An Israeli Republic, If We Can Keep It
Israel must not squander its opportunity for much needed renewal, but first the people need to weigh in and choose a consensual mechanism of constitutional reform
Ben Gurion signing the Declaration of Independence. GPO
If there was one lesson to be learned from the tumultuous prelude to October 7th, it was that the politics of division lead to catastrophe. As Yahya Sinwar’s barbaric attack exposed, given Israel’s tiny margin of error, national solidarity is not just “nice to have” — it is a national security imperative. Indeed, the extraordinary mobilization of Israelis of all stripes in response to the October 7th massacres and the multi-front war that ensued underscored the power of a united people. But now, as the IDF pummels the remains of the Iranian axis across the region, our leadership is bringing back the politics of division, with worrying implications for the freedom, prosperity, and security of the Israeli people. As unfathomable as it may be, given all the damage Israel has incurred since it was announced in January 2023, the judicial overhaul is back.
Israel, along with the United States and most other democracies, is caught up in a global upheaval that is transforming institutions and uprooting social contracts. It is impossible to predict the new paradigm that will emerge from this maelstrom. One hopes that the new order remains committed to the core values of liberal democracy, creating new structures to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In any event, it will be up to the people to determine the character of their regime. Unfortunately, Israelis are not being given that choice.
In 2023, following a close election that was decided by a mere 30,000 votes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government revealed a radical plan to overhaul Israel’s judiciary. In essence, the plan sought to remove the one institutional check on a political majority in the Israeli system and concentrate all power in the executive branch. This was, in other words, a recipe for regime change. But the people were not consulted about this plan in advance, and they rejected it.
In what became the largest protest movement in our history, hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets for months on end. The protests succeed in slowing down the execution of the government’s unpopular plan. Then came the horrific massacres of October 7, 2023. Israelis set aside their differences and went off to war. A unity government was formed, and the overhaul was put in the deep freeze.
But now, after enormous sacrifices on and off the battlefield by millions of Israelis, left, right, and center, the overhaul is back. Under a new guise. This time, Justice Minister Levin and his allies are not, for the most part, advancing constitutional-level changes to Israel’s Basic Laws, as they did in 2023. Instead, the coalition is seeking to inflict “death by a thousand cuts” to Israel’s governing institutions in myriad ways that share a common goal: to centralize all power in the executive branch.
Incredibly, in the midst of a dangerous multi-front war, the justice minister has continued his assault on Israel’s judiciary. For over a year, Levin refused to convene the Judicial Selection Committee to select new justices to replace those who retired, and to select a new president for the Court, as long as his proposals for altering the composition of the committee were not accepted. Even after announcing a new “compromise” proposal with fellow minister Gideon Saar in January, Levin refused to convene the committee, knowing that there was a majority for the election of Justice Isaac Amit, whom he opposes. Worse, even following a Supreme Court ruling that the process could no longer be delayed, when the committee finally met and elected Amit, Levin announced that he would not recognize the authority of the new court president and has no intention of working with him.
In effect, our executive branch is boycotting our judicial branch. One immediate consequence is that hundreds of judicial appointments will be held up, virtually paralyzing the courts. All because Minister Levin failed to convince members of the committee to support his choice for president.
Meanwhile, other members of the coalition are busy advancing legislation and executive action on such “urgent” national priorities as making it harder for Arab parties and candidates to contend in the next elections, dismantling the public broadcasting authority, gaining control over the bar association, and controlling the television rating mechanism and its attendant ad revenue streams.
The government is likewise seeking to rid itself of “gatekeepers” who refuse to toe the party line and those who offer a check on executive power. The prime minister sacked defense minister Yoav Gallant due to the latter’s principled insistence on the formation of a national commission of inquiry into the mistakes that led to October 7th, as well as his refusal to sign off on a deeply unpopular bill exempting ultra-Orthodox men from military service. Chief of Staff Herzi Halevy was pressured to resign – a move entirely justified given the IDF’s failures leading up to the October 7th attack – while the government, which serves as the “commander in chief” in the Israeli system, strenuously avoids taking any responsibility for the catastrophe and will now appoint Halevy’s successor. In the meantime, cabinet ministers issue daily threats to fire the attorney general and head of the Shin Bet — or put them on trial for treason — due to their perceived political disloyalty.
Whatever one’s thoughts about Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, this is not what Israelis voted for in November 2022, and it is certainly not what they have been fighting for over the last year and four months.
Israel is now at a historic inflection point, reminiscent of 1967, when victory in the Six Day War reshaped Israel and the region for generations to come. The battlefield achievements of the last few months open up a historic opportunity not only for regional realignment, but for much needed internal healing, renewal, and reform. It would be the height of folly to squander the opportunity.
The tenacious commitment of Israelis since 1948 to liberal democracy – under trying conditions of constant existential threat and profound internal fragmentation – is a major factor in the country’s phenomenal success story. Well-considered, incremental reform of government is always a good idea. But wholesale abandonment of the fundamental commitment to small “L” liberalism could have catastrophic implications, especially for a country as dependent on the mobilization of its people for its very survival as Israel is.
It is not farfetched to imagine how the continued march down the populist path could jeopardize Israel’s very existence. An “illiberal democracy” of the sort crafted by the likes of Erdogan in Turkey or Orban in Hungary – in which elections are held regularly but not fairly, where civil servants serve the regime instead of the people, where the media and academia are not free, and where the courts are beholden to the government above the law – could put Israel on an unsustainable trajectory. The hollowing out of institutions could lead to elite migration, capital flight, and a weakened economy. The transformation of the startup nation into a “shtetl economy” would enfeeble the IDF, leaving it incapable of defending the country against a host of determined enemies, who can be counted upon to regroup and regenerate over time.
Unlike all other peoples in the region, Israelis are still free to determine their own future, including the character of their democracy. The profound national trauma of October 7th must serve as an impetus for national reconciliation. But there should be no regime-altering changes before the Israeli people have had a chance to consider the options before them, weigh in on them in a free and fair election, and adopt a consensual mechanism for constitutional reform.
Shortly after the US Constitution was drafted in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the deliberations had produced a republic or a monarchy. His famous response: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
We too have our republic. If we can keep it.
This column was published in the Times of Israel.