JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli lawmakers on Monday approved Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's controversial plan to restrict the Supreme Court's influence, defying a wide range of opposition movements that have threatened to shut down large parts of the country with protests.
The plan limits the ways in which the Supreme Court can overturn government decisions, as part of a deeply divisive judicial review that has provoked perhaps Israel's most serious internal crisissince its founding 75 years ago.
Israeli security forces remove protesters blocking the entrance to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem on July 24, 2023, amid a months-long wave of protests against the government's planned judicial reform. (Photo by HAZEM BADER/AFP)
The stakes could not be higher for Netanyahu and for Israel, where mass protests have repeatedly erupted over the plan since January.
The decision to go ahead with the review could disrupt Israel's economy, further strain the country's relations with the Biden administration and lead thousands of military reservists, a key part of Israel's armed forces, to refuse to volunteer for service.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog has warned that the schism could lead to civil war. Netanyahu is caught between stabilizing his coalition, which includes far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties that have their own reasons for wanting to curtail the powers of the Supreme Court, and appeasing the fury of more liberal Israelis who oppose giving the government more control over the judiciary.
What was at stake in the vote?
The dispute is part of a broader ideological and cultural clash between Netanyahu's government and its supporters, who want to make Israel a more religious and nationalist state, and its opponents, who hold a more secular and pluralistic view of the country.
The ruling coalition claims the court has too much leeway to intervene in political decisions and undermines Israeli democracy by giving unelected judges too much power over elected lawmakers.
The coalition claims that the court has too often acted against right-wing interests, for example by preventing the construction of some Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank or nullifying certain privileges granted to ultra-Orthodox Jews, such as exemption from military service.
Opponents of the measure fear the court will be far less able to prevent government overreach.
They say the government, unshackled by independent courts, may find it easier to end the persecution of Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges.
In particular, some warn that the government would have more freedom to replace the attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara, who is overseeing Netanyahu's prosecution in an ongoing corruption case.
Netanyahu has denied any plans to disrupt his trial.
Critics also fear the changes would allow the government — the most right-wing and religiously conservative in Israel's history — to restrict civil liberties or undermine secular aspects of Israeli society.
What does the government's plan contain?
To limit the Court's influence, the government seeks to prevent its judges from using the concept of "reasonableness" to overturn decisions by legislators and ministers.
Reasonableness is a legal standard used by many judicial systems, including Australia, Great Britain and Canada.
A decision is considered unreasonable if a court rules that it was made without taking into account all relevant factors or without giving the relevant weight to each factor, or giving too much weight to irrelevant factors.
The government and its supporters claim that the concept of reasonableness is too vague and has never been codified in Israeli law.
The court angered the government this year when some of its judges used this tool to prevent Aryeh Deri, a veteran ultra-Orthodox politician, from serving in Netanyahu's Cabinet.
They said it was unreasonable to name Deri because he had recently been convicted of tax fraud.
How have the protests developed?
Outnumbered in parliament, Israeli opposition parties found themselves powerless to reject judicial legislation on their own.
So they boycotted the vote, and the measure passed 64-0.
But powerful non-parliamentary groups – such as military reservists, technology leaders, academics, senior doctors and union leaders – are using their social influence to pressure the government.
All these actors joined forces and forced Netanyahu to suspend the reform a few months ago.
Reservists from prestigious army units are again threatening to stop volunteering if reform goes ahead.
Labour leaders have also said they could call a general strike.
Months of protests have intensified in recent days.
On Monday, hundreds of protesters blocked roads leading to parliament, some of them chaining each other.
Will lawmakers or courts review the plan?
The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, goes into summer recess at the end of July and does not reconvene until the autumn.
But lawmakers from Netanyahu's governing coalition, responsible for Monday's vote, are unlikely to review the plan in the days leading up to the recess.
In a speech late Monday, Netanyahu suggested his government could press ahead with its judicial reform plan by the end of November, but that he wanted to allow time for talks on the matter with the opposition.
His government has already tried to take action on other parts of its reform plan.
One measure would have allowed Parliament to override the Court's decisions, and another would have given the Government more influence over who becomes a Supreme Court judge.
These parts of the plan were put on hold in the face of protests, but could be resumed.
Israel's Supreme Court now faces a strange dilemma that could pit two of the country's powers against it:
High court judges have to decide how to handle a plan that would curtail their own power.
Israeli opposition leaders have vowed to ask the court to review the law; If the judges decide to accept the case, the judicial review process would take weeks, if not months.
The Supreme Court could also suspend the law's entry into force while it considers whether to revise it.
But Monday's legislation is an amendment to a Basic Law — one of the bodies of laws that have quasi-constitutional status in Israel — and Israeli analysts say that so far the Supreme Court has never intervened in a Basic Law or overturned it.
The high court has debated such laws in the past, but has never ruled on them.
c.2023 The New York Times Company
See also