GJIA: Can you give us a brief overview of the relevant parts of Israel’s judiciary, and how the proposed amendments—this so-called “judicial overhaul”—aim to reshape its structure?
Josh Ruebner: The judicial overhaul proposals that are underway in the Israeli parliament—the Knesset—right now represent a fundamental attempt to transform the relationship between the judiciary and the legislative branch in Israel. So, for example, these proposals would enable the Knesset to overturn Supreme Court decisions, and it would also enable the legislature to avoid judicial oversight in a number of regards. This judicial reform process that is underway, which has a lot to do with the ongoing corruption trials against the sitting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has really been viewed as a way of eviscerating the independence of the Israeli judiciary, and there’s been a lot of concern raised about the ramifications that this will have on Israel’s functioning as a so-called democracy.
The reason I say so-called is because when the United States, Israeli Jews, and Jewish Americans express concerns about the potential demise of democracy in Israel, we really need to ask ourselves: democracy for whom? I would argue that Israel has never been a real democracy because democracy is premised on the notion of equality. It’s kind of like calling the United States a democracy in an age when not only does not everyone have the right to vote, but this country was busy committing genocide against its indigenous inhabitants, enslaving Black people and disenfranchising women completely: how could anyone in their right mind call the United States a democracy at that point in time?
It’s also like calling South Africa a democracy during the apartheid era. You had a fully-functioning legislature—a parliament—for white South Africans and for a very limited number of other communities in South Africa. But no one in their right mind would term that a democracy because the vast majority of people did not have voting rights and were not treated in any way as equals, much less be enfranchised. So, the issue of whether these judicial reforms will undermine Israel’s democratic character is really a navel-gazing exercise amongst people who are not integrating into their understanding the ways in which Israel is an apartheid state currently. The ways in which it fundamentally privileges its Jewish citizens, and fundamentally discriminates against Palestinians: whether they’re second-class citizens of Israel, whether they live under brutal Israeli military rule with no political rights whatsoever, or whether they’re refugees who have been exiled from their homeland and not allowed to return. So, yes, these judicial reforms have the potential to undermine the very limited nature of democracy in Israel for Jewish Israeli citizens, but it doesn’t fundamentally change at all the fact that Palestinians are a discriminated-against and oppressed people under Israeli rule.
GJIA: How do these amendments fit into the broader political agenda of PM Netanyahu—you mentioned the charges that he’s facing—and that of his coalition government?
JR: To be quite honest, I’m not sure that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has an actual political agenda. I think when you look at the trajectory of his career and his previous terms in office, it’s been primarily about the cult of power and maintaining himself in that position of power. Actual policy agendas and decision points that he’s trying to strive for have been few and far between. I don’t know that there’s a political agenda that he has per say. His partners in this coalition definitely have an agenda, and it’s definitely being implemented. It’s an agenda to extend what is de facto annexation of the West Bank into de jure, or formal, annexation of the West Bank.
We see this playing out in real-time in some of the powers that have been granted to one of the ministers. Bezalel Smotrich—who is one of these far-right extremist coalition members—is now being granted extensive powers over the civil administration, which is the body set up by the Israeli military to govern the lives of Palestinians under Israeli military rule in the West Bank and Gaza. So, the fact that you have these powers being transferred from the military—which is where they should be under international law in terms of the rules of military occupation— and now being housed within a civilian agency and minister, is a clear sign of de jure annexation.
Israel is trying to extend its domestic laws in a much more comprehensive way to encompass Israelis who are living in illegal settlements in the West Bank. This is the political program of the more extremist ministers in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government. It’s to bring about formal annexation of the Palestinian West Bank and to ensure that Palestinians live in perpetuity in a very subservient manner under permanent Israeli military rule. I think that’s what’s transpiring, and I think the reason why this judicial overhaul proposal is working its way through the Knesset is to make it easier for this extreme political agenda to be implemented. It also incidentally helps Netanyahu avoid potential ramifications of any conviction that might be reached down the road for previous corruption charges.
