July 24, 2023 - 7:00pm
Jerusalem
These are dramatic days in Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forcibly pushes through his judicial overhaul plan to weaken the Supreme Court and empower the executive branch. This, despite the threat of economic collapse, as well as major military and foreign pressure. On Monday, the first piece of legislation making up the judicial overhaul passed a final vote. Known as the “reasonableness bill”, this legislation abolishes the ability of the High Court of Justice to block government decisions it deems unreasonable or implausible.
On Saturday, 10,000 reserve duty soldiers announced that they would stop showing up for duty if the legislation passed. This comes in addition to warnings by the heads of the Israeli security forces, business leaders, legal experts, and economists. Even US President Joe Biden issued a warning against hastily passing the legislation without consensus. Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s coalition raced ahead, plunging the country into a state of chaos.
As Monday’s vote took place, thousands of people carrying Israeli flags protested outside of the parliament building — seemingly unmoved by the burning summer heat, water cannons and police arrests. The sounds of the demonstration could be heard from far away: banging on blockades, whistle horns, drums and chanting. The bill passed 64-0, with the opposition boycotting the final vote after attempts to reach a compromise failed. Israel now finds itself submerged in the unknown: the Supreme Court may oppose the law but this will push the country into a constitutional crisis, forcing the military and security forces to choose who to obey between the courts and the government.
Protests against Israel’s long-time Prime Minister are not new. They have been ongoing for several years, especially since the Prime Minister’s indictment on charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust in November 2019. However, they reached a new level in January of this year following the swearing in of Israel’s most Right-wing and fundamentalist government to date, as well as the announcement of the comprehensive judicial “reform” plan. Since then, hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets each week in more than 150 locations across the country.
There is a sense among them that the country they once knew is slipping away before their eyes. On Tuesday, in a last-ditch effort to stop the legislation, tens of thousands of protesters embarked on a five-day march to Jerusalem. The effort, which one protester described as a “secular pilgrimage”, ended outside the Israeli parliament. Protesters set up a “tent city”, preparing to camp out in the run-up to the final vote. Hundreds of silver tents sprinkled the grass divided by different protest groups, ranging from university students to reserve duty soldiers.
As Netanyahu races ahead with the legislation, there is a strong impression all around of the collapse of the country’s social contract. Some of the most sacred “myths” of Israeli society, including the importance of military service, have been slashed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think both sides are clinging to an unsupportable and unsustainable position that is inimical to a modern democratic state.
The left is clinging to a self-perpetuating, all-powerful court, that can make law at will. That is fundamentally undemocratic and unfair.
The right is clinging to giving Haredi men a free pass on universal military service, and working to support themselves and their large families. They’re creating a privileged class of people, who society has to support. That is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic.
They both need to abandon these positions.
Really well said. I don’t know that much about Israel, but their judiciary has way too much power, with virtually no legislative oversight. And it’s completely unreasonable to exempt an entire class of people from military service, who happen to be your supporters.
Really well said. I don’t know that much about Israel, but their judiciary has way too much power, with virtually no legislative oversight. And it’s completely unreasonable to exempt an entire class of people from military service, who happen to be your supporters.
I think both sides are clinging to an unsupportable and unsustainable position that is inimical to a modern democratic state.
The left is clinging to a self-perpetuating, all-powerful court, that can make law at will. That is fundamentally undemocratic and unfair.
The right is clinging to giving Haredi men a free pass on universal military service, and working to support themselves and their large families. They’re creating a privileged class of people, who society has to support. That is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic.
They both need to abandon these positions.
“Benjamin Netanyahu has plunged his country into a constitutional crisis”
Kind of a weird headline for a country without no written constitution.
It’s important to keep what’s going on in Israel in perspective. There are approx 9M people in Israel. “tens of thousands protesting” doth not anything close to a majority make.
There were tens of thousands of people rioting/protesting in France last week. Should the French government have rolled over and given them whatever scalps they wanted?
Hundreds of thousands rioted/protested in America 3 years ago. Should the US government have defunded every police agency in the country just because they demanded it?
Several hundred thousand rioted at the US Capitol on January 6th. Should we have stopped the election count to give them what they wanted?
