Israel judicial reform: Why is there a crisis? - BBC News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Israel is in the grips of one of the most serious domestic crises in its history, with uproar over the government's plans to change the way the judicial system works. Here is a brief guide to what is going on.
What is happening in Israel?
Since the start of the year, huge weekly protests have been held by people opposed to the government's reform plans. The scale of the protests has escalated, with hundreds of thousands of people packing the streets in Tel Aviv - Israel's commercial capital - and other towns and cities across the country.
Protesters have called for the reforms to be scrapped and for the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to resign. His political rivals have spearheaded the protests, though the fierce opposition to the reforms has cut across political lines.
Most significantly, a growing number of military reservists - the backbone of Israel's armed forces - have protested by refusing to report for duty, triggering warnings that the crisis even threatens Israel's security.
What are people so angry about?
Mr Netanyahu's opponents say the reforms will severely undermine the country's democracy by weakening the judicial system which historically has kept a check on the government's use of its power.
Underlying this is strong opposition to the kind of government currently in office - the most right-wing in Israel's history - and to Mr Netanyahu himself.
Critics say the reforms will shield Mr Netanyahu, who is currently on trial for alleged corruption - he denies the charges - and help the government pass laws without any brakes.
What are the legal reforms at the centre of the crisis?
They concern the power of the government versus the power of the courts to scrutinise and even overrule the government. The government - and others - say reform is overdue, though the plans go much further than many people would like.
Under the government's plans:
- The power of the Supreme Court to review or throw out laws would be weakened, with a simple majority of one in the Knesset (parliament) able to overrule court decisions.
- The government would have a decisive say over who becomes a judge, including in the Supreme Court, by increasing its representation on the committee which appoints them
- Ministers would not be required to obey the advice of their legal advisers - guided by the attorney general - which they currently have to by law
One reform has already been passed into law - removing the power of the attorney general to pronounce a sitting prime minister as unfit for office. There had been speculation that the attorney general was preparing to do this with Mr Netanyahu due to a conflict of interest between the reforms and his ongoing trial.
Will the government back down?
Mr Netanyahu has shown defiance so far, accusing protest leaders of trying to overthrow the government.
The opposition has rejected proposals by the government to alter parts of the package, saying they want a complete stop before they will enter talks, while the government has rejected a compromise put forward by the president.
The government argues that voters elected it on a promise of reforming the judiciary and attempts to stop it are undemocratic. It also considers the judiciary to be too liberal and the system of appointing new judges to be unrepresentative.
But pressure on the government has been mounting daily and significantly Mr Netanyahu's own defence minister spoke out against the judicial overhaul - prompting the prime minister to fire him.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Imagine a government which gives the attorney general the power to pronounce a sitting prime minister as unfit for office?
Why are certain cultures so immersed in liberalism that they are willing to place their very existence in jeopardy?
Has their been any outside influence in these protests?
So many questions here.
... all bibi lacks now is an orange comb over.
Yup, that's how Barack and Joe see it.
Both of them interfered in Israeli elections
this just in - bibi caves.
No, he said we'll discuss it.
And everyone went back to work.
Arvo..sort of off topic but speaking of Barack...he is over here at the moment and you would swear he was still the President of the USA..
The security detail and blocking off city roads etc seems rather over the top..they are all running around like a bunch of headless chooks...
Our ex PMs fade off into the distance as they should and no one gives a stuff..
if i were a betting man i would bet he would rather like some downgraded security , would mean a little more freedom , even though they are "former " POTUS, they still have some rules they have to follow when it comes to security and such which really has to suck for them .
It use to be that former POTUS didnt talk about those that came after them be they from the same party or not unless they were planning on running again if they could , I think the last former POTUS to do that was Ford .
it seems that went out the window after him , and the use to be pat answer was i will not comment because i faced or they face different things and they are the ones that have to decide , has long been set aside .
That's one thing he has in common with Donald Trump: the lack of humility.
The security detail and blocking off city roads etc seems rather over the top..they are all running around like a bunch of headless chooks...
We wouldn't want anything to happen to him.
Our ex PMs fade off into the distance as they should and no one gives a stuff..
Praise to our friends "down under."
Imagine a government which gives the legislature the power to neuter the courts?
