Mexico is weighing the use of masked judges to preside over organized crime trials, a measure aimed at shielding members of the judiciary from potential retribution by drug cartels. This proposal, added this week to a contentious package of judicial reforms, comes in response to a surge in murders of police chiefs, prosecutors, and judges as cartel power has expanded since 2018.

Mexico's courts could use masked judges for cartel trialshttps://t.co/Qvt3nlSmVH

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 28, 2024

According to The Telegraph, the amendment to the planned overhaul of the court system calls for "judges without faces," leaving the implementation details to senior judges. This consideration follows several high-profile attacks on judicial figures, including the murder of Judge Roberto Elías Martínez in the central state of Zacatecas in December 2022. Prosecutors allege that Martínez's assassination was ordered from within a prison where two defendants in cases he was overseeing were being held. In Zacatecas, 103 judges have reportedly received threats.

The proposal draws parallels to measures employed in Peru during the 1990s to try alleged members of the Shining Path terrorist group. However, the Peruvian system, which involved masked judges or those seated behind screens, proved highly controversial and led to numerous miscarriages of justice.

The United Nations has cautioned that the use of anonymous judges could potentially violate suspects' rights to due process. Despite these concerns, the judicial reform package, which also includes provisions for the election of judges, appears to have sufficient support in the Mexican Congress to pass.

Critics have labeled the reforms as populist and authoritarian, arguing they could undermine judicial independence and allow political control over the courts. The proposed changes have sparked economic concerns, with the Mexican peso's value declining as investors worry about the rule of law in the country.

US Ambassador Ken Salazar has taken the unusual step of publicly criticizing the reforms, describing them as a "threat to democracy." This statement prompted a sharp response from outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who announced on Tuesday that he was putting relations with the United States and Canada "on pause" after both countries questioned the legal reforms.

The post Mexico proposes masked judges for cartel trials to avoid retaliation appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to the reporting, core teams will carry on with research on the relevant topics being discussed in Israeli society. 

The think tank has been catapulted into the heart of the ongoing political debate over the past year because some of the proposed judicial reforms were based on its work. But now it has been forced to downsize after one of its main donors, American billionaire Arthur Dantchik announced last summer that he would stop providing funds. He halted donations to several Israeli organizations, including the forum.

A source privy to the developments in the forum stated that since the outbreak of the Gaza war in October, most of the forum's managerial backbone has been mobilized in the IDF reserves under the emergency call-up notices and that its main activity revolved around assisting the war effort and national strategy in the political and economic contexts of achieving victory in the war.

In response, the Kohelet Policy Forum said the following in a statement: "The scope of the forum's activities has grown over the years, and we have been fortunate to establish new departments dealing with various policy issues, in which dozens of scholars operate. Since the Simchat Torah holiday [when the Oct. 7 happened], the forum and its employees have been focused on contributing to the national collective effort.

"In light of recent events and the need for budget cuts, we were forced to part ways with several dear and talented employees. We believe that we will overcome this difficult period and even emerge stronger, in order to continue contributing to national sovereignty, individual freedom, and the separation of powers in the State of Israel."

It should be noted that in 2023, with the outbreak of protests against the judicial reform, and after the spotlight was turned on the forum for supposedly advising Knesset members promoting the reform behind the scenes, the forum became one of the central targets of protesting organizations. The "Brothers in Arms" organization went as far as blocking the entrance to the forum's offices with sandbags a few months ago – an act that drew criticism even from left-wing organizations.

Moreover, over the past year, the forum has been attacked several times, including sit-ins at its offices and protests against it in Israel and abroad. In addition to demonstrations within Israel, many activists protested throughout the past year outside the offices of the organization's senior donors in New York, successfully causing embarrassment to the donors, who generally prefer to maintain their privacy and avoid exposure – all the more so in such a manner and under such circumstances.

The post Kohelet Policy Forum scales down activity due to funding crunch appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The High Court of Justice heard arguments on Thursday against a law passed by the ruling Coalition limiting conditions for any removal of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office, in the latest showdown among branches of government to grip the nation.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Political watchdog groups and an opposition party have challenged the March 23 amendment to a quasi-constitutional basic law, which Netanyahu's own attorney general described as designed to preserve his tenure amid a long-running graft trial.

Netanyahu's governing Coalition passed a law in March that limits removing a prime minister from office to cases of medical and mental incapacitation. It would protect Netanyahu from being deemed unfit for office because of his ongoing corruption trial and claims of a conflict of interest. Critics say the law is tailor-made for Netanyahu and encourages corruption. The law's proponents say it is meant to safeguard any democratically elected leader from a wrongful ouster.

