Setback for Netanyahu: Supreme Court overturns core element of judicial reform
The court declared that the clause had been overturned "because of the serious and unprecedented damage to the fundamental characteristics of the State of Israel as a democratic state".
Parliament had passed the law restricting judicial powers by a narrow majority in July, despite ongoing protests. Netanyahu's government, a coalition of his Likud party and far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties, considers the changes to the law to be necessary in order to reorganize the balance of power in the separation of powers.
The plaintiffs against the law restricting the so-called adequacy clause had argued that it weakens the judiciary as a pillar of Israeli democracy. They fear that disempowering the judiciary could pave the way for an authoritarian state, as Israel has neither a constitution nor a second chamber of parliament.
The government's plans to restructure the judiciary have deeply divided the country. Since the reform was presented a year ago, tens of thousands of people have demonstrated against it week after week. The mass protests only ended with the unprecedented attack on Israel by the radical Islamic Palestinian organization Hamas on 7 October.
After the verdict was announced,Israel's Justice Minister Yariv Levin accused the court of "claiming all the power for itself". With their decision, "the judges are taking all the power into their hands, which in a democratic system is divided in a balanced way between the three powers" of the executive, legislative and judiciary, the minister explained in the online service Telegram.
Levin, the architect of the judicial reform, explained that the ruling "robs millions of citizens of their voice". He also criticized the publication of the ruling "in the middle of a war". This was damaging the "necessary unity in these days for the success of our fighters on the front".
Netanyahu's Likud party also stated that it was "regrettable" that the Supreme Court had decided to publish its verdict while "right-wing and left-wing soldiers" were fighting and risking their lives.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid, on the other hand, welcomed the ruling. "The Supreme Court has faithfully fulfilled its duty to protect the citizens of Israel, Lapid wrote in the short message service X (formerly Twitter).
The decision "must be respected", declared Benny Gantz, a member of the war cabinet and former rival of Netanyahu, on X. He called for unity "to win the war together".
The Movement for Good Governance, which filed the lawsuit against the clause, welcomed a "historic" decision. "The government and the ministers who wanted to bypass the judiciary have learned that there are judges in Jerusalem and a democracy with a separation of powers," the movement explained.
One of the organizers of the protests against the judicial reform, Shikma Bressler, also welcomed the ruling in a video. "The Supreme Court's decision frees us from the sword of dictatorship, at least for the time being," said Bressler.
Read also:
- This will change in December
- Fireworks and parties ring in 2024 - turn of the year overshadowed by conflicts
- Attacks on ships in the Red Sea: shipping companies avoid important trade route
- Houthi rebels want to launch further attacks despite international coalition
- In response to the court's decision, Netanyahu's government, led by Likud and coalition partners, expressed dissatisfaction, arguing that the reform was necessary to rebalance the separation of powers.
- Yariv Levin, the architect of the judicial reform and Israel's Justice Minister, criticized the court's ruling, claiming it centralized power in the judiciary, disrupting the democratic balance between the three powers.
- Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party shared Levin's disapproval, stating that publishing the verdict during a war was regrettable, potentially undermining the unity needed for successful military operations.
- Despite opposition leader Yair Lapid's welcome of the ruling and Benny Gantz's call for unity, the Movement for Good Governance and protest organizers like Shikma Bressler celebrated the decision, labeling it historic and vital for maintaining the democratic separation of powers in Israel.
- The overturned clause, part of the judicial reform, had been substantial in limiting judicial powers, and opponents feared the changes could jeopardize Israel's democratic nature without a constitution or secondary parliamentary chamber.
- Parliament passed the law restricting judicial powers in July, generating widespread protests due to concerns that the reform could lead to an authoritarian political culture, diverting from the core principles of Israeli democracy.
- The Supreme Court declared the provision invalid because of the infringement of democratic characteristics, admitting that it posed an unprecedented threat to the fundamental principles of the State of Israel as a democratic nation.
Source: www.stern.de