Protesting has a place in any electoral system, but protestors almost never hold a majority position when they protest. If they could vote in their policy preferences without screaming, they would. the fact that they’re screaming is de-facto evidence that are are very likely a minority, and often the most extreme groups with the least support scream the loudest.
I understand the Israeli protestors being worried the Knesset might pass laws they (as mostly secular liberals) wouldn’t like. But using the court system to force your minority policy preferences on a majority that doesn’t want it isn’t democratic at all. In a parliamentary democracy, there is no place for courts to make policy. People who are demanding the Supreme Court continue to have veto power over the Knesset are confusing “liberalism” with “democracy”, and their ideological support of the former is actually undermining the latter.
(This is hardly unique to Israel. The EU ruling class does the same thing routinely vis-a-vis Poland and Hungary and Greece and Italy.)
Well said, Brian. This author is clueless about basic concepts.
Geez. Another excellent comment. I guess the US isn’t the only polarized nation.
Before you get too carried away, here is an instructive example.
One of the first applications of the ‘reasonableness’ doctrine had to do with building a football stadium in Jerusalem. The orthodox were against, because they did not want people to play or watch football on the sabbath, After years of political slogging the decision was taken, and permissions were given, but at the last hurdle the (ultra-orthodox) acting interior minister blocked the land-use change, without giving reasons. The mayor of Jerusalem took the case to court, the supreme court then ruled that it was unreasonable of the minister to withhold permission, and the stadium was finally built.
Protection of minorities is generally seen as part of a functioning democracy. At the very least it is not obvious which side is forcing their ‘minority policy preferences on a majority that doesn’t want it‘.
Well said, Brian. This author is clueless about basic concepts.
Geez. Another excellent comment. I guess the US isn’t the only polarized nation.
Before you get too carried away, here is an instructive example.
One of the first applications of the ‘reasonableness’ doctrine had to do with building a football stadium in Jerusalem. The orthodox were against, because they did not want people to play or watch football on the sabbath, After years of political slogging the decision was taken, and permissions were given, but at the last hurdle the (ultra-orthodox) acting interior minister blocked the land-use change, without giving reasons. The mayor of Jerusalem took the case to court, the supreme court then ruled that it was unreasonable of the minister to withhold permission, and the stadium was finally built.
Protection of minorities is generally seen as part of a functioning democracy. At the very least it is not obvious which side is forcing their ‘minority policy preferences on a majority that doesn’t want it‘.
“Benjamin Netanyahu has plunged his country into a constitutional crisis”
Kind of a weird headline for a country without no written constitution.
It’s important to keep what’s going on in Israel in perspective. There are approx 9M people in Israel. “tens of thousands protesting” doth not anything close to a majority make.
There were tens of thousands of people rioting/protesting in France last week. Should the French government have rolled over and given them whatever scalps they wanted?
Hundreds of thousands rioted/protested in America 3 years ago. Should the US government have defunded every police agency in the country just because they demanded it?
Several hundred thousand rioted at the US Capitol on January 6th. Should we have stopped the election count to give them what they wanted?
Protesting has a place in any electoral system, but protestors almost never hold a majority position when they protest. If they could vote in their policy preferences without screaming, they would. the fact that they’re screaming is de-facto evidence that are are very likely a minority, and often the most extreme groups with the least support scream the loudest.
I understand the Israeli protestors being worried the Knesset might pass laws they (as mostly secular liberals) wouldn’t like. But using the court system to force your minority policy preferences on a majority that doesn’t want it isn’t democratic at all. In a parliamentary democracy, there is no place for courts to make policy. People who are demanding the Supreme Court continue to have veto power over the Knesset are confusing “liberalism” with “democracy”, and their ideological support of the former is actually undermining the latter.
(This is hardly unique to Israel. The EU ruling class does the same thing routinely vis-a-vis Poland and Hungary and Greece and Italy.)
