The visit of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week has the potential to go down in history as a watershed moment in Israeli-American ties.
This is not because some breakthrough was reached during the trip on Iran, the Palestinians, or any other hot issue, but rather because of a few lines that Blinken said publicly about the coalition’s continued efforts to legislate a series of judicial reforms.
“The commitment of people in both our countries to make their voices heard, to defend their rights, is one of the unique strengths of our democracies. Another is a recognition that building consensus for new proposals is the most effective way to ensure they’re embraced and that they endure.”
Antony Blinken
“The commitment of people in both our countries to make their voices heard, to defend their rights, is one of the unique strengths of our democracies,” Blinken said during joint remarks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “Another is a recognition that building consensus for new proposals is the most effective way to ensure they’re embraced and that they endure.”
It was short and to the point, which he later underscored during a meeting with President Isaac Herzog, who he hailed for his efforts to bring the opposing sides on the reforms together.
Why is this a watershed moment?
What gives the visit the potential to be a defining moment is that this is not the way the US tends to talk about Israel. It is not that criticism is not voiced or heard. It is, but it is also mostly always isolated to the diplomatic or security spheres, matters like settlement construction, illegal outposts or West Bank annexation.
Blinken referred to all of the above at a press conference on Tuesday when he warned against annexation and settlement expansion. By adding in a reprimand over the judicial reforms, he was changing the conversation and the narrative.
If it continues, it has the potential to put Israel in a new category of countries – like Turkey or Egypt – that the US views as allies but often chides for human rights violations and other anti-democratic moves.
This is not where Israel wants to go.
Nevertheless, there were those on the Right who felt that Blinken’s comments crossed a line. The judicial reforms, they argue, is a domestic matter that should not be of importance to the US government which should be more focused on foreign policy, trade, intelligence-sharing and joint military exercises. As Religious Zionist Party Minister Orit Struck said: “this interference… does not respect our sovereignty.”
Orit Struck is wrong: The US has the right to speak up on judicial reforms
THE MISTAKE that Struck is making is that the Americans – at least from their perspective – have gained the right to speak up on issues like judicial reforms that seem to be of a domestic nature. This is what happens when a country (Israel) wants to continue to receive $3.8 billion in annual military aid, assistance in fighting Iran, the ICC, the ICJ and open access to the US veto at the United Nations Security Council.
It is also what happens when leaders in both countries have repeatedly explained over the years that the bond between Israel and the US is far deeper than just military ties or trade. It is – they have explained – because both countries share the same values of freedom and hope and have built societies based on shared democratic principles.
If that is the case, and if that is the true foundation of the relationship, then one could argue that Blinken actually has an obligation to speak up and explain to Israel that there could be consequences to what appears in Washington to be undemocratic proposals.
Struck is not alone in saying what she felt. There is a growing sentiment in right-wing circles that Israel succumbs too often to US pressure. While this column last week predicted that Netanyahu would again punt on the evacuation of Khan al-Ahmar, some politicians like Struck were disappointed. They actually thought there was a chance that the day after Blinken left Israel and the day before Netanyahu flew to Paris to meet President Emmanuel Macron, he would announce the demolition of Palestinian homes.
This shows a misunderstanding of reality. Netanyahu is currently sensitive to international opinion and particularly to what will be said in Washington. He could, however, decide that he does not care anymore and give the likes of Struck, Itamar Ben-Gvir and even members of his own Likud Party what they want.
This would be within his right as prime minister. He could decide, for example, to ignore Blinken’s warnings and legalize outposts, expand settlements, annex parts of the West Bank and push ahead the judicial reforms. Will there be a price to pay? Possibly, and while doing so has the potential to be bad for Israel, it is the government’s right.
What is not right is to assume that the government can make all these decisions and the world will just have to be okay with it. This is an arrogant approach that misunderstands Israel’s standing on the global stage. Ministers can go ahead and decide what they want; they should just not feign surprise when the international price becomes clear.
And this is where Blinken can enter the picture and help. Having the US secretary of state stand at the Prime Minister’s Office and say that he expects a broad consensus to advance judicial reforms could be used by Netanyahu to get Justice Minister Yariv Levin to hit the brakes.
It is a tactic that Netanyahu has used in the past to get his government to understand that it cannot, for example, build as much as it wanted in the West Bank. Without a party in the government to his left, all that is to the left of Netanyahu is the US – Blinken and President Joe Biden. Their role, whether they like it or not, will be to help Netanyahu keep his coalition partners at bay.
***
Attorney-general rules: Netanyahu can't be involved in advancing judicial reforms
ON THURSDAY, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara announced that Netanyahu cannot be involved in advancing legislation of the judicial reforms proposed by his coalition. The reason: his three ongoing corruption trials and concern that there is a conflict of interest.
Baharav-Miara’s decision came two days after Netanyahu sat down with CNN’s Jake Tapper and said: “None of the reforms that we are talking about – these democratic reforms – have anything to do with my trial.”
“None of the reforms that we are talking about – these democratic reforms – have anything to do with my trial.”
Benjamin Netanyahu
He might believe that but Baharav-Miara – as well as large swaths of the public – do not. And that is what makes this situation so unfortunate. Israel’s legal system needs to be reformed. It needs to change in a way that will continue to protect the independence of the judiciary but also give the Knesset and the ministers the ability to govern. Reforms do not have to be negative; they can actually strengthen the country as well as Israel’s democracy.
When they are being done, though, under a cloud of suspicion though, people lose trust. That is the situation Israelis find themselves in today.
There are ways to reach a compromise and proposals have been put on the table. The question is what will Netanyahu do? On the one hand, all indications are that – even without the attorney-general’s decision – he is planning to let Levin move ahead and bring the reform to a first reading in the Knesset.
This would achieve two goals: first, it would show the country – and the opposition – that Netanyahu has the votes to pass the reforms. The second goal would be to get the opposition to actually moderate its demands since it now knows that if the prime minister wants, the voting can simply continue.
There might also be a political calculation. After a first reading, some members of the opposition will likely recalculate their position. The person Likud members talk about this happening to is Benny Gantz, head of Blue and White and a former defense minister.
Gantz, according to members of his own party, is not built for the opposition. He wants to be in the government. It is possible that after a first reading, Netanyahu would be able to appeal to Gantz to join the coalition, establish a committee to work on the judicial reforms and to even take credit for changing and moderating the plan.
It might sound unlikely, but then again, when have Israeli politics not been?