On the one hand, the decision by the Likud and Religious Zionist Party (RZP) on Monday evening – to approve a “softened” version of the government’s bill to change the Judicial Appointments Committee – was a positive development.
According to the new draft, which was unveiled by Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Chairman MK Simcha Rothman on Sunday evening and then modified by coalition leaders, the committee would include 11 members instead of the current nine, with six of them from coalition parties: three ministers and three Knesset members. The remaining five would be two opposition Knesset members and three judges, one of whom would be the president of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice).
The legislation would enable the coalition to appoint two High Court justices per Knesset term without the approval of the opposition, the parties announced.
“This method, in which public representatives choose the judges, is used in nearly every democracy in the world,” the Likud said in a statement. “The law does not allow for the takeover of the court by the coalition or opposition, but rather promises that the makeup of the judges will be varied.”
The decision to freeze other bills and Netanyahu's criminal case
On the other hand, the decision to freeze the other bills and move ahead just with the appointments shows what this whole process has been about – helping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appoint the justices who will sit one day and preside over his criminal case.
“If the change to the Judicial Appointments Committee passes, it will be a dangerous and hostile takeover of the judicial system by politicians without conscience,” opposition leader Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) said. “It will not vary the court; it will simply turn it into a branch of the Likud. Nowhere in the world is there a mechanism that even resembles this shameful proposal.”
Labor leader Merav Michaeli said that her party “cannot buy the Likud’s spin,” claiming that “there is no ‘compromise’ or ‘softening’ here. This was their original goal from the beginning – trying to topple the foundation of democracy. We cannot stop the protests. We cannot allow this hostile takeover.”
The legislation will be key to replacing Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and Justice Anat Baron, who are scheduled to retire in October after reaching the age of 70. Under the new proposal, High Court appointments would require a simple majority of six, which would give the coalition an automatic majority but would require the support of at least one opposition MK and one judge on the committee for further appointments.
Coalition leaders plan to push through the legislation on the Judicial Selection Committee before the Knesset breaks for Passover at the beginning of next month – and, unfortunately, the chance to negotiate a better version of it is almost non-existent.
Advice from Israel's closest allies
Israel’s closest allies, from the United States to Germany, have urged the prime minister to step back from the reforms before it’s too late. On Sunday, US President Joe Biden urged Netanyahu in a telephone call to secure “the broadest possible base of popular support.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told Netanyahu in Berlin last Thursday that, “As partners who share democratic values and as a close friend of Israel, we are following this debate very closely – and, I won’t deny, with much concern.”
What’s required now is true leadership on both sides. The president has opened the door for both government and opposition leaders to engage in a dialogue and avert a civil war. It is now up to Netanyahu and Lapid to put aside their mutual acrimony for the sake of the country, and to lead by example.
They should meet with each other as soon as possible, and then order negotiating teams to sit down and make one last genuine attempt to strike a balance in the legislation that could be the basis for national consensus.
Former cabinet minister Yoaz Hendel put it succinctly. While the Likud’s efforts to amend the legislation are welcome, he said, “they have to stop everything now and talk. No side loses in a compromise, but we will all lose if we continue to gallop into the abyss.”