The Israeli High Court convened on Tuesday in a session held to hear the petitions and challenges submitted against the Knesset law passed to curb the court’s judicial review of government decisions.
15 Zionist justices entered the courtroom to start the hearing session at 9 a.m.
The July 24 reasonableness standard law restricts a common law doctrine that allowed the court to engage in judicial review of government administrative decisions deemed far beyond what a reasonable and responsible authority would undertake. Under the law, the court can not review the administrative decisions or inaction of the government, ministers, and prime minister, but the standard still applies to civil servants.
The legislation was an amendment to Israel’s quasi-constitutional basic laws. The court has never before struck down a basic law, and it is contested if it has the ability to do so. In recent weeks, opposition and coalition members have debated this legal question, raising concerns of a constitutional crisis.
Petitioners and respondents are set to continue in court the arguments about the legitimacy of striking down basic law amendments. There are a total of eight petitions submitted by dozens of NGOs and activists.
Attorney-General Office’s representative Aner Helman argued on Tuesday for the authority of the High Court of Justice to strike down the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary that limited the reasonableness standard.
Government attorney Ilan Bombach compared the use of judicial review against basic laws to a nuclear weapon, and cautioned its use.
“We aren’t talking about an extreme situation,” said Bombach, which warranted its use.
“Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Thursday that the entity would enter “uncharted territory” should the Supreme Court strike down his hardline coalition’s highly contentious “reasonableness law” that passed amid widespread opposition and intense protests on Monday, and that he hopes “we don’t get to that.”
The premier also claimed he has no intention of removing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara from her position, amid mounting calls from his right flank to do so and a bill submitted on Thursday, and quickly retracted, by a Likud lawmaker, and indicated that he plans to use the new “reasonableness law” to reappoint Aryeh Deri, head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, as a minister.
“It depends what happens, of course, with the legislation, we have to see. But if it stands, I expect it to happen,” Netanyahu said in response to a direct question by NPR Thursday about whether he would seek to reappoint Deri.
The court had used the “reasonableness claus”e in a bombshell decision that Deri’s appointment as interior and health minister was “unreasonable in the extreme” due to his criminal convictions, most recently for tax fraud in 2022, and forced Netanyahu to remove him from his roles.
Bibi gave separate interviews to US media on Thursday, downplaying the effects of his government’s divisive judicial overhaul, saying the first law passed in the “legislative” package was a “minor correction”.
In a sit-down with CNN, Netanyahu refused to say whether he would abide by any potential ruling overturning the “reasonableness law”, which prevents judicial oversight of government and ministerial decisions on the grounds of reasonableness.
“What you’re talking about is a situation, or potential situation, where in American terms, the United States’ Supreme Court would take a constitutional amendment and say that it’s unconstitutional. That’s the kind of the kind of spiral that you’re talking about, and I hope we don’t get to that,” Netanyahu responded to CNN, warning that it could mean entering “unchartered territory.”
On the 75th anniversary of its ill-fated establishment, the occupation regime is not at its best. Where, in addition to the mounting risks in its strategic surroundings, there is a potentially more imminent menace encircling it from within, shaking it and bringing it even closer to the edge of a “brothers’ war“ whose nightmare hangs over the Israeli elites. Indeed, the two parties to the conflict may eventually reach a temporary “conflict freeze” that will save the entity from a new political and public conflict, similar to the one that accompanied Yoav Gallant’s dismissal. Yet, the aforementioned will not signal the end of the crisis; rather, it will merely be postponed until its rebirth is more forceful and thorough. Perhaps what reinforces such forecasts is that the religious people who are leading the “revolution” today will become a vast majority within a few decades, implying greater effectiveness and wider influence.
“Israel” fails to leave the scene of its months-long turmoil, as solutions falter and the advantages of temporary settlements fade. This is added to deferring hard dues exacerbates and deepens the conflict.
On its 75th year, Israel is no longer able to manage the conflicts of its social components, or so-called tribes, after previously controlling them through “understandings” that combined an emphasis on common denominators with the use of security threats to promote “Jewish cohesion,” in what represents a recipe that has already shown relative success.
Tens of thousands of Israelis joined protests against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to tighten controls on the Supreme Court, ahead of Israel's Independence Day marking 75 years since the establishment of the Jewish state https://t.co/t3wjOOoawxpic.twitter.com/VcjiIaVDOB
However, these disputes were destined to erupt within two or three decades, as the religious “Haredi” component, as well as the national religious component, grew in number, potency, influence, and power. This will compel them to breach such understandings and choose their ideology over other Jews.
During the previous government, led by Yair Lapid, which brought together all of Benjamin Netanyahu’s opponents, the latter sensed an impending threat to him. The threat was to imprison Netanyahu and halt his political career on corruption and bribery charges. On the other hand, the Haredim found themselves without funding for their institutions or social gifts, with the possibility of being forced to enlist in the Israeli army, as well as the adoption of laws and procedures that revoked some of their status and exclusivity.
The previous administration reminded the fascist extreme right, or “religious Zionists,” that settlements on the so-called “Jewish land in the West Bank” are still viable and have not been fully eliminated from the lexicon of certain groups of Israelis. It also cautioned them that their ambition to Judaize and Talmudize the ‘state’ at the cost of liberals and traditional Jews would not be readily realized.
This combination of threats and dangers compelled those targeted to collaborate, allowing Netanyahu to evade prosecution for his crimes. Such combination also empowered the religious groups, of all types, to enforce their will through laws and legislation that are not susceptible to veto or rejection by the judiciary, which retains power and rejects any attempt to favor one Jewish community over another.
As a result, interests have been focused on eliminating the Supreme Court’s authority to nominate justices and restricting the latter’s capacity to evaluate laws, which is a topic of discord. However, in a “normal” state, such a dispute would not have resulted in the division that Israel is experiencing nowadays. Thus, the current scenario foreshadows civil war, with predecessors that can only be explained by the presence of significant contrasts in visions, aspirations, and ideologies.
After two or three decades, the religious Jews will become the numerical majority, bolstering their position and ability to influence and fight political battles.
As a result, it is evident that the heart of the battle is to prevent or offer an opportunity for Jewish social components to impose their will on other Jewish groups. It is worth noting that proponents of change today seek to monopolize power and implement Talmudic governance by breaching the “defensive wall” represented by the judiciary. Whereas, the opposing camp refuses to harm the judiciary and demands that its powers remain unchanged to prevent any change in the social contract in place for the past seven decades.
The various religious “Haredi” parties are in the first camp, with religious Zionists (the national religious current) on their side, as well as Netanyahu’s right-wing and liberal Likud party.
