Can we break the "tight curse" of Israel's judicial crisis and hold a "marathon style" hearing on justice | Israel's Supreme Court | Israel

Unprecedented "marathon style" hearing

On September 12th local time, the Israeli Supreme Court held a hearing.

On the 12th local time, the Israeli Supreme Court held a hearing attended by 15 Supreme Court judges, which was the first time in the country's history that a large number of judges participated. And this hearing lasted from morning to late at night local time, with dozens of representative lawyers from non-governmental organizations, the Israeli government, and Israeli Supreme Court judges taking turns to present and debate, making the entire hearing nearly 14 hours long before it ended, which was also extremely rare after the founding of Israel. So what is causing Israel's various parties to argue endlessly in the highest court of justice in the country?

Main topic: Is the "Rationality Principle" bill reasonable?

In July of this year, members of the Israeli ruling coalition celebrated the passage of the "Principle of Reasonableness" bill in parliament.

The core content of this hearing is the so-called "principle of reasonableness" bill passed by the Israeli parliament earlier. This bill is part of the judicial reform promoted by the current ruling coalition, aimed at prohibiting the Israeli Supreme Court and other judicial departments from reviewing administrative decisions made by government elected officials, including the Israeli Prime Minister and ministers, based on the principle of "reasonableness". Supporters believe that the bill can limit the abuse of power by the judicial system and hinder the implementation of government policies; But opponents believe that this will weaken the independence of the judicial system and the supervision of government actions, and give the government and parliament more legislative power over the judiciary.

In July of this year, Israeli citizens gathered near the Israeli Prime Minister's office to protest against judicial reform.

However, relying on the absolute majority of seats in the ruling coalition in the Israeli parliament, the bill was passed on July 24th of this year. This has sparked strong dissatisfaction from opposition parties in parliament and a large number of Israeli citizens who oppose judicial reform, leading to the continuation and expansion of large-scale demonstrations in the country since January this year. Dozens of non-governmental organizations, including the Israeli legal, technological, civil rights, and veterans organizations, have submitted petitions to the Supreme Court demanding the repeal of the bill. In the end, the Supreme Court of Israel accepted 8 of the petitions and held this hearing on the 12th, where representatives of the petition organization and the Israeli government argued on this matter. It is worth noting that the Attorney General of Israel, Baharraf, who was supposed to represent the Israeli government in judicial cases, also refused to support the current government's position and publicly called on the Supreme Court to overturn the "principle of reasonableness" bill.

Core of the bill: Who has the highest judicial power in Israel?

As the hearing progressed, the focus of the debate quickly shifted to a core issue of the bill: Does the Supreme Court have the power to repeal laws passed by parliament?

During the hearing, Simcha Rosman, Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Judicial Committee of the Israeli Parliament, stated that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn laws passed by the parliament.

Opening the history of Israel's founding, one can find that the country's political landscape has been chaotic for a long time since its founding, with numerous political parties and difficult to unify opinions. Coupled with the constantly conflicting external environment, Israel has never formed a formal written constitution, only a series of basic laws involving government arrangements. Given that the "principle of reasonableness" bill has been passed by parliament and become part of the Basic Law, there has never been a precedent in history for the Supreme Court to veto the Basic Law. So there was a heated debate between the Israeli government's representative lawyers and Supreme Court judges over whether the Supreme Court had the power to overturn the bill.

In May 1948, the first Israeli Prime Minister, Ben Gurion, read out the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Previously, the ruling coalition, which holds the absolute majority of seats in the current Israeli parliament, insisted that the Supreme Court should uphold the authority of the laws passed. Several senior officials warned the Supreme Court that it has no authority to repeal the Basic Law, otherwise it will undermine the Israeli parliament and democratic system, which is an insurmountable red line for them. Several Israeli judges countered at the hearing on the same day, stating that the failure to overturn the Basic Law in history does not mean that the Supreme Court lacks corresponding power, especially given that Israel's Declaration of Independence states that it is a "Jewish democratic country", and in the current era of intense political conflicts, the country's judicial mechanism should be comprehensively considered from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Judicial reform has become a "tight curse" on Israeli society

Israeli President Herzog presided over political consultation meetings of various political parties.

