Amid monthslong protests over judicial reforms, Israel is confronting a deeper reckoning over its political, economic, social, and cultural identity.
Visions of a pluralistic, socially tolerant, outward-looking Israel are clashing with those of a country more inward-looking, explicitly religious, and nationalistic. That explains the raw passion, and the iron determination to prevail, on both sides.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused on
Israel’s massive protests center on efforts to rein in the influence of the country’s judiciary. But driving them is a profound struggle between sharply competing views of the country’s core values.
The controversy, sparked over issues of judicial oversight, has tapped into a fundamental struggle because of a handful of far-right coalition partners Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to remain in power.
Their agenda is to prioritize the interests of strictly Orthodox Jews over others: less observant Jews, LGBTQ+ citizens and other minority groups, and Arab citizens, who make up one-fifth of the population. Then there are the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank.
Amid protesters’ chants of “democracy,” some of the banners and T-shirts have carried another slogan: “We are loyal to the Declaration of Independence” – a reference to the document adopted in 1948 as the state was proclaimed.
That founding text defined Israel as a Jewish state, but also pledged to ensure “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex” and to “guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”
The crowds are chanting demokratiya – democracy! And the immediate focus of the struggle convulsing Israel is on moves by an unprecedentedly far-right government, sworn in seven months ago, to neuter any judicial oversight of its actions.
But that tug-of-war is part of a deeper reckoning: over the country’s political, economic, social, and cultural identity.
It’s a contest between two broadly competing visions that won’t be easily resolved: a pluralistic, socially tolerant, outward-looking Israel; and a country more inward-looking, explicitly religious, and nationalistic.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused on
Israel’s massive protests center on efforts to rein in the influence of the country’s judiciary. But driving them is a profound struggle between sharply competing views of the country’s core values.
But the battle over the role of Israel’s Supreme Court has brought long-simmering tension between these starkly rival views of the country’s identity to the surface.
That explains the raw passion, and the iron determination to prevail, on both sides.
It’s also why last week’s initial step to limit the power of the court – passage of a law barring the justices from striking down decisions on the broadest of their litmus tests, “unreasonableness” – is just an opening skirmish.
An unparalleled crisis
With Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, now in summer recess, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is clearly hoping he has weathered the worst of the popular pushback: weekly protests by hundreds of thousands of Israelis, signs that Israel’s cutting-edge businesses may shift their funds and operations abroad, and the move by members of elite air force and army units to stop reporting for reserve duty.
But while he is now in his sixth stint as prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu has never faced a challenge he appears less equipped to control.
That’s in part because his political rivals and much of the protest movement believe he has a personal interest in reining in the judiciary: court cases he’s facing over charges of fraud, breach of trust, and bribery, which he has denied.
Yet the main reason is that Mr. Netanyahu is not the main impetus behind the effort to gut judicial oversight.
The driving force, and the reason the controversy has tapped into a more fundamental struggle over Israel’s identity, is a handful of far-right coalition partners whom Mr. Netanyahu needs to retain his narrow Knesset majority and remain in power.
Two, in particular: Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, convicted in an Israeli court for incitement of anti-Arab racism; and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has described himself as a “fascist homophobe” and has backed the idea of banning Arab political parties and segregating Arab women into separate maternity wards.
The agenda
Their agenda is to prioritize the interests of strictly Orthodox Jews over others in Israeli society: less observant Jews, LGBTQ+ citizens and other minority groups, and Arab citizens, who make up one-fifth of the population. Then there are the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank, territory these ministers and their supporters are determined to continue to populate with Jewish settlers and make formally part of Israel.
Even without the key role of Mr. Ben-Gvir and Mr. Smotrich, the court changes would have likely faced popular opposition.
Judicial oversight is important in all democracies. But it’s critical under Israel’s system. Israel lacks a written constitution. It has only a single parliamentary chamber, unlike the United States or Britain.
The Supreme Court is the sole institutional check on a government’s power. And under the full series of changes being proposed, not only would the “reasonableness” check be removed, the government would have a more direct say in picking the judges. And any court oversight could be brushed aside, overridden by a simple Knesset majority.
But what has driven the unprecedented breadth and staying power of the protests is the prospect of handing such unfettered power to this government, with the outsized influence of ministers like Mr. Ben-Gvir and Mr. Smotrich.
Mr. Netanyahu will still hope he can find a way to navigate a way out of crisis when the Knesset reconvenes in September.
Yet as he found during fraught coalition discussions over last week’s initial Knesset vote on the court changes, his far-right partners appear resolved to bring down the government rather than stop short of wholly ending Supreme Court oversight.
Meanwhile, the court confirmed last week it would hear an appeal against the law striking down its “unreasonableness” standard, setting the hearing for September.
With tensions again building with the Iranian-backed army of Hezbollah, across Israel’s northern border in Lebanon, there’s also the additional prospect of armed conflict. That could test the resolve of the hundreds of reservists who have vowed to stay away.
Still, there’s every sign that even those likely to pause that act of protest in the event of renewed conflict will take it up again when the guns fall silent.
More broadly, they’re determined to challenge a vision of Israel they can’t accept.
Amid the chants of “democracy,” some of the protesters’ banners and T-shirts have carried a decidedly more unwieldy slogan.
“We are loyal to the Declaration of Independence,” it says. The reference is to the document adopted in May 1948 as the state was proclaimed – long a touchstone for the court.
That founding text defined Israel as a Jewish state. Yet it also pledged to ensure “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex” and “guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”