(The Australian, 4/1/2024)
Israel’s Supreme Court ruling on Monday invalidating a law that was at the centre of a contentious judicial overhaul was a reminder of the deep underlying divisions in Israeli society put aside during the war in Gaza — tensions that could erupt once the conflict is over.
The law — which was put forth by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and would have curtailed the power of Israel’s courts — was divisive. It ignited one of the largest and most sustained protest movements Israel has seen, bringing hundreds of thousands of people to the streets over months.
With the country now focused on the conflict in Gaza, which is approaching its fourth month, reaction to the ruling has been relatively muted.
Bitter divisions between Netanyahu and opposition parties are on the back burner for the moment. The prime minister currently heads a cross-party emergency government formed to lead the country during the war, which began following the October 7 attack by Hamas militants on southern Israel.
But in the wake of the intelligence failure ahead of the October 7 attack, Netanyahu’s popularity has plummeted in the polls while calls for his ouster have increased, raising the risk of snap elections once the war ends.
“Right now it seems that the war overshadows everything,” said Amichai Cohen, a legal scholar at the Israel Democracy Institute. “But the basic tension remains.”
A mid-December poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 69 per cent of Israelis want elections immediately after the war ends, including a majority of right-wing voters.
Benny Gantz, a member of the emergency government and a figure some believe could challenge Netanyahu in the next election, has said that his current alliance with Netanyahu is based on wartime emergency rather than any political alignment. At the same time, far-right coalition partners are pushing for a post-war vision of Gaza that is at odds with the prime minister’s plans.
The country is still reeling from the October 7 attack, when Hamas militants killed around 1200 people, mostly Israeli civilians. That pushed Israel to unleash a devastating offensive in the Gaza Strip, killing more than 22,000 people, most of them women and children, according to health authorities in the enclave, whose figures don’t distinguish between civilians and militants.
Netanyahu hasn’t explicitly addressed Monday’s court ruling. His Likud party and its allies decried the decision, but indicated that the fight shouldn’t be reignited during wartime.
“The high court chose its war,” said Simcha Rothman, one of the judicial overhaul’s main proponents, in an interview aired on Israeli television. He and his coalition remain focused on the war with Hamas and changes to the judicial system should be dealt with after that ends, he said.
Many organisations that led the massive protests against the overhaul have shifted their attention to helping with wartime efforts, such as aiding hostage families.
The law struck down on Monday by the Supreme Court would have taken away the court’s powers to abrogate government decisions it deems to be “unreasonable in the extreme.” Netanyahu and his allies have argued that activist, liberal judges hold sway over the court and that the law sought to restore a proper balance of power. Opponents say that the law would have undermined the court’s role as a check on executive and legislative power and would erode Israel’s liberal democracy.
Roee Neuman, a leader of Kaplan Force, one of the groups that led the protest against the overhaul, lauded the court’s decision but believes that the battle over what he sees as the future of Israel’s democracy isn’t over. The government and its allies could try other ways to weaken the independence of the courts and undermine democratic checks and balances, he said.
Gideon Rahat, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says protests against Netanyahu were muted for now due to the war and the fact that many protesters were serving in reserves. But “if Netanyahu acts unwisely he will light that match again and then we will see thousands in the streets,” Rahat said.
Some analysts say the ruling coalition’s strategy to weaken the courts could shift to quieter initiatives, in contrast to the high-profile attempt to pass the previous law. The Supreme Court’s composition has shifted rightward, as the government has blocked efforts to replace two liberal justices who recently retired, with Monday’s ruling expected to be their last major decision. A third liberal justice will retire this year, potentially leaving the court with three vacant spots.
A coalition official with knowledge of the matter said that there were no immediate plans to fill the Supreme Court vacancies. No structural changes to the judiciary were in the works during wartime, the official said.
Some analysts, such as Cohen of the Israel Democracy Institute, say the government could also try to quietly undermine the authority of legal advisers — who are embedded within their ministries but are independent of the government — without passing new legislation. The coalition official said that wasn’t part of their plans.
The Wall Street Journal