By Ira Sharkansky, Ph.D
JERUSALEM — Israel seems mired in a context of reform proposals, which would increase the power of politicians over the judiciary. One proposal would increase the power of the government in naming judges; another would provide the ruling party the power to override decisions of the Supreme Court. A third proposal would limit the criteria that judges may use to override decisions of the Knesset.
Protests have been wide. Hundreds of thousands have gathered week after week, and comments against the proposals have come from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, present and former Legal Advisors to the Government, major lawyers, professors, and others. A recent poll, published in the Jerusalem Post, shows the current opposition outvoting Likud and the other government parties. The results would be 65 Seats for the group of parties led by Yair Lapid, and including Benny Gantz, Gideon Saar, Avigdor Lieberman, Labor, and Meretz.
An American may ask, “What’s the issue?” The U.S. president names judges of all federal courts, and the Senate has the authority to approve the nominations. Overall, it’s much more political than what is being proposed in Israel.
The balance of powers in the U.S. has worked over the course of 230 years. It also includes the state governments, which exercise much of the domestic powers that in Israel are in the hands of the national government. The U.S. state governments are, more or less, copies of the national government: Governors make appointments, and the State Legislature approves—or rejects—them.
Yet the issue is one of change. Israel’s balance of powers has worked, more or less well, and the proposals would shift power, giving more to the ruling parties in the Knesset.
Israel’s proposed shifting of powers reflects the weight of the parties in the ruling coalition, and especially the weight of several ideological figures who want more power for people like themselves. Yariv Levin, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, Simcha Rothman, Tally Gotliv, and Shlomo Karhi are prominent among them.
There’s also moves by Smotrich, whose position as Finance Minister has been expanded to include domestic use by the military in the disputed territories, to expand Israel’s control over the latter, i.e., moving further into the West Bank.
While the government has decided to moderate settlement, in agreement with Jordan, the Palestinians, and the U.S., Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and maybe Bibi have said No. They see settlement as continuing.
So far, Bibi has seemed to be a moderating force. He’s allowed colleagues to speak and propose, but he’s limited some of the issues moving forward to implementation.
Also, the proposers don’t seem to be considering what would happen in the case of an electoral overturn. The powers they are proposing for the government would be available to what is now the opposition.
Threats of investors and high-tech workers and employers to leave Israel have a potential effect. As do threats of Reserve Officers to avoid military service, in response to the tenor of the proposals being offered by extreme rightists.
We’re also hearing about reforms of the proposals, seemingly to moderate them.
So far, more noise than action.
With lots of noise.
We’ll see what happens.
On and on.