A compromise on the terms of the judicial reform project that divides Israel was presented Monday, March 13 to Parliament by its authors.
This proposal, written by a former justice minister, Daniel Freidman, the director of Tel Aviv University, Giora Yaron, and a law professor, Youval Elbashan, wants to "avoid legal chaos", according to its
promoters
.
Strong mobilization
Since the presentation at the beginning of January of the bill carried by one of the most right-wing governments in the history of Israel, led since the end of December by Benyamin Netanyahu, demonstrations have followed one another each week across the country to denounce what the detractors of the reform qualify as an anti-democratic drift.
"
The judicial system and especially the Supreme Court need a major reform [...] we have reached compromises in order to reduce dissension
", declared Youval Elbashan, who presented himself as "
a man of the left but favorable to a reform
" by presenting the conciliation proposal during a hearing before the Parliament's Law Commission in Jerusalem.
Read alsoIn Israel, large processions against judicial reform
“A basis for negotiations”
"
This proposal will make it possible to avoid legal chaos and to reach a compromise
", affirms the text, of which the President of the Commission, Simcha Rothman, considered that it could "
be a basis for negotiations
".
"
There are significant gaps between our reform project and this text, but it's a good start for starting negotiations and understanding that there are issues to discuss
," added Simcha Rothman.
In its current version, the reform would considerably limit the Supreme Court's ability to invalidate laws and would effectively give the majority political coalition the power to appoint judges.
The bill would, among other things, prohibit the Supreme Court from invalidating any new fundamental law.
The Basic Laws serve as the Constitution in Israel and the ability to judge the constitutionality of laws is one of the prerogatives of the Supreme Court.
In the compromise presented to the Commission on Monday, the authors suggest that a fundamental law cannot indeed be challenged by the Supreme Court, but that a qualified majority of 70 votes is necessary to pass a new fundamental law in Parliament, against a simple majority (61 elected out of 120) currently.
