Recently, Israel has seen an intense amount of turbulence surrounding the country’s judicial system, and the news has caused confusion and outrage across the nation. There has been a varied range of responses to the proposed changes, making it difficult to determine the implications of the reforms both in the short and long term.
This article will look at the Uproar Over Israeli Judicial Changes and provide a comprehensive answer to the questions that many are asking such as; what changes have been proposed? What is the disagreement about? How will the reforms affect the judiciary?
Background Information
Israel is a parliamentary democracy, meaning that the legislative power is held by the government and the judiciary holds the power to interpret laws. Recent changes proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have given rise to an uproar of disapproval from the public, politicians and legal experts.
The Changes Proposed
As part of his proposed reform package, Prime Minister Netanyahu had initially wanted to establish a new court system based on a three-tier structure, comprising of a Supreme Court as the highest court, as well as lower courts of appeal and district courts. This would effectively reduce the Supreme Court’s control on the lower courts and allow the government to play a more prominent role in the judiciary. It would also mean the elimination of the Supreme Court’s power to review decisions made by the government.
In addition, the reforms would limit the power of the Supreme Court’s President and allow the Prime Minister to appoint the members of the lower courts. This would mean that the Prime Minister will have much more influence in deciding who is appointed to the courts, giving him control over the entire judicial process.
The Disagreement
Since the proposals were made, there has been a considerable amount of opposition. Political parties, legal experts, and members of the public have all argued that these reforms would heavily restrict the independence of the judiciary and undermine the rule of law in the country.
One of the biggest criticisms of the reforms is the inclusion of a Supreme Court, as the upper court, which would effectively remove the Supreme Court’s current power to review decisions made by the government. This would mean that the government is no longer accountable to the Supreme Court, which would weaken the rule of law and create an unequal power balance.
In addition, opponents of the reforms have cited Netanyahu’s proposed move to allow the government greater control over the lower courts appointments. This decision has caused members of the public to state that it would give the Prime Minister more power than any other state leader in Israel’s history and worryingly, create the opportunity for a government to be able to choose their desired outcomes in legal cases regardless of whether they are just or not.
Furthermore, there has been opposition to the man nominated by Netanyahu to oversee the reforms, former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. There has been strong outcry against her appointment since her previous tenure as Justice Minister, during which she had pushed forward a series of hardline legal initiatives such as the “Breaking the Silence” Law which was criticized by legal experts as being undemocratic and overly restrictive.
The Effects of the Reforms
All of these proposed changes have caused a considerable amount of concern over the potential effects on the judiciary of Israel. Legal experts and political commentators have argued that these reforms would create a less independent and less fair judiciary, as well as lead to increased politicization of the courts, making them more vulnerable to government interference.
In addition, there is concern that the proposed reforms would greatly reduce public trust in the judicial system, as well as limit the ability of citizens to appeal to the courts for redress when facing governmental infractions. This could also mean that citizens will not be able to exercise their rights, freedoms, and basic human rights, as they will lack the necessary legal protection to do so.
The debate surrounding the proposed court reforms has been intense and wide-ranging, with strong opposition coming from legal experts, politicians and members of the public. What has become starkly clear is that these changes could have severe implications for the independence, equality and fairness of the judiciary in Israel. It has also caused public concern over the potential effects on citizens’ rights, freedoms and basic human rights, which could be threatened by the reforms. It is essential that the Prime Minister addresses and resolves all of these anxieties and that he finds a way to come up with reforms which would strengthen the judiciary while giving citizens the legal protection they need.