The second camp is comprised of liberals from multiple parties and movements (right, left, centrist, and even traditional, including an important segment of the “Likud” base). It also includes the majority of Israeli women and youth, as well as homosexuals, who have become prominent number among Jewish organizations. In addition to economists, sociologists, industrialists, diplomats, and others with economic, social, and political contacts overseas.
The division reached the social, economic, political, and diplomatic sectors, as well as military and security institutions. The reservists – the most significant, effective, and influential component in the Israeli army – are at risk of disintegration as the number of individuals refusing to serve has grown, as well as reservists in the Air Force, intelligence, and the Mossad.
On the economic front, the split manifests into warnings of a “gloomy future” for ‘Israel’ as a result of capital flight, evacuation of institutions and corporations, and investor withdrawal. Hence, the protest wave grew to the point where Netanyahu could no longer contain it, especially after he decided to fire his security minister, Yoav Galant (of the Likud), to teach the “Likudists” a lesson. This decision, however, had disastrous ramifications, compelling him to suspend the “judicial overhaul” plan rather than cancel it.
This suspension prompted a decrease in demonstrations, but it wasn’t sufficient to stop them. Rather, opponents are waiting for Netanyahu at the “junction” to re-occupy the squares, while the future coalition is not entirely clear, despite the approaching deadline for postponing the overhaul, which is set for May 1st. Will the coalition then return to the “reform” path, attracting larger and broader protests? Or retreat without admitting failure? Also, what will the opposition’s stance be in both cases? Will they be content with Netanyahu’s retreat, or will they demand more?
Whatever occurs, it will not end the divide, which has deepened as a result of the current crisis. Accordingly, if the religious are unable to dismantle the internal equations and excessive social contracts that exist among Jews, ‘Israel’ will be at a later date, in the near future, with the renewal of the coup attempt, when the numerical status of these people has been further strengthened.
In 2022, religious groups in ‘Israel’ reached 36% of Jews, as opposed to a Jewish majority comprised of secular and non-religious or semi-religious traditionalists. However, this minority, which now controls the government coalition, is likely to grow in number, eventually outnumbering secularists and others. This indicates that within two or three decades, the religious will become the numerical majority, strengthening their position and power to influence and wage political wars.
Therefore, ‘Israel’ is on the verge of further division and maybe civil war, unless decision-makers take action to delay the eruption and let the conflicts be managed for a longer period, especially because agreement on a key consensus is not feasible. Further, if the “brothers’ war” isn’t already bloody, it will be shortly, unless solutions, that are still too vague to discuss, emerge.
* Yahya Dbouk is a Lebanese journalist who writes for Al-Akhbar Lebanese newspaper. This article was published by the daily on Thursday, April 27, 2023.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in his third term, and he has yet to get an invitation to visit Washington. Despite the fact that there are numerous subjects for discussion. Consider, for example, how strongly everyone around the world, including Americans, condemned the far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s call for the Palestinian town of Huwara to be “wiped out.” Smotrich, the head of Netanyahu’s hardline coalition’s pro-settler party, made harsh public comments amid a succession of deadly punitive operations against Palestinians and Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank. The White House and Joe Biden “got nervous” over other similarly harsh statements made by Israeli ministers in light of the complex situation that is currently playing out not only in Israel but also throughout the Middle East. And not at all in favor of the USA.
According to World Israel News, if Israeli officials had made the same claims in private, Netanyahu would already be meeting with Biden in the Oval Office. But Joe Biden doesn’t want to endanger his campaign for a second term as president as the presidential election draws near. Yet, this year, three to four billion dollars in military aid from American taxpayers will continue to go to Israel. This is the same military aid that Israel uses in its crimes against Palestinians.
While the White House declined to clarify whether Netanyahu would still be invited, a State Department official directed reporters to the Cabinet of Israel for information on the prime minister’s intentions for such a trip. David Makowski of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy believes that “the message the US clearly wants to send is: If you follow unwanted policies, you have no right to sit in the Oval Office.” A senior Israeli official, who wished to remain unnamed, was quoted in US media reports on the matter as stating that the US position was not unexpected given that the two sides had been at odds on a number of topics for decades. Nonetheless, the official stated that “the solid relationship between Israel and the United States has not and will not be damaged as a result of these disputes.”
Two major crises that Israel is currently experiencing are affecting Netanyahu’s cabinet. Since the beginning of the year, protesters have crowded the streets of major cities to voice their opposition to the government’s proposal to curtail the authority of the so-called Supreme Court, which detractors claim will force Israelis to live under a dictatorship. Footage from Tel Aviv, where police actively used tasers and fought with Israeli protesters, was widely circulated.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet warned last month of a “civil war in Israel” and called for talks on Netanyahu’s amendments. “There may be a settlement on judicial amendments,” Bennett said. “There are things that need to be fixed and changed, but we shouldn’t go from one extreme to the other.” At the same time, Bennett added that “the majority wants adjustments, not system changes,” warning against a civil war “over nothing.”
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit believes the current security crisis has only just begun, and he predicts “bloodshed.” According to Israeli media, Mandelblit said, “We are only at the beginning of the conflict. The situation will continue to worsen, and there will be bloodshed inside Israel.”
The Knesset (Israeli parliament) is trying to overthrow the so-called judicial system. On first reading, the law received 63 votes in favor, which is more than the quorum’s required threshold. The goal of the action is to make the Knesset stronger so that Netanyahu’s hardline alliance can maintain its majority and overturn Supreme Court rulings. Members of the Knesset will have more influence in the selection of judges as a result of Netanyahu’s actions.
Netanyahu is allegedly attempting to utilize the reforms to remove a lot of accusations against himself that are related to 2019 according to the protest organizers. Fraud, bribery, and breach of trust are among the charges and scandals. According to Israeli media, hundreds of thousands of settlers protested in Tel Aviv and other settlements in the occupied areas, including Jerusalem, as well as outside President Isaac Herzog’s residence. The president urged Netanyahu’s cabinet to halt reforms and speak with the opposition in order to reach a consensus. Despite not ruling out conversation, the ruling cabinet refused to defer or postpone the reform vote. The president of Israel warned that the situation was going to erupt.
Netanyahu’s political opponents slammed the moves as an attempt to “abolish the courts.” The suggested measures, according to Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, are an attempt by the prime minister to avert continuous corruption cases. “Just because they have a majority in parliament does not mean… that they can demolish the Supreme Court simply because the prime minister has been indicted,” Lapid stated.
