Israel, from a constitutional point of view, is an exciting state. This is one of the few states in the world. that it does not have a codified constitution, but a set of laws that have been approved separately from the moment of its foundation and in the rank of basic law. This fact is accompanied by disputes about the very creation of the State of Israel and whether the current State of Israel is a continuation or not of the Israel of the Torah and the Tanakh, the Israel that was destroyed. by the Romans in 70 AD C. It is in the Great Assembly, the Knesset HaGdola, of 120 scribes, that we find reference to the current Knesset or Assembly of Israel.

And on June 13, 1950, he appeared Izhar Harari, and entrusted the Knesset with the function of the Constituent Chamber. In other words, the same Knesset would not only have the function of holding legislative power and drafting laws, but at the same time it would have the right to draft or change the Basic Laws of the state. But then, at the legislative level, what’s the difference between the basic law of the state and ordinary law if both come from the same seat, the Knesset, and with the same majority vote?

Aaron Barack, in the groundbreaking United Mizrahi Bank v. The Co-operative Village of Migdal of November 9, 1995 of the Israeli Supreme Court recognized that there is a constitutive succession between one Knesset and another, that is, as in the former, later ones could also develop the Basic Laws, as they did. and they, being fundamental and having a constitutional status, are supra-legislative. In other words, the basic law can only be changed by another basic law, and therefore the Knesset itself can decide what restrictions to impose on itself when drafting future laws.

There is an interesting aspect to the powers attributed to the Supreme Court: as we saw in the Basic Law, Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People, there was a constitutional review to see if this Basic Law conflicted with the previous ones. This was the first time that this had been done judicially, as the Supreme Court assumed the power to oversee its constitutionality.

This is where the big controversy arises with the prime minister’s judicial reform, Benjamin Netanyahuand his Minister of Justice Yariv Levin. They want to strip the Supreme Court of its power to oversee legislative action if the Knesset approves by a simple majority the overturning of the verdict and interpretation to the contrary.

In addition, he wants to complicate the work of the Supreme Court, as well as codify its powers, which are currently undefined, by using an absurdly high quorum when judges vote, almost unanimously, to invalidate the law. Therefore, he wants to subordinate the Israeli judiciary to the majority of the government in the Knesset, so that there is no or minimal possibility to stop or limit the actions of the government and the parliamentary coalition.

The appointment of judges must also be made through the government and members of Knesset committees with a majority vote in the bodies that elect them. Now there are three judges of the Supreme Court, two representatives of the Bar Association, two members of the Knesset and two ministers. In addition, they must be approved by seven out of nine votes in favor, so Supreme Court justices have veto power. According to opponents of the reform, it is required to appoint government-linked judges and even skip technical criteria or recognition of their careers. This fact causes a lot of social controversy.

Perhaps the fact that the Israeli political opposition is having a hard time is what the Netanyahu government, which has several pending judicial cases, is using to push for such reform, since it needs a simple majority in the Knesset to do so. approve it. This fact means that it can be interpreted as half of the country wants to impose on others halfand so the social gap widens even more in some political aspects.

This is not the first time the specter of extreme polarization has shaken Israel, and it is not clear whether the division that will now arise can be salvaged if the reform is approved.

This is not the first time Israel has been shaken by the specter of extreme polarization, and although it has always known how to overcome circumstances, it is not clear whether the split that will now arise, if the said reform is approved, will be salvific. We also shouldn’t be afraid of a civil war environment: Israeli society’s democratic values ​​exist and they settle differences with the government in elections. This is not the first time mass protests have rocked the political landscape. Consider the protest of 400,000 people in 1982 against the war in Lebanon, or the 2011 demonstration over the high cost of living in the country.

In conclusion, we must be alert to what happens in the coming days and if social tensions rise to unforeseen levels. According to some lawyers, as well as former members of the Israeli Supreme Court, including Aharon Barak himself and his colleagues since 1995, this reform proposal is in many ways a failure and will not improve the Israeli judiciary.

We will never know what Netanyahu was thinking when he promoted it, or if one of the biggest protests in history was expected on the streets.

Guillem Purses PhD in Law, Master of Security, Specialist in Conflicts, Public Security and State Theory. His articles can be read here at www.elindependiente.com.