The Daily - Israel’s Far Right Government Backs Down

Episode Date: March 29, 2023

For months in Israel, the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing a highly contentious plan to fundamentally change the country’s Supreme Court, setting off some of the largest demonstrations in Israel’s history.On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu announced that he would delay his government’s campaign. Patrick Kingsley, the Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times, explains the prime minister’s surprising concession.Guest: Patrick Kingsley, the Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times.Background reading: Mr. Netanyahu delayed his bid to overhaul Israel’s judiciary in the face of furious protests.Israel’s prime minister is caught between his far-right coalition and public anger over the government’s plan to weaken the judiciary.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

From The New York Times, I'm Sabrina Tavernisi, and this is The Daily. For weeks in Israel, the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing a highly controversial plan to fundamentally change the country's Supreme Court. It led to some of the largest protests in Israel's history. On Monday, Netanyahu announced he was pausing it. Today, Jerusalem Bureau Chief Patrick Kingsley explains Netanyahu's surprising concession. It's Wednesday, March 29th.

Patrick, when we last spoke, it really looked like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressing ahead with this very polarizing plan to change the country's Supreme Court. On Monday, we find out he's pressed pause. So how did we reach this point just 17 days later that Netanyahu has started to back down? We reached this point because the government set itself the arbitrary deadline of this week. This week is the last week of the winter session of the Israeli parliament. And they wanted to get at least part of their judicial overhaul onto the law books by the end of that session. The goal of the overhaul was to limit the power of the Supreme Court, limit the influence of the judiciary on the selection of new judges, and to give the government more power over who gets to be a judge on the Supreme Court. Which, of course, would be an enormous historic change in Israel.

would be an enormous historic change in Israel. Yes, it would be a big change. The Supreme Court is one of the few checks on the government's power. And since the current government is the most right-wing government in Israeli history, there are fears among the centrist and left-wing opposition that removing the court's restrictions on government would give enormous power to the ruling coalition that would allow it to potentially pave the way to some kind of authoritarian rule. At least that's the fear. And the closer and closer we got towards the enactment of this overhaul, the higher those stakes felt, both to those who

opposed it and to those who supported it. Among the opponents, perhaps the most influential group were the soldiers in the military reserve, because more and more of them stopped reporting for duty and more of them started threatening that they would not turn up for duty if the Oberhull went ahead. And their resistance was so significant because while reservists are a small minority of those who serve in the Israeli military, they do perform an important role in certain sectors of the military, in particular the Air Force, a large proportion of those who fly fighter jets and bombers for the Israeli Air Force are reservist pilots. And Patrick, remind me why in particular these military reservists objected?

Well, there's a bunch of reasons why they were resistant to the judicial overhaul. There were concerns that by fighting on behalf of a far-right administration, they might be ordered to do things that they considered to be immoral or illegal. And that in particular grew to be a concern after one far-right minister several weeks ago called for a Palestinian town in the occupied West Bank to be wiped out. And that sent shockwaves, particularly through the reserve pilots who feared maybe at some point in the future that some kind of similar order might be made to them. And there was also a self-serving component of that. They were concerned that if the Supreme Court was weakened, there would be growing calls outside Israel for international

courts to prosecute Israeli soldiers for alleged war crimes. Interesting. I mean, that makes sense, right? That the Israeli military would feel that the stakes were pretty high for them. Well, more and more reservists started to say they wouldn't report for duty. And there were fears within the military leadership that this would soon affect operational capacity. And the commanders of the military began to warn politicians that they were close to having to reduce the scope of certain operations. And they were also concerned that the fears and low morale among reservists was beginning to spread to the soldiers on active duty. And the defense minister, Yoav Galant, the man who oversees the military, began to come under increasing pressure.

People were protesting outside his house, in particular former naval commandos who he served with. Pilots were beginning to text Mr. Gallant's personal phone, telling him that they were deciding to stand down from reserve duty. And all this prompted him on Saturday evening to do something very unusual. He came out and gave a televised speech. He says, I come to you as a patriot.

I have risked my life dozens of times for the state of Israel. And he says the judicial overhaul needed to be paused, to be delayed. That it has become a threat to Israeli national security because of the turmoil that it caused within the military. Okay, so here we have a member of Netanyahu's own cabinet saying that this reform is a threat to Israeli security. And I'm assuming that this man in particular, the defense minister, is pretty important, right, in the state of Israel? Yes, this is a country that has a myriad of enemies. It's running an occupation of millions of Palestinians in the West Bank. So the defense of the country is one of the central themes of Israeli discourse.

