Israel’s ruling coalition has voted to limit the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, leading to widespread protests and potential upheaval in the country. Following the vote, demonstrators took to the streets, blocking roads and causing disruptions. The crowd in front of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, grew to over a thousand people, and police were blocking another march from reaching the Supreme Court building. Police arrested more than 65 protesters and detained a driver who was reportedly attempting to plow his car into the crowd. The protests reflect a growing divide between ultra-Orthodox and religious nationalist voters and more secular Jews and Palestinian citizens of Israel. The proposed overhaul has been hailed by Jewish settlers and ultra-Orthodox leaders but has been seen as a threat to judicial independence by opponents. The measure would eliminate the Supreme Court’s ability to override government actions deemed “unreasonable.” The preliminary vote narrowly passed the Knesset, but divisions within the coalition itself have emerged. Opposition leader Yair Lapid believes some coalition members may vote against the bill to avoid further chaos. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly open to watering down the proposal to ease public backlash. Talks over a compromise package of judicial revisions broke down last month, but Lapid and President Isaac Herzog have called for them to resume in light of the recent vote.
How have the recent protests in Israel highlighted the divide between different voter groups and what are the implications for judicial independence?
Israel’s ruling coalition has made a controversial decision to curtail the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, sparking widespread outrage and potential repercussions for the nation. This move has ignited protests across the country, leading demonstrators to take to the streets, causing disruptions and blocking roads. The crowd assembled in front of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, swelled to over a thousand people, with police preventing another march from reaching the Supreme Court building. The intensity of the protests resulted in the arrest of more than 65 protesters, while a driver, allegedly attempting to ram his car into the crowd, was also detained by the police.
These protests underscore the growing divide between ultra-Orthodox and religious nationalist voters on one side and more secular Jews and Palestinian citizens of Israel on the other. While Jewish settlers and ultra-Orthodox leaders have praised the proposed overhaul, opponents see it as a significant threat to judicial independence. Essentially, the measure aims to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to overturn government actions considered “unreasonable.” Although the preliminary vote narrowly passed in the Knesset, divisions have emerged within the coalition itself. Opposition leader Yair Lapid believes certain coalition members may vote against the bill to prevent further chaos.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly faces an open rebellion within his own party, is seemingly willing to dilute the proposal to appease the public’s backlash. Talks regarding a compromise package of judicial revisions had broken down last month, but Lapid and President Isaac Herzog have called for their resumption in light of the recent contentious vote. These developments further add to the rising tensions and uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court’s powers and the future of Israel’s judicial system.
This controversial vote by Israel’s far-right coalition to limit the Supreme Court’s power has incited an array of street protests. It is a significant development that exposes the increasing polarization within the country’s political landscape and raises concerns about the erosion of judicial independence.
This controversial move by Israel’s far-right coalition reflects an alarming shift in power dynamics. Street protests highlight the magnitude of concern over the limits imposed on the Supreme Court, calling for the protection of democratic principles and the preservation of judicial independence.