How is this the “unherd” viewpoint? I can pick any BBC/Guardian/Telegraph report and read basically the same thing. This is not a right/left issue, it is a democratic one. In the UK the government passes the laws and the courts judge on the basis of them. This is a pretty uncontroversial opinion. However, in most of the “free world” (notably the USA), the ability of the courts to block legislation is written into a constitution – totally at odds with British standards of good government. To all those who want a written constitution this is where it eventually leads you – there will always be a showdown between the democratic side of the government and the unelected judicial side cf. USA, Israel, South Africa.
Some of the most glaring errors and omissions are where the recently elected, majority government is not mentioned as having had a democratic mandate but is instead said to be “sworn-in”. The demographic last-gasp of secular judaism isn’t mentioned when this is clearly the cause of the protests. It has been a creeping concern over the last few decades for liberal and secular jews that their massive demographic majority was being eroded by the almost comically prolific birth rates among conservative/religious groups (among secular jews it is just under 2 but among ultra-Orthodox it is well over 6). Over the last few years it has become clear to liberals that they cannot really form a coalition apart from by allying with arab parties which would be electoral suicide. The “country they once knew slipping away before their eyes” has come about quicker than any would have thought possible and they don’t like it. The reservists will all forfeit their roles if they do not turn up when required, just like in any normal country, the difference is that if there was a life-or-death attack on Israel (unlikely but more likely than on, say, Switzerland) would these reservists really lay down their arms? I highly doubt it. Just for context Israel has 400,000 reservists. Again, an omission which neglects the widespread popular support for or apathy about the constitutional amendments. Finally, I don’t think the writer realises the irony of the last anecdote.
If there is a life-or-death attack on Israel, will the haredim turn up to fight?
No. The way I like to characterise the haredim is monks who can procreate.
No. The way I like to characterise the haredim is monks who can procreate.
If there is a life-or-death attack on Israel, will the haredim turn up to fight?
How is this the “unherd” viewpoint? I can pick any BBC/Guardian/Telegraph report and read basically the same thing. This is not a right/left issue, it is a democratic one. In the UK the government passes the laws and the courts judge on the basis of them. This is a pretty uncontroversial opinion. However, in most of the “free world” (notably the USA), the ability of the courts to block legislation is written into a constitution – totally at odds with British standards of good government. To all those who want a written constitution this is where it eventually leads you – there will always be a showdown between the democratic side of the government and the unelected judicial side cf. USA, Israel, South Africa.
Some of the most glaring errors and omissions are where the recently elected, majority government is not mentioned as having had a democratic mandate but is instead said to be “sworn-in”. The demographic last-gasp of secular judaism isn’t mentioned when this is clearly the cause of the protests. It has been a creeping concern over the last few decades for liberal and secular jews that their massive demographic majority was being eroded by the almost comically prolific birth rates among conservative/religious groups (among secular jews it is just under 2 but among ultra-Orthodox it is well over 6). Over the last few years it has become clear to liberals that they cannot really form a coalition apart from by allying with arab parties which would be electoral suicide. The “country they once knew slipping away before their eyes” has come about quicker than any would have thought possible and they don’t like it. The reservists will all forfeit their roles if they do not turn up when required, just like in any normal country, the difference is that if there was a life-or-death attack on Israel (unlikely but more likely than on, say, Switzerland) would these reservists really lay down their arms? I highly doubt it. Just for context Israel has 400,000 reservists. Again, an omission which neglects the widespread popular support for or apathy about the constitutional amendments. Finally, I don’t think the writer realises the irony of the last anecdote.
The Israelis are over-reacting to the judicial reforms, shooting themselves in the foot. This is not a good time to be losing internal cohesion as a society. A judiciary without restraints will not serve the long-term interests of the nation, nor will exempting people from normal obligations of citizenship based on religion. These are not the hallmarks of a mature, pluralistic society. Time to step back from the brink and cool off. Let some reasonable reforms have a chance to work, and if they don’t, elect new leaders.
This conflict stems from the fact that Israel is unable to elect new leadership because the country is so divided. They’ve had 3 inconclusive elections (I think).
You nailed it with your last point. Wonderfully pragmatic. Reform of the judiciary is obviously needed, but this government has wildly overstepped. Scrap it, chill and let’s see what better solutions come to the fore. It’s not like this issue is going away.
