In a pivotal moment for Israel’s judiciary, the country’s Supreme Court justices convened to deliberate on eight petitions targeting the controversial “reasonableness” clause, enacted by the Knesset in July. This clause stripped the Supreme Court of its authority to overrule government decisions, marking a substantial shift in power dynamics within the nation.
This extraordinary gathering of all 15 judges underscores the gravity of the situation, as the court now finds itself in the precarious position of deciding its own jurisdiction. The government, on the other hand, has made its stance unequivocal – it will not acquiesce if the court decides to annul the law. Such a scenario would mark the unprecedented overturning of a semi-constitutional “basic law,” plunging Israel into uncharted political and legal territory. President Isaac Herzog has persistently cautioned against the looming specter of civil strife.
Outside the hallowed halls of justice, a chorus of protesters assembled in Jerusalem, their voices resonating with passion. Drums pounded, whistles shrieked, and Israeli flags billowed in the breeze. Their ranks swelled into the hundreds, eventually joined by a group of rightwing activists. These activists vociferously championed the mantra that “the people are the sovereign” and raised signs proclaiming their allegiance to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Chief Justice Esther Hayut.
The undercurrents of a constitutional crisis have already set in motion. Government ministers have openly advocated for the removal of key safeguards, like the attorney general, and the nomination of individuals who would shield their interests. Noa Sattath, the executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, along with 37 other human rights organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. Sattath emphasized the need for justices to consider the cumulative impact of these legislative changes, asserting that they collectively undermine the nation’s democratic foundations.
Within the next four months, a verdict may emerge, yet the opening session offered tantalizing hints about the leanings of the justices, representing both liberal and conservative viewpoints. Justice Esther Hayut directed a probing question at the government’s legal representatives, challenging their assertion that the government’s actions align with the principle of acting reasonably: “But who makes sure they indeed do so?”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in concert with his coalition partners, initiated an ambitious suite of judicial reforms upon his return to office, with the primary aim of curtailing the Supreme Court’s influence. Critics have decried these changes, which include restricting the court’s ability to annul laws and bestowing greater control over judicial appointments to politicians, as a blatant power consolidation effort that threatens democratic norms. It is worth noting that these reforms coincide with Netanyahu’s ongoing legal battle against corruption charges, which he vehemently denies.
The “reasonableness” clause marked the first successful milestone in this judicial overhaul, despite eight months of sustained opposition and impassioned protests – the largest in Israel’s history. These proposals have cleaved Israeli society along religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines, causing turmoil in the military, economic turbulence, and concerns from key allies, including the United States, about the nation’s democratic health.
In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will confront two more contentious pieces of legislation championed by Netanyahu’s rightwing and religious coalition partners. Critics argue that these laws are tailor-made to fortify the prime minister’s position and shield his political allies from scrutiny.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the architect of these judicial reforms, minced no words in his critique of the court’s perceived overreach: “The court, whose judges elect themselves behind closed doors and without a protocol, has set itself above the government, above the Knesset, above the people and above the law… That situation is completely contrary to democracy. It means a court without checks and balances at all.”
While compromise talks brokered by President Herzog have repeatedly ended in deadlock, there are reports of fresh attempts at negotiation behind closed doors. Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a statement on Monday, expressed his aspiration to “reach a national consensus to restore the balance of power” between the branches of government. However, he has remained notably silent on whether he will respect a Supreme Court decision to overturn the “reasonableness” clause.
