2023 Israeli judicial reform

[2][6] However, Netanyahu has been barred from actively taking part in the process of the judicial reform by the Attorney General, due to a conflict of interest stemming from his ongoing corruption trial.

[12][16] On 27 March 2023, after public protests and general strikes, Netanyahu announced a pause in the reform process to allow for dialogue with opposition parties.

[17] However, negotiations aimed at reaching a compromise collapsed in June, and the government resumed its plans to unilaterally pass parts of the legislation.

[6][24] This role of the Supreme Court in Israel has been seen by those who oppose the reform as crucial for the protection of human rights in light of its otherwise weak system of checks and balances,[25] which lacks a bicameral legislative system, a president with executive powers, a federal government, regional elections, membership in a regional supra-governmental organization, or acceptance of the International Court of Justice's authority.

[2][27] Between 1992 and 1999, Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak developed a doctrine in a series of rulings, the guiding principle of which is the introduction of human rights indirectly to private law.

[29][30] In the election, the right-wing bloc won a majority of seats in the Knesset, with far-right elements such as the Religious Zionist Party making record-breaking gains.

[27][31][32][33] On 4 January 2023, newly appointed Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced his intention to overhaul Israel's judiciary.

[36] At the end of December 2023, Israeli television station Keshet 12 reported the ruling in advance based on a leaked draft of the decision.

According to the Israel Democracy Institute, the effect of the current system is one of consensus, in that "the selection of Supreme Court justices has mandated the consent of the politicians on the [Committee], because a majority of seven of its nine members must support a successful candidate.

"[43] In contrast, those who view the current Supreme Court as left-leaning, including Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and Prime Minister Netanyahu, state that this 'consensus' is one-sided: When a right-wing government is in place, its members must compromise with the allegedly left-leaning committee members (the three Supreme Court justices and the Bar representatives who, it is claimed by Levin, vote as a block), but when a left-wing government is in charge, supposedly no such consensus is needed.

They point to the recent appointment of 61 judges in one sitting of the committee, under the previous center-left government, with no effective way for the opposition to object.

[44][45][46] According to the amendments proposed to the Judiciary Basic Law by Justice Minister, Yariv Levin, the Judicial Selection Committee's composition will be changed to give greater weight to the legislative and executive branches of government.

For example: In addition, the Knesset's Research Unit,[52] in a survey, also presented a very different picture, quoting an OECD report[53] arguing that on the purposes promoted by most democracies is to prevent any single power control over judicial appointment of constitutional court justices.

The Israeli Law Professors Forum for Democracy, comprising over 100 legal experts and academics in Israel,[54] has published a number of position papers analyzing these reforms, concluding that their implementation would undermine the judiciary's "independence, subordinate the judiciary to the elected government, and render the separation of powers in Israel an empty shell".

"[56] The coalition has published a draft bill to reclassify ministry legal advisers from independent authorities to politically selected counsel whose opinions are explicitly non-binding upon the government and its ministers.

[57] The immediate former Attorney General, Avichai Mendelblit, has formerly criticized past attempts to pass such laws, stating that "letting ministers appoint legal advisers — instead of the current system of election through public tender — would politicize the position and harm the integrity of Israeli democracy's 'gatekeepers.

The proposal seeks to deny judicial review over Basic Laws, in order to guarantee the Supreme Court's subjection to the rule of name and to the source of democratic authority.

[47] The legal advisor to the Committee through which this reform is being progressed published an opinion stating he had found no precedent in any democratic country for judicial review over legislation to require a unanimous decision of every judge on the relevant court.

Proponents argue that the proposed override clause is not to exempt the Knesset from its commitments to constitutional values, but rather to give the legislators the ability to decide differently than the court.

By doing so, it would severely curtail the Supreme Court's authority of constitutional review of laws passed by the Knesset, which is controlled by the Government (the executive branch) that enjoys a political majority.

"[68] Yedidia Stern, former dean of the Law Faculty at Bar Ilan University, has defended the reasonableness doctrine, stating that without it, "the members of the outgoing Knesset will have the power to make the final decision about who can run against them in the next election.

The "reasonableness" standard, which is a key part of British legal heritage, is critical for good governance and must be maintained in the Israeli setting as well.

For example, in a statement published by tens of Canadian legal experts, including former Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and other former Justices of the Supreme Court, the differences between Israel and Canada's political systems were discussed, with the conclusion that "Israel's system of government differs from that of other democracies, like Canada's, in its exceptional concentration of political power.

Opposition leaders, activists, retired senior public servants, retired officials of the security services, executives of Israel's banks and financial institutions, leading business figures, economists and jurists have harshly criticized the proposed changes, arguing they will undermine judicial independence and effectively grant the government unchecked power.

[11][74] The proposed reforms have led to large-scale protests, with opposition parties cooperating with grassroots activists to coordinate marches, strikes and demonstrations.

[2][75][76] The protesters include reservists in Israel's security services, with some stating that they will not report for reserve duty while the proposed changes to the judicial system are being progressed through legislation.

[79] It has also received support from religious Zionist rabbis[80] and members of the political right, who have staged counter-protests in response to opposition demonstrations.

[91] In early June 2023, a United Nations Human Rights Council commission of inquiry said the proposed judicial system overhaul could pose a threat to Palestinians in Israel and Israeli-occupied territories.

The commission's report indicated fears that the proposed legislation could, or would: On 13 September 2023, Amnesty International published an article arguing that Israel's judicial overhaul has "alarming" implications for human rights, especially for Palestinians.

[93] An article by former United States ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and former Jordanian United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid bin Ra'ad in Foreign Policy argued that the insistence of Israeli right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on curbing the powers of the Supreme Court, stems from a desire to "more easily enact his vision of an Israel that extends unimpeded from river to sea," as the court had previously impeded the legalization of Israeli settlements built on privately owned Palestinian land.