The so-called reforms open the path for additional issues that the regime will be concerned about. Analysts worry that Netanyahu’s policies will have a long-term negative impact on Israel’s economic growth and the living standards of Israeli settlers. Although the judicial reform has not yet taken effect, it has already had an impact on the Israeli shekel. The planned reforms, in the opinion of businesspeople and economists, would jeopardize Israel’s investment interests in the occupied territories. According to Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s obsession with supposed reforms has brought the government to the “depths of a serious crisis,” with the threat of civil war looming.
The Supreme Court justified all crimes and atrocities committed against Palestinians, so this has nothing to do with them. This includes the ongoing expansion of settlements, which are illegal under international law yet are approved by the US.
According to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who also expressed “grave concern” about the proposal, the US supposedly opposes allowing Israel to establish Jewish settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank. This action came less than two weeks after he expressed the opposition of the United States to such measures during his visit to the region. According to the Tehran Times, it is probable that the Secretary of State covertly supported this type of conduct, despite his words of “condemnation” by Washington. As usual, there is a game going on here that is costing the Palestinians dearly.
Simultaneously, the United States continues to utilize its veto power in the UN Security Council to allow illegal Israeli settlements to thrive. Other than public words to calm the international community, Blinken has exhibited no significant resistance to settlement expansion. The hypocrisy of the Secretary of State is astounding: “We strongly oppose such unilateral measures, which exacerbate tensions and undermine the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution.” Ned Price, the spokesman for the US State Department, went even further in his euphemisms, asserting that Blinken had made it clear during his visit to the occupied territories that he opposed the legalization of settlements.
The increase of violence in the occupied West Bank is Israel’s second crisis. Punitive actions have intensified since young Palestinians started using armed resistance earlier this year, including numerous Israeli crimes against humanity.
Speaking before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned the current actions of the Israeli authorities as “an incomprehensible declaration of incitement to violence and hostility.” According to this international organization, at least 65 Palestinian adults and children have been killed by Israeli Security Forces since the beginning of the year. “Settlements in the occupied territories must be stopped soon; the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is tragic. A catastrophe, first and foremost, for the Palestinian people,” both Türk and the entire world agree.
The zionist entity is experiencing an unprecedented internal crisis, which has prompted Israeli President Isaac Herzog to caution that it could lead to a civil war that would leave no trace of the “Israeli state.”
The first side of the conflict is the government coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu, which comprises the “Likud” party, religious groups from the “Haredi” movement, and so-called ultranationalist Jews. On the opposite side, there are opponents from predominantly secular (centrist and leftist) parties, as well as right-wing parties, who are at odds with Netanyahu.
Shortly after it was formed in January, the government submitted draft legislation aimed at overhauling the Israeli judicial system, to be followed by other projects, in preparation for amendments that were supposed to affect other state institutions. These draft amendments were met with significant opposition from Israel’s political community, including ex-officials, elites, and specialists, who were joined by the majority of the Hebrew media.
Therefore, those opponents staged protests in Tel Aviv and other areas in response to the government’s overhauls which they called a “coup against the system of government and democracy.”
With the date for approval of the overhaul in the “Knesset” approaching, the protests grew, as did the list of those who opposed them. They were joined by members of the “Knesset” from the “Likud,” led by the Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, who was later dismissed due to his opposition.
What exactly are these overhauls? Do they merit all of this opposition or all of that backing in return? Is it worth sparking political and social discord as well as threatening to demolish institutions such as the army?
The amendments seek to restrict the judiciary’s powers by preventing it from invalidating laws enacted by the “Knesset.” This appears against the backdrop of the Knesset’s opposition to fundamental laws or those with constitutional standing, or legal principles that the Supreme Court has used to reject certain bills, most of which depend on human rights and freedom of speech… and others.
In addition, the changes seek to alter the process of selecting and appointing judges, particularly Supreme Court judges. This happens by changing the structure of the appointment committee, with the governing coalition having the ultimate say in the decision. Opponents argue that such a committee would be affiliated with politicians, effectively ending the judicial system’s most important fortification, independence, and non-reliance on the political establishment.
But does this plan presage civil war?
The effort to introduce, as well as the attempt to avoid, the aforementioned amendments is a manifestation of the reality of a sharp split within Israel’s “community of societies,” so to speak. The Supreme Court plays a significant role in managing the divide by balancing the public interest and societal harmony as well as preventing any component from violating the rights of the other components or forcing its will on them.
According to the opponents of the overhaul, described by them as the “coup,” restricting the judiciary’s ability to consider laws and decisions issued by the government and the “Knesset” means introducing laws into political settlements as preconditions for the joining of this or that party to a coalition, even if this harms the so-called ‘state of Israel’.
It is worth noting here that the extremists’ agenda is very broad, and if it is translated into legislation in the “Knesset” without the chance of nullification, the identity of the Zionist entity will change.
For many secular Israelis, if talks to establish a government coalition are successful, the “Haredi” religious parties will be forced to demand the passage of Talmudic-style legislation. These parties deny the rights of the Israeli majority and compel them to do or not do things based on Talmudic law, something which cannot be applied without “violating human rights.”
Similarly, agendas of fascist parties, such as “religious Zionism”, rely on harming others just because they are “others”. Such parties view the involvement of the Israeli regime in conflicts and wars for territorial gains as a supreme value, resulting in wars for which ‘Israel’ itself pays the price, and to no avail.
The two samples referred to here are just part of what would transform ‘Israel’ into a different entity, not only by abolishing the so-called ‘democracy’ and allowing a group of Israelis to impose their will on others but also by exposing ethnic and social divisions and differences. This makes handling the divide and mitigating its consequences difficult.
Given this setting, it is easy to see how a shift in the court’s and judiciary’s powers could lead to a civil conflict. This is because Israel’s dilemma is insoluble. Even if a solution to the overhaul is found – in which the amendments would be paused or totally withdrawn, any solution will not fully fix things.
Thus, if prudence, based on concerns and the growth of opposition, can halt the legislation, the issue is likely to reoccur later, possibly with greater gravity.
In a society that defies itself internally in almost everything, Nazi and radical right-wing groups, as well as followers of Talmudic laws, are growing in power, status, and number. As a result, if the combat is not taking place right now, it is expected to take place shortly.
* Yahya Dbouk is a Lebanese journalist who writes for Al-Akhbar Newspaper. This article was published on Tuesday, March 28, 2023.
The Israeli occupation Prime Minister and his ministers respond to the US President’s remarks on the judicial overhaul legislation.
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a ceremony in occupied Al-Quds on June 6, 2021 (Reuters)
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday responded to US President Joe Biden’s remarks on the government’s judicial overhaul plan, claiming that “Israel” does not take decisions “based on pressures from abroad.”
