Israel What might be possible reasons for legal changes to the Israeli Supreme Court?

[Robert]

The proposed changes to Israel's Supreme Court by the current Israeli government appear to be well known. However, I would like to know whether the Israeli government has communicated their reasons for their proposed changes about the Israeli Supreme Court. 
If they have, then what are they? 

It seems rather unlikely the Israeli government would seek to proceed with their proposed legislation about the Israeli Supreme Court, without first letting the Israeli citizen know what are the Israeli government's concerns with the Supreme Court, concerns such that would arguably justify the proposed changes. 
I have been unable to find the Israeli government's reasoning on this, on the Internet. 

The protests against the proposed changes indicate a good knowledge of what those changes are, so is the Israeli government's reasoning for the proposed changes either:  
Absent, 
or 
Not properly communicated?

In the absence of communication of the Israeli government's concerns arguably-justifying their proposed changes, this would inevitably lead the Israeli citizen to suspect an undemocratic "power grab" by the executive and legislature, over the judiciary. 

I can only assume there must be something about the Supreme Court's track-record of decision making, about which the current Israeli government has concern. 
However, again I have been unable to find any information on the Internet regarding the Israeli Supreme Court's track-record of decision making.
I do however recall, that in the case of Jewish landowners seeking the return of their land from Palestinian Arabs at Sheikh Jarrah, the judges offered a license to the Palestinian Arabs to remain if they would recognize the ownership of the Jewish landowners (which of course the Palestinian Arabs refused); thus indicating (if my understanding of those circumstances is correct), that the judges gave an impression they might be more interested in finding a way to allow the Palestinian Arabs to remain, than in awarding vacant possession to the Jewish landowners.

Another way to put this issue might be: 

The changes to the Israeli Supreme Court proposed by the Israeli government, have produced significant protest in Israel, yet I have been unable to find on the Internet what are the Israeli Governments' s concerns with the Supreme Court, that have led them to propose the changes. For example, is there (I do not have such information) any track-record of Israeli Supreme Court decisions that comply with the political-bias in the United Nations against Israel which wrongly-considers the Jewish people to be invaders, thieves, and illegal-occupiers of their own ancestral homeland of Israel. Were that to be the case, then it would be understandable that some or all the proposed changes might be needed, so as to cause the Israeli Supreme Court to comply with the Jewish people's rightful self-determination within their Jewish homeland - Israel and which includes the whole of Jerusalem and the "West Bank" (Judah and Samaria) - Look up the Jewish post-Biblical Hasmonean Kingdom).

2 April 2023.

[Chavak]

I have heard about the protests and it's about the judicial system but am super busy and haven't had a chance to read up on the particulars. I'll have to do so, I need to keep up.

[Linde]

They said on NPR that the current government wants to restrict the power of the supreme court in such that they can vote not to follow the rulings of the court, if it does not suit them.
The current court is set up to be very similar to the US supreme court, which is a fully Independent branch of government.  The current Israeli government wants to eliminate this independence.

[Robert]

I want to thank Chavak and Linde for their replies, both of which appear to confirm my own difficulties in discovering on the Internet: 

1) What are the Israeli government's concerns such that would justify their proposed legislation about the Israeli Supreme Court.

2) What is the track-record of decisions of the judges of the Israeli Supreme Court regarding Jewish self-determination within the Jewish ancestral homeland which of course includes the "West Bank" (Judah and Samaria) and the whole of Jerusalem (in other words do the previous decisions of those Judges indicate pro-Zionism or anti-Zionism).

Here it might be appropriate to take the opportunity to express my concern (though I am not an Israeli citizen) about just one of the many proposed changes about the Israeli Supreme Court, currently proposed by the Israeli government: I do not believe that it will be appropriate in any event, to override judicial decisions by a majority Knesset vote. There can be no point in my view, in having a court if its decisions can be overridden by simple majority Parliamentary vote.

Let's take a look at what options might be used (and as I have said, I have no information on the decision-making track-record of the Israeli Supreme Court) if for example, an Israeli court were complicit with the political bias against Israel in the United Nations, and thus were making decisions incompatible with Jewish self-determination within the Jewish ancestral homeland of Israel:
1) As is normal in many countries, some political input into the appointment of judges.
2) Term limit for judges.
3) Articles of appointment that would include both matters of good conduct, and also adherence to the basic principles of Jewish self determination within the Jewish ancestral homeland.
4) Impeachment procedure for breach of the latter.


