The ongoing political unrest and stalemate in Israel, which is entering into the 14th week, may drastically change the whole complexion of the political fabric there in the coming days. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owing to his own dictatorial tendencies, is deliberately avoiding any kind of negotiated solution to this matter. He is deliberately avoiding any kind of negotiated solution to this matter but he has created this mess and only he can stop it.

As a populist with palpable dictatorial penchants for absolute power, Netanyahu is using all the tricks in the syllabus – and out of the syllabus – to crush the resistance against his blatant attempt to bridle the independence of the judiciary.

Israelis have been continuously protesting, including outside the country’s parliament against legislative steps toward enacting judicial changes proposed by the hard-right coalition government of Netanyahu.

Currently, he is under increasing pressure to halt his government's efforts to restructure the Israeli court system, as the plan sparked a national backlash that threatened to cause chaos in the country. The opposition to the plan was so strong that universities, workers' unions, and hospitals announced a general strike, while flights at the international airport were suspended. Local council leaders also gathered outside the prime minister's residence and began a hunger strike to protest the plan.

Many individuals and groups, including Herzog, Netanyahu's own longtime lawyer and Israel’s largest union federation, called for Netanyahu to step down. Local media reported he would make a public statement on Monday morning, but the announcement was postponed amid reports that Netanyahu was ready to bow to the pressure. However, hard-liners in Netanyahu’s coalition, which includes ultra-Orthodox and ultranationalist settler parties, have continued to push the legislation even as opposition has swelled. On Monday, a parliamentary committee passed a key element of the plan, a bill that would give the coalition greater control over the selection of judges. In addition, a right-wing ally of Netanyahu's, Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, cautioned him not to "give in to anarchy" through a tweet.

This turmoil came after Netanyahu fired his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Sunday, who had become the first member of his cabinet to break with the coalition and call for a stop to the judicial legislation. The late-night dismissal further intensified the already mounting opposition to the plan.

Gallant’s fault was that he advocated for a pause in the judiciary reforms on Saturday while Netanyahu was away on an official trip to the United Kingdom. Apparently, Gallant was raising his voice after several military reservists had vowed to withdraw from their service in protest of the controversial judicial reforms. Gallant warned that moving forward with the plans could pose a security risk for Israel because of the spread of protest in the Israel armed forces. Following his ouster and the subsequent large-scale demonstrations, pressure is mounting on Netanyahu from inside his ruling alliance to revisit the plan for reforms to control the situation. The departure of Gallant, which also reflects the intensity of the stalemate in Israel, may drastically change the whole complexion of the political fabric there in the coming days.

Despite many efforts by President Isaac Herzog for a compromise plan, Netanyahu was not ready to budge. Last week, he again bitterly snubbed Herzog’s proposal for a freeze in the legislation and dialogue with the opposition, compelling President Isaac to issue a very alarming statement: "The last few weeks have been tearing us apart. Israel is in the throes of a profound crisis. Anyone who thinks that a real civil war, of human life, is a line that we will not reach has no idea. The abyss is within touching distance."

These are very serious remarks that reflect the gravity of the situation in Israel. In fact, when Netanyahu’s government introduced the controversial amendment to overhaul the country’s legal system, they probably were not expecting that much intensity of resistance from the opposition.

Judiciary reform

The Israeli government is advocating for alterations that would curtail the Supreme Court's ability to make rulings that contradict the legislative and executive branches. Specifically, the government aims to grant the Israeli parliament, known as the Knesset, the authority to nullify Supreme Court verdicts with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat Knesset. Another section of the proposed legislation would strip the Supreme Court of its power to examine the legality of Israel's Basic Laws, which serve as the nation's de facto constitution. Protestors are apprehensive that these legal amendments could weaken the system of checks and balances in the Israeli government. At the same time, the proposed reforms would also alter the process for choosing Supreme Court justices, granting politicians inordinate influence in the process of appointment of judges. At present, an independent panel responsible for selecting judges mandates that politicians and judges serving on it must reach a consensus on appointments.

However, the proposed changes would modify this procedure, giving the government excessively greater control. Even a cursory glance would reveal that the proposed reform will seriously erode the authority of the Supreme Court, thereby granting the Netanyahu-led Knesset the ability to exert substantial influence over judicial appointments. The opposition is concerned that Netanyahu intends to exploit these legal changes to halt or invalidate his trial, while he has been denying this assumption. There is no doubt that the proposal could move Israel toward a political system similar to Hungary and Poland, where the leader holds sway over all critical sources of power. As further collateral damage, according to the opposition, Netanyahu's nationalist associates aim to undermine the Supreme Court as part of their efforts to expand Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, which is sought for a future Palestinian state. Despite being deemed illegal under international law, settlements have persisted under various Israeli administrations.

Meanwhile, new discriminatory laws have been enacted that simplify the revocation of citizenship and residency of Palestinians in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem by the authorities. The majority of legal experts contend that the proposed reforms would undermine the autonomy of the judiciary. Meanwhile, critics from the opposition camp have characterized the suggestions as an endeavor by the premier and his coalition to orchestrate a "coup" against the judiciary.

Mounting pressure

However, Netanyahu and his adherents contend that the modifications are necessary to curb a judiciary that possesses excessive influence. Netanyahu is maintaining a defiant stance, asserting that his proposals are aimed at aligning Israel's democracy with the standards prevalent in most Western democracies. Advocates of these proposals argue that they are necessary to offset what they see as a left-leaning partiality in the court's rulings. However, detractors contend that dismantling the court, in a country lacking a written constitution or a second legislative chamber, constitutes a "right-wing takeover."

Following the announcement of reforms by Netanyahu's administration in January, which occurred a few days after assuming office, Israel has witnessed unabating large-scale demonstrations. President Herzog has been trying to knit a compromise formula to put an end to the political crisis and his proposal has been backed by the majority of the opposition leaders, but Netanyahu appears to be in no mood to listen to it. Immediately after the release of Herzog's recent formula, Netanyahu labeled it a "unilateral compromise," the "key points" of which "only perpetuate the existing situation and do not bring the required balance between the powers."

Netanyahu failed to anticipate the scale of the opposition, which transcends customary political opposition and runs deeper and broader. Disregarding such opposition and pushing forward as though it never existed is untenable in any democratic society. His attempt to subvert the judiciary is not likely to succeed when half of the country tacitly supports it while the other half is consumed by agitation. The situation has shifted, and the thrust of the judicial takeover has waned; the opposition has become the focal point. Therefore, ignoring this situation is not an option for Netanyahu anymore. In his recent visit to Germany, Netanyahu had to taste this bitter pill of international pressure when Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged him to consider a compromise. U.S. President Joe Biden has also advised him to "build consensus for fundamental changes."

So the pressure is also mounting on him from all sides. Even if all the proposed legislation is passed – and it very well could be – Netanyahu and the right will have to forfeit their credibility domestically and internationally. This would lead to a muddier mess that he and his alliance partners would prefer to avoid.