The Israel protests are about Netanyahu, not democracy

The judicial reforms may be a bad idea but their consequences would not be so catastrophic.

Why has the diaspora been shouting so loudly about the Israeli government’s judicial reforms these past weeks? Answer: Netanyahu.

The thousands of people in America and Europe who are rallying against legislative change in the Jewish state, changes with which I mostly disagree, do not really care about the proposals themselves, much less understand them. What they care about are the people behind them.

If the same proposals had been put forward by moderate centrists they would not have generated this type of opposition. When I’ve spoken to Americans who’ve been involved in the demonstrations, they are certainly unable to explain in any convincing detail why they are out on the streets.

And I’m not surprised. In my 60 years as a lawyer and professor, I have never seen a single protest against judicial reform in the US. The same goes for Europe: what do the people of that continent care about judicial reform in Israel? These are protests against an Israeli prime minister and government they do not like.

Moreover, even if all the things that are being proposed were enacted, Israel’s judicial system would simply resemble that of Britain, Canada and, to some extent, America.

In fact, most countries in the world have judges appointed by the government and many countries grant their soldiers some kind of immunity. Moreover, very few have the kind of judicial review that Israel currently has.

So, what we’re actually talking about, potentially, is Israel becoming like many countries, or as it was half-a-century ago. Do I want this? I do not. I think Israel should be better than other countries, a better democracy.

But if these proposed laws are enacted, if the power of the Israeli courts is curbed somewhat, its judicial system will simply resemble those of New Zealand, Australia, France, Italy and other democratic states.

Sure, the changes would compromise Israel’s commitment to minority rights, to civil liberties and free speech and these are not things I wish to see.

But they would not compromise the country’s democracy. In virtually every parliamentary democracy in the world, parliament rules. It has the last word.

The truth is, Israelis, primarily on the left, have come to expect too much from their courts as a result of the activism of the past 30 years.

Meanwhile, their country’s credibility is being badly damaged by the protests. Extremists on both sides in Israel seem to just want to win the argument, and the truth is, right now, the extremes of sides are winning.

And if you’re winning, why give up? I’m worried that Israel’s 75th anniversary in May will not be a cause for well-deserved celebration.

These protests, from both sides, while entirely lawful and part of democracy, have the potential to do enormous damage to what we’ve all worked so hard for since the foundation of the state in 1948.

There is a solution, of course. Israelis should listen to President Isaac Herzog whose talks with both sides have been slowly moving ahead, pushing for a compromise agreement.

Herzog is operating above the political fray, positioning himself as a mediator rather than a decision-maker in his attempts to bring about agreement between Netanyahu’s coalition and his opposition.

The president is not proposing specifics, he is trying to bring people to the bargaining table.

But will the extremists on either side listen? I doubt it. The right won’t come to the bargaining table because they think too much compromise will damage their standing. The left won’t listen because the protests have strengthened their political base.

And who is losing out? The people of Israel, the vast majority of whom the president speaks for.