“I have known President Biden for over 40 years, and I appreciate his longstanding commitment to Israel. The alliance between Israel and the United States is unbreakable and always overcomes the occasional disagreements between us,” Netanyahu tweeted.
I have known President Biden for over 40 years, and I appreciate his longstanding commitment to Israel. The alliance between Israel and the United States is unbreakable and always overcomes the occasional disagreements between us
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) March 28, 2023
The occupation Prime Minister claimed that “Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.”
Biden urges Netanyahu to ‘walk away’ from judicial overhaul
On Tuesday night, Biden urged Netanyahu to “walk away” from the judicial overhaul legislation, warning that “Israel” “cannot continue down this road.”
“Like many strong supporters of Israel, I’m very concerned. And I’m concerned that they get this straight,” Biden told reporters before he boarded Air Force One at the Raleigh-Durham airport.
“They cannot continue down this road. And I’ve sort of made that clear,” the US President pointed out.
Biden: "Like many strong supporters of Israel I'm very concerned. I'm concerned that they get this straight. They cannot continue down this road. Netanyahu won't be invited to the White House in the near term" pic.twitter.com/YeuH6QbT3c
“Hopefully the prime minister [Netanyau] will act in a way that he can try to work out some genuine compromise, but that remains to be seen,” Biden said.
When asked whether he would be inviting Netanyahu to the White House, the US President said, “Not in the near term.”
He also noted that he had not spoken to Netanyahu by phone “in the middle of all this” — in reference to mass protests against the Israeli government — adding, “I delivered a message through our ambassador.”
Landing back in Washington, DC, when Biden was asked by Reuters’ White House correspondent what he wanted from Netanyahu, the US President said, “I hope he walks away from it.”
‘Israel’ not another star on US flag: Ben-Gvir responds to Biden
On his part, Israeli occupation Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir claimed that the United States needs to understand that “Israel” is “an independent country” and “not another star on the US flag.”
Speaking to the Israeli Army Radio, Ben-Gvir said that while “Israel” appreciates the democratic regime in the US, “it is precisely for this region that they need to understand that Israel is an independent country and no longer a star on the US flag.”
The occupation Police Minister added that “it should be clear all over the world – the people here went to elections and they have their own desires.”
It is noteworthy that Netanyahu on Monday decided to suspend his cabinet’s plans to reform the judiciary amid widespread protests against his government and his decision to dismiss Security Minister Yoav Gallant, though he stressed that “we will never give it up.”
The Israeli KAN public broadcaster reported that Ben-Gvir told Netanyahu earlier in the day that he would “resign from the government if the legislation is postponed” and that he would continue pushing for the judicial overhaul from outside the PM’s coalition.
In the same context, other members of the Israeli Knesset also criticized Biden’s remarks, such as Israeli Culture and Sport Minister Miki Zohar, who tweeted: “It’s sad that Biden has fallen for all the fake news.”
He later deleted the tweet and posted another one saying, “Out of respect for our important relationship with our greatest ally, the United States, I have deleted the tweet.”
“It breaks my heart to see how much damage has been done to Israel from all the fake news that has been spread in connection to our justified legal reform,” Zohar added.
Israeli opposition blames Netanyahu’s government
On the other hand, Israeli opposition leaders blamed Netanyahu’s government for the US President’s statements, with former Israeli occupation Prime Minister Yair Lapid saying that “for decades, Israel was the USA’s closest ally, and the most extremist government in the country’s history has spoiled that in three months.”
Former Israeli occupation Security Minister and National Unity Party chair Benny Gantz considered Biden’s remarks “an urgent wake-up call for the Israeli government.”
“Damaging relations with the USA, our best friend and most important ally is a strategic attack,” Gantz pointed out.
Amid mass protests witnessed in “Israel” against the Netanyahu government’s postponed judicial overhaul that would undermine the power of the Israeli Supreme Court, the White House underlined on Sunday that the US is deeply concerned by events in “Israel” and “strongly urges” Israeli leaders to find a compromise as soon as possible.
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sacked Security Minister Yoav Gallant on Sunday. This prompted Israeli officials to condemn the step.
According to Israeli media, former officials in the Israeli security establishment said that Gallatn's dismissal is "a big… pic.twitter.com/W8nXRmpzuO
“We continue to strongly urge Israeli leaders to find a compromise as soon as possible. We believe that is the best path forward for Israel,” White House National Security Council Spokesperson, Adrienne Watson, said in a statement.
In the same context, Israeli media cited senior officials in the US administration as saying that they are very concerned about the situation in “Israel” and Gallant’s dismissal.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported that in “Israel” they were very surprised by Biden’s words, considering that it was the most dangerous statement on the part of the US administration regarding judicial reforms.
The newspaper cited a senior political source as saying that Biden’s statement is nothing less than a “diplomatic attack” or a “resounding slap”.
According to the source, Biden’s remarks reflect Washington’s anger and frustration with Netanyahu and his government and indicate that the Americans do not believe that pausing the legislation is sufficient.
The source added that Biden wants to make clear that the crisis in “Israel” has not really ended.
Elsewhere, the source considered that Biden’s strong announcement that Netanyahu will not be invited soon to Washington is the most severe for “Israel” and aims to pass a message to the government.
Over the past month, upheaval and chaos took the Israeli occupation entity by storm. Violent clashes erupted between the opposition and police, as Israeli settlers protest against the government’s judicial reforms. Appeals for civil disobedience and riots have been met with stern warnings from both sides, as political rifts are widening and warning against the outbreak of a “civil war”.
Bibi is by nature cautious – even timid. His radical ministers, however, are not, Alastair Crooke writes.
Michael Omer-Man writes: Almost exactly 10 years ago, a young star rising in the Likud party, spoke to an audience committed to the outright annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories, laying out his blueprint. A year later, this same speaker set out certain prerequisites to full annexation: Firstly, a shift in the way the Israeli public thinks about a ‘two-state solution’ for Palestine; and secondly, a radical recast of the legal system “that will allow us to take those steps on the ground … that advance sovereignty”.
What was reflected in this statement is the structural dichotomy inherent within the ‘idea’ of ‘Israel’: What then is ‘Israel’? One side holds that Israel was founded as a ‘balance’ between Jewishness and Democracy. The other says ‘nonsense’; it was always the establishment of Israel on the “Land of Israel”.
Ami Pedahzur, a political scientist studying the Israeli Right, explains that the religious Right “has always considered the Israeli Supreme Court to be an abomination”. He points out that the extremist Meir Kahane “once wrote extensively about the tension between Judaism and democracy and the need for a Sanhedrin [a biblical system of judges] instead of the extant Israeli judicial system”.
