|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: TJVNews.com
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues making the rounds on the media circuit to discuss the controversy swirling around the measures he and his coalition partners have taken to implement judicial reform in Israel, it now appears that the premiere may be open to stopping the pursuit of his objectives in overhauling the supreme court.
Haven taken quite a bit of heat for his judicial reform plan which sparked weekly protests from the left-wing opposition for many months and essentially divided the country, World Israel News recently reported that the prime minister said of judicial modifications, “I’m still going to give it several months to try and get another consensus, “ Netanyahu said. He added that the next legislation to pass will “probably be about the composition of the committee that elects judges.”
“That’s basically what’s left. Because other things, I think, we should not legislate,” he added, as was reported by WIN.
“I don’t think we should move from the one extreme, where we have perhaps the most activist judicial court on the planet, to getting to a point where the legislature, our Knesset, can just knock out any decision that the court makes. There has to be a balance. That’s what we’re trying to restore,” he said last week.
Speaking to Fox News host Mark Levin last Sunday on his weekly program, ‘Life, Liberty & Levin,’ Netanyahu said that the sovereign State of Israel will “make its own decisions, based on the will of the Israeli people.”
“I’ve been elected six times democratically…for a total of 16 years, and in all those years I never commented on internal debates in other democracies. I have chosen not to do that,” Netanyahu said, as was reported by WIN.
“Everybody has an opinion on Israel. They don’t have an opinion on the riots in France or the protests there or the debates that happen inside other countries.
“You have a major debate between the Supreme Court and the executive right now in America, and I really don’t care to comment about it. But if people choose to comment about ours. It’s OK. We’ll make our own decisions. In solid states, sovereign democracies, the elected representatives of the people make the decisions, and that is how it is going to be in Israel,” the prime minister stated, the WIN report stated.
WIN also reported that early in July, President Joe Biden sent a warning to Israel through the media, telling the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman that if judicial reform is not passed with a wide consensus, there is a risk to the allies’ relationship.
“You are going to break something with Israel’s democracy and with your relationship with America’s democracy, and you may never be able to get it back,” Biden said in a message to Netanyahu through Friedman, according to the WIN report.
In the interview with Netanyahu , Levin noted that the massive ongoing protests across Israel, ostensibly against the planned judicial reforms that would allegedly bring about an end to democracy and turn Israel into a dictatorship, are really about overthrowing the Netanyahu government, WIN reported. To which Netanyahu responded that the opposition has “openly” stated that intent even before the November 2022 national election, which they lost, the report added.
Back in March, commenting on the countrywide demonstrations and “Days of Disruption,” Netanyahu said, “Only four months ago we held elections. The government I head received a clear mandate from the citizens of Israel. The fact that for two whole months our repeated calls for dialogue received no response from the opposition proves that what interests the opposition is not the judicial reforms, but the creation of anarchy and the overthrow of the elected government.”
In recent developments, WIN reported that a panel of three Supreme Court judges in Israel ruled on Sunday afternoon that it was issuing a temporary injunction against the implementation of a law protecting the prime minister from forced recusal, arguing that the law was “clearly personal” in nature and designed to benefit Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, the court also announced that it would reconvene to discuss the ultimate fate of the law with a larger panel of judges in the future, suggesting that the body is gearing up to completely nullify the legislation, WIN reported.
The bombshell decision marks the first time that the Supreme Court has ordered an injunction against a quasi-Constitutional Basic Law, and coalition party heads said that the institution has clearly overstepped its authority by ruling on the matter.
“The court does not have the authority to cancel Basic Laws and does not have the authority to determine that the Basic Law will enter into force at a later date,” read a media statement from the heads of the coalition parties, as was reported by WIN.
“Nor does any court have the authority to cancel the results of the elections and allow the removal of a prime minister [from office], which would abolish democracy at its foundation.”
The statement added that nullifying the law would “pull down the common ground between the branches of government, which has been customary for many years.”
As was reported by WIN, opposition party heads slammed the statement, claiming that it constituted an “attack” on the Court.
“What the government has recently legislated are not Basic Laws but rather hasty, negligent and anti-democratic laws that were called ‘Basic Laws’ without any basis or judicial justification,” Opposition Leader and Yesh Atid party head Yair Lapid said, the WIN report added.
Former Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar said the statement was akin to a “mafioso threat” towards the Court, adding that it had been made “in an attempt to dictate the verdict to the justices.”
The Recusal Law, which was passed in March 2023, stipulates that a premier can only be forcibly removed from office after a vote of 75 percent of his cabinet or 80 percent of the Knesset, and it must be due to physical or mental incapacitation, according to the WIN report.
Attorney-General Gali Barahav-Miara, whom left-wing groups have argued could order Netanyahu to step down from office due to alleged conflicts of interest stemming from his ongoing criminal trial and his involvement in judicial reform legislation, filed a petition against the Recusal Law last week.
In a groundbreaking hearing on August 3rd, the High Court of Justice in Israel showcased its unease with the recently passed law that curtails its authority to order the prime minister to recuse himself. The court suggested that it might deliver a game-changing ruling that could delay the enforcement of this law, according to a report in The Times of Israel. The significance of this momentous event cannot be overstated, as it marks the first instance when the attorney general has joined petitioners in seeking the annulment of the Basic Law – Israel’s quasi-constitutional legislation.
