Judicial Reform Is Dead. Long Live Judicial Reform

Months of protesting, civil disobedience and international opprobrium have reached a seeming conclusion. Prime Minister Netanyahu has paused — at least for now — his government’s plans to reform the Israeli judiciary. 

In other words, the great national showdown between protestors and the government has ended in victory for the protestors. This is, in my view, a sweet and an inspiring moment for Israeli democracy. After November’s election swept a frightening far-right slate of politicians into power, many Israelis and Jews around the world felt that we had entered a dark and hopeless chapter in Israeli history. Today, things feel different. 

That said, this is also a vulnerable moment. The government is humiliated and supporters of the reform feel betrayed and resentful.

While the protest movement’s sense of triumph will quickly fade when new issues arise, the resentment of the right threatens to linger in the air for decades to come. 

Moreover, while the protest movement’s sense of triumph will quickly fade when new issues arise, the resentment of the right threatens to linger in the air for decades to come. 

One solution would be for the opposition — who mobilized an unprecedented movement to defeat judicial reform — to quickly reposition itself as champions of judicial reform.

This is for three reasons:

First, some of the right’s grievances towards the Israeli judiciary are legitimate. Most Israelis acknowledge this and the opposition can afford to admit it. 

Second, a partial victory for all is better than a total victory for one side.

Third, this issue isn’t going anywhere. The right wants judicial reform and will continue to pursue it. Right now, with Bibi in retreat, the opposition has considerable power in determining what this reform looks like. In a few years, this might not be the case.

Recall the similarly controversial legislative showdown that took place surrounding the “Nation-State Law,” a basic law passed in 2018 which declares Israel to be the Nation-State of the Jewish people. 

The Nation-State Law was on the right’s legislative wishlist for years before being passed. While many critics of the law call it discriminatory and undemocratic, it is quite easy to imagine worse versions of the Nation-State Law than the one we ended up with, which is largely symbolic. Indeed, one abandoned draft included a clause allowing for the creation of segregated communities. 

Had the opposition succeeded in quashing the Nation-State Law in 2018, it might have found itself dealing with a far worse Nation-State Law penned by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in 2023. In other words, a loss under favorable conditions might be a win in the long run.

Lest this victory be a pyrrhic one, the opposition should immediately reach out to the government and start working on a version of judicial reform that both sides can count as a win — a reform based on broad national consensus. 

Conditions are favorable now. Lest this victory be a pyrrhic one, the opposition should immediately reach out to the government and start working on a version of judicial reform that both sides can count as a win — a reform based on broad national consensus. Only then will we have a chance of moving on from this matter.

Like the Nation-State Law, judicial reform has been on the right’s legislative wishlist for years. The controversial override clause may have become world famous in 2023, but it’s been on the docket since at least 2018. If we don’t deal with it now, it will surely come back to haunt us in another five years, and who knows who we will be dealing with when that day comes.

And so we protestors should adopt a new slogan to chant at our rallies: “Judicial reform is dead! Long live judicial reform!”

Matthew Schultz is the author of the essay collection “What Came Before” (2020). He is a rabbinical student at Hebrew College in Newton, Massachusetts.