In Israel’s attempt to balance these opposing visions and interpretations of history, the Israeli Right sees the judiciary as deliberately having been tilted toward democracy (by one part of the Israeli élite). This simmering tension finally exploded with the 1995 Supreme Court claim that it possessed power of judicial review over Knesset (parliamentary) legislation deemed to be in conflict with Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws. (An Israeli constitution has been considered since 1949, but never actuated.)
Well, that ‘young star’ of 10 years ago – who asserted so forcefully “We cannot accept … a judicial system that is controlled by a radical leftist, post-Zionist minority that elects itself behind closed doors – dictating to us its own values – today is Israel’s Justice Minister, Yariv Levin.
And with time, Netanyahu has indeed already brought about that first prerequisite (outlined by Levin almost a decade ago): The Israeli public perspective on the two-state Olso formula is radically changed. Political support for that project hovers close to zero in the political sphere.
More than that, today’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu, explicitly shares the same ideology as Levin and his colleagues – namely that Jews have a right to settle in any, and all, parts of the ‘Land of Israel’; he also believes that the very survival of the Jewish people is dependent on the actuation of that divine obligation into practice.
Many on the Israeli Right, Omer-Man suggests, therefore see the Supreme Court as “the central impediment to their ability to fulfil their annexationist dreams, which for them are a combination of messianic and ideological commandments”.
They saw the 1995 Supreme Court ruling as ‘a coup’ that ushered in the judiciary’s supremacy over law and politics. This is a view that is hotly contested – to the point of near civil war – by those who advocate for democracy versus a strict Judaic vision of religious law.
From the perspective of the Right, Ariel Kahana notes that although
“they have continued to win time and again – but they have never held power in the true sense of the word. Through the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the defence establishment, academia, cultural elites, the media, and some of the economic wheelers and dealers, the Left’s doctrine continued to dominate Israel’s power foci. In fact, regardless of who the cabinet ministers were, the old guard has continued with its obstructionist insurgency”.
Today, however, the numbers are with the Right – and we are witnessing the Israeli Right’s counter-coup: a judicial ‘reform’ which would centralize power in the Knesset – precisely by dismantling the legal system’s current checks and balances.
Ostensibly this schism constitutes the crisis bringing hundreds of thousand Israelis on to the street. Prima Facie, in much of the media, at issue is who has the final word: the Knesset or the Supreme Court.
Or, is it? For, beneath the surface, unacknowledged and mostly unsaid, is something deeper: It is the conflict between Realpolitik versus Completion of the Zionist project. Put starkly, the Right says it’s clear: Without Judaism we have no identity; and no reason to be in this land.
The ‘less said’ fact is that much of the electorate actually agrees with the Right in principle, yet opposes the full annexation of the West Bank on pragmatic grounds: “They believe that the status quo of a “temporary” 55-plus-year military occupation is the more strategically prudent”.
“Formally [annexing West Bank] would make it too difficult to convince the world that Israel is not an apartheid regime in which half of the population — Palestinians — are denied basic democratic, civil, and human rights”.
That other unresolved contradiction (that of continuing occupation within ‘democracy’) is also submerged by the prevalent mantra of ‘Right wing Orbánism versus democracy’. Ahmad Tibi, an Palestinian member of the Knesset earlier has wryly noted: “Israel indeed is ‘Jewish and democratic’: It is democratic toward Jews – and Jewish toward Arabs”.
The mass of protestors gathered in Tel Aviv carefully choose to avoid this oxymoron (other than around the kitchen table) – as a Haaretz editorial a few days ago made clear: “Israel’s opposition is for Jews only”.
Thus, the crisis that some are warning could lead to civil war at its crux is that between one group – which is no longer content to wait for the right conditions to arrive to fulfil the Zionist dream of Jewish sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel – versus an outraged opposition that prefers sticking to the political tradition of buying time by “deciding not to decide”, Omer-Man underlines.
And although there are ‘moderates’ amongst the Likud lawmakers, their concerns are eclipsed by the exultant mood at their party’s base:
“Senior Likud officials, led by Netanyahu, have incited Likud voters against the legal system for years, and now the tiger is out of control. It has its trainer in its jaws and threatens to crush him if he makes concessions”.
The flames lick around Netanyahu’s feet. The U.S. wants quiet; It does not want a war with Iran. It does not want a new Palestinian Intifada – and will hold Netanyahu’s feet to the flames until he ‘controls’ his coalition allies and returns to an Hebraic ‘quietism’.
But he can’t. It’s not possible. Netanyahu is held limp in the tiger’s jaws. Events are out of his control.
A prominent member of Likud’s central committee told Haaretz this week:
“I don’t care if I have nothing to eat, if the army falls apart, if everything here is destroyed … The main thing is that they not humiliate us once again, and appoint Ashkenazi judges over us”.
The ‘second Israel’ genres have wailed against ‘the ten Ashkenazai judges’ who discredited their leader (Arye Dery), whilst breaking into a song of praise for the ‘only Sephardic judge’ who was sympathetic to Dery. Yes, the ethnic and tribal schisms form a further part of this crisis. (A bill that effectively would reverse the Supreme Court decision barring Dery from his ministerial position over previous corruption charges is currently making its way through the Knesset).
The appeal of Religious Zionism is often attributed to its growing strength amongst the young – particularly ultra-Orthodox men and traditional Mizrahi voters. What became abundantly clear and unexpected in recent weeks, however, is that the appeal of a racist such as Ben-Gvir, is spreading to the young secular left in Israel. Among young Israelis (ages 18 – 24), more than 70% identify today as Right.
Just to be clear: The Mizrahi ‘underclass’, together with the Settler Right, have ousted the ‘old’ Ashkenazi élite from their hold on power. They have waited many years for this moment; their numbers are there. Power has been rotated. The fuse to today’s particular crisis was lit long ago, not by Netanyahu, but by Ariel Sharon in 2001, with his entry to the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif).
Sharon had earlier perceived that a moment would arrive – with a weakened U.S. – when it might prove propitious for Israel to complete the Zionist project and seize all the ‘Land of Israel’. The plans for this venture have been incubating over two decades. Sharon lit the fuse – and Netanyahu duly took on the task of curating a constituency towards despising Oslo and the judicial system.