GJIA: As you mentioned earlier, a lot of the coverage of this has just treated it as another case of democratic backsliding, leaving Palestinians and the Palestinian territories out of the discussion. How would characterize the overall experience of Palestinians in Israel’s legal system, and how would these amendments change that relationship?
JR: That question has a long history behind it. Throughout Israel’s 75-year history, in many respects, the Supreme Court has been the only mechanism open to Palestinians to try to obtain redress for grievances and rectify injustices that have been inflicted on them. So, for example, up until 1966, Palestinians who were nominally citizens of the state of Israel lived under a military rule that looked very similar to Israel’s military rule in the West Bank today, despite the fact that they had citizenship rights. Their lives were be governed by Israeli military commanders who could issue judgements that would affect every facet of their lives. However, Palestinians could appeal to the Supreme Court and court system to try to obtain some redress for their grievances. Once in a while, they succeeded in getting those grievances redressed.
But most often, the Supreme Court acted as a rubber stamp for the Israeli military government and its rule over Palestinian citizens. Now, when Israel occupied the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, a similar dynamic emerged. To an extent, the court system has been a sort of lifeline of last resort for Palestinians: either citizens or those living under military rule today. It’s the last glimmer of hope to obtain any sort of justice from the Israeli system, but they’ve often been denied in that regard. This may or may not have implications for the ability of Palestinians to seek redress through the court system, but I imagine in no circumstances would it expand those opportunities.
GJIA: To what extent do you think that the massive protests and strikes that have been happening since these amendments were initially proposed have centered or at least included Palestinians in their calls for democracy? Is there this extra level of nuance that asks: are we really a complete democracy, or are they left out of the conversation?
JR: For the greater part of this conversation taking place domestically in Israel, most of the protests are in the nature of the navel-gazing that I mentioned before. It’s Jewish-Israeli citizens of the state who are largely concerned about protecting their prerogatives and the apparatus of ethnocracy that exists for Jewish-Israeli citizens within the Israeli state system. I don’t see much, if any, evidence of protestors taking to the street to say “well, no, this should not be a Jewish state, this should be a state of all of its citizens,” and that there should be full equality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel. It’s even rarer to see them addressing the fact that Palestinians living under military rule are being effectively annexed to the state of Israel with no political rights whatsoever. To a large extent, Palestinians have been erased from the conversation of these protests, which to me is not surprising at all. I think it was during the previous Netanyahu administration that you had hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets in social justice protests. Still, it was difficult for Palestinian citizens of Israel to find a role within this context. Most protestors who were out there didn’t want to address the inequality that Palestinian citizens of Israel suffer under this iniquitous rule.
GJIA: Talk to us for a bit about the legislative process: what is the status of these amendments right now, how likely are they to pass in their current form, and what obstacles do its proponents still need to clear to make that happen?
JR: My understanding is that currently, the bill has passed its first reading in the Knesset. In most legislatures, including Israel, the process is that a bill must pass three separate readings at different phases in order for it to become law. Given the fact that it passed its first reading by a pretty comfortable margin, there does not seem to be any potential break on this passing its second and third readings and becoming law. I’m sure that it will be open to legal challenge, and that if the bill becomes law that it will be challenged by different NGOs and other bodies within Israel through the court system.
But again, this is exactly what this law is set up to circumvent. It’s meant to prevent the court system from reviewing and overturning what the Knesset does. It’s really an open question as to what happens next, but I think the prospects are pretty strong for it to get through the Knesset.
. . .
Josh Ruebner is a professor of Justice and Peace Studies at Georgetown University. Previously, Mr. Ruebner was an Analyst in Middle East Affairs at the Congressional Research Service and Principal Director of Progress Up, a progressive government relations consulting firm. Mr. Ruebner has a background in international relations and Middle Eastern history and has written extensively on US foreign policy in the Middle East. He is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Exeter’s European Centre for Palestine Studies.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Interview by Itai Abraham
Image Credit: Hanay, Wikimedia Commons.