In January of this year, the newly established Netanyahu government announced plans to reform the judicial system, but it caused a large-scale wave of opposition nationwide. Although under the leadership of Israeli President Herzog, the Netanyahu government and opposition parties held multiple consultations on the content of judicial reform, it was difficult to reach a broad consensus due to significant differences in opinions between the two sides.

In January 2023, extreme Orthodox Jews in Israel protested against the sale of smartphones in religious communities in Jerusalem and clashed with police.

Local media believe that the issue of judicial reform is not only related to Israel's so-called democracy and justice, but also has ignited huge conflicts between different ethnic groups that already exist in Israel.

In September 2023, extreme Orthodox Jews in Israel gathered in Jerusalem and refused to serve in the military.

According to local media analysis, from the perspective of those who support and oppose judicial reform, it is driven by the current ruling coalition composed of the Likud group, multiple religions, and far right political parties. In addition to the traditional right-wing camp, its supporters mainly include Israeli extreme orthodox Jews, religious nationalists, and Jewish settlers in the West Bank of the Jordan River in Palestine. Their political stance is relatively conservative, religious, and their attitude towards Palestine is tough; The political forces opposing judicial reform come from the center right and center left, as well as the country's middle class, which generally includes high-tech and industry professionals, lawyers, teachers, business people, as well as university students and active and retired soldiers of the Israeli Defense Force. There are significant differences between the two sides in terms of ideology, lifestyle, and social organization methods. The Israeli Supreme Court, due to repeatedly failing to support the positions of some right-wing and religious figures on issues such as Jewish settlement construction and religion, has also been classified as a supporter of Israel's left wing and Palestinians.

Since January this year, people opposing judicial reform have held large-scale rallies every Saturday in Tel Aviv.

Specifically, in terms of the Judicial Reform Act, this series of bills includes a simple majority in parliament to overturn Supreme Court rulings, changes to the national committee selection mechanism for electing judges, and changes in the appointment of legal advisors to government departments from the judiciary to individual officials. The "reasonableness principle" bill targeted by this hearing is only one of them. Opponents argue that this almost gives parliament an overwhelming advantage over the judicial system, causing the government composed of the majority party in parliament to lose its oversight, especially since the current government is considered the right-wing government in Israeli history. Supporters argue that the government is elected by the Israeli parliament, and opposing judicial reform is a betrayal of Israel's elected system and a hindrance to the government's policy implementation.

In July of this year, Israeli reserve soldiers signed a statement refusing to participate in training and protesting against judicial reform.

The confrontation between the two sides has seriously exacerbated the division of Israeli society and has had a great impact on social life and economic development. In addition to the regular large-scale protests every week, some members of the business, technology, education, and medical sectors have held strikes and strikes, and even hundreds of active and reserve soldiers of the Israeli Defense Force have refused to participate in training, directly affecting Israel's strategic security.

Judicial reform has become a "tightening curse" in Israeli society, and it is becoming more and more pronounced.

Unprecedented hearings difficult to solve unprecedented difficulties in corporate reform

After this hearing, the Israeli Supreme Court will not make a judgment in the short term, but the final result needs to be announced before January 16 next year. Possible outcomes include rejecting petitions opposing the bill, sending the bill back to parliament for amendment, or directly announcing its repeal. However, both of the latter two approaches face significant challenges from the current ruling coalition. If the current ruling coalition refuses to accept the verdict of the Supreme Court, Israel's judicial crisis may continue in the absence of a constitution and corresponding mechanisms to resolve conflicts between the parties, and the country's political situation and socio-economic life may continue to experience oscillations.