If you support this power grab by Netanyahu, think of how fun it would be if Biden and the Dems overturn Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization! Because they shoved through a law that said they could override the courts.
The Constitution gives the legislative branch and only the legislative branch the power to make laws. After making a new law, the Courts are to support it.
Imagine a government which gives the Supreme Court the ability to overturn decades of other Supreme Court rulings with no new arguments being presented.
They could just pass a law to that effect.
Sounds like a far right plan.
And they call it "reform".
I think Netanyahu will make a few adjustments. The system needed change, but he went too far, too fast.
Why?
Do you really think unelected officials should be able to counter an elected Prime Minister's policies, simply based on a whim?
The federal court justices here in the US are unelected officials and overturned all kinds of things on a whim. Should we let Biden and Dems give themselves the power to override the SCOTUS? Or should we leave the 3 branches of government stand as they are and as a beacon of democracy?
That's not true. If you are talking about the Supreme Court, those justices have to interpret Constitutional law. Maybe you are thinking of the Biden nominees who know little of the law. Either way, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. In Israel the AG can simply declare the PM unfit. That is insane.
Should we let Biden and Dems give themselves the power to override the SCOTUS?
Well, Joe Biden has ignored a few judicial decisions as well as US law. Under our system the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and its decisions are supposed to be respected by the other branches.
Or should we leave the 3 branches of government stand as they are and as a beacon of democracy?
As a beacon of democracy. No, we should all function as the Republic that has served us so well, all the way up until the Obama/Biden years.
I'm thinking of various conservative justices that just make shit up. Some at the SCOTUS; some in other courts.
Either way you are supporting authoritarianism.
Which ones?
Another partisan post that has no basis irl.
For instance?
Either way you are supporting authoritarianism.
I could say you are supporting insurrectionists
Which ones?
Vaccine mandates
The Remain in Mexico Policy
Eviction moratoriums
Oil drilling rights
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8
That doesn't surprise me. You would be wrong though.
A list out of context means nothing. You haven't shown where they are ignoring laws and judicial rulings. And your last hyper-partisan entry on the list made me laugh out loud!
The first 4 involved Court rulings against Biden. The final one was the violation of his oath of office.
How's that for context?
Well, as 1 example, the current SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade on a whim. Meaning they completely overturned a precedent with decades of case law, and other SCOTUS judgements that upheld the decision. All while claiming that the Constitution allows individual states to take away any privacy or personal decisions of women, forcing them to utilize their bodies as incubators AGAINST THEIR WILL. And in some cases, even if the fetus is already dead or shown to not be able to survive once born thus putting the woman into physical danger.
And I just bet you can't document that wild claim.
No, Roe v Wade was NEVER based on the Constitution. Those involved in the original decision could never explain what it was based on.
Meaning they completely overturned a precedent with decades of case law, and other SCOTUS judgements that upheld the decision.
Meaning they corrected a decision wrongly decided, just as the Dred Scott decision had to be overturned.
All while claiming that the Constitution allows individual states to take away any privacy or personal decisions of women, forcing them to utilize their bodies as incubators AGAINST THEIR WILL. And in some cases, even if the fetus is already dead or shown to not be able to survive once born thus putting the woman into physical danger.
You mean you don't want the people to vote on it? I'm afraid it has to be that way, since abortion is NOT COVERED by the CONSTITUTION!
hmmmm.... looks like you are arguing to put the cart before the horse. Did Biden ignore any of those court ruling after they were given?
Yes, I know that's why it made me laugh. People in the House want to impeach Biden and could if that were actually true.
On the Remain in Mexico policy he both ignored & fought it ALL THE WAY!
People in the House want to impeach Biden and could if that were actually true.
It is true. He deserves impeachment. It would be the first valid one.
A lie. The majority explained themselves in the written opinion and citing other cases ruled on the same principles of privacy, including parental rights.
Hahaha! He fought it, then used it and then fought dropping it. But he followed the court rulings as they were given whether you like them or not.
It's not true, but it's going to be a fun upcoming primary year for us non-partisans as we watch both sides eat their own.
No, it is the truth and even RBG agreed that they wrongly decided it.
The majority explained themselves in the written opinion and citing other cases ruled on the same principles of privacy, including parental rights.