And when someone like the defense minister comes out and says that the security of the state is in danger, and it received wide coverage in the media, it's a bombshell. So Patrick, what happened next? Well, for just over a day, there was silence from Netanyahu. But on Sunday night, his office releases a one-line statement saying that Yoav Galen has been fired. And there's no reason given, but the message is clear. If you speak out against this overhaul, you're fired. Almost immediately, the country erupted. Thousands of people went out into the streets,

blocking highways, some of them lighting fires in the road. I arrived at about 2 a.m. early on Monday morning on my bicycle outside the Israeli parliament in West Jerusalem, I saw the extraordinary sight of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters chanting, democracy, democracy, democracy, banging on drums, honking on horns, holding cartoons of Netanyahu under the slogan dictator. We've seen people protesting in Israel for months now, but nothing on the scale of what All the while, the head of the country's main union was dropping a heavy hint that there

would be a general strike in protest. We're talking health care employees, transit workers, banking employees, even a doctor's union is planning to walk off the job today. It was absolute pandemonium and it continued on Monday morning. Literally everything, almost as far as we understand,

is on strike. With the general strike being put in place, the country's main airport being shut down to all outgoing flights, most non-emergency health care was stopped. In some places, trash collectors stopped collecting trash. Malls were shut. Banks were shut. And protesters began to gather outside the Israeli parliament.

The country's political turmoil rapidly deepening. So it was a huge outpouring of emotion. And it was also coordinated in a way that protests in Israel has rarely ever been to that extent. It was a social movement that has few comparisons in Israeli history. So at this point, Patrick, we're in Monday. It's a full-on emergency. So if you're Netanyahu and you're seeing this, what are you thinking?

Well, in a nutshell, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, his opponents in the street had shut down the country and were threatening serious economic harm. And on the other hand, his coalition includes some real hardliners that resolutely believe in the need for this judicial overhaul. And they didn't want to back down. So basically, the prime minister is essentially choosing between remaining in power and preserving his coalition.

And what looks like at that point, the viability of the state of Israel, really, which is not a good position to be in. Yes, that's exactly right. As one analyst said to me, it was a lose-lose situation. And throughout Monday afternoon, everyone was wondering, what on earth is he going to do? As right-wing protesters, as pro-government protesters began to announce plans to hold counter demonstrations, raising the risk of physical confrontations between the two political camps in the streets. He did issue a short statement telling both sides to be peaceful.

But then again, afterwards, he went dark. And for a man who's known for his speeches, for his loquaciousness, for being one of the best political communicators in the world, he was uncharacteristically silent. And then finally, shortly after seven o'clock, we received another message saying that he was going to speak at five past eight, a speech to the nation. We'll be right back. So Patrick, we left off at a really critical moment.

Netanyahu is poised to deliver a speech, and protesters are literally at his doorstep. What does he say? He acknowledges how angry and divided people are, and how the country is on the brink, in his words, of civil war. He says, when there's a possibility of preventing a civil war through dialogue, I, as the prime minister, take a time out for dialogue.

And he says, we're going to postpone this judicial overhaul. And that he's not going to push for a vote this week. But at the same time, he says that the overhaul will take place in some form during the next session of the Israeli parliament during the summer. But he also makes a point of saying that he wants to enhance individual rights in Israel. And that's a concession to the demands of some protesters who fear that the undermining of judicial authority will harm minorities. And that last comment from him was a nod towards that concern. And what was the reaction to his announcement?

We have two camps, right? The protesters and Netanyahu's right-wing cabinet. Some of his cabinet members, particularly the ones from his own party, were more conciliatory. They seemed to understand the need for at least some kind of delay. But there were others, particularly those who were not from his own party, who seemed to really be digging their heels in. One of them, Itamar Ben-Gurbir, who we've talked about in a previous episode, was particularly vocal in public about the fact that the overhaul needed to pass. And if Ben-Gurbir walked, then he could take his party with him. And Netanyahu would lose his majority in parliament.

And that could lead to a government collapse. Right. So very high stakes for Netanyahu here. And what about the protesters? How do they see it? For most protesters, it wasn't enough. They all want to either see the proposal scrapped entirely or to be changed to prevent the government from having control over who gets to be a judge. government from having control over who gets to be a judge. And to also make sure that the Supreme Court retains its independence. They don't quite buy that the delay will be used to hold negotiations and mediations. And they fear that after the parliamentary recess ends in late April, the government will just carry on regardless. Nevertheless, the leader of the country's leading union

has called off the general strike. And around the country today, there is a sense of everyone having pulled back from the brink. So it sounds like Netanyahu has, in fact, you know, gotten himself some breathing room. Not a lot. And if he decides, Patrick, to push this reform through, as he's suggesting he will in a few weeks, and as his far-right cabinet is demanding, presumably we'll be right back where we were earlier this week, right?