I have a further concern, which is about the protests:
How many of the protesters have examined the track-record of decision-making by the Israeli Supreme Court and also of when its judges sit as lower court(s), as to whether their judges show collusion with the U.N.'s anti Israel policies, or, whether it is consistent with Jewish nationalism - the Jewish people's right to live within their ancestral homeland of Israel including the "West Bank" (Judah and Samaria) and the whole of Jerusalem. 

(As I have made clear here, I cannot see for myself what that decision-making track record is, by looking on the Internet - I have to research in English, but the protesters can research this in Ivrit (Hebrew).) 

How many of the protesters have done that research?

[robrecht]

I too am not an Israeli citizen (nor a Jew) but am interested in this development specifically as well as Israel politics in general. This seems like a dangerous authoritarian move, especially since as a Parliamentary form of government, there is no truly independent executive, and Israel does not have a constitution (they do have the Basic Laws that serve somewhat as a de facto constitution).

[Linde]

I too am not an Israeli citizen (nor a Jew) but am interested in this development specifically as well as Israel politics in general. This seems like a dangerous authoritarian move, especially since as a Parliamentary form of government, there is no truly independent executive, and Israel does not have a constitution (they do have the Basic Laws that serve somewhat as a de facto constitution).

Well I am not an Israeli either, but a German and US citizen, and a Jew.  I know that Germany operates, similar to Israel on the Basic Law.  It is the same as a constitution, just has a different name.  I think that Israel is no different.
There are a few other countries that do not have a constitution, but they all seem to function well.  They are NNew Zealand, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

[robrecht]

Thank you, Linde. I am sure you are much better informed about this than me. My understanding was that the difference is more a matter of degree and scope. Israel has 13 Basic Laws, while Germany has 141 articles in their Basic Laws. But I see now that the 13 Basic Laws are divided into a number of clauses. Do the Basic Laws of Israel essentially cover the same amount of content as the Basic Laws of Germany?

[Linde]

Thank you, Linde. I am sure you are much better informed about this than me. My understanding was that the difference is more a matter of degree and scope. Israel has 13 Basic Laws, while Germany has 141 articles in their Basic Laws. But I see now that the 13 Basic Laws are divided into a number of clauses. Do the Basic Laws of Israel essentially cover the same amount of content as the Basic Laws of Germany?

I can't say that, because I don't know the basic law of Israel.  But taken the consideration that the basic law of Germany, and the basic law of Israel were created around the same time, and the creation of it was overseen by the UK and the USA in both countries, one could assume they would cover about the same issues.

[robrecht]

I think the Basic Law of Germany was passed in 1949, but the Basic Law in Israel was created piecemeal over the years:

• Basic Law: the Knesset. Passed on February 12, 1958, by the Third Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: Israel Lands. Passed on July 25, 1960, by the Fourth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: The President of the State. Passed on June 16, 1964, by the Fifth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: The Government. Passed initially on August 13, 1968, by the Sixth Knesset. On March 18, 1992, the 12th Knesset replaced the law in order to change the electoral system. The law, in its amended version, was approved by the 15th Knesset on March 7, 2001.
  
• Basic Law: The State Economy. Passed on July 21, 1975, by the Eighth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: The Military. Passed on March 31, 1976, by the Eighth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel. Passed on December 13, 1980, by the Ninth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: The Judiciary. Passed on February 28, 1984, by the Tenth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: The State Comptroller. Passed on February 15, 1988, by the Twelfth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. The law was passed in its original version on March 3, 1992, by the Twelfth Knesset. The second version of the law was passed on March 9, 1994, by the Thirteenth Knesset. 
  
• Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Passed on March 17, 1992, by the Twelfth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: Referendum. Passed on March 12, 2014, by the Nineteenth Knesset.
  
• Basic Law: Israel - the Nation State of the Jewish People. Passed on July 19, 2018, by the Twentieth Knesset.
  

[Robert]

In response to the discussion between robrecht and Linde, in Constitutional Law, there are two types of constitutions a country may have: 

1) A written constitution, for example that of the United States of America.

2) An unwritten constitution (also termed "uncodified"), for example that of the United Kingdom.
Israel is a further example of this type of constitution.

Is the constitution of the United Kingdom written down?

It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works. 

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-e...stitution/

An uncodified constitution is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules often take the form of customs, usage, precedent and a variety of statutes and legal instruments.[1] An understanding of the constitution is obtained through reading commentary by the judiciary, government committees or legal experts. In such a constitutional system, all these elements may be (or may not be) recognized by courts, legislators and the bureaucracy as binding upon government and limiting its powers. Such a framework is sometimes imprecisely called an "unwritten constitution"; however, all the elements of an uncodified constitution are typically written down in a variety of official documents, though not codified in a single document.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution