In a long, heartfelt post on Facebook on the eve of Tisha Be’av on Wednesday, President Isaac Herzog repeatedly used the words “love,” “pain,” “heart,” “home,” and “bridge” to express his feelings after the first judicial reform bill passed into law on Monday. What was missing from the post, however, were the words “renewed talks at the President’s Residence.”
This was not a coincidence. Instead of calling for the coalition and opposition to return to dialogue at the President’s Residence, this time Herzog lobbed the ball back into the politicians’ court. And, in addition to his usual conciliatory tone, this time there were also hints of bitterness.
“In all honesty, over the past few days, I too have woken up with a deep feeling of frustration and a heavy sense of crisis. My emotions are also in turmoil. I am also hurting and I am also angry,” he wrote.
Herzog added that “as one who thought that an agreement was possible and worked with all his might around the clock to help, to bridge, to compromise, to lend a hand, and to place ladders to help everyone come down from the tree – I am very disappointed.”
“I begged for there to be listening, for reaching out, and for responsibility,” Herzog wrote.
“I spoke about two camps in Israel standing opposite each other, about the potential for violence, about the polarization that will tear us apart, about the social, economic, and security damage, and about our enemies from far and near, who rub their hands with glee and hatch plots against us,” he added.
After repeating his commitment to building bridges and breaking down barriers, Herzog, mildly but firmly, laid the blame at the feet of the government.
“As I have emphasized before, greater – even if not sole – responsibility to find solutions that will benefit the state and society as a whole, will always be with those who have the power and the reins of government in their hands,” he wrote. “This is how democracy works. I expect to see very soon, the words of reassurance turning into actions and the messages of reaching out reflected in a tangible and binding work plan. We must all understand the challenge and the fateful consequences,” he wrote.
The coalition took notice of the accusation. Coalition whip MK Ofir Katz (Likud) called the letter “deplorable.”
“Instead of sending a message of reconciliation and joining the coalition’s call to return to talks, he [the president] points an accusing finding at the coalition – while ignoring the fact that the heads of the opposition are the ones who acted irresponsibly when they blew up the talks due to the pressure of the protests – and cancels the significant efforts and the far-reaching compromises that the coalition made. Sad,” Katz said in a statement.
Whether or not one supports the judicial reforms, the exchange raises a difficult question. If the country’s elected ministers and coalition leaders do not appear to be conducting some form of introspection – who will stop the ongoing deterioration of Israel’s social cohesiveness in the months to come?
Not everyone in the coalition is as enthusiastic about judicial reform
Contrary to Katz, some elements in the government and coalition have begun to rethink the situation, first and foremost the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties.
Both Yated Ne’eman, the newspaper affiliated with the Lithuanian Degel Hatorah faction, and Haderech, the newspaper affiliated with Shas, published long front-page editorials this week, in which they distanced themselves from the judicial reforms.
According to the Yated Ne’eman editorial, haredi support for the reform was a necessary constraint for it to receive its own end of the bargain in the form of funding for education, yeshivot, transportation, construction, and more. But the haredi public does not have an inherent interest in the reforms. On the contrary, much of haredi society operates within a rabbinical judicial system and views the Israeli Supreme Court as a foreign and irrelevant entity, the editorial claimed.
Both editorials also warned of the danger of public anger being directed at the haredi public, or at politicians who aim during the Knesset’s winter session to pass what may end up being a highly controversial IDF conscription bill, that would broaden the haredi exemption from IDF service.
The haredi parties, however, are outspokenly sectorial. They represent specific parts of the population, and work, first and foremost, on behalf of that population. Their introspection is based on perceived threats against their ability to achieve their sectoral goals – which are to pass the conscription bill and avoid having thousands of yeshiva students enter the IDF.
ALONG WITH the haredi parties, some members of the Likud have also indicated that a change is necessary. MK David Bitan said during a Tisha Be’av event on Thursday that “we will no longer allow one person [Justice Minister Yariv Levin] to decide. During the next steps, we will become involved.” A number of other MKs that belong to the Likud’s more moderate wing expressed the hope that from here on out the reform will proceed via consensus only.
But, for the most part, most of Israel’s senior ministers have indicated that the reform will continue to progress – with the opposition’s consent, or without it.
“We scored a goal against an empty net,” a source in the Likud said. “If the opposition comes back onto the playing field, we can compete. If it remains off the field, we will score another goal in the next term,” the source said.
Now that the Knesset recess is upon us, both sides have left the playing field for the half-time break. Will there be any conversation between the sides in the locker rooms?
Throughout the month of August, the answer is very unlikely. The teams need to catch their breath and drink some water. The notoriously dead month of August in Israel will enable the sides to regroup. Come September, the sides will begin to stretch and mill around a little in order to loosen up. Some players may even head to the hallway and hold short conversations with members of the other team.
Three factors, however, could very quickly break off any probing across the aisle.
The first factor is the start of the municipal election campaigns ahead of the October 31 election. Most of the political parties from both the coalition and opposition are putting considerable effort into electing their representatives in some of Israel’s bigger cities. This will take time and energy, and perhaps draw attention away from the possibility of relaunching talks on judicial reform.
Second, there are a number of highly charged Supreme Court hearings scheduled for September. On September 7, the court will hear an appeal by Yesh Atid to force Justice Minister Yariv Levin to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, a matter at the heart of the judicial reform.
Five days later, on September 12, the court will hear a highly charged appeal against Netanyahu for violating his legally-binding conflict-of-interest agreement by involving himself in judicial reforms.
Also in September, the Supreme Court will hear two appeals against two amendments to Basic Laws – the Law to Cancel the Reasonableness Standard and the Incapacitation Law. The court’s move to hear cases against these amendments despite their semi-constitutional status is in itself controversial, not to mention the bills themselves.
Any one of these cases could lead to an uptick in the intensity of protests and even to a constitutional crisis, the likes of which Israel had never experienced and the end of which no one knows.
The third possible September clash could follow the publication of a draft of the new IDF conscription bill for public evaluation. Bills proposed by the government must be open to public review for 45 days, and if the haredi parties wish to begin pushing it through the Knesset soon after the winter term begins, it is likely to be published in early September – and there will likely be pushback.
Come October, the teams will head out to the entrance tunnel and line up in anticipation of the call to return to the pitch. Both will be re-energized and ready to go. Perhaps, as the two teams line up and begin to stroll out onto the field, a number of conversations could lead to the creation of a back-channel for negotiations over the continuation of the judicial reforms.
Netanyahu said this week that he was willing to commit to refrain from passing one-sided judicial reform legislation until the end of November. Perhaps he will be convinced to extend this to the end of 2023. But now that the first bill has passed without consensus, Lapid and Gantz need assurances that the coalition will not push through additional reform bills as soon as 2023 becomes 2024, since this would be akin to negotiating with a threat hanging over their heads.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, cannot commit himself to freezing reform legislation for an extended period of time, mostly due to threats by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to topple the government. There will likely be civilian initiatives throughout the long Knesset recess to try to arrive at some form of compromise. But, as Herzog pointed out, in the end it will all come down to the government, and the person at its head.
Netanyahu must decide whether to end the game while he is ahead, and proceed by consensus only, or return to the field for a second half that will likely be fiercer and uglier than the first.•