A razor-thin majority of eight of the 15 judges were in favor of annulling a change in the law passed in July, the court announced on Monday. The change in the Basic Law deprived the court of the opportunity to take action once morest “inappropriate” decisions by the government, the Prime Minister or individual ministers.
Critics had warned that this might encourage corruption and the arbitrary appointment of key posts. The ruling stated that the change in the law would have “caused serious and unprecedented damage to the core characteristics of the State of Israel as a democratic state.”
State crisis looms
In Israel’s history, a comparable law has never been struck down by the Supreme Court. If the right-wing religious government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not accept the decision, the country will face a state crisis.
After the verdict was announced, Israel’s Justice Minister Jariv Levin accused the court of “claiming all the power for itself.” With their decision, “the judges take all the power into their hands, which in a democratic system is distributed in a balanced way between the three branches” executive, legislative and judicial, the minister explained on the Telegram online service.
Verdict “deprives citizens of their voice”
Levin, the architect of judicial reform, said the ruling “deprives millions of citizens of their voice.” He also criticized the publication of the verdict “in the middle of a war.” This damages the “unity necessary these days for the success of our fighters at the front.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision comes at the end of a tough year of strife that has torn us apart from within and led to the worst catastrophe in our history,” opposition leader Yair Lapid posted on . “We give the Supreme Court full support.”
Lapid from the Centrist Future Party warned: “If the Israeli government starts the dispute over the Supreme Court once more, it means that they have learned nothing. That they have learned nothing from October 7th and from 87 days of fighting for our home. “
The government pushed through the change in the law despite massive resistance in parliament. Israel’s Supreme Court then convened in September for a historic trial. For the first time in the country’s history, all 15 judges came together to discuss eight petitions once morest the adopted amendment to the Basic Law.
Justice reform has deeply divided society
The judicial reform, which the government had massively pushed forward since it was sworn in a year ago, had deeply divided Israeli society. For months, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest once morest it. Critics viewed the government’s actions as a threat to Israel’s democracy. Netanyahu’s government, however, argued that the court was too powerful in Israel and that it simply wanted to restore balance. Negotiations for a compromise were unsuccessful.
Many saw the months of heated disputes as one reason why Israel was so surprised by the devastating attack by the Islamist Hamas in the border area on October 7th.
The Israeli broadcaster N12 leaked a draft of the Supreme Court’s ruling. For formal reasons, the court had until January 12th to publish its decision. Justice Minister Jariv Levin, who is seen as the driving force behind the reform, had nevertheless asked the court to postpone the verdict until following the war. “While our soldiers fight side by side on various fronts, and while the entire nation mourns the loss of many lives, the people of Israel must not be torn apart by strife,” Levin argued.
The verdict is another setback for Netanyahu. He had lost massively in popularity in polls since October 7th. Many people resent him for not yet admitting personal responsibility for the Hamas massacre on October 7th.
It is unclear how the government will react to the ruling. In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, Netanyahu did not want to give a clear answer to the question of whether he would respect a court decision once morest the change in the law. Netanyahu said at the time: “I believe we should abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court should abide by the basic laws that parliament passes.”
