Netanyahu allies signal pause in campaign to rein in judges
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition said Tuesday that, for the sake of national unity with Israel at war, it plans no immediate counteraction to a Supreme Court decision halting the government’s signature campaign to rein in the court’s power , was discontinued.
Across Israel’s political divide, supporters and opponents of Netanyahu’s plan stressed the need to avoid domestic unrest as forces seek to eliminate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu’s allies, while critical of the court’s ruling on Monday, have notably refrained from announcing any attempts to relitigate the issue.
The court on Monday struck down a law that Netanyahu’s coalition passed last year to limit the powers of the judiciary, part of a broader overhaul aimed at putting more power in the hands of elected lawmakers.
The narrow 8-7 decision raised the prospect of an outbreak of division in the emergency national government that Mr Netanyahu formed after the October 7 Hamas-led attack, and a return to the unrest that began last year when his government pushed for curbing the power of the court. powers, causing large-scale street protests.
But leaders of both parties on Tuesday expressed a desire to put the issue aside for now rather than risk a wartime crisis at home.
Miki Zohar, a minister from Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party, acknowledged that the Supreme Court ruling had caused “pain” in right-wing circles. wrote on social media: “It is our duty at this time to bite our lips, act responsibly and preserve the unity of the people.”
There was no public speech from Netanyahu’s allies about new legislation to rein in the judiciary.
Benny Gantz, a centrist who had opposed the judicial review but joined Netanyahu in a wartime emergency government, said the ruling should be respected. “Today we have only one common goal: to win the war together,” he says wrote on social media.
Military reservists who played a central role in the mass protests welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, but they too stressed that national unity was the top priority.
“We ask everyone to accept the court’s ruling as it is and not start another war over it,” said Ron Scherf, one of the leaders of the pro-democracy group Brothers in Arms, an organization of Israeli reservists . “We are already at war with outside enemies, and we must be united.”
“We cannot go back to the division and division of October 6,” Mr. Scherf said. “There is now a better understanding of where this could lead, and that we should only make progress on important issues if there is broad national agreement.”
The law that was struck down was an amendment to a basic law, which has quasi-constitutional status in Israel. It prohibited Supreme Court justices from using a legal standard known as reasonableness to overturn government decisions and appointments.
Proponents of judicial review argue that reasonableness is ill-defined and can be used subjectively to subvert the will of voters and elected officials.
Opponents say the standard is an essential tool for judicial review in a country that has no formal constitution. Judges are supposed to apply it only to undo government actions that they find extremely unreasonable.
With the court’s controversial review off the books, “things are now back to normal,” said Suzie Navot, a constitutional law expert and vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute, an independent research group.
According to her, a new clash over the balance of power between the judiciary and the government will likely only occur “if the government or one of its ministers makes an extremely unreasonable decision.” If the court then intervenes, she said, “we may have a constitutional problem.”
Legal experts said the most consequential part of Monday’s Supreme Court decision was a broader finding: that judges, contrary to the government’s position, have the authority to strike down basic laws if they violate fundamental principles of Jewish and democratic character harm the state.
This precedent-setting decision was approved by an overwhelming majority. Twelve of the court’s fifteen judges supported the proposal, while a thirteenth hesitated. The majority consisted of both liberals and conservatives, which posed a serious obstacle to the government’s legal agenda.
“This is perhaps the most important ruling in the country’s history,” said Professor Navot, because it sets limits on the power of parliament and the government. And at more than 740 pages in Hebrew, she noted, the court decision may also be the longest.
For the first time in the court’s history, all fifteen judges have ruled in the case. Two of those judges, including outgoing Chief Justice Esther Hayut, retired in October and have not yet been replaced. Justice Minister Yariv Levin, one of the key architects of the government’s judicial reform, is determined to change the method of selecting judges and has refused to convene a committee to select new judges, holding up the process .
The months of protests and the Supreme Court ruling have “set the judicial review back many, many years,” said Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. For now, the government has “no legitimacy to lead such legislation,” she said.
Ms. Talshir said Netanyahu’s centrist rivals joined the wartime emergency government only on the condition that he suspend the judicial review for the duration of the fighting. But ultimately, she said, Netanyahu could exploit Monday’s ruling to gain right-wing support in the next election.
Netanyahu’s popularity has plummeted since the surprise Hamas attack that launched the war, but Monday’s legal setback could provide him with a path to retain power by using the same argument behind the original plan for a review of the judiciary of his government, Ms Talshir said: “That the unelected judges have overruled the elected government.”
Michael Levenson reporting contributed.