Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quite cautious in his remarks when he is on US soil and is required to address matters of legal reform. He prefers to emphasize the agreements he intends to advance with the other side, or to emphasize the fact that the Knesset's clause overcoming the court by an ordinary majority was not to his liking before he removed it from the table.
But he did not back down from his decision to continue advancing the reform, particularly changing the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee. Despite his strong desire to gain quiet and try to pass the winter session, which will open after the holidays, dealing with economic and political issues, Netanyahu has expressed determination to complete the move.
His stay in the United States not only did not weaken his desire to complete the reform, but also strengthened him, especially in light of the moral riots by protest leaders this week in New York and California. The prime minister's entourage was shocked by the intensity of the low in values that they believe the government's opponents have reached, and upon returning to Israel, the team working on Netanyahu's behalf will resume its activity to reach an agreement – attorney Michael Ravelo, cabinet secretary Yossi Fuchs and minister Ron Dermer.
The first priority is agreements with opposition elements. A lot of headaches are saved in the Knesset committees and plenum when there are extra fingers on the 64th of the coalition. But those around the prime minister are also preparing for a situation in which there will be no agreements, neither with Benny Gantz nor with Yair Lapid, who is believed to be completely captive in the hands of the protesters and unable to move a millimeter from the militant line led by its leaders. This is evidenced more than anything else by their silence in the face of despicable statements and actions by the leaders of the demonstrations, such as comparisons to the Nazis, ugly physical attacks, and more, which took place this week in Israel and the United States.
The trio's next target for dialogue is representatives from the Business and High-Tech Forum and the Chairman of the Histadrut. In their assessment, despite their basic opposition to the reform, they, like senior coalition officials, want to put these events behind them, and mainly to rehabilitate the economy.
The heads of the giant companies not only oppose the reform, but also contribute quite a bit to the protest. A separation between them and the protest will strangle it and close the faucet of the enormous budget flowing into it. Still, Netanyahu's people believe the key may be there. The damage to the economy also harms them and keeps them asleep. They don't want the reform, but if they agree to talk, they, too, will be able to reach the conclusion that this is not an attack on democracy or regime change. All in all, the establishment of an equal committee for the selection of judges that will grant a veto to both sides, so that each judge in each court will be elected by general agreement and as a result of negotiations between the parties.
The current proposal presented by the three to members of the opposition, and later to the heads of the Business and High-Tech Forum and the chairman of the Histadrut, is a committee that will include nine members: three representatives from the coalition, three from the opposition, and three judges – not very far from the current composition of the committee. But it will take the consent of seven to make any decision in the commission, from the appointment of magistrate and district judges to the election of the next chief justice. The senority system will be abolished, and for the first time, judges and representatives of the left will be forced to take the right into account even when it is in opposition.
In addition, and in order to allay fears of increasing the power of the Knesset at the expense of the court, the coalition will pass a special Basic Law that will determine the date of the Knesset elections, and reserve it so that no changes can be made to it except by a majority of 80 Knesset members. Currently, the Elections Law is reinforced by a majority of 80 only in cases where the Knesset wishes to postpone the date of the elections. The new law will not allow the armor clause to be abolished by an ordinary majority and will entrench the status of elections.
After Netanyahu's meeting with Elon Musk in California, during which he said that Yariv Levin's original proposal to swing the pendulum toward the Knesset and the government at the expense of the court was bad in his eyes and therefore removed it from the agenda, the justice minister rushed to talk to Netanyahu and ask for clarifications. Netanyahu explained that he would ignore the headlines in the media and see what he said himself. His intention, he claimed, was that the Override Clause was indeed not part of the reform. Levine did not relax. He told Netanyahu that the interpretation given to his words was that the reform was bad and that he intended to drop it. Netanyahu promised him he would clarify his remarks.
Outside the common interest
While senior Likud figures expressed shock at the extreme and unusual nature of the protest against the government, even overseas, it was precisely in Netanyahu's vicinity, to whom all the arrows were pointed, that they saw quite a few positive sides in the developments. They highlighted the incomprehensible gap between the enormous amount of money held by the protesters and the small number of people supporting it, all under conditions of enormous and unusual media mobilization by any standard.
The messages voiced in the United States against Netanyahu were exceptional in their severity. The rule of almost all countries in the democratic world – that one can fight at home, but outside, especially in a hostile environment, all citizens are united for the cause – was not only broken this week by the protesters, but shattered to pieces. The giant signs and messages were not only aggressive towards the government, but bordered on cruelty towards it and dripped with evil and burning hatred. These are messages that may slip down your throat when they are waved in Tel Aviv, but cause quite a few throats to choke with shame when they are hoisted on the UN building – the home of some of Israel's most outspoken enemies, those who seek its evil, who lead the discriminatory line against it and who have incited its institutions against it for decades.
