Israel’s judicial crisis resurfaces as compromise talks come to an abrupt halt

An attempt to resolve a dispute over the future of Israel’s judiciary, an issue that has divided the country for months, took a serious blow on Wednesday after a dramatic standoff in parliament over a committee that elects the country’s judges .

Opposition leaders said they were pulling out of negotiations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government, pausing talks for at least a month, aimed at reaching a compromise on a controversial plan to overhaul the judiciary.

The announcement was prompted by a move by Mr Netanyahu to disrupt a vote in parliament that would elect members of the committee that selects new judges. That process is key the dispute over the judicial systemand the opposition had hoped it would remain untouched while negotiations went on.

The events underlined how the government’s plan remains a powder keg despite Mr Netanyahu’s decision to suspend it late March after that months of protestsopposition of within the military and nationwide strikes.

It also demonstrated the delicate balancing act Netanyahu faces as he attempts to placate both his critics and members of his coalition government, while also moving ahead with signature projects such as forging formal relationships with Saudi Arabia.

For more than two months, the representatives of Mr. Netanyahu engaged in private negotiations with the opposition over a possible compromise brokered by President Isaac Herzog – to buy both sides time and cool down what had been an increasingly corrupt public discourse.

The Prime Minister’s decision to suspend the review of the judiciary two months ago eased some of the tensions in the country. Street unrest has subsided, the discord in the military appears to be over and the mass protests held weekly in Tel Aviv have subsided.

But on Wednesday, the thunder and anger returned. In an effort to placate hardline allies who resent any attempt at compromise, Mr. Netanyahu sabotaging what is usually a routine vote to elect new members of a committee that elects new judges. His move actually postpones the composition of the committee for another month.

That move angered the opposition, who saw the move as a backdoor attempt to push through part of the judicial overhaul without social consensus. Lawmakers called for a halt to compromise negotiations and a return to mass protests during the week.

“No committee, no talks,” Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, said at a joint press conference with Benny Gantz, another opposition leader.

“Netanyahu knew the consequences,” Mr Lapid said. “They were made clear to him by the president and by us.” He added, referring to the location of the talks: “Without a judicial selection committee, we are not coming to the president’s residence.”

In response, some coalition members threatened to unilaterally proceed with their original plan without seeking compromise. Mr. Netanyahu himself called it quits, but accused Mr. Lapid and Mr. Gantz of acting in bad faith.

“Today it finally became clear that Gantz and Lapid were exploring every possible way to blow up the talks,” Netanyahu said in a video statement Wednesday night. “Gantz and Lapid don’t want a real negotiation.”

The immediate trigger for Wednesday’s crisis was a long-planned vote in parliament to elect new members of the Judicial Appointments Committee.

At the start of each of its terms, parliament normally elects two legislators to join the nine-member council that selects new judges, including Supreme Court judges. One of them is usually proposed by the government, the other by the opposition; legislators stamp the decision in a symbolic vote, and the remaining seven seats are taken by ministers, senior judges and lawyers.

To avoid another crisis with the opposition, Mr Netanyahu appeared intent on continuing that convention on Wednesday.

But the control of Mr. Netanyahu on his coalition is slipping away, and part of it are more extreme allies wanted to elect two government representatives instead of one.

To that end, at least seven coalition lawmakers unilaterally said they would compete for a seat on the committee. That increased the likelihood that both vacant spots would be filled by coalition legislators, at the expense of the only opposition candidate.

Mr. Netanyahu eventually convinced all but one of the coalition lawmakers to resign, narrowing the contest down to one candidate apiece from the government and opposition.

But after narrowing the field, Mr Netanyahu then instructed his coalition not to vote for the remaining coalition candidate, in a concession to allies who wanted to avoid the commission being formed at all. As a result, only the opposition candidate was elected. This opened up a spot, meaning that there would be a new election for a coalition representative in a month’s time.

In the meantime, the commission cannot meet, and as a result, opposition leaders said they would not participate in the president’s mediation efforts.

Mr Netanyahu is attempting this balancing act as his coalition is divided over whether or not to compromise the court plan.

Some coalition lawmakers, including Mr Netanyahu, seem open to compromise on some, if not all, of the original plan. The initial proposal prompted reserve officers not to report for duty, business leaders to scale back investments, unions to close the country’s main airport and Mr Netanyahu’s own polls plummeted. By entering into compromise talks, Mr. Netanyahu wanting to avoid such an outburst again.

People briefed on the negotiations say that this week government and opposition representatives came close to agreeing on two small parts of the proposed overhaul: reducing the influence of the government’s legal advisers – senior officials linked to any ministry whose legal opinions currently limit their minister’s actions — and removing the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn certain government decisions on the grounds of “reasonableness,” a legal term long resented by the Israeli right.

For some coalition leaders, these changes may be palatable. Aryeh Deri, a key ultra-Orthodox political leader who was recently excluded from the cabinet by the Supreme Court on grounds of fairness, could potentially return to government. But for others, they ignore the central elements of the overhaul – the “override” clause, which would allow parliament to override the Supreme Court, and a reform of the Judicial Appointments Committee, which would give government-appointed officials a majority. to give.

Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting from Rehovot, Israel, and Hiba Yazbek from Jerusalem.