamentary majority of 64 out of 120 seats.
Why is the coalition acting against the judiciary?
Before diving into the reform plans, it is necessary to understand how the ultra-nationalist and ultra-religious Jews of the coalition perceive the Supreme Court: they consider it a left-wing court, which intervenes excessively in legislative and executive decisions to the point of putting the minority rights to national interests.
An example: in July 2021, the High Court ruled against some requirements of the surrogacy law, which discriminatoryly excluded some men. The Health Ministry had to amend the law to allow “anyone in Israel” to have surrogate pregnancies, including single men and transgender people.
How are Netanyahu and his associates promoting reform?
But of course, while critics of the Supreme Court denounce its excessive power, the coalition has gone to the opposite extreme, pressing for the Government and the Knesset to have decisive authority, without the “hindering” or counterweight of the judicial system. This is being carried out within the framework of a lightning process, that contemplates various bills –each one, alone, can change the balance–, which, to be approved, must be submitted to three votes in the parliamentary plenary session and go through the Constitutional Committee.
Although the Government has it easy, since it has a majority of the votes, Netanyahu You cannot get involved in this reform by order of the Attorney General’s Office. Israel’s longest-serving prime minister has always championed an independent judicial system and a court capable of blocking the most extreme legislation by politicians.
However, his opinion changed upon becoming a criminal defendant, as he faces charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. His corruption trial has been underway in the Jerusalem Court since May 2020, and it is not difficult to link him to this judicial review that would benefit you if the judges presiding over their case are controlled; if the magistrates of the Supreme Court are controlled; or, finally, the system is forced to negotiate a plea deal.
Thus, his charges for corruption seem like another reason to support the reform that “will strengthen democracy and business”, and could better represent the opinions of the majority, quoting and paraphrasing Netanyahu.
What are the proposals that make up the reform about?
There is three bills that make up the heart of the judicial reform and that are advancing in parallel in the Knesset, having passed the first of the three necessary approvals for them to enter into force.
- One, modifies the judge selection committee -made up of nine members-, which today requires a consensus between the judicial and political branches to appoint the magistrates of the Supreme Court and the rest of Israel. With the reform, the Government would dominate this composition and would need only a simple majority to elect those togados.
- The other two aim to reduce the capabilities of the Supreme Court to review the laws approved by Parliament: on the one hand, the highest court could not invalidate the so-called “Basic Laws” that, in the absence of a Constitution, they function as fundamental norms; on the other, the Supreme could only challenge regular laws (the others) if they contradict a right enshrined in one of the “Basic Laws” and with the support of 12 of the 15 judges –instead of the current simple majority–.
To complete this drastic neutralization of the review power of the Supreme, the coalition wants to implement a “cancellation clause” that would allow the Knesset to re-enact the laws challenged by the Court, provided it has the support of at least 61 parliamentarians.
However, the legislative package does not stop there, it is even broader, with measures to prevent the Supreme Court from disqualifying government ministers – as is the case of the ultra-religious leader aryeh deri, whose inclusion in the coalition was blocked by a court ruling due to having a conviction for financial crimes–; so that he cannot judge or debate motions to declare the prime minister unfit for office –something that the Supreme Court agreed to analyze in the case of Netanyahu at the request of organizations–; or review government plans that may be unreasonable.
Other proposals (and more that could be known in the coming months) also seek to break the independence of the Police and subordinate it to the Ministry of Security, today in the hands of the racist politician Itamar Ben Gvirin addition to turning binding opinions of government advisers into mere recommendations or eliminating seniority in the election of the president of the Supreme Court, making his appointment subject to the will of the appointment committee.
Combined, these proposals would allow the government of the day to impose its agenda without considering how it affects its population. In three examples, the current extreme right-wing and ultra-religious government could affect the rights of the LGBTIQ+ collective; pass legislation that exempts their community from compulsory military service –the Court has been proposing it for a long time–; or erect more illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
What impact is this plan having or will it have?
already feel in the israeli economy. In particular, in the technological sector, which represents 15% of Israel’s GDP, 10% of its workforce, half of its exports and a quarter of income taxes. The fear of these companies is that a controlled judicial system puts intellectual property at risk. Certain firms and entrepreneurs (seeking to preserve this asset) have announced the withdrawal of funds from their accounts in Israel and are considering relocating their activities in other states. This is the case of Riskified.
This uncertainty has also caused a local currency drop –the shekel–, which depreciated almost 6% against the US dollar in February, its lowest value in three years; while the benchmark TA-125 index of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange fell 3.5%. He Bank of Israelas well as the rating agencies Moody’s and Fitch, have made clear the risks of the reform, which are not restricted to the financial.
More and more voices from armed forces, the cornerstone of the Hebrew state, are adding to the rejection. A well-known case has been the sit-in in a training session of 37 of 40 reserve pilots from an elite squadron of the air forces. However, other ex-servicemen and volunteer soldiers are actively participating in the protests and have asked the government to stop their plans. What has been the response of the Minister of Communications, ShlomoKarhi? “Go to hell, we’ll manage without you.”
It is clear that the social opposition, a movement that brings together educators and students, lawyers and soldiers, including economists and intellectuals -and has suffered police repression- is deepening in the dilemma of whether the two faces of Israel can coexistone more extremist and one more liberal, in the same Jewish state.
But above this, there is a greater concern: and that is that the lack of a judiciary that investigates independently could harm, first, support from western countries; and, second, Israel’s efforts to avoid being subjected to international legal proceedings.
This vacuum – which international law analysts have speculated could be filled by the International Criminal Court in The Hague or prosecutors abroad – would expose the state to scrutiny for its violent military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and would no longer be as protected from the war crimes charges.
Given this situation, can there be another way out or another type of reform?
President isaac herzog it has been at the forefront of attempts to reach a consensus between the government and the opposition. On February 12 – in an unusual speech – he proposed a “compromise” to moderate the reform and offered to act as mediator for the parties. However, his position is merely ceremonial and the plan was not very successful. Similarly, other prominent figures and former Israeli officials have put forward other solutions.
Except that, although both sides say they are open to a dialogue, they do not even agree on the starting point: to start negotiating, The opposition demands to stop the parliamentary process of the bills (something that the most extremists of the coalition flatly refuse).
The fate of the judicial reform then remains in the hands of the Government which, beyond some reservations among supporters of the Likud -Netanyahu’s formation-, has the necessary votes in Parliament for each project and has endeavored to conclude them before next April 2facing the recess for the Jewish Passover.
And not only that. It is to be expected that, if the laws are admitted, the Supreme Court will challenge them; but it is also to be expected that, at this point in the plot, the legislation itself allows the Executive to ignore the rulings and maintain its changes.
All “a coup d’état”, according to local newspapers such as ‘Haaretz’, and in the words of Moshe Ya’alon, former Defense Minister under Netanyahu’s second great term. A state that has become ‘Isra-hell’ (‘Isra-hell’), according to the banners of the protesters, who do not forget that Netanyahu’s party never detailed the reform plans in its electoral campaign and promised that any change would be carried out “with broad public support”.
#guide #understanding #Netanyahus #judicial #reform #fracturing #Israel