Why Defenders of Judicial Reforms Keep Changing the Subject

I’ve noticed a trend among those who defend the attempt by Israel’s right-wing coalition to push through radical judicial reforms. Perhaps in recognition of how radical these reforms are, they keep pushing the mantra: “It’s not about the reforms!”

To shift the focus from the reforms, they’ll rail about how the judiciary has had too much power for too long, or that the High Court hasn’t had enough diversity. Their problem, however, is that no one disagrees with that.

The point of contention is not that Israel needs reforms, but that this coalition’s proposed changes go too far in gutting the power of the judiciary.

The point of contention is not that Israel needs reforms, but that this coalition’s proposed changes go too far in gutting the power of the judiciary.

Sensing that weakness, defenders change the subject any way they can — by lecturing us on democracy, attacking the opposition, maligning demonstrators, telling us what the demonstrations “are really about,” or even waxing loftily about the bigger issues in Israeli society that are much more consequential than these reforms.

No protestor in Israel is buying the misdirection, because these reforms are indeed hugely consequential.

The architect of the reforms himself, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, conceded in a television interview that his plan would effectively give his coalition control of all three branches of the government, which “could ultimately cause a constitutional crisis…and cannot be allowed in a democratic state.”

What would the coalition do with all this power? For starters, it would give extremists a legislative wish list they’ve dreamed about for decades. Whether it’s annexing portions of the West Bank, giving more power to the Ultra-Orthodox and Chief Rabbinate, restricting minority rights, changing the Law of Return or enabling convicted felons to serve in the Cabinet, the overhaul would virtually ensure that no independent Court could overrule any extremist policy they push through.

In that sense, the defenders are right— it’s not about the reforms; it’s about how the reforms will change the country.

Israelis are not suckers. They get all that. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who have been hitting the streets for the past 17 weeks understand that behind these reforms is an extremist agenda to remake their country. Many of them are sick and tired, for example, of seeing yeshiva boys who don’t work or defend their country get more government benefits than their children who do both.

The great majority of Israelis are not extremists. You can see that reflected in the latest polls, which show that the current coalition would lose at least 10 seats, while Benny Gantz’s centrist coalition would get a significant majority of 70 seats. Many coalition voters, in other words, feel they’ve been had.

In a way, what happened in Israel this year is that a bunch of extremists saw a unique opportunity to remake the country in their image, tried to ram through a radical judicial overhaul as quickly as possible, and, at the last minute, got caught by the masses with their hands in the cookie jar.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has never been an extremist, must abhor all this turmoil. What’s gotten lost in all the noise is that Bibi is a cautious, secular pragmatist. As a leader, he’d much prefer keeping his eye on three balls: Defending Israel against regional threats, especially a nuclear Iran; growing Israel’s economy while promoting Israeli innovation around the world; and expanding the Abraham Accords to strengthen Israel’s relations with other countries in the region.

What’s gotten lost in all the noise is that Bibi is not an extremist but a cautious, secular pragmatist.

The judicial crisis has ambushed him, making it very hard for him to focus on his priorities. He can’t even get an invitation to the White House.

Bibi’s problem, of course, is that to regain power, he had to get in bed with ideologues who have other priorities and who loathe compromise. His legal troubles have further reduced his leverage with his extremist partners. To buy time, he got them to agree on a temporary freeze on the overhaul while President Herzog tries to orchestrate a compromise. In the meantime, the overhaul advocates have launched their own street demonstrations where the most popular message is “no compromise.”

Bibi’s a political magician, but with this crisis he has met his match. With the Knesset back in session, the focus will be on the budget. But the coalition’s eagerness to ram through its gutting of the judiciary is looming large over the government and the country.

There is one ray of hope, assuming the sides can’t reach a compromise. The coalition has 64 seats. Nothing can pass without a majority of 61. This means that if a handful of courageous coalition members announce that they won’t vote for the overhaul unless there’s a fair compromise with a larger consensus, the overhaul won’t pass.

At that point, Bibi and others will be able to change the subject to fighting a nuclear Iran, improving the economy and booking a flight to Washington.