“The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel’s judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent;[8]bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.” - 2023 Israeli judicial reform - Wikipedia (emphasis added)
As a sign of the coalition’s intentions, these prospective changes do not signal respect for “the bounds of the established democratic process,” especially in light of Netanyahu’s current legal issues and narrow ruling majority.
The Supreme Court had the temerity to do things like disqualify convicted criminals from serving as cabinet ministers. Even if one does not buy that the judiciary is itself squeaky-clean and non-corrupt, that is the type of politician serving in the current government of Israel, and the point is that even those not convicted of crimes or under investigation for crimes have done nothing to avoid the appearance of impropriety, let alone actual impropriety. Therefore, IMO it is not a stretch to discount them having legitimate motivations for, well, any legislation, and one can well understand the existence of huge anti-government protests and concrete actions like strikes.
Contrary to the far right’s pledge, the government did not enact its plan to subordinate the appointment of Supreme Court judges to politicians. Nor did it grant the coalition the ability to override judicial decisions…
In other words, Israel’s democracy—flawed as it is—remains intact, for now. Far from incapacitated, the country’s highest court is already [rushing] to convene an unprecedented session to rule on the legality of this week’s effort to curb its powers. But whether or not Israel erodes its democratic guardrails in the months ahead, its people have already lost something similarly essential: basic social trust.
If Israel’s judges no longer get to decide which administrative decisions are “reasonable,” that means that the politicians in power do, even if they, too, lack a mandate. …(they got 48% of the popular vote).
Polls [consistently show] that two-thirds of Israel’s citizens oppose the ruling coalition’s unilateral overhaul of the judiciary. Put another way, most Israelis simply do not trust the intentions of their own government. They do not believe that Netanyahu, let alone [the extremist allies he depends upon] to maintain his power, will be more reasonable than the unelected Supreme Court. And they do not believe that the coalition will stop with this small salvo against the judiciary when it has already announced its intentions to deconstruct the entire edifice. The Israeli opposition has lost faith in its countrymen to act in the best interest of the entire nation, which is why its leaders now [openly accuse] the government of seeking to destroy democracy.
@cmkeller, I wonder if you could post some specific examples of legislation that the Supreme Court has struck down as “unreasonable” which you are prepared to argue were actually reasonable.
In general, I don’t think there is any “perfect” system of democracy. The UK has no Constitution and nothing to restrain any Parliamentary majority from doing whatever it wants. It’s worked out fairly well for them, because all major parties in the UK have been generally committed to the basic tenets of liberal democracy. When the majority of the voters are racists and/or religious fanatics, like in Mississippi and, now, apparently in Israel, liberal democracy can’t survive regardless of how great the Constitution is on paper.
The court used the “reasonability” clause in January to dismiss Aryeh Deri, a key Netanyahu ally, from his position as Israel’s interior and health minister. Deri was also meant to serve as finance minister later on.
The Supreme Court found that Deri’s prior conviction for tax fraud made his appointment unreasonable, and that his promise to the court to stay out of politics — which appears to have granted him leniency in his sentencing — also should preclude him from serving in Netanyahu’s government.
And Netanyahu said that if this new legislation isn’t struck down, he expects he will use the opportunity to put a felon friend of his in a key political position.
I look on this part of your post as a big unsolvable problem. I know so ridiculously more about the U.S. than any other country. Even though I read a lot, there is so much complexity and nuance and raw emotion that I totally miss about every other nation. However, I’m going to venture some opinions anyway despite conceding your point.
I read at least a couple nonfiction English language books on Israeli history most years, and look at www.TimesOfIsrael.com most days. And despite all I read, and being center-left (albeit more center than left), I’m not feeling much at all of what a center-left Israeli Jew does this year. Doesn’t mean my outsider perspective is the correct one, but it’s all I got.
As for the theoretical issue of separation of powers, I’ve always admired the Westminster system. Every system of government has negatives, but parliamentary supremacy is pretty darn democratic. As for the idea that the right wing is going to take over Israel for good, there’s long-term danger. But in terms of the next election, it is not looking so good for the right. They’ve overreached. And these Knesset decisions will probably get significantly changed (or drastically changed if a constitution is enacted) in a few years. This year’s Knesset votes aren’t like that U.S. Supreme Court decision on abortion that will take decades to reverse.
Perhaps this next link is hasbara (Israeli public diplomacy that some label propaganda), but it sounded to me closer to the case than the it’s-a-total-disaster narrative:
The 1948 war was a close contest with a U.S. arms embargo on Israel. Stalin leaned towards Israel that year, but not strongly enough to make sure the Jews won.
Bibi isn’t nearly as “irresistible” as he was in the past. If he pushes this, it could be the opportunity for his opponents to remove him from power (finally) without looking overly divisive during war.
Quite true. I was thinking mostly of that famous comment by a long-ago President that
John Marshal (US Chief Justice at the time) has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.
At the limit, Courts rule mostly by dint of moral suasion and weight of tradition. At the limit, Executives rule by dint of organized state violence or at least organized state coercion.
IANA expert on Israeli governance. Neither the laws nor the practice. But whatever sort of fight this will come to in Israel, it won’t be a symmetrical one.
The USA will enter into a similar experience very quickly if the wrong person is elected president later this year.
I must say, this cheered me up (in my position as an ignorant foreigner). I never would have guessed that a proposed law to gut the powers of the country’s Supreme Court would have to get by the Supreme Court before it could become an actual law. I mean, how likely was it that the Supreme Court would have said “Sure, we’ll get down on our knees so you can cut off our heads, why wouldn’t we?” Did this proposal ever have a hope of becoming a law, given the circumstances?
The executive can only apply state violence or state coercion if it actually controls the organs of violence and coercion. Based on the past year, I don’t think it does - if forced to choose, I believe Israeli police and prosecutors will obey the law, not the government.
I sometimes wonder in my country, especially at the lower levels. We certainly have a couple hundred years of local or state officials openly defying the Feds or locals openly defying the state. The big(ger) guys always win, but it often took a decade or more.
Ultimately, all governments, and all branches and operatives of government, only have power because people listen to them and agree that they do. Even in an autocracy, once the autocrat’s guards decide to turn on them, it’s all over.
They ruled 12-3 on the Marbury v. Madison-like issue of whether the Supreme Court can invalidate basic laws. As I read the news reports, the close division was just on the question of using the Hebrew word for reasonableness as the criteria for invalidation.
So the legislature tried to limit the power of the judiciary… and that law had to pass muster with the judiciary, who said you can’t do that to the judiciary.
A full account of the ruling can be found in the Journal Of Incredibly Predictable Outcomes.