Israel's Supreme Court has found itself at the epicenter of a tumultuous legal and political storm as it grapples with the contentious judicial overhaul initiated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. This unprecedented legal showdown, which has bitterly divided the nation, raises crucial questions about the country's constitutional integrity. In a historic move, all 15 Supreme Court justices have united to hear appeals against the controversial law, a stark departure from the typical panel of three justices. As the proceedings are livestreamed, the eyes of the nation and the world are fixed on this pivotal moment.
The law in question, passed by the Israeli parliament in July, effectively strips the Supreme Court of its authority to strike down government decisions deemed "unreasonable." This legislative maneuver is part of a broader plan by Netanyahu's government to curtail the court's powers and bolster the governing coalition's control. The implications of this law are far-reaching, touching on issues of democracy, human rights, and governance.
The response to this controversial legislation has been fierce, with protests primarily led by the country's secular middle class. High-profile figures from the tech industry have threatened to relocate, and thousands of military reservists have openly defied the government, refusing to report for duty. Netanyahu's supporters, on the other hand, tend to be less affluent, more religious, and concentrated in West Bank settlements and rural areas. Many of them are working-class Mizrahi Jews, who have expressed resentment towards what they perceive as an elitist Ashkenazi, or European, Jewish class.
Tens of thousands of Israelis converged around the Supreme Court in a massive demonstration against the government, waving national flags and chanting slogans condemning the judicial overhaul.
This legal battle has added a layer of complexity to Israel's constitutional framework. The law was passed as an amendment to a "Basic Law," which serves as a quasi-constitution, given that Israel lacks a formal constitution. The Supreme Court has never before invalidated a "Basic Law," but it maintains that it possesses the authority to do so. In contrast, the government contends that it does not.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin has argued vehemently that the court has no jurisdiction to review the law, characterizing such an attempt as a threat to democracy and the role of the elected Knesset members. The question of who holds ultimate authority over legislation is central to this dispute.
Civil society groups advocating for human rights and good governance are among the petitioners urging the court to strike down the law. While a final ruling is not expected imminently, the hearing offers insight into the court's leanings on this critical matter.
At the heart of this battle lies a broader clash of ideologies concerning democracy in Israel. Netanyahu and his coalition assert that, as elected representatives, they hold a democratic mandate to govern without judicial interference. They cast the Supreme Court as a bastion of secular, left-leaning elites.
Conversely, opponents argue that the court serves as the only safeguard against unchecked majority rule in a country with a fragile system of checks and balances. With limited institutional barriers—a single parliamentary house, a symbolic presidency, and no written constitution—stripping the court of its review power could enable the government to make decisions that the current court would likely overturn. These include appointing convicted individuals to cabinet positions, eroding women's and minority rights, and potentially annexing the occupied West Bank.
Experts in legal and political matters warn that democracies rarely collapse overnight. Instead, they erode gradually, one step at a time, often through legal maneuvers. As Tamar Hermann from the Israel Democracy Institute pointed out, "Democracies don't die in one day anymore." The ongoing judicial overhaul in Israel poses a substantial threat to its democratic foundations.
The political fate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who returned to power while facing corruption charges, hinges on his alliance with hard-line, religiously conservative coalition partners. These partners have threatened to rebel if the government backs down from the legislation.
Netanyahu's stance on respecting the court's decision remains ambiguous. Some members of his coalition, including Justice Minister Levin, have suggested that the government may disregard the court's ruling. Legal experts warn that such defiance could trigger a constitutional crisis, leaving citizens and security forces in the unenviable position of choosing between parliamentary and judicial authority—an uncharted territory that could plunge the nation into uncertainty.