Utolsó frissítés: 2026.05.27. — Szerző: Anti-Propaganda News Blog
The judicial reform package proposed in early 2023 by the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu triggered one of the most serious domestic political and social crises in modern Israeli history.
The judicial reform package consisted of several interrelated bills and amendments that would have fundamentally reshaped the balance of power between the executive branch (the government/parliamentary majority) and the judiciary (Supreme Court). The most important elements of the reform and an analysis of them can be summarized as follows:
### 1. Abolition of the „Reasonableness Standard”
* **The essence of the proposal:** It would strip the Supreme Court of its authority to deem decisions or appointments made by the government, ministers, or other elected officials „extremely unreasonable” and thereby overturn them.
* **The government’s argument:** The court used this authority subjectively to intervene in political or policy matters, overruling the legitimate decisions of the government elected by the people. (As an example, they cited the instance when the court blocked the appointment of coalition partner Aryeh Deri as interior minister due to his past tax evasion cases.).
* **The position of critics and protesters:** This clause was one of the most important checks and balances that prevented arbitrary government decisions, corruption, and appointments based on cronyism. With its repeal, the government will become unchecked.
### 2. Changes to the procedure for appointing judges
* **The essence of the proposal:** It would change the composition of the 9-member committee responsible for selecting judges so that the ruling coalition would hold an absolute majority, either directly or indirectly.
* **The government’s argument:** Under the previous system, sitting judges and the Bar Association had the right to veto the selection of new members. According to the right wing, this resulted in a self-perpetuating, left-wing/liberal, and elitist judiciary that does not reflect the increasingly conservative composition of Israeli society.
* **The position of critics and protesters:** If the government selects judges itself, it will undermine the independence of the courts. Judges would thus become beholden to the political powers that be, which would spell the end of the rule of law.
### 3. Limitations on Judicial Review and the „Override Clause”
* **The essence of the proposal:** On the one hand, it would tighten the conditions for striking down laws (a law could be declared unconstitutional only by consensus or an overwhelming majority of the full bench). On the other hand, it would introduce a provision allowing the Knesset (parliament) to override a Supreme Court decision by a simple majority (61 out of 120 members) and reinstate a law that has been found unconstitutional.
* **The government's argument:** Parliament is the supreme body of popular sovereignty; unelected judges should not be allowed to obstruct the legislative process.
* **The position of critics and protesters:** Israel has no written constitution (only Basic Laws), no bicameral parliament, and no federal system. The only check on the government’s absolute power is the Supreme Court. If a parliamentary majority can override the court by a simple vote, this leads to a „dictatorship of the temporary majority,” where the rights of minorities (Arabs, secular citizens, the LGBTQ+ community, etc.) receive no protection whatsoever.
### 4. Changing the Status of Government Legal Advisors
* **The essence of the proposal:** In the future, the opinions of the legal advisors to the ministries should not be binding on the ministers, and the ministers should be able to appoint and dismiss these advisors on political grounds.
* **The government's argument:** Legal advisors are currently blocking the work of ministers and the implementation of the government's program, as if they were the real decision-makers.
* **The position of critics and protesters:** Independent legal advisors ensure that the ministries operate within the legal framework. Making them political appointees paves the way for systemic violations of the law.
### Why did this provoke such strong resistance? (Summary)
The Tel Aviv protests, which escalated into violence, were extremely intense precisely because a significant portion of Israeli society (the high-tech sector, the economic elite, the academic community, and—most critically— the army’s elite reservists and pilots) felt that the reform package represented a **one-step regime change**. They saw it as a complete dismantling of the checks and balances of liberal democracy, with Israel moving toward illiberal, authoritarian forms of government.
The government, on the other hand, argued that it had been authorized by the voters, and that the reform was precisely aimed at restoring democracy (restoring the power of the Knesset, elected by the people, in the face of a „judicial dictatorship”).
**The Aftermath of the Process:**
Following the peak of tensions in March described in the article (when Netanyahu dismissed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who had criticized the reform, and was then forced to temporarily postpone the package due to a general strike), the government finally voted in July 2023 to approve one provision—the repeal of the reasonableness clause. However, the Israeli Supreme Court ultimately handed down a historic ruling: its full bench (comprising all 15 justices) struck down the government’s law, declaring that it violated the fundamental values of Israel as a democratic state.
