Israel is battling months of vehement protests. What Motivates Them?

Many Israeli flags, constant drumbeats, and shouts of “Democracy!” can be seen. Police riding horses, use of water cannons, and dragging of demonstrators off the ground. Tens of thousands of Israelis have participated in the longest-running and most intense public protests the nation has ever witnessed for seven months in a row. The demonstrators are a part of a grassroots movement that developed in response to a divisive judicial reform initiative led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right supporters.

The revamp asks for significant adjustments to limit the judiciary’s authority, including as restricting the Supreme Court’s capacity to review legislative decisions and altering the selection process for justices. While the administration claims the reform is necessary to lessen the authority of unelected judges, demonstrators, who represent a significant portion of Israeli society, claim the reform would lead to authoritarianism in Israel.

Protesters have vowed further “days of disruption” and are encouraging strikes and other forms of general discontent as a crucial part of the revamp seems close to receiving a final vote early next week.

After many months of the government’s efforts, here is an explanation of why they are still protesting:

WHAT WILL BE REVISED?

Netanyahu’s supporters in the ultranationalist and ultraorthodox religious movements claim that the package aims to give elected officials their authority back. Critics claim that Netanyahu, who is now facing corruption allegations, and his allies are attempting to consolidate their position in order to expand Israel’s authority over the occupied West Bank and maintain the contentious draft exemptions for ultra-Orthodox males. Netanyahu is also facing corruption charges.

A law that would enable a simple majority in parliament to reverse Supreme Court judgments is one of the ideas. Another would entrust the choice of judges to the lawmakers.

A crucial piece of legislation that would stop the Supreme Court from overturning government decisions because they are “unreasonable” is set to be put to a vote in parliament on Monday.

The existing “reasonability” criterion, according to supporters, gives courts enormous control over the choices made by elected authorities. However, depriving the government of the criteria, which is only used seldom, would, in the opinion of opponents, enable it to make arbitrary judgments, hire or fire people in the wrong positions, and invite corruption.

Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank, says that according to protesters, Netanyahu and his supporters want to modify the legislation so they may nominate friends to government positions and, specifically, so they can remove the nation’s independent attorney general. Gali Baharav-Miara, the attorney general, is seen by supporters as a stronghold against the reform.

According to Yohanan Plesner, the institute’s president, the policies “make it more difficult to conduct oversight” over the arbitrary choices made by elected authorities. “This is one chapter of a larger government plan and program to weaken the checks and balances,” the government said.

In a speech on Thursday, Netanyahu called into question claims that the proposal will undermine Israel’s democratic principles. He said, “This is an effort to deceive you with something that has no foundation in reality.

WHY DO PROTESTS CONTINUE?

Almost immediately after taking office in December, Netanyahu’s administration disclosed its ambitions to undermine Israel’s Supreme Court.

The idea was met with protests in major cities, opposition from business leaders, and—perhaps most significantly—threats from military reservists in Israel’s air force and other important units to cease reporting for duty if it was implemented.

In response to the demonstrations, Netanyahu halted the reform in March and began negotiations with members from the opposition. After last month’s discussions came to an end, Netanyahu said in June that the reform will proceed.

By pushing ahead more slowly and cautiously in an effort to calm the protestors and lessen their resistance, the protesters charge that Netanyahu has changed his methods but not his overarching intentions.

Josh Drill, a representative for the protest movement, said that “the government got smarter.” They chose to do the makeover piece by piece after realizing the consequences of attempting to force it through.

As the coalition’s attempts to get the change into law have advanced, protests have become more intense.

Before the vote on Monday, hundreds of Israelis marched roughly 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On Tuesday, demonstrators shut down the city’s major highway and halted train terminals.

WHY DO PROTESTERS HAVE SUCH A STRONG DETERMINATION TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY?

In Israel, the court has a significant impact on limiting executive authority due to the country’s largely ineffective checks and balances system.

For instance, the U.S. Congress has two chambers that function separately from the president and have the ability to restrain his authority. But in Israel, the government is co-ordinated by the prime minister and the majority coalition.

This leaves the court as “the only check on governmental power,” according to constitutional law expert Amichai Cohen.

Additionally, Israel has weak municipal government and no official constitution. According to Cohen, this indicates that parliament has the lion’s share of the authority. The “basic laws” may be altered at any moment by a simple majority. Experts refer to these fundamental laws as a type of informal constitution.

Cohen said that the reforms pose a danger to the Israeli parliament’s ability to further cement its authority through undermining the court.

Because it has power over the capacity to alter even fundamental laws, Cohen said that the government is free to do anything it pleases.

According to Cohen, the Israeli court has a long history of defending the rights of minorities, including African asylum seekers and Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent.

Critics assert that by weakening the judiciary, Israel’s government, which is led by a male-dominated coalition and has supported the full annexation of the occupied West Bank, discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and Palestinian citizens of Israel, and restrictions on women’s rights, will gain almost total control.

“It will be a hollow democracy,” Fuchs said.

WHAT ARRIVES SECOND?

Israeli media claimed over the weekend that the country’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, was attempting to postpone the vote on Monday because he was concerned about the rise in military service refusals. Nobody knew whether others would follow him.

The “reasonability” measure would be the first significant piece of legislation to become law if it were to pass.

Fuchs anticipated that the Supreme Court would hear an appeal of the statute. Netanyahu’s coalition will have to determine whether to accept the decision if the court invalidates it. That can lead to a “constitutional crisis.”

The seven-month-old demonstrations that have shook the nation will probably intensify in the meantime.