In early January, when Israel’s Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced the government’s plan to fundamentally restructure the country’s legal system, the political opposition responded with fury.
Soon after, protesters began mass demonstrations in the streets. Months later, those demonstrations continue, but the coalition is still pushing legislation to curb the power of Israel’s Supreme Court.
Next week, the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, is expected to approve one of the government’s critical new laws. It would bar the Supreme Court from using the principle of “reasonableness” to review decisions by the government, individual cabinet ministers, and other elected officials.
“Usually, political struggles are conducted in the parliament, but this is a huge exception. This struggle is happening in the streets, through protests and strikes,” Picard said.
The battle over Arye Deri
In January, the court used that reasonableness clause to block the government’s attempt to appoint a critical religious lawmaker, Arye Deri, as minister of the interior and health.
Deri had been convicted in years past of tax evasion while serving as a government minister and had promised to steer clear of politics. However, Deri leads an influential political party, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is eager to solidify his support.
More broadly, the ruling coalition seeks to end the Supreme Court’s oversight of government appointments and policies using the “reasonableness” argument.
A public and social struggle
The protest movement, which has brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis into the streets each week, is a grassroots effort with no official ties to political parties in the parliamentary opposition.
Indeed, protesters have repeatedly condemned the opposition for attempting to negotiate a compromise.
“This is a very public and social struggle in which the parliament is just one arena,” said Dr. Ariel Picard, a researcher and teacher at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.
The current government rests on a comfortable coalition majority of 64 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. It was elected late last year.
“The opposition cannot do anything in the parliament, but its positions are making headway in the public through the protest movement,” Picard added.
Moti Gigi, a sociologist and head of the Communications Department at Sapir Academic College, agrees that the protest movement “has not failed.” It doesn’t have a parliamentary majority, but its “tailwind” has strengthened opposition parties.
The ruling coalition has yet to buckle. Still, if only a few of its members of parliament dissent, conditions could change rapidly.
Netanyahu and his coalition partners see the judicial restructuring as long overdue. They believe the courts have gained too much power in recent decades, intervening in matters best left to politicians.
Opponents of the reforms, however, say they are a de facto coup. Unencumbered by a legal constitution, any coalition with a parliamentary majority could do as it pleases, free from the Supreme Court’s restraining influence.
This, critics say, will severely threaten Israeli democracy.
The specifics of the proposed laws matter. They seek to give parliament the power to overrule Supreme Court decisions with a simple majority of 61 seats and to grant politicians significant influence over the appointment of judges.
They also transform the position of legal advisor to government ministries into one for political appointees rather than the current norm of career civil servants.
The reform is likely also to have an impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations
Prominent government members want Israel to expand its West Bank settlements and annex part, or even all, of the contested region.
Currently, the Palestinian Authority has some control over portions of the West Bank and shares responsibilities with the Israeli military in others.
Roughly 60% of the area is under exclusive Israeli military—but not civilian—control. The international community regards the entire West Bank as militarily occupied territory, and the Palestinians consider it the core of their future state.
The government’s judicial reforms would effectively remove the Supreme Court from West Bank-related deliberations, giving the government an almost free hand.
At the same time, the government has other laws and policies on its agenda that the opposition bitterly objects to.
For example, it wants to shield Israeli soldiers from investigation for suspected misbehavior, retroactively legalize Jewish settlement outposts in the West Bank, and grant more authority to Jewish rabbinical courts.
All these proposed measures sparked a public uproar.
As a result, Netanyahu and his allies have been under immense pressure from opponents at home and the White House, which has tried to signal its intense dismay.
That pressure appeared to have worked in late March. After weeks of demonstrations, Netanyahu announced he was freezing his legislative drive and entering talks with the opposition to reach a compromise.
The March pause followed Netanyahu’s attempted dismissal of his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who publicly warned that the reforms had provoked intense resistance from within the military’s critical voluntary reserve system.
Netanyahu blinked, paused his legislative offensive, and reversed his firing of Gallant. He agreed to talk with the political opposition under the auspices of the president, Isaac Herzog.
This “was a huge victory for the demonstrators, but it was a win in the battle, not the war,” said Picard.
However, those talks collapsed last week, and each side blamed the other. The coalition resumed its legislative push, and the protesters, who had continued their efforts throughout the negotiations, received a significant energy boost.
“The war has resumed,” Picard said, albeit gradually. Right now, “it doesn’t seem like the protest movement has succeeded.”
Netanyahu seems content to push ahead with his four-person parliamentary majority without seeking broader consensus.
The sociologist Gigi says this may be a negotiating tactic. “The coalition is making big demands. Later, it will make concessions and let the opposition feel like it accomplished something.”
On occasion, Netanyahu has sent mixed messages. When he has addressed the nation in recent months, he has criticized the protesters, referring to them as “anarchists.” On other occasions, however, he has signaled moderation.
In a phone conversation with US President Joe Biden earlier this week, for example, Netanyahu reportedly said that he would attempt to reach a broader consensus after pushing through his abolition of the “reasonability standard” next week.
Netanyahu’s far-right colleagues say otherwise, saying they are more determined than ever to charge full steam ahead with the entire legislative package.
Simcha Rothman, a lawmaker from the far-right Religious Zionism party, is one of those most associated with the reforms.
Speaking on Kan Bet radio Thursday morning, Rothman discounted American pressure. “I want them to explain how the ‘reasonability standard’ is related to Israel-US relations,” he said dismissively.
One of the essential counterweights to the government’s efforts has come from volunteer reservists in some of Israel’s vital military units.
Combat pilots, commandos, and cyber warriors have all warned that they may not show up for training if the parliament endorses the new laws.
The reservists have come under pressure from many who criticize them for undermining the cohesion of Israeli society and damaging national security.
“It is still unclear to the politicians [in the ruling coalition] whether the protest has changed majority public opinion,” Picard told The Media Line. Until then, the coalition will not back down.
At the same time, the coalition has adopted a more cautious strategy.
Before the March talks, the government was simultaneously pushing forward with multiple new laws.
Now, they are working more slowly, beginning with just one law, the one abolishing the “reasonableness” clause. Later, they will move forward, more slowly, with the rest of their agenda.
To the coalition, Picard said, all this seems eminently reasonable. Negotiations with the opposition failed, and they are portraying the “reasonableness” legislation as a minor legal adjustment.
Once that law passes, Netanyahu may postpone further legislation until after the parliament’s summer break.
The sociologist Gigi says the coalition believes it has public support and “fears not giving the public what it wants.”