Jerusalem: Israel’s Supreme Court on Monday struck down a law limiting its own powers, a momentous step in the legal and political crisis that gripped the country before the war with Hamas, and pitted the court against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government.
The court’s 8-7 ruling has the potential to throw Israel’s national emergency government, formed after the Oct. 7 attacks, into disarray and reignite the grave domestic turmoil that began a year ago over the Netanyahu government’s judicial overhaul plan. Mass protests brought the country to a near-standstill at times, in one of the deepest political upheavals Israel had faced in its 75 years, and led to warnings of possible civil war.
The court, sitting with a full panel of all 15 justices for the first time in its history, rejected the law passed by parliament in July that barred judges from using a particular legal standard to overrule decisions made by government ministers.
The much-anticipated decision did not come as a total surprise to Israelis. A television station last week reported on a leaked draft of the ruling. But it heralds a potential showdown that could fundamentally reshape Israeli democracy, pitting the power of the government against that of the judiciary.
Netanyahu’s political allies and their supporters want to make Israel into a more communal and nationalist state. Their opponents, who hold mildly secular vision of the country, accused the government of undermining democracy by lowering the barriers to a majority doing whatever it pleases.
Yariv Levin, the Israeli justice minister widely seen as the architect of the judicial overhaul, vowed to resume efforts to pass the package of controversial bills that included the newly overturned measure. He accused the high court of sowing divisiveness at a time when the nation is in danger.
Opponents of the judicial overhaul feared it would make the court much less able to prevent government overreach, and also make it much easier for the government to end the prosecution of Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges.
The timing of the decision was crucial: two retiring justices would have been ineligible to participate in the decision had it been delivered after mid-January. Legal analysts have calculated that without those justices, the court would have ruled to uphold the law, 7-6.
Comments
Add new comment