Eleven of the Supreme Court's 15 judges convened for the televised hearing, presided over by Chief Justice Esther Hayut, who retires next month. She has openly criticized a judicial overhaul sought by Netanyahu's religious-nationalist coalition.

In a statement, Justice Minister Yariv Levin condemned the hearing as "a de facto discussion of rescinding the results of the election" that returned Netanyahu to power in December. The premier denies wrongdoing in three criminal cases against him.

The full court bench is separately preparing a ruling on challenges to a July amendment voiding its power to overrule some cabinet-level decisions on the basis of "reasonableness".

Critics say that law removed one of the last checks on the executive and a Coalition-controlled parliament, in a country that has no written constitution. Netanyahu argued for redress of what he calls overreach by an unrepresentative judiciary.

Next month, the court is due to hear appeals relating to the convening of a committee for appointing judges, delayed due to a dispute over a government bid to shake up its membership.

A ruling on the "incapacity clause", defining terms for deeming a premier unfit to serve, was not expected on Thursday. The court options include upholding the legislation as is, quashing it, or ruling that it must not come into effect before the next Knesset is sworn in. Attorney-General Gali Baharav Miara has recommended the latter.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post High Court hears arguments over when PM can be deemed unfit to serve appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Israeli government has complained to Germany after the German ambassador attended a high-profile Supreme Court hearing last week looking at the legality of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judicial overhaul, an Israeli diplomatic official said Monday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The complaint, sent at the order of Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, sparked a rare diplomatic spat between the two allies, with German leaders defending their ambassador against the criticism.

The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes diplomacy, said that Israel had relayed its "dismay" through diplomatic channels, including the Israeli Embassy in Berlin. The ambassador has recently given an interview to Israel Hayom where he discussed a range of issues.

"This was a decision taken by the highest figure in the ministry," he added. Cohen is a close ally of Netanyahu.

Last Tuesday's hearing was the first challenge to Netanyahu's contentious judicial overhaul, which has bitterly divided the Israeli public and put the country on the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Video: Anti-reform protesters demonstrate outside the home of Economy Minister Nir Barkat. Credit: Israel Hayom

Ahead of the hearing, German Ambassador Steffen Seibert posted a video of himself on X, formerly known as Twitter, inside the courtroom under the heading: "The place to be this morning." It included the Hebrew hashtag for Israel's Supreme Court.

"I think something important is happening here for Israeli democracy," he said, speaking in Hebrew. "We, as friends of Israel, are watching the Supreme Court with great interest and I wanted to see for myself." Seibert did not express an opinion on the case in the video.

In New York, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz defended his government's envoy against the Israeli criticism.

The place to be this morning #בגץ pic.twitter.com/x7oVMPgsPg

— Steffen Seibert (@GerAmbTLV) September 12, 2023

"The German ambassador is a very committed man with very clear principles. And I believe that everyone knows that – including in Israel," Scholz told journalists.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock added that it is the "everyday business of diplomats" to monitor developments in foreign countries. "It's also normal to go to public hearings or public court cases – it's part of his job," she said.

Scholz and Netanyahu are scheduled to meet Tuesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post German envoy's tweet at Supreme Court hearing sparks diplomatic spat appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As President Joe Biden prepares to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week in New York, a new poll finds that while Americans generally view Israel as a partner or ally, many question whether his far-right government shares American values.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The poll results from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the meeting come during a new period of tension between the Biden administration and Israel. Those tensions are caused by Netanyahu's proposed judicial overhaul that has sparked mass protests in major Israeli cities, ongoing disagreements over how to deal with Iran and how to approach the Palestinians, and comments from Netanyahu's political allies that have irked US officials.

Video: Biden speaks on America's commitment to Israel's security / Credit: Reuters

Despite the friction, Biden, who spoke out in barely disguised opposition to the judicial plan, and Netanyahu are expected to project a solid partnership in which the US continues to support Israel's security.

Biden will also emphasize that the US is continuing to work on expanding the Trump-era Abraham Accords, which normalized Israeli relations with several Arab countries, to include Saudi Arabia. However, there is little sign of an imminent breakthrough on that front.