The project’s content is explicitly acknowledged: To annex the West Bank and to transfer any political rights of Palestinians remaining there to a new national state to the east of the River Jordan, on the site of what now is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In the confusion and violence which would accompany such a move, Palestinians would be ‘persuaded’ to migrate to the ‘other bank’. As Hussein Ibish warned two weeks ago:
“We’re getting awfully close to the point where the Israeli government, and even Israeli society, could countenance a big annexation – and even expulsion [of Palestinians] – done in the middle of an outbreak of violence, and it would be framed as a painful necessity,” Ibish said. Such a move, he added, would be justified “as the government saying ‘We’ve got to protect Israeli settlers – they are citizens too – and we can’t let this go on anymore. Therefore we have to annex and even expel Palestinians.’”
To be fair, the unspoken fear of many secular protesters in Israel today, is not just that of being politically deposed, and their secular lifestyle circumscribed by religious zealots (though that is a major driver to sentiment), but rather, by the unspoken fear that to implement such a radical project against the Palestinians would lead to Regional war.
And ‘that’ is far from an unreasonable fear.
So there are two existential fears: One, that survival of the Jewish people is contingent on fulfilling the obligation to establish ‘Israel’ as ordained; and two, that to implement the consequent exodus of the Palestinians would likely result in the demise of the Israeli State (through war).
Suddenly and unexpectedly, into this fraught situation – with Netanyahu buffeted by a whirlwind of external and internal pressures – arrived a bombshell: Netanyahu was stripped of his ace card – Iran. In Beijing, China had secretly orchestrated not just the resumption of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but laid down the framework for a regional security architecture.
This represents a nightmare for Washington and Netanyahu – particularly for the latter, however.
Since the early 1990s, Iran has served both these parties as the ‘bogey man’, by which to divert attention from Israel and the situation of the Palestinians. It has worked well, with the Europeans acting as enthusiastic collaborators in facilitating (or ‘mitigating’ – as they would see it), Israel’s ‘temporary’, 55-year occupation of the West Bank. The EU even financed it.
But now, that is blown away. Netanyahu may ‘huff and puff’ about Iran, but absent a Saudi and Gulf willingness to lend Arab legitimacy to any military action against Iran (with all the risks that entails), Netanyahu’ s ability to distract from the domestic crisis is severely limited. Any call to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is an obvious non-starter in the light of the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement.
Netanyahu may not want a show-down with Team Biden, but that’s what is coming. Bibi is by nature cautious – even timid. His radical Ministers, however, are not.
They need a crisis (but only when the ‘prerequisites’ are all lined up). It is clear that the wholesale stripping of Palestinian rights, in tandem with the emasculation of the Supreme Court, is not a project that can be expected to quietly proceed in normal circumstances – especially in the present emotive state across the global sphere.
No doubt, the Israeli Right has been watching how the Lockdown ‘Emergency-crisis fear’ in Europe was used to mobilise a people to accept a compulsion and restrictions to life that in any other circumstance they would never rationally accept.
It won’t be a new pandemic emergency, of course, in the Israeli case. But the new Palestinian Authority-led ‘SWAT-squads’ arresting Palestinian resistance fighters in broad daylight is bringing the West Bank ‘pressure-cooker’ close to blow-out.
Ben Gvir may simply decide to follow in Sharon’s footsteps – to allow and participate in the Passover ceremony of sacrificing a lamb on Al-Aqsa (the Temple Mount) – as a symbol of the commitment to rebuild the ‘Third Temple’, permission for which, hitherto has always been denied.
So what happens next? It is impossible to predict. Will the Israeli military intervene? Will the U.S. intervene? Will one side back-down (unlikely says ex-Head of Israel’s National Security Council, Giora Eiland)? Yet even if the ‘Judicial reform’ is somehow halted, as one exasperated Israeli forecast, “Even if this time the attempt does not succeed, it’s likely that they [the Right] will try again in another two years, another five years, another 10 years. The struggle will be long and difficult, and no one can guarantee what the result will be.”
Recent mass protests in Israel against controversial, undemocratic judicial reforms have raised concerns about the potential for domestic civil clashes which threaten the fundamental stability of the ‘Jewish state.’
As tens of thousands of Israelis rallied in protests against their government’s judicial reform plan, the Israeli army conducted a major security operation in Nablus on 22 February, resulting in the death of 11 civilians and injuries to more than 100 others.
The ongoing demonstrations against the controversial bill are becoming increasingly violent, with angry slogans and protester actions leading to the recent killing of a demonstrator by the Israeli police in the city of Beersheba in southern occupied Palestine.
One defining moment of the protests occurred last week – during the first vote on the draft judicial reforms – when protesters were able to storm the Knesset parliament building before being removed by security forces.
Undermining the region’s ‘only democracy’
The judicial reform plan is one of the most significant initiatives of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s sixth government. It aims to limit the powers of judges, which currently exceed those of Knesset deputies, and to allow for exceptional intervention by Knesset members in the appointment of judges.
Netanyahu’s opponents argue that the reform plans led by Justice Minister Yariv Levin are a brazen attempt to “politicize and undermine the judiciary” in order to protect the prime minister from prosecution on longstanding charges of “corruption and breach of trust.”
According to Chief Justice Esther Hayut, the proposed reforms will:
“Deprive the court of the option to override laws that disproportionately violate human rights, including the right to life, property, freedom of movement, as well as the basic right of human dignity and its derivatives – the right to equality, freedom of speech and more.”
Former Chief Justice Aharon Barak has expressed similar concerns, calling the bill “the beginning of the end of the Third Temple” – an apocalyptic expression and fear denoting the beginning of Israel’s demise.
In his book, Third Temple, Israeli reporter and writer Ari Shavit analyzes how in the state’s eighth decade, the Israelis have become their own enemies: “With security challenges one can cope … but the disintegration of identity cannot be overcome.”
Israel’s impending ‘civil war’
In the corridors of Israeli power, the term “treason” is being bandied around more frequently, in parallel with National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s call for police to deal “more firmly” with domestic protesters.
Following Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s warning that Netanyahu’s plan could push the country to “the brink of constitutional and social collapse,” the term “civil war” is being routinely used by the Hebrew press, with Haaretz analyst Anshel Pfeffer opining that “civil war is no longer unthinkable.”
“Over the last few days, I’ve found myself in conversations I never imagined I’d ever have … But the topic is deadly serious: the various ways a civil war might suddenly break out, and who would win,” muses Pfeffer, asking ominously “will (Israel’s) law enforcement, security agencies, and the military take sides?”
Israeli affairs researcher Ismail Mohammed tells The Cradle that the notion of a civil war in Israel is no longer just a pipe dream hoped for by the occupation state’s adversaries. Yedidia Stern, head of the Jewish People Policy Institute founded by the Jewish Agency, had said that Israel is closer to civil war than at any time since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Both are events in which Israel teetered on the brink of civil war.
