TURBULENT ISRAEL AND ADAMANT NETANYAHU

On July 24, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, approved the first bill of the judicial reform package—an initiative that has effectively divided the country's in two camps. Mass protests against the reform implemented by the Benjamin Netanyahu government have been going on for seven months and reached the peak in the run-up to and after the parliamentary decision. Leading Israeli politicians believe that the fate of the country depends on current events.

Bill against the principle of reasonableness

The new coalition government of Israel came to power last December. It was formed by the Likud party led by Netanyahu together with the ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalists. It is considered to be the most right-wing coalition government in the history of Israel. Those who joined the coalition with Likud believed that joint efforts would reduce the powers of the Supreme Court, which prevents orthodox groups from increasing their influence on socio-political processes.

Formally, Israel has no constitution. In fact, it is replaced by the so called Basic Laws, the Declaration of Independence, and judicial precedents. That is why the Supreme Court of Israel is acting like a body controlling the extent the decisions of the legislative and executive branches of power conform with those Basic Laws. In an effort to put an end to this practice, the Likud-led government of ultra-nationalists and ultra-Orthodox launched a process of judicial reforms. This is how the bill to abolish the so-called "principle of reasonableness" came into being. It assumes a series of amendments to the legislation on the judiciary that would deprive the Supreme Court of the ability to block government decisions on the grounds that they are "unreasonable," i.e., inconsistent with the law or the interests of the state and society.

The draft law developed by the ruling coalition not only limited the controlling functions of the Supreme Court, but also gave the government a chance to significantly influence key appointments in the judicial system (especially the judges of the Supreme Court). Ministers are not any more obliged to follow the recommendations of legal advisors reporting to the Attorney General, who is independent of the government. Finally, the judicial reform empowers the 120-seat Knesset with the right to overturn the Supreme Court decisions by a simple majority (at least 61 votes).

Prime Minister Netanyahu initially justified the reform by the necessity to limit the "excessive powers of unelected judges". According to supporters of the reform, it is necessary for the full separation of powers and to end the concentration of absolute power in the hands of the Supreme Court, which allegedly prevents the government and parliament elected by the people from working effectively.

However, these arguments have not convinced a significant part of the Israeli society, which regards the changes initiated by the Netanyahu government as a threat to democracy. Opponents of the reform consider the principle of reasonableness to be an important element of the system of checks and balances, one of the fundamental guarantees to protect the people from abuse of power. The prime minister is suspected of intending to "turn Israeli democracy into an authoritarian regime." The opponents of the reform also argue that the supervisory functions of the Supreme Court are aimed at preventing corruption and abuse of power. In this regard, they accuse the head of the Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, of corruption, fraud and breach of trust – for the first time in the history of Israel. There are even allegations that after winning last year's elections and taking over the government again, Netanyahu introduced the judicial reform to prevent the court from stripping him of his position.

As soon as the judicial reform plan was unveiled more than six months ago, it provoked massive protests. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with the measures proposed by the government. Actions were so large that Prime Minister Netanyahu promised to start the negotiations with the opposition in order to find a compromise. However, due to insurmountable differences in the positions of the parties, the negotiation process was interrupted. Soon the judicial reform was returned to the Knesset for review.

Long-term protests

The bill to abolish the principle of reasonableness was passed by the Knesset in the first reading on July 10. On July 19, the Legislative Commission of the Knesset approved the bill for the second and third readings. By that time, mass protests had become a real movement of resistance.

Right before the scheduled readings of the bill on July 24, protesters blocked major highways in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv. Partial strikes covered the transport and health sectors. There were clashes with the police, who used water cannons to disperse the demonstrators. But the most significant action was a march in Tel Aviv by the members of the Brothers in Arms, an organisation formed of the reservists of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).

Hundreds of reservists announced their refusal to volunteer for service in protest against the judicial reform. Former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Tamir Hyman complained that the main consequence of opposition to the judicial reform could be the destruction of the IDF's model of a popular army, because "IDF can fulfil its missions thanks to the full complement of systems and heavy dependence on volunteerism."

The march of demonstrators from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, where they camped outside the parliament on the same day was also impressive. More than 100 former Israeli security chiefs called on the government to suspend the reform. At the same time, opposition leader and former prime minister Yair Lapid stated before the protesters that the government had only two options: destroy Israel or preserve it. Continuing the judicial reform will "tear Israel apart," Lapid said, while the authorities' return to dialogue with the opposition will preserve the country.

However, the appeals of the opposition failed. After almost 30 hours of continuous debates, the Knesset still passed the bill.

Compromise or civil disobedience?

Sixty-four MPs representing the ruling coalition voted in favour of the bill. 56 opposition MPs boycotted the vote, leaving the session hall in protest.

The government announced the outcome of the vote as a victory. "We have taken the first step towards the historic process of changing the judicial system," Justice Minister Yariv Levin said in the Knesset.

"Today we have taken a necessary democratic step. This step is aimed at restoring the balance between the branches of government that existed 50 years ago, when judges were unable to overturn government decisions they considered 'unreasonable.' We adopted the amendment on the 'principle of reasonableness' so that the elected government can implement policies as decided by the majority of the country's citizens," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who underwent pacemaker surgery days before the vote.

However, the opposition and the part of the population that supports it do not share the views expressed by the government officials and Netanyahu. They promise to oppose the implementation of the judicial reform approved by the Knesset. "This government may win the battle, but not the war," Yair Lapid argues. Another former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, predicts that Israel will face "civil disobedience with all possible consequences for the stability of the state and the government's ability to govern."

Indeed, there are signs of defiance. Immediately after Knesset passed the bill marking the beginning of the judicial reform, protests intensified. The streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other cities became the scene of clashes between demonstrators and the police. Both public and non-public sector workers are threatening a general strike. Experts predict a downturn in the Israeli economy and a high probability of further destabilisation of the political situation in the country.

It is not surprising that Israel's closest allies, the US and other Western powers, are seriously concerned about the internal Israeli crisis. Thus, right before the decisive vote in the Knesset, the US President Joe Biden held a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister of Israel, in which he asked Netanyahu to search for the widest possible compromise between the supporters and opponents of the judicial reform. According to the New York Times, the US president warned the head of the Israeli government about the consequences of the reform in terms of the 'special relationship' between the countries. Axios claims that Netanyahu expressed his 'special obligations' to coalition partners, who strongly seek to limit the influence of the judiciary.

After the Israeli parliament gave the go-ahead for judicial reform, however, Biden's spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden was dissatisfied with the Israeli government's disregard for his view that "major changes in a democracy to be enduring must have as broad a consensus as possible."  "It is unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority," Jean-Pierre stated.

"Israel is a sovereign country that makes its decisions according to the will of its people and not on the basis of pressure from abroad, including from its best friends," Netanyahu responded. But can the Israeli prime minister continue to resist pressure from the US administration, which says it will "insist on finding consensus among Israeli policymakers to revise the reform"? Washington expressed hope that the efforts of Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog, who is trying to lead the country's leading political forces to reach consensus through dialogue, would be successful.

All these factors will definitely influence the future course of events in Israel, which is facing one of the biggest political crises in its history. Meanwhile, the ongoing situation in the State of Israel will anyway affect the entire Middle East, given the significant role the country plays at least in the regional arena.