Although the poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly view Israel as more of a friend than a foe, it also found that they are divided on whether Israel is a country with which the US shares common interests and values.
About 4 in 10 Americans described Israel as a partner with which the US should cooperate, but they also said the country does not share US interests and values, the poll found. Only about 3 in 10 said Israel is an ally that shares US interests. Republicans (44%) are more likely than Democrats (25%) to call Israel an ally with shared values. About 2 in 10 Americans described Israel as either a US rival or an adversary.

The US provides Israel with more than $3 billion a year in military and other assistance and the close relationship has endured over the decades despite not infrequent spats over policy, most notably over Iran and treatment of the Palestinians.

Overall, 61% of Americans disapprove of how Biden is handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with only 35% approving. That number was slightly lower than Biden's overall approval rating.

Many Americans don't see a need for the US to change its position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. About 4 in 10 Americans, or 44%, said the US gives about the right amount of support to Israel in the conflict, while 27% said it's too supportive of Israel and 23% not supportive enough.

About the same percentage, 42%, say the correct amount of support is given to the Palestinians, with 30% saying they want more support and 21% wanting less.

Among Republicans, 34% said they would like the US to give more support to Israel, but slightly more (40%) say the current level is sufficient. Only 11% of Democrats said the US needs to be giving more assistance to Israel. About half of Democrats said the current amount is "about right" while only about a third said the US is too supportive of Israel, the poll found.

In their meeting Wednesday, Biden is expected to reaffirm steadfast American commitment to Israel's security in the turbulent Middle East. At the same time, his administration is hoping to give Netanyahu one of his major asks – entry into the US Visa Waiver Program, which would allow Israelis to visit the United States on a temporary basis without a visa.

US law requires that Americans, including Palestinian-Americans, be treated the same in order to qualify for the program. Israel has taken several steps to ensure equal treatment for all Americans entering Israel but it has only until the end of September to prove that the criteria have been met. Otherwise, Israel must requalify for the program during the next budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

In terms of the Palestinian conflict, about two-thirds of Americans profess neutrality, according to the AP-NORC poll – 37% said they sympathize with neither Israel nor the Palestinians, while 29% said they sympathized with both equally. A similar percentage, 58%, said they neither favor nor oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, while 22% favor it and 15% oppose it.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Poll shows most Americans view Israel as partner; fewer see it as sharing US values appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The petitions challenge legislation – an amendment to one of Israel's quasi-constitutional "basic laws" – passed by the Knesset in July. The amendment limits the courts' use of the "reasonableness" standard to overturn decisions by the government or ministers.

Proponents of the law argue the "reasonableness" standard gives unelected judges too much discretion to substitute their views for those of elected officials. The law's opponents – now challenging it in the high court – see the "reasonableness" standard as a key check on Israel's powerful executive branch.

The debate over this specific piece of legislation is part of the wider public debate over the Israeli government's moves to reshape the judiciary and alter the balance between the judiciary, on the one hand, and the legislature and executive branch, on the other.

Debate over the judiciary has become a proxy for an even higher-stakes battle over the balance of power in Israeli society.

As for Tuesday's hearing, the Supreme Court will convene a panel with all 15 high court justices, unusual in the Israeli system. Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara – whose independence is guaranteed by Israeli law and practice – will not represent the government. That decision follows Baharav-Miara's announcement last week that she opposes the government's position – and supports the petitioners.

A ruling is not expected immediately and may be issued only in the coming months. Should the court side with petitioners and strike down the law, many in Israel fear a constitutional crisis could follow. 

Some within the ruling Coalition have hinted the government should not follow an adverse court decision, setting up a clash between the government and the judiciary. Key state institutions – including Israel's powerful and highly-regarded security services – would then need to decide which side to follow.

With this as a backdrop, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly looking for a way out. Some reports indicate he continues to hold discussions with powerful Opposition lawmaker Benny Gantz in search of an agreed compromise.

Beyond that, Netanyahu is reportedly looking to an alternative, a unilateral compromise proposal in which the government publicly commits itself to limit legislation on the judicial reform.

With that unilateral move, Netanyahu would prevent a veto from Opposition lawmakers and hope to appeal to wider public opinion, to split the Opposition, and to soften pushback from key actors, such as credit rating agencies, the Biden administration, and – potentially – the Supreme Court itself.

That said, Netanyahu would embark on that move from a position of political weakness, and with the imperative to reach out to a wider public and to manage his hard-Right Coalition.

This article was first published by i24NEWS.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Explainer: What will happen at the Supreme Court hearing on Israel's judicial reform appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

1.