Supreme Court President Esther Hayut, along with her fellow panel members, expressed skepticism about the intent behind the legislation. They pointedly observed that the law bore the “fingerprints” of a strategic plan to shield Netanyahu from recusal orders, as was reported by the TOI. Justice Uzi Vogelman remarked that the law’s personal nature was unequivocal. These comments were delivered during a five-hour session presided over by the court’s three most senior justices, generating anticipation over the court’s potential ruling, the TOI report added.
One critical point of contention revolves around the court’s authority to review Basic Laws, which have a quasi-constitutional status. The TOI reported that Justice Vogelman emphasized that the High Court indeed possesses the right to conduct judicial review over these laws. Striking down the recusal law would be historic, as it would be the first time the court nullifies an amendment to a Basic Law. This prospect has ignited a fierce debate over the court’s authority, with members of the Likud party – Netanyahu’s party – challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the report added.
“The High Court is entitled to review Basic Laws, in accordance with doctrines that were established in our [previous] rulings, by an expanded bench,” Vogelman said, the TOI reported. “This is not totally unplowed land. Perhaps it still needs to be plowed, but the furrows are already there,” he asserted.
Addressing the claims that the law was tailored for Netanyahu, Hayut and Vogelman both stated explicitly that they believed the legislation was very much of a personal nature, according to the TOI report.
“Likud MK Moshe Saada said two days before the law was passed in its second and third readings ‘we legislated it because of Netanyahu.’ You can’t get clearer than that,” noted Hayut in the hearing.
Hayut did, however, tell attorney Hanner Helman, representing the attorney general, whose position is that the law should be canceled, that he had to demonstrate why a personal law is necessarily a misuse of constituent authority, the TOI reported.
“The law is so personal that it fails the test that a law have general applicability, it completely contravenes the idea that basic laws address general situations since it is designed specifically for a personal issue,” countered Helman.
While Netanyahu’s attorney argued that the law aimed to prevent unelected officials from unseating an elected prime minister, critics are concerned about its broad implications, the TOI report noted. The debate intensifies as ministers within the Likud party have expressed resistance to respecting any court ruling that nullifies the recusal law. This growing conflict illustrates the wider challenges surrounding the court’s role in Israel’s democratic framework.
As the hearing unfolded, the justices probed whether delaying the implementation of the law could resolve some of the concerns. The report indicated that this approach had been employed in a recent ruling against another piece of coalition legislation, known as the so-called Tiberias law, sparking speculation about a potential compromise. However, the petitioners’ attorneys argued that the personal nature of the recusal law was too severe to be remedied by a delay.
As was reported by the TOI, several MKs indicated last Thursday that they would not respect a ruling striking down the recusal law. Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu told Galey Israel Radio: “We don’t need to respect the High Court decision just like it doesn’t respect the Knesset’s decision.” He said that even discussing the petitions was illegitimate, calling a potential voiding of the law “obviously illegal.”
Attorney Michael Ravillo, representing Netanyahu, rejected arguments that the purpose of the law was unfitting, however, and argued that it was designed to prevent a prime minister from being ejected from power by unelected officials, according to the TOI report.
“There is no such thing as legal recusal. This has no comparison in the world,” contended Ravillo.
“The Knesset is saying clearly through this recusal law that it is not prepared in any way that a prime minister can be ousted from office by a clerk or unelected official,” he continued, and argued that since this was a fair use of the Knesset’s power as constituent authority the petitions arguing misuse of such power should be dismissed.
Alongside its deliberations on the recusal law, the High Court will in September hear petitions in two other highly sensitive cases with potentially explosive results, the TOI reported.
On September 7, the court will hear petitions demanding the court order Justice Minister Yariv Levin to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, a step he has refused to take in recent weeks, the report in the TOI noted. Levin is seeking to first enable coalition control of almost all judicial appointments, under the terms of draft legislation that would remake the Committee. The legislation has cleared its first reading, was suspended in March, but is awaiting its final readings in the Knesset, and could be passed at short notice.
On September 12, an unprecedented panel of all 15 High Court justices will hear petitions demanding the court strike down the coalition’s highly controversial reasonableness limitation law, as was reported by the TOI. Enacted last week, it was the first piece of the coalition’s judicial overhaul legislation to become law.
As the High Court contemplates its potentially explosive ruling on the recusal law, the legal and political ramifications could reverberate across Israel’s legal landscape. The court’s decision could set a precedent for the limits of its authority over Basic Laws, influence its relationship with the executive branch, and shape the dynamics of democracy in the country. All eyes are now on the court’s deliberations, as its ruling will undoubtedly reshape Israel’s legal and political landscape for years to come.
The court’s decision, once handed down, could shape the future of the prime minister’s recusal process and have broader ramifications for the balance of power between Israel’s branches of government. As the legal battle continues, the nation watches with bated breath to see how the High Court will navigate this intricate and consequential issue.
Also on Sunday, WIN reported that Netanyahu’s son, Yair is being surveilled by private investigators hired by left-wing activists, Channel 14 in Israel reported.
Yair Netanyahu has been traveling abroad for the past few months and as a member of the prime minister’s family is assigned a security detail, according to the WIN report. However, the report indicated that hasn’t prevented his monitoring.
The Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), which is the organization tasked with protecting Netanyahu’s son, told Channel 14 that “the incident is recognized and [being] handled by the security forces,” the WIN report said.
WIN also indicated that according to the report, the private investigators were hired by elements of the protest movement against the government’s judicial reform initiative.
(Sources: worldisraelnews.com & timesofisrael.com) – (Additional reporting by: Fern Sidman)