Explained: Why are Israeli people protesting? [ENG/UA]

When Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel's prime minister for the sixth time last December, no one expected it to be smooth sailing. His cabinet included a host of unpopular right wing firebrands, and his legislative agenda was nearly as controversial. Perhaps the most contentious part is a bill giving Netanyahu almost complete control over Israel's judiciary and Supreme Court, which has sparked unprecedented protests across Israel's major cities. So in this article, we're going to take a look at that new bill, why it sparked such massive protests and whether Netanyahu can get away with it.

So let's start by talking about the judicial reforms themselves and how Netanyahu justifies them. When Israel became a country after World War Two, it didn't really have the time or political bandwidth to sort out a complicated political system with all of the relevant liberal guardrails. So instead it just went for pure proportional representation. And instead of a formal constitution over time, the Israeli parliament, otherwise known as the Knesset, passed a series of semi constitutional laws known as the basic laws, which became sort of an uncodified constitution over time. However the absence of a formal constitution means that the relationship between Israel's judiciary and the Knesset is pretty much undefined and while this worked for a while in the 90 seconds, the Supreme Court started using a couple of new basic laws related to the rights of Israeli citizens to dismiss various pieces of legislation passed by the Knesset. Obviously, this created a tension between the Supreme Court and the Israeli government, which has sometimes accused the court of being anti-democratic and using controversial and narrow interpretations of the basic laws to dismiss any other legislation that it doesn't like.

Anyway Netanyahu has apparently decided that he's had enough of this ambiguity and has introduced a bill that would essentially redefine the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Knesset. And he would largely achieve this by giving a lot more power to the Knesset. That's because in its current form, Netanyahu's bill would basically do three things. Firstly, it would give the Israeli government more power to appoint judges who are currently picked by a panel, mostly composed of other Supreme Court justices and lawyers from the like minded Israeli Bar Association. And secondly, it would reduce the court's ability to curtail or dismiss certain laws which relate to stuff like national security. And thirdly, it would introduce a so-called override clause requiring a simple majority of 61 MPs. But in practice, because the government usually controls a majority in the Knesset, this would give the government the power to ignore the Supreme Court on essentially any ruling they didn't like. Now, while he doesn't deny that the bill would represent a drastic rewriting of Israel's constitution, Netanyahu argues that this is a necessary remedy to the Supreme Court's increasingly activist nature. Netanyahu has also accused the Supreme Court of being undemocratic and obstructing the will of the people. And politicians in his government have pointed out that the court doesn't even reflect Israel's wider society.

And to be fair, they do have a point here. Israel's judges are generally more secular and liberal than your average Israeli citizen, and there have been few Arab or Muslim judges on the court in the past, despite the fact that Israeli Arabs make up something like 20% of Israel's population. However, not everyone is convinced by Netanyahu's arguments here. His stubborn attempts to get the controversial bill through parliament have triggered massive protests across Israel, especially in Israel's more urban areas. In fact, last Saturday, hundreds of thousands of Israelis marched through Tel Aviv to protest the new law in what one newspaper called the largest demonstration in the country's history. The protests have also united Israel's usually divided opposition, bringing together tech workers, university students, lawyers, LGBTQ+ associations, center left Zionist parties, Arab groups and even former IDF officers.

And while each of these groups focus on different issues as we see it, there are four distinct oppositions to the new law the main one, though, is a constitutional objection that the law would remove the separation of powers between the judiciary and the parliament that defines almost all liberal democracies and instead open up Israel's politics to the worst excesses of majoritarianism. Now, as I said, Israel already has far fewer checks and balances than your average liberal country. It's only got one legislative chamber, no devolved powers and the head of state, i.e. the president, has no veto over legislation. That means that Israel's judges are basically the only significant check on the power of the government and neutering them would open Israel's democracy up to what political theorists call the tyranny of the majority.

Basically, when there are no checks and the government only needs a majority to be elected, then they're liable to pass laws that violate the rights of minorities who were never going to support them anyway. And this is especially pertinent worry. Given the nationalist character of Netanyahu's government and the fact that they've already introduced a controversial law that would ban, quote, terror supporting Israeli Arabs from running in elections. The second objection, though, is that even if you think Israel's constitution and the relationship between parliament and the courts needs reform, this should be done via cross-party consensus. Israel's former prime minister, for example, has suggested that reform should be designed by a cross-party committee before being put to a popular referendum. And this is part of a wider anxiety about the functioning of Israel's democracy, which has seen five elections in just the last couple of years and might be unable to cope with a whole load of short lived constitutional convulsions.

The third objection claims that the bill isn't really about fixing the Constitution, but instead about protecting Netanyahu and his ministers who are currently beset by legal problems. That's because a few days before Netanyahu's government was sworn in, a law was passed to allow his interior and health minister, despite the fact that he had a conviction for tax fraud earlier in the year. The problem is, though, that this law was overturned by the Supreme Court in January, and Netanyahu himself is currently on trial for corruption and bribery relating to commercial relationships he had with certain Israeli media moguls back in the 2010s. So the theory is that this law would basically provide immunity for Netanyahu and his political allies as long as they continue commanding a majority in parliament.

The fourth and final objection is about Israel's economy. That's because Israel's economic miracle is partly attributable to its relatively stable political institutions and its appeal to left leaning tech workers who don't like what they see as Netanyahu's authoritarian efforts. And as a result, many of Israel's tech and business community have joined the protest and two formal central bank governors even sent an open letter to Netanyahu warning that weakening the Supreme Court's independence could affect the country's credit ratings. So that's what the new law does, and those are the objections to it. But what happens next?

Well, despite enormous protests, Netanyahu does seem undeterred. And that's because he claims that the protests are trumped by his election victory in November, which he's described as the mother of all protests. And as such, he's pledged to push on with the reforms. All in all, then, unless one of his coalition partners gets cold feet, it looks like the reforms are set to go ahead. And the main question now is whether Israel's political system can survive the upcoming turmoil. Netanyahu will be hoping that it can, but with protests continuing, that's far from certain.