With protesters shutting down large parts of the country. So what's really changed here? In a sense, nothing has fundamentally changed. All that's changed is that we have delayed by a few weeks the crescendo of this whole situation. And we have a clearer sense of what the protesters could do if the government goes ahead in full with the overhaul. They've named their price. They can close down airports, roads, ports. They've shown their power.

And next time they could show that power with even greater force. And Netanyahu will have to worry about this happening again and again if he keeps pushing towards overhauling the judiciary. I mean, it really has been a pretty extraordinary display of public anger and power, right, from a huge swath of Israeli society, from people of many different walks of life, as you say. And they did this very rare thing. They forced their leader to back down, if only, you know, for a short time.

Like, what do you make of that? Well, it suggests that there's a group of people who are opposed to this overhaul, for whom this has become an almost existential fight. In one sense, this is a technical battle about the shape of the judiciary that might sound a little bit procedural for people outside Israel. But for many Israelis on both sides, this is about what kind of version of Israel they are going to live in. And for the opponents of the overhaul, they feel that their Israel, the one that's a bit more secular, the one that's more moderate, is slipping away. They come from all sorts of backgrounds, but they tend to lean secular.

And they fear that the religious community in Israel, put simply, is growing faster than they are. And they fear being outnumbered. And they also feel that the country needs them. They pay taxes. They serve in the military. And they feel that one of the communities that is driving the overhaul, the ultra-Orthodox section of society, they pay less taxes.

They're more likely to study religious texts than they are to serve in the military. And so the secular-leaning protesters feel like they're being dictated to by a group in society that they're subsidizing and that they're also protected, and that they feel that in exchange, they should be listened to. What will it mean to all these people if in a couple of weeks, they lose this battle and the judicial reform actually goes through? I think a lot of them would feel like they're living in a couple of weeks, they lose this battle and the judicial reform actually goes through. I think a lot of them would feel like they're living in a country that's no longer theirs, where their rights are no longer going to be protected by the one institution, the Supreme

Court, that they felt was on their side. But the flip side is also true, that if the overhaul doesn't go ahead, then the other side of the country, the ones from a slightly more religious background on the whole, they will also feel like this isn't their country, that they can win an election like they did last November, and even then their goals and their priorities are not taken into account. And that will leave us with a situation where at least one half of the country is going to feel like it's not living in a place that it can recognize as their own. And when you have divides like that, that's why you start hearing from commentators and

politicians and leaders that there's a risk of civil war. Now, that might be hyperbole, but it illustrates the kind of tension and lack of agreement about the direction that Israel should be going in. On the other hand, it also opens up the possibility of some kind of resolution, some kind of positive outcome from all of this mess, because you can end the dispute through force, or you can end it by coming together and trying to work out what your shared values are. That concept a few days ago felt very unlikely as protesters surged into the street on the one hand

and right-wing lawmakers vowed to surge onwards with their legislative blitz on the other. But it's something that people are talking about more and more, that this could be a moment where the two sides could come together and hammer out some kind of shared vision. And the framework for that is in place. We have a period now where people from all factions can come together. We have a mediator, the president, Isaac Herzog,

who's put his hand up and said he's prepared to oversee some of those discussions. And so you have a time period, you have a mechanism, and you have an existential need for this to happen. And that's why some people think this could be the moment. But then again, the divisions are already so wide that it may prove impossible to bridge them. Patrick, thank you. Thank you.

On Tuesday, President Biden said that Israel cannot, quote, continue down this road and added that it remained to be seen whether Netanyahu would act in a way that would achieve genuine compromise. Netanyahu responded, saying that while the two leaders had known each other for 40 years, Israel makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Tuesday, at least 39 people were killed and 29 others seriously injured when a fire broke out at a migrant detention center in northern Mexico near El Paso. Mexico's president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, said the men held at the facility had been angry at the authorities, possibly because they had learned that they were going to be deported.

They put mattresses at the door and set them on fire in protest. The fatal blaze comes as border cities across Mexico have seen an increase in migrants hoping to cross to the U.S. after a pandemic-era public health rule expires in May. And a federal judge in Washington has ordered former Vice President Mike Pence to appear in front of a federal grand jury that is investigating Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It was the latest setback to bids by Trump's legal team to limit the scope of questions that prosecutors can ask witnesses in separate investigations into his efforts to maintain his grip on power. can ask witnesses in separate investigations into his efforts to maintain his grip on power.

Today's episode was produced by Mary Wilson and Shannon Lin, with help from Sydney Harper and Eric Krupke. It was edited by Patricia Willans, with help from Paige Cowett. Fact-Checked by Susan Lee contains original music by Diane Wong and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Sabrina Tavernisi. See you tomorrow.