The battle for judicial reform in Israel is not just a simple conflict, but rather reflects deeper issues that touch on the identity of the state and its social composition. The goal of some political groups, such as the coalition of Ben Gvir and right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, is to change Israel from a secular liberal state to a state based on religious law: to regulate religious observances and the daily conduct of Jews – or in Hebrew terminology, a form of “Halakha.”
This is also evident in the statement made by Haredi Ashkenazi lawmaker Yitzhak Pindrus, who, on the 74th anniversary of the Nakba, expressed a desire to “blow up” the building of the Supreme Court, which governs secular civil laws that are contrary to religious teachings.
The polarization isn’t only between secular and religious Jews. The ugly old division between eastern and western Jews is also rearing its head. Ben Gvir, for instance, has repeatedly called for reducing the power of the “Ashkenazi” over the state, demanding the inclusion of “Sephardic” Mizrahi Jews in Israel’s institutions.
A recent statement by Otzma Yehudit MK Zvika Vogel on the Hebrew Kan 11 website reflects this significant shift from mere political differences to an existential clash between two different Israels. Vogel called for the arrest of opposition politicians Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz, Yair Golan, and Moshe Ya’alon for fanning civil war, describing them as “the most dangerous people at the present time in Israel.”
As Israeli affairs analyst Anwar Saleh explains to The Cradle: “The issue is much more serious than a demand for equality and citizenship. Netanyahu’s extremist coalition holds convictions that affect the very foundations of the state, such as a return to the elementary question of ‘who is a Jew?’”
“This political demographic considers that secular Jews – who constitute more than 44 percent of Israelis – are ‘false Jews,’ and that the current government, which is controlled by the religious right, who make up 20 percent of the population, represent the true spirit of Judaism,” Saleh continues. “This debate happening today – 74 years after the state of Israel was created – affects the very basis on which the Jewish Agency launched its immigration program to draw Jews to Palestine.”
Divestment amid uncertainty
It is noteworthy that over 50 investment companies have moved their business from Israel to other countries since the start of the protests. This mass flight includes 37 technology firms.
The development prompted Israeli Minister of Science and Technology Ofir Okunis to hold a private meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tel Aviv, during which he urged them to take a stand on the matter.
In response, the tech firms released a statement refusing to repatriate $2.2 billion in earnings from their foreign operations back to Israel. The owners of these companies have also expressed concern about a drop in the country’s credit rating because politicians are now appointing judges, which they see as an unfavorable environment for business. This has prompted a number of investors to transfer funds in Israel abroad.
‘Moses’ staff’
Even if Netanyahu today wielded the powerful “staff of Moses,” he would not be able to beat down the powerful domestic schisms tearing Israel apart. However, the one tool at the prime minister’s disposal is to divert Israeli attention elsewhere – though this will eventually re-ignite conflict within. In essence, whether now or later, his country will face its civil conflict.
Despite its many differences, Israeli society is united in the perception – fanned by their politicians and media – that it is under existential threat from the outside. Observers speculate that Netanyahu’s only hope to quell internal conflict now is to manufacture a hot external threat.
The occupied West Bank is seen as the least politically sensitive and most flexible option for action, according to political analyst Ayman al-Rifati. He explains to The Cradle that, unlike in the past, Gaza today is the theater in which Israel seeks to maintain calm in order to avoid military escalation during the coming Ramadan season.
The increasing sophistication of missiles held in Gaza’s resistance arsenals also poses too high a risk, with unknown and uncontrollable consequences that Israel may have to bear. The West Bank, conversely, is relatively unweaponized, with small arms concentrated in much fewer hands.
And despite a steady stream of threats from Tel Aviv, there are no indications of Israel starting a war with either Iran or Hezbollah, although the option of carrying out targeted security operations that elicit a reaction from these opponents remains active.
The recent attack by Jewish settlers on the town of Huwara, in the West Bank city of Nablus – is a by-product of Netanyahu’s efforts to mobilize Israeli sentiments toward launching a comprehensive confrontation with West Bank Palestinians. One of the key objectives of this clash is to draw attention away from Israel’s internal collapse.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
A new report by The Conversation argues how Israeli politicians are strongly motivated to strengthen the Haganah-minded politics in “Israel”.
Israeli forces detain a protester during a demonstration in “Tel Aviv” on Wednesday against the government’s overhaul bill. (AFP)
“Israel” is confronting one of the most critical crises; and it could be the most difficult test yet for the occupation’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has just recently regained his political career by returning despite a series of scandals and probes, an analysis by Ran Porat for The Conversation acknowledged.
Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, was deposed in 2021, but mounted a political return last year, gathering enough support to form the most far-right Israeli government ever.
The paper described how these politicians are strongly motivated to strengthen the Haganah-minded politics in “Israel”.
Porat explained how Netanyahu was initially successful in rebranding himself as the “responsible adult who would keep his government’s radicals in line,” but his government is currently facing deepening significant schisms.
He further envisioned that the “situation with the Palestinians” may be escalating, in reference to the illegal Israeli settlers’ rampage, which left one Palestinian murdered and Palestinian cars, homes, and businesses burnt to the ground. The rampage followed a week of brutal aggression against Palestinians in Nablus, in which 11 were killed in an Israeli occupation forces (IOF) raid.
Netanyahu’s grip over power
Porat further expounded that the government’s intended revamping of the judicial system is one of the key concerns causing public outrage.
This comes as the new administration took unprecedented steps to weaken the occupation’s Supreme Court and further entrench the influence of its far-right coalition, all while escalating brutal aggression against Palestinians.
What judicial amendments does Netanyahu want?
Despite weeks of protests by Israeli settlers, the Knesset voted last Tuesday in favor of going through with the judicial reform legislation, which has been criticized as undermining the separation of power within “Israel”.
Settlers across “Israel” have been vehemently protesting the legislation under the pretext of it being a threat to “democracy”, namely how it increases the authority of politicians over judges.
63 members of the occupation’s Knesset, more than the absolute majority of the quorum, voted in favor of the bill during the first reading.
Before passing to its second and third readings in the Knesset, the bill will return to the law committee for further discussion.
The proposed legislation would prevent courts from overturning any amendments made by the government to “Israel’s” quasi-constitutional “Basic Laws”, in addition to giving more weight to the government in the judge selection committee.
The legislation undermining the judiciary’s independence is fundamental to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration, which comprises a coalition of Haganah-minded parties.
Netanyahu’s opponents perceive the alleged reforms as a ploy to derail his upcoming corruption trial on allegations of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.
The writer also postulated that the turmoil is harming “Israel’s” economy. The Israeli shekel is deteriorating as investors and leading high-tech entrepreneurs withdraw capital from “Israel”, fearing a weakened court system and rule of law.