This conflict stems from the fact that Israel is unable to elect new leadership because the country is so divided. They’ve had 3 inconclusive elections (I think).
You nailed it with your last point. Wonderfully pragmatic. Reform of the judiciary is obviously needed, but this government has wildly overstepped. Scrap it, chill and let’s see what better solutions come to the fore. It’s not like this issue is going away.
The Israelis are over-reacting to the judicial reforms, shooting themselves in the foot. This is not a good time to be losing internal cohesion as a society. A judiciary without restraints will not serve the long-term interests of the nation, nor will exempting people from normal obligations of citizenship based on religion. These are not the hallmarks of a mature, pluralistic society. Time to step back from the brink and cool off. Let some reasonable reforms have a chance to work, and if they don’t, elect new leaders.
The establishment of the State of Israel is a very complicated and difficult project. There is no precedent in history that a people have tried to regain its status among the nations/states after about 2000 years of absence. In the 75 years since the creation, the Israelis have faced daunting jobs in many cases with extraordinary results. There was not time to define seriously the character of the country. This fight/clash is about looking for a clear path to what it means to have a Jewish modern state. The religion, which saved the scattered Jewish people for many centuries needs to adapt to the new reality. This is not easy, it takes time and creativity. The Israelis are fully aware that the outside dangers have not diminished, nevertheless they have engaged in this highly demanding social conflict. As usual , it has been like this since the beginning, with one hand they have to defend the security of the country and with the other hand they have to sort out what kind of country they want to have. I suggest to wait with patience for the outcome which as always will surprize everybody positively.
The establishment of the State of Israel is a very complicated and difficult project. There is no precedent in history that a people have tried to regain its status among the nations/states after about 2000 years of absence. In the 75 years since the creation, the Israelis have faced daunting jobs in many cases with extraordinary results. There was not time to define seriously the character of the country. This fight/clash is about looking for a clear path to what it means to have a Jewish modern state. The religion, which saved the scattered Jewish people for many centuries needs to adapt to the new reality. This is not easy, it takes time and creativity. The Israelis are fully aware that the outside dangers have not diminished, nevertheless they have engaged in this highly demanding social conflict. As usual , it has been like this since the beginning, with one hand they have to defend the security of the country and with the other hand they have to sort out what kind of country they want to have. I suggest to wait with patience for the outcome which as always will surprize everybody positively.
The first known military coup was when Elah, the fourth King of Israel, was overthrown by his chariot commander, Zimri, who reigned as the fifth King of Israel for all of seven days before committing suicide in the face of imminent defeat at the hands of the Army under its new candidate, Omri, who reigned for 12 years as the sixth King of Israel. The seventh, eighth and ninth Kings of Israel were Omri’s son and two of his grandsons. Meanwhile, “Zimri” became the word for a treacherous servant who murdered his master, all the way down to John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, in which the character of Zimri stands for the Duke of Buckingham. Think on.
The first known military coup was when Elah, the fourth King of Israel, was overthrown by his chariot commander, Zimri, who reigned as the fifth King of Israel for all of seven days before committing suicide in the face of imminent defeat at the hands of the Army under its new candidate, Omri, who reigned for 12 years as the sixth King of Israel. The seventh, eighth and ninth Kings of Israel were Omri’s son and two of his grandsons. Meanwhile, “Zimri” became the word for a treacherous servant who murdered his master, all the way down to John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, in which the character of Zimri stands for the Duke of Buckingham. Think on.
Netanyahu is a grifter and a crook who will do literally anything to cling onto power.
Wow, what a carefully crafted logical argument, with no slurs or mudslinging. I feel smarter for having read it. Not!
“Not!”
Are you Borat? He was the last person to use that particular idiocy. How long did it take you to craft that particular argument? Do you have any other early 90’s cultural references you wish to share?
“Not!”
Are you Borat? He was the last person to use that particular idiocy. How long did it take you to craft that particular argument? Do you have any other early 90’s cultural references you wish to share?
Wow, what a carefully crafted logical argument, with no slurs or mudslinging. I feel smarter for having read it. Not!
Netanyahu is a grifter and a crook who will do literally anything to cling onto power.