The Israel Judicial Reform Project is a plan to make fundamental changes to Israel’s legal system, including the regulation of judicial repeal of laws and an article on overcoming such repeal, the repeal of admissibility argument, the legal advisers role definition as non-binding and the change in judicial selection commission composition, introduced by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Yariv Levin with support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The reform was presented on January 4, 2023, and included a number of proposals for changes in the judicial system:
Repeal the law by court.
1. Add an article on tightening the conditions for judicial law repeal:
The Knesset will be able to reenact the law repealed by Supreme Court by a majority of 61 votes. Such law will last for 4 years, or up to one year after the next Knesset term begins — whichever comes later.
The Knesset will be able to reenact the law passed by previous Knesset, even if it was unanimously overturned by Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court will not be able to debate basic laws.
3. Laws Repeal would only be possible on Supreme Court, of a full 15-judge panel and at 80% majority.
4. Duration Limitation of the repeal of the law discussion.
Judges appointment
1. The judges select panel expanding from nine members to eleven, including seven from coalition, one from opposition and three judges. Two judges will be appointed by Chief Justice of Supreme Court with veto power of justice minister.
2. Cancellation of secret elections of members of judges’ selection commission in Knesset. Instead, representatives of ruling coalition will appoint the heads of Knesset Affairs Commission and Knesset Legislative Commission, and representative of parliamentary opposition will appoint the chairman of the State Control Knesset Commission.
3. Changing the majority required to appoint Supreme Court judges to a simple majority, instead of seven out of nine commission members (a simple majority to judges elect of other courts but Supreme Court was required before the reform).
4. Holding public hearings of Supreme Court candidates in the legislative Knesset commission.
5. Seniority system abolishing. The Supreme Court Chief Justice will no longer be the most senior justice. The judges selection commission will select the chairman, who is not obliged to be a Supreme Court judge before.
6. The term limit of Supreme Court President and his deputy for six-seven years, after which they become ordinary Supreme Court judges.
Acceptability argument cancellation — to disqualify legitimate administrative actions.
Legal advisers
Appointing a government legal adviser and ministries’ advisers, defining their opinion as non-binding for government and enabling the government to have independent legal representation in court.
The proposed reform caused a wide public reaction, both in Israel and beyond.
On January 7, a demonstration was held in Tel Aviv against the plan. Thousands of citizens took part in it.
On January 12, hundreds of lawyers demonstrated against the reform called “Black Robes Protest”.
On January 14, about 80 thousand people demonstrated in Tel Aviv, thousands more in Jerusalem, Haifa and other places.
On January 21, demonstrations were held in several cities, in which more than 150 thousand demonstrators took part. Those demonstrations were joined by a number of Israel high-tech industries senior officials, some of whom announced their intention to withdraw money from Israel and go on a strike to protest the reform. Thereafter, weekly demonstrations against reform continued and spread to other cities. In early February, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Eilat, Herzliya, Be’er Sheva, Rishon LeZion and other cities.
In early February, hundreds of reservists marched on a 50-kilometer protest march called “Brothers in Arms” held from Latrun to Supreme Court in Jerusalem.
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken met with protesters and at a meeting with Netanyahu stressed that the relations between countries are based on preservation of democratic institutions. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan made it clear to Netanyahu: «If democratic values are violated, it will be difficult for us to provide unwavering support to Israel.»
French President Emmanuel Macron criticized the reform in a meeting with Netanyahu and warned that if it is adopted, «France will conclude that Israel has moved away from the concept of democracy.»
In February, Gali Baharav-Miara, a legal adviser to the Israel government, sent a letter to Netanyahu clarifying that he could not advance judicial reform due to a «conflict of interest.» She justified this by a currently ongoing hearing in the case against Netanyahu. (In May 2020, a trial began, initiated by criminal investigations related to the prime minister’s accusations of corruption and illegal lobbying of personal interests and interests of government). Supreme Court Justice Daphne Barak Erez ordered the government to respond to a motion by the Government Quality Movement that requires the government’s legal counsel to take action to oust Netanyahu because of the conflict of interest. In response, the heads of coalition parties said that the discussion in Supreme Court of the prime minister ousting is illegal, and represents a coup d’etat. But this reform was also called “The regime’s coup” by some former legal advisers of the government and former state prosecutors who opposed its promotion.
Former Bank of Israel governors Jacob Frenkel and Karnit Flug warned that judicial reform would lead to a decrease in Israel’s credit rating. 270 economists-lecturers, joined by about 40 economists and former government ministries heads, signed a letter warning of the reform economic damage. Similar statements were made, in particular, by JPMorgan Chase, the United States largest bank, the Barclays Financial Company.
On February 3, the Israel Democracy Institute published a survey according to which a third of country’s residents fear civil war, and the majority of respondents oppose judicial reform. 43% of respondents consider the judicial system reform bad, while 31%, on the contrary, good. About 13% of respondents said they participated in some kind of protest against the reform[1].
Moreover, discussing the possibility of dialogue between the opposing parties, opposition parties voters are significantly more likely to support this idea than those who voted for one of the coalition parties (77.5% versus 60%).
This poll showed a significant increase in tensions between right and left, as well as between religious and secular citizens. 55% of respondents believe that the likelihood of civil war is small, but a significant proportion of respondents — about a third, are convinced that it can happen. At the same time, the proportion of those who fear civil war is significantly higher among the demonstrations participants compared to those who do not participate in them. Those who participate in the protest are also significantly different from those who do not participate, both in their positions and in their socio-demographic origin.
The split in society on many lines is fraught with an increase in the socio-political situation. In this regard, Anshel Pfeffer draws attention to the fact that moments of civil confrontation in the country arose more than once, almost every decade. And now it is Beni Gantz’s turn to warn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if he follows through on his government’s plan to suppress the Supreme Court, effectively ending Israel democracy, «the responsibility for civil war» would fall on him
The contradictory situation around the promoted reform and the resulting socio-political and economic risks led to the choice of the topic of this sociological poll.