Judicial reform in Israel: Netanyahu’s emergency brake

Es does not speak for the Israeli prime minister that he too justifies the suspension of judicial reform by saying that a civil war must be prevented. Netanyahu himself has led the country to this abyss, because for weeks he has been trying to push through the reform against massive political and social resistance.

His coalition has the majority, and that should be the deciding factor in a democracy. However, if you plan to make fundamental changes to the structure of the state, it is better to seek a broad consensus. Netanyahu’s alliance never pursued reform in this spirit. It was designed as a cultural struggle by the (religious) right against a judiciary perceived as left-wing, and also as a rebellion by left-behind Jews of oriental descent against privileged Ashkenazis of European origin.

The opposition is ready to talk

The result is an unprecedented self-weakening of the country that extends to the military, which in Israel’s case can quickly become dangerous. Netanyahu, who always wanted to stand for security, pulled the emergency brake surprisingly late. There are certainly reasons for the relationship between the executive and the judiciary in Israel to retare. The opposition is at least willing to talk. But the question is whether Netanyahu still has the authority to push through a compromise in his coalition.

He has already had to pay a considerable price to restore order in the country for the time being. Security Minister Ben-Gvir required oversight of the National Guard to allow the reform to be postponed, not even suspended or revised. Giving this extremist provocateur command of the recently formed paramilitary force set up to combat internal unrest could prove problematic.