The war did not influence its decision. On Monday, January 1, the Israeli Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the controversial judicial reform promoted by Benjamin Netanyahu's government, which was designed to strip the judiciary of the right to rule on the "reasonableness" of decisions by the Israeli executive branch or parliament. The architect of this reform and number two in the government, Justice Minister Yariv Levin accused the Court on Telegram of "taking all the powers into their hands." "The judges are actually taking into their hands all the powers, which in a democratic regime are supposed to be divided in a balanced way between the three powers [executive, legislative and judicial]," he castigated, not without criticizing the publication of the ruling as "the opposite of the spirit of unity required these days for the success of our fighters at the front."

Rejected by eight of the 15 judges, the invalidated measure had triggered one of the largest protest movements in Israel's history, since eclipsed by the war waged by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for the bloody attack launched by Hamas on Israeli territory on October 7. The Supreme Court's decision rekindles the flames of an issue that had deeply divided Israeli society, culminating in the most massive protest in the history of the country of 9 million.

Every week for seven months, from January through to the summer, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, in unison, backed by a majority of public opinion according to polls. The strength of the movement did not, however, make Netanyahu back down. After pretending to negotiate, the prime minister eventually backed the reform, which was passed in a first instance in July 2023.

The reform consisted mainly of a simple majority amendment to the Basic Law – a body of rules that serves as Israel's constitution – withdrawing the Supreme Court's power to annul a government decision on grounds deemed "unreasonable." This power was used to prevent appointments in the executive or to invalidate administrative decisions, for ethical reasons or against risks of corruption or conflict of interest. In February 2023, for example, it was used to dismiss Arie Dery, leader of the Shass party, a powerful ally in Netanyahu's coalition, from a ministerial post, even though he had pledged not to apply for a ministerial role.

There would then be no counterweight to control the decisions of a majority government. In a country without a second parliamentary chamber, judges thus fill the institutional void. "Critics saw the law as a free pass for corruption and nepotism, setting the stage for a politicized takeover of the public service, and a completely unbound executive branch," wrote political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Monday evening.

You have 65% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.