Senior US officials have expressed grave concerns about the scope and timeliness of the reform plans.
Yet, the massive wave of protests has reenergized a fractured and demoralized opposition. Appeals for “civil disobedience” and fights with police have been met with stern warnings from both sides, asking the government to reach an agreement before public outrage escalates into more serious upheaval.
صحيفة “واشنطن بوست” تقول إنّ اعتداء حكومة نتنياهو على القضاء، وفي خطابها الحارق تجاه الفلسطينيين، إلى جانب التساهل مع المستوطنين، تخاطر بتمزيق العلاقات مع أقوى مؤيديها.
احتجاجات ضد حكومة نتنياهو في تل أبيب
ذكرت صحيفة “واشنطن بوست” الأميركية، أنّ ردة الفعل المعارضة على التعديلات القضائية التي يريدها رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو “غير عادية”، حيث لاقى هذا المشروع “تظاهرات حاشدة وتحذيرات رهيبة من مجتمع الأعمال وكلمات تحذير من إدارة بايدن وأعضاء الكونغرس الأميركي المؤيدين لإسرائيل”.
وأشارت في حديثها عن الاحتجاجات ضد التعديلات القضائية، إلى أن “نتنياهو بدا متعاطفاً بشكل غريب مع مثيري الشغب، في حين كانت ردة فعل قوات الاحتلال على العمليات الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية قاسية مقابل التساهل مع المستوطنين الذين يعتدون على الفلسطينيين”.
ورأت الصحيفة أنّ “حكومة نتنياهو، في اعتداءاتها العدوانية على المحاكم ووسائل الإعلام والمؤسسات الديمقراطية الأخرى، وفي خطابها الحارق تجاه الفلسطينيين، إلى جانب التساهل مع المستوطنين، تخاطر بتمزيق العلاقات مع أقوى مؤيديها”.
وقالت إنّه “ما لم تكن إسرائيل على استعداد لتحمّل ضرر دائم لنظام الدعم الاقتصادي والدبلوماسي والمعنوي الدولي، فإنها بحاجة إلى إعادة تقييم نهج الحكومة اليمينية”، مؤكدةً أنّه “إذا بقيت حكومة نتنياهو متحدية، فستصبح تهديداً وجودياً لبقاء الدولة اليهودية”.
في السياق، رأى رئيس المعارضة الإسرائيلية يائير لابيد، اليوم الأربعاء، إن “بنيامين نتنياهو سيذهب بإسرائيل إلى الفوضى”، مشيراً إلى أن “هذه الفوضى صنعها وزير الأمن القومي إيتمار بن غفير”.
وكان لابيد حذّر سابقاً من أن “تمرير قانون التعديلات القضائية سيُفقد إسرائيل الولايات المتحدة ويلحق الضرر بالاقتصاد”، مؤكداً أنّ “واشنطن مرعوبة مما يحدث في إسرائيل”.
كذلك، رأت صحيفة “نيويورك تايمز”، أنّ الاحتلال الإسرائيلي “لم يشهد قط انتفاضة فلسطينية واحتجاجات مستوطنين يهود وتغييرات قضائية إسرائيلية دفعةً واحدة”.
وقالت الصحيفة إنّ “العمليات الفدائية التي يقوم بها الشباب الفلسطينيون ضد الإسرائيليين، مع توسيع المستوطنات الإسرائيلية وإحراق المستوطنين للقرى الفلسطينية، وكذلك مع احتجاجات المستوطنين ضد استيلاء رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو على السلطة القضائية، تهدّد معاً بانهيار الحكم الذي لم نشهد مثله من قبل في إسرائيل”.
بدوره، قال رئيس الشاباك السابق، يوفال ديسكين، اليوم الأربعاء، إنّ “إسرائيل” قد تصل إلى حرب أهلية في غضون أسابيع، مؤكداً أن “حكومة نتنياهو حكومة إرهاب”.
أما وزير الأمن الداخلي الإسرائيلي السابق أفيغدور كهلاني فرأى أنّ “إسرائيل” في “منتصف حرب أهلية”، مشيراً إلى أنّ استخدام رموز الحرب يزيد من الصراع.
ووافق الكنيست الإسرائيلي، الثلاثاء الماضي، في قراءة أولى على نصّين أساسيين في التعديل القضائي، يجعل النص الأول محكمة الاحتلال العليا غير مؤهّلة لإلغاء أي تعديلٍ للقوانين الأساسية.
أمّا النص الثاني، فيتمثل في إدخال بند “الاستثناء” الذي يسمح للكنيست بإلغاء بعض قرارات المحكمة العليا بغالبية بسيطة تبلغ 61 صوتاً من أصل 120 عضواً في البرلمان.
وكانت الحكومة التي شكّلها نتنياهو في كانون الأول/ديسمبر الماضي، ضمن ائتلاف ضم أحزاباً يمينية ودينية متطرفة، أعلنت عن مشروع تعديل النظام القضائي في مطلع كانون الثاني/يناير.
وترى المعارضة أنّ الهدف الأساس من التعديلات التي طرحها الائتلاف الحاكم هو “تبرئة نتنياهو من اتهامات بالفساد في 3 ملفات يُحاكَم بشأنها”، إضافةً إلى فتح الباب أمام حليفه أرييه درعي لتولي حقيبة وزارية، على رغم إدانته بتهم التحايل على الضرائب والسرقة للمرة الثانية.
وبالتالي، تشير المعارضة إلى أنّ الهدف من ذلك هو إنهاء “دور القضاء كنظام مستقل”.
A protest in Tel Aviv against new Israeli government. (Photo: via Activestills)
Thousands of demonstrators protested Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government Saturday in Tel Aviv, Anadolu News Agency reported.
Protesters gathered in Habima Square in central Tel Aviv to demonstrate against the government’s plan to reduce the powers of the judiciary, as well as policies of far-right and ultra-religious government partners.
Demonstrators also reacted to officials, including Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
According to media reports, 8,000 and 10,000 people participated in the demonstration, including Israeli lawmakers.
Moves by the coalition government led by Netanyahu to transfer some powers of the judiciary to parliament have caused friction between the government and the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced Thursday that a law is planned that would limit the Supreme Court’s powers, reduce the judiciary’s influence on the selection of judges and allow parliament to overrule court decisions.
Netanyahu government’s approval of the controversial law that allows former corruption-convicted coalition partner Arye Deri to serve as a minister has also sparked public outcry.
(MEMO, PC, SOCIAL)
RELATED VIDEOS
An internal crisis in the Zionist entity and a split over the Netanyahu government
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 