To receive immediate updates on breaking news, simply subscribe to our breaking news email service and have them delivered directly to your inbox for no charge.
Register for our complimentary email alerts for breaking news.
The highest court in Israel has invalidated a crucial part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial plan to change the judicial system. This ruling has significant implications and may reopen divisions in Israeli society that were present before the recent conflict with Hamas in Gaza.
The proposed renovation caused widespread demonstrations for several months, potentially leading to a conflict between the judiciary and legislature and causing tension within the influential military.
The divisions were mostly set aside following a violent attack by Hamas militants in southern Israel on October 7, which sparked a three-month-long war in Gaza. However, the court’s ruling on Monday has the potential to rekindle those tensions, despite the ongoing conflict.
The decision made by the court has been criticized by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who is an ally of Netanyahu and the creator of the reform. Levin argued that the decision goes against the necessary unity for our soldiers to be successful on the front lines.
The decision “will not dissuade us,” stated Mr. Levin, without specifying if the administration will attempt to reinstate his proposal in the near future. “As the efforts are ongoing in various aspects, we will persist in exercising caution and accountability,” he declared.
The court’s decision on Monday was a close vote to revoke a law passed in July which prohibits judges from invalidating government decisions deemed “unreasonable.” Those against the law argued that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s attempt to eliminate the standard of reasonability allows for corruption and the unsuitable appointment of unqualified individuals to significant roles.
The law was the first in a planned overhaul of the Israeli justice system. The overhaul was put on hold after Hamas militants carried out their attack, killing some 1,200 people and kidnapping 240 others. Israel immediately declared war, and is pressing forward with an offensive that Palestinian health officials say has killed nearly 22,000 people in Hamas-run Gaza.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-7 against the law, citing its potential to cause significant and unprecedented damage to the fundamental principles of Israel as a democratic nation.
The judges also made a decision of 12-3 that they possessed the power to invalidate “Basic Laws,” significant acts of legislation that act as a form of constitution for Israel.
The decision was a major setback for Mr Netanyahu and his staunch supporters, who argued that the legality of laws and important choices should be determined by the national legislature and not the high court. The judges stated that the parliament, known as the Knesset, does not hold unlimited authority.
The government of Mr Netanyahu may choose to disregard the ruling made on Monday, potentially leading to a conflict over who holds the final decision-making power.
Last year, shortly after taking office, Mr Netanyahu and his supporters revealed their comprehensive reform proposal. This plan aims to limit the authority of judges, including restricting the Supreme Court’s ability to scrutinize decisions made by parliament and altering the process of appointing judges.
Supporters said the changes aim to strengthen democracy by circumscribing the authority of unelected judges and turning over more powers to elected officials. But opponents see the overhaul as a power grab by Mr Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption charges. Mr Netanyau denies all charges against him.
The Israeli organization, Movement for Quality Government, which advocates for good governance and was against the law, described the decision of the Supreme Court as a significant win for those who support democracy.
According to Eliad Shraga, the chairman of the group, a government that behaves irrationally and takes unreasonable actions is the only one that would disregard the standard of reasonableness.
Prior to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, numerous Israeli citizens participated in weekly demonstrations against the government. These protests included military reservists, such as fighter pilots and members of elite units, who declared they would refuse to fulfill their duties if the proposed changes were implemented. Reservists play a crucial role in the structure of the Israeli military.
Although the reservists promptly resumed their duties after the Hamas attack as a display of solidarity, the potential consequences of reinstating the overhaul efforts are still uncertain. If the protests were to resume, it could potentially jeopardize national unity and potentially impact the military’s preparedness if soldiers refused to report for duty.
In the Israeli government, the prime minister holds power through a majority coalition in parliament. This essentially gives them authority over both the executive and legislative branches of the government.
The Supreme Court has a vital responsibility of oversight. Some argue that Mr Netanyahu and his supporters are attempting to undermine the judiciary in order to gain more control over the third branch of government, which is meant to be independent and provide checks and balances.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s supporters consist of a variety of extreme nationalist and religious parties who have numerous complaints against the court. These allies have demanded a rise in building settlements in the West Bank, the annexation of the occupied territory, continued exemptions from military conscription for ultra-Orthodox men, and restrictions on the rights of LGBT+ individuals and Palestinians.
The court made its ruling due to the impending retirement of its current president, Esther Hayut. Monday marked her final day in office.
Source: independent.co.uk