From the very beginning of the anti-judicial reform protest movement, I wrote that its main goal was to arrive at a constitutional crisis: a clash between the executive and legislative branches and the judiciary. In other words, a clash between the government and the Supreme Court.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The past few months have sharpened the views of both sides and exposed them for all to see after decades of denial and feigned naiveté. The protest leaders believe that the current government does not have the legitimacy to rule (thereby erasing the voice of its voters); the Supreme Court remains the sole source of authority they are willing to accept. This is a practical translation of the "constitutional revolution" instituted by Aharon Barak as Supreme Court President. The legitimate attempt by the Knesset to turn back the tide even a little and check the court's unlimited powers is referred to by opponents as a "regime coup." Woe the irony!

That of course doesn't stop them from claiming their goal is to defend democracy.

2.

Now the protesters, the supporters of the Aharon Barak school of thought, the opposition parties, and most of the media are pushing as hard as they can for a constitutional crisis by getting the Supreme Court to strike down Basic Laws, thus bringing disaster upon us all. The Supreme Court itself defines Basic Laws as chapters of a future constitution, and therefore their normative status is higher than that of ordinary laws. It was through this distinction that the court struck down laws passed by the Knesset on the grounds that they contradicted Basic Laws. Now, when the Knesset has amended the basic laws in a way that is inconsistent with the worldview of opponents of the reform, there is talk of striking down the Basic Laws themselves. But the Knesset has never explicitly authorized the court to strike down its laws, let alone Basic Laws. So, what is the source of the Supreme Court's authority to do this?

The Attorney General has joined petitions against (!) the government over amendments to the Basic Laws enacted by the Knesset. Among other things, she justified her position based on the original doctrine of "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" and on "abuse of constituent power." This is probably insufficient as the doctrines were developed by the Supreme Court and do not come from a higher source of authority. Relying on them is like Baron Munchausen rescuing himself from the swamp by lifting himself out with his own hair. This puts the legislative branch above the other two branches and cements the status of the judges as an oligarchy that has taken for itself the authority that the sovereign – the people by means of the Knesset – never granted them. But opponents of reform and supporters of the current legal situation cry out "Democracy!" Woe the disgrace!

3.

But do not despair, Israel is not a widower. Retired justice Aharon Barak has come to their rescue. In an article he published about a week ago, he reiterated his idea that the source of authority to invalidate constitutional chapters lies in the Declaration of Independence. This is the "external anchor by virtue of which the Constituent Assembly was elected" he wrote, going on to say that the Declaration of Independence has been recognized as such and that it is by virtue of the Declaration that all Knessets have since then served in their two hats: as the legislative branch and as a constituent assembly. Barak illustrated this through a biological parable: "The Declaration of Independence is the mother who gave birth to the Constituent Assembly... The mother's DNA (the Declaration of Independence) was passed on to the daughter's DNA," The daughter being the first Constituent Assembly. Go argue with biology.

Video: PM Netanyahu speaks about judicial reform / Credit: Twitter/Prime Minister's Office

Barak claims that the declaration expresses the "will of the people," and therefore the constitution – in our case, the Basic Laws – "must express the vision of the people and its 'credo.'" The Supreme Court, in his view, is "the institution authorized to determine in a binding manner that the Knesset exceeded its initial constituent authority."

Who was there at the initial moment of the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence? To what extent did it represent the entire people in all its diversity and its different streams and parties? Did David Ben-Gurion himself see the Declaration of Independence as a document above the constitution? Of course not. But this is of no interest to Aharon Barak; he is neither a historian nor a sociologist. Barak uses the Declaration of Independence as a mechanism to create a source of authority – authority that gives the Supreme Court the ability to strike down Basic Laws, or, in other words, to debate constitutional chapters. There is almost no parallel for this in the world, and it is not for nothing that the only source Barak cites is the Supreme Court of India. What joy.

If, until now, we have failed to understand why Barak published his article on the eve of the fateful hearing, at the end of his article he implores the Supreme Court justices who are galloping toward constitutional crisis: "The court not only has the authority to do this, it has the duty to do so." And there we have it: The source of the authority to move forward with this irresponsible act and to invalidate amendments to the constitution is Aharon Barak in the role of Moses.

4.

But even the declaration at Mount Sinai, in the presence of Moses our Teacher himself, was not enough to establish the Torah as the constitution of the People of Israel. After 40 years of wandering in the desert, many of those who had come out of Egypt died and others joined the ranks of the People of Israel just before they entered the Land of Israel, a second covenant was enacted in the plains of Moab. Last Shabbat we read from the book of Deuteronomy: "These are the terms of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to conclude with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant which was made with them at Horeb (Mount Sinai)."

