Jerusalem
DailyExpertNews
—
For months, hundreds of thousands of Israelis across the country have taken to the streets to regularly protest sweeping changes to Israel’s legal system that some say threaten the country’s democratic foundations.
Essentially, the judicial overhaul would give Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, and thus the parties in power more control over Israel’s judiciary.
From how judges are selected, to what laws the Supreme Court can decide, to even giving parliament the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions, the changes would be the most significant shake-up in Israel’s judiciary since it was founded in 1948.
The proposed reforms do not come out of the blue.
Figures from across the political spectrum have historically called for changes in the Israeli judiciary.
Israel has no written constitution, only a set of quasi-constitutional basic laws, which make the Supreme Court even more powerful. But Israel also has no other check on the power of the Knesset than the Supreme Court.
Here’s what you need to know.
The legal overhaul is a package of bills, all of which require three votes in the Knesset before becoming law.
One of the key elements for the Netanyahu administration is the bill that changes the composition of the nine-member committee that selects judges to give the government a majority of seats on the committee.
Netanyahu and his supporters argue that the Supreme Court has become an insular, elitist group that does not represent the Israeli people. They argue that the Supreme Court has overstepped its role by interfering in matters it should not rule on.
In defense of his plans, the prime minister pointed to countries such as the United States, where politicians determine which federal judges are appointed and approved.
Another key element of the changes is known as the override clause, which would give Israel’s parliament the power to pass laws previously declared invalid by the court, essentially overriding Supreme Court decisions.
Proponents argue that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the will of the people, who bring politicians to power.
“We go to the polls, vote, and time and time again people we didn’t elect decide for us,” Justice Minister Yariv Levin said at the unveiling of the reforms in early January.
Another bill, now passed, makes it more difficult for a sitting prime minister to be declared unfit for office, limiting the reasons to physical or mental incapacity and requiring the prime minister himself, or two-thirds of the cabinet, to to vote. such a declaration.
While several bills could affect Netanyahu, the bill on “declaring a prime minister unfit” has the greatest implications for the Israeli prime minister.
Critics say Netanyahu is pushing forward the overhaul because of his own ongoing corruption trial, where he faces charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. He denies any allegation.
That bill is largely seen by opposition leaders as a way to protect Netanyahu from being disqualified as a result of the trial.
As part of a deal with the court to become prime minister despite being on trial, Netanyahu accepted a conflict of interest declaration. The attorney general determined that the statement meant that Netanyahu could not be involved in judicial review policy-making. There is currently a petition before the Israeli Supreme Court to declare Netanyahu unfit for office for violating that declaration of conflict of interest and the attorney general has written an open letter to Netanyahu saying he is violating the deal and the law.
Critics also argue that if the government has more say in the appointment of judges, Netanyahu’s allies will appoint judges they know will rule in Netanyahu’s favor.
Netanyahu, it must be said, has completely denied this and has claimed that his process is “unraveling” in itself.
In the past, Netanyahu has publicly expressed strong support for an independent judiciary. When asked why he supports such an overhaul despite those public proclamations, Netanyahu told DailyExpertNews’s Jake Tapper, “I have not changed my mind. I think we need a strong, independent judiciary. But an independent judiciary does not mean an unfettered judiciary, what has happened here, I mean, for the past 25 years.”
Weakening the judiciary could restrict both Israelis and Palestinians from seeking the defense of their rights in court if they believe they have been compromised by the government.
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank could be affected, and of course Palestinian citizens of Israel or those holding residence permits would be directly affected. The Israeli Supreme Court has no influence over what happens in Gaza, which is ruled by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
Critics of the changes fear that if politicians gain more control, the rights of minorities in Israel, especially Palestinians living in Israel, will be affected.
Last year, for example, the court stopped evictions of Palestinian families in the flashpoint neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, where Jewish groups have claimed ownership of land the families have lived on for decades.
At the same time, Palestinian activists have argued that the Supreme Court further entrenched Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, without ever considering the legality of Israeli settlements there, even though they are considered illegal by most of the international community.
The Supreme Court has also been the subject of complaints from Israel’s far right and settlers, who say iit is biased against settlers; they have condemned the court’s involvement in approving the 2005 expulsion of settlers from Gaza and the northern West Bank.
The overhaul has raised concerns in Israel’s financial, business, security and academic sectors.
Critics say the overhaul goes too far and will completely destroy the only available avenue to provide checks and balances to the Israeli legislature.
They warn it will damage the independence of Israel’s judiciary and harm rights not enshrined in Israel’s quasi-constitutional basic laws, such as minority rights and freedom of expression.
Only a minority of Israelis support the reforms, according to polls published in February by the Israel Democracy Institute. The vast majority – 72% – want a compromise to be reached and even then 66% believe the Supreme Court should have the power to strike lawa and 63% of Israelis believe the current method of appointing judges should remain as it is is.
Members of the typically apolitical high-tech sector have also spoken out against the reforms. Assaf Rappaport, CEO of cybersecurity firm Wiz, has said the company will not move any of the $300 million capital It recently brought to Israel because of the turmoil over the revision.
Israel’s central bank governor Amir Yaron told DailyExpertNews’s Richard Quest that the reforms are too “hasty” and risk hurting the economy.
Several former Mossad chiefs have also spoken out against the reforms, warning of division over the issue damaging Israeli security. Hundreds of reservists in the Israeli army have warned they will not heed the call to serve if the reforms are implemented, saying they believe Israel will no longer be a full democracy under the changes.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said the government’s legislation was “misleading, brutal and undermines our democratic foundations,” and warned that Israel may be on the brink of “civil war.” While the Israeli presidency is largely a ceremonial role, Herzog has been actively speaking to all parties calling for negotiations.
And on the international front, Israel’s allies, including the United States, have also expressed concern about the overhaul.
According to the White House, U.S. President Joe Biden told Netanyahu in a mid-March phone call, “Democratic societies are strengthened by real checks and balances, and that fundamental change must be pursued with the broadest popular support.”
Protest organizers say they plan to intensify their demonstrations until the legislation is stopped. But the government says it received a mandate from voters to approve the reform when elected last November.
But in mid-March, the coalition government relaxed its plans for the first time, announcing that it had amended the bill that would reform the committee that selects judges. Instead of having the vast majority of appointed seats on the committee, the government-appointed members would have a one-seat majority.
On March 23, even after his own defense minister nearly delivered a speech calling for the legislation to be halted out of concern over the implications for Israeli national security, Netanyahu vowed to continue reforms.
He called on opposition politicians to meet him to negotiate, something they will only do if the legislative process is halted.
Complicating matters further is that if the bills are passed by parliament, the Supreme Court may have to rule on laws that limit its own power. This raises the possibility of a constitutional stalemate. Would the Supreme Court strike down the laws, and if so, how would the government respond?