Even the illuminated sign on the famous Alcatraz prison in San Francisco Bay was too nasty for what the average Israeli eye can tan overseas. This was not a moment of opposition to the government, but to the entire country. This lack of loyalty was suddenly reminiscent – upside down – of El Al's old advertising campaign, in the days when it stopped being the national airline and went into private hands. The campaign illustrated the Israeli's longing and full frowning eyes, when he sees abroad for a moment the blue Star of David symbol on the tail of the plane. It was a precise campaign, riding on the sentiment of the foreign Israeli when he remembered his country of origin, his homeland, his people and his roots.
Even prime ministers, political figures at their core, are careful not to wage the mud battles they are used to waging in the Knesset in international arenas – and certainly not at the annual UN General Assembly. In these speeches, all prime ministers, from Ben-Gurion to Rabin, Peres and Shamir to Netanyahu, make sure to talk about Israel's common interest vis-à-vis the nations: about fighting Israel's enemies and harnessing the world to do so, and about exposing the hypocrisy of the UN and the biased and anti-Semitic resolutions it is leading against Israel.
The demonstrators' decision to put up an anti-Netanyahu sign there, and another one calling for never believing what he says, harms Israel's common interest and unravels the basic solidarity that connects the different parts of the nation. The feelings stemming from these messages are uncomfortable for many, including those who oppose the reform and voters for left-wing parties. Many of them felt that a red line had been crossed here – and voted with their feet.
Obey the High Court, as if
After the tremendous media mobilization; After the live broadcasts that accompanied Netanyahu's visit, before his departure, after his departure, during his stay, with reporters and photographers scattered throughout the demonstration sites, from coast to coast; After the articles about the tremendous preparations, the underground Zoom meetings and the logistical system, including behind-the-scenes videos of the protest leaders presenting them as heroes of the people; And of course, after the call of the protest leaders to contribute to it and take an active part in it, the actual number of participants was embarrassing. A few dozen here, a few dozen there.
Do 30 people in Times Square and another 40 outside the UN building justify sending a reporter and live broadcasts? Barely a mention of a line in the edition. Just like those delusions who stand outside the annual march for Israel on Fifth Avenue with PLO flags and protest the occupation, accompanied by anti-Zionist Satmar Hasidim. Their number is even greater than that of those who came to protest the reform. No one thinks to cover them.
The unimaginable amounts of money flowing through the main arteries of the protest have also been exposed. Putting up a huge, illuminated sign on an entire building in Manhattan, as well as a lighted display on Alcatraz Prison — not to mention airfare, transporting boxes with equipment, organization and scheduling, hotels and restaurants — is something that can easily be estimated at several million dollars, all for one week of protest.
In this context, the protest leaders shot themselves in the foot this week, and also failed in their mission to harm Netanyahu's visit to the United States. The weight of the legal reform in the policy meetings held by the prime minister in New York, headed by the meeting with President Joe Biden, was negligible. Contrary to the impression that opponents of the reform tried to create, Biden did not condition progress on issues important to Israel, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, on stopping the reform or advancing it on political agreement alone.
The president also did not miss Netanyahu, much to the chagrin of the protesters, and even took away the only bright spot – the fact that the meeting took place "on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly," in New York and not in the Oval Office of the White House – and at the beginning of his remarks he again invited Netanyahu to Washington until the end of the year.
Politically, the president needs Netanyahu no less than Netanyahu needs him. Biden's election campaign is based in no small part on a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, a move that cannot be advanced without Netanyahu. Biden will not be able to get Senate Republicans to support the move with Saudi Arabia without Netanyahu confirming all the details. The opposition did not appreciate the magnitude of Netanyahu's importance in American domestic politics.
The next significant political events will not take place in the Knesset, but in court. This will happen when the High Court hears petitions on issues related to the law of incapacitation and convenes the committee for the selection of judges. While the Knesset has been working in recent months to reduce the court's powers at its own expense, the court may grant the judiciary supreme authority it never had before – to fire the incumbent prime minister by declaring his forcible incapacitation.
The High Court has already given the direction in which it is headed: to apply the law from the next Knesset. In other words, during the current term, Harb-Miara will receive on a silver platter the authority to remove Netanyahu from incapacitation and cause the government to choose another candidate to head it. While Bahar-Miara says she now opposes Netanyahu's incapacitation, the word "now" may be quite fickle after the ruling. Tomorrow, of course, she could come to a different conclusion.
Yariv Levin will most likely abide by the High Court's decision if he orders him to convene the committee he chairs. But convening the committee does not guarantee the selection of judges. Levin can convene the committee, open the discussion, and then lock it down. He cannot be forced to put judges to a vote, let alone be forced to appoint them. So there's really not a lot of tension here, just another clash between the judicial system and elected officials.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us