They based it on a right of privacy that does not exist. They also never mentioned any rights for the unborn. They were plagued by that decision for all the years that followed.
That about sums it up for you. He got away with it.
us non-partisans
That's the joke of the century.
This is the problem with partisans... and why my co-worker will no longer debate politics with me either. There is a seriously big difference between "wrongly deciding something" and "NEVER based on the Constitution" AND "not being able to explain something"
This is called moving the goal posts and you constantly do it. Also you completely misstate RGB's critique of the Roe decision. She says:
RGB is way more nuanced and was unhappy years later that the ruling gave anti-abortionists a target to overturn it and didn't advance women's rights further. A totally different idea than what you're trying to spin with your, "NEVER, based on the Constitution" bs.
An argument will come back to bite MAGA Populists in the ass when it drops on them.
Everyone else calls it "one more step for authoritarianism".
Only people who are ignorant of facts would ever call it that.
Glad to hear you agree then.
I like your vivid imagination but I will stick to facts while you imagine things.
Some folks need to stop using words like 'authoritarianism' and 'fascists' until they know what the words mean and they learn to use the words correctly.
So... According to Netanyahu keeping things as they are now is trying to overthrow the government?
Ahh...NO!
The protest leaders are trying to overthrow his government.
The AG over there has way too much power.
He is trying to seize total power from the courts. I'm not opposed to change because their system is far from perfect but I would oppose any moves toward autocracy in Israel or here.
He is not the AG. There really is no equivalence to what we here.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara?
There really is no equivalence to what we here.
I agree. I think Netanyahu would like to make it more like our system.
Vic, you are being too literal. This is what I mean:
Comparison with government legal advisors in other countries
The position of binding advice and representational monopoly in Israel is exceptional and even unique by global standards. As Dr. Eitan Levontin describes, "there is no such thing, to the best of my understanding, in any other place. The legal situation in Israel is not a minority opinion, but rather a single opinion, and it seems to me that a chasm – not just a disagreement – lies between it and the legal situation in any comparable country." [5]
By contrast, in the UK, the US, Canada and Germany, the AG – or the parallel figure – is a political role similar to the minister, and in some countries is actually a government minister. As such, they have no power to bind the government to their positions; the government can act in oppositions to their positions; the government is authorized to dictate to the AG the position to present before courts; and he is forbidden to put together legal opinions absent government request. [6]
No he is not, nor could there be, since Isreal is a parliamentary system and has no constitution.
I stand corrected.
I have to chalk up another one for you. Don't make it a habit.
Israel government to delay disputed judiciary bill amid mass protests
crap. I was hoping to see how bibi's ultra right radical religious backers would be faring in public after another link up with theocracy...
To understand what is going on in Israel, you have to know its history.
The country was founded as a Jewish state, but not a theocracy. It was in direct reaction to WWII, and Jews had no place to go, to flee the Nazis.
But now, Netanyahu is being backed by the extreme right ultra-orthodox mostly, even though they are not the majority. These changes are what they want and it would give him more power.
Here is the events that lead to this:
Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant — the only government minister who publicly opposed the judicial overhaul
Netanyahu's plan is to weaken the independence of the country's judicial system and make its judges more subject to political control. Imagine if SCOTUS were not independent?
Netanyahu's government thinks the Supreme Court is too liberal and blocks policies promoted by ultranationalist and ultra-Orthodox politicians.
The government wants to pass laws prioritizing religion and nationalism, but the way things stand now, the courts likely would say such laws infringe on basic rights.
Courts play a key role in deciding how people live, because Israel does not have a written constitution and it never established a Bill of Rights that guarantees essential rights and freedoms. Instead, the country operates according to a set of basic laws.
Also, The prime minister is on trial for three criminal cases alleging corruption. All of them have been bundled together.
He also wants a national guard, which would totally be under his and defense ministers control.
The changes he wants to make undermine what the founders of the country had intended.
looking at the big picture of israel's short history, from beginning to now, my only reaction to bibi's moves to consolidate his power is oh, the irony. an autocrat trying to undermine the system of justice to escape accountability for his criminal activities and to leverage more power to insulate himself from the law by using the religious extremists in his base.
Pretty much.