This, too, was not enough to cement the constituent covenant. Therefore, Joshua ben Nun established two more covenants – like Moses, he did so at the beginning of his reign and towards his death. One at the altar on Mount Ebal: "... And there, on the stones, he inscribed a copy of the Teaching that Moses had written for the Israelites (i.e., the constitution) .... All Israel – stranger and citizen alike (i.e., the people) – with their elders, officials, and magistrates, stood on either side of the Ark, facing the Levite priests who carried the Ark of God's Covenant."

By the way, the late archaeologist Adam Zertal found this altar (I recommend visiting the place, it is a formative experience) and today the Palestinian Authority is trying to damage it. They understand its significance for our hold on the Land.

During the decades of Joshua's leadership, many residents of the Land joined the People of Israel, as did family members of those who had been to Egypt. Both groups were required to accept the initial covenant. Shortly before Joshua's death, we are told of a fourth covenant: "Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. He summoned Israel's elders and commanders, magistrates and officers; and they presented themselves before God. On that day at Shechem, Joshua made a covenant for the People…".

5.

The four chapters in which the covenant between the People and its eternal constitution was established should also teach us something about the Declaration of Independence, to which Barak attributes, in his controversial article, the supreme source of authority for judicial review of the chapters of Israel's constitution. He was quick to put the Supreme Court above the Knesset and the "rebellious" government, and for him the initial covenant was sufficient, even though contrary to the biblical covenant, in real time it was not awarded that status.

Beyond the invented authority that violates the balance between the three branches of government and tips it in favor of the supremacy of the judiciary, his words also harm the standing of the Declaration of Independence as Israel's founding document that enables all of us – regardless of our different political and ideological views – to unite around it. The social consensus that the Declaration of Independence engendered across all Israel's camps, stemmed from its historical value as a declaration of intent rather than a binding constitution. That is no longer the case. The protest movement harmed the status of the army and security forces and used them to force the people to accept the minority opinion. Now, the Declaration of Independence is also being mobilized to serve as a political document through which an unelected minority can impose its opinion on the nation. All this, states Aharon Barak, is done in the name of "the will of the people." Woe for a language that has emptied of meaning.

Let us hope that Supreme Court President, Justice Esther Hayut, will rise above the madness that has enveloped us, and will not harm the Knesset's authority while it is (the Knesset) sitting as the constituent authority. It is a matter of life to us all.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The Declaration of Independence is not the Mosaic Covenant appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Several thousand protesters supporting the government's judicial overhaul rallied in front of the Supreme Court in Jerusalem on Thursday, before a pivotal hearing next week on the legality of the first major bill of the overhaul.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The bill, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right coalition passed in July, bans the Supreme Court from striking down government decisions it deems unreasonable.

With leading politicians signaling they won't respect a court decision striking down the law, the stage could be set for a constitutional crisis. The hearing is set for Tuesday, though a ruling is likely months away.

The pro-overhaul crowd Thursday was overwhelmingly religious, many of them working class Jews of Mizrahi, or Middle Eastern, descent. Others came in from West Bank settlements.

Video: PM Netanyahu speaks about judicial reform / Credit: Twitter/Prime Minister's Office

Brandishing signs with the words "end the judicial dictatorship" and "the elites are taking control," protesters said the overhaul was necessary to rein in the power of unelected justices.

"The Supreme Court is on the way to becoming the dictator of Israel," protester Avram Farber said. "It's trying to push for making the Israeli government – that enjoys a majority in the parliament – to be illegitimate."

Opponents of the overhaul, who come largely from the country's secular middle class, see the plan as a power-grab by Netanyahu's government that will weaken the country's checks and balances. They fear that by limiting the power of the court, Netanyahu and his ultranationalist allies are pushing the country toward autocratic rule. Their grassroots protest movement, the largest in Israel's history, is now nearing its ninth month.

For the first time in Israeli history, all 15 justices of the Supreme Court will hear Tuesday's case. The court will rule on the legality of a bill that weakens its ability to act as a check on the ruling coalition, headed by the prime minister. The bill bars the court from striking down parliamentary decisions on the basis that they aren't "reasonable."

The justices have used the standard in the past to nullify government decisions that they view as unsound or corrupt. This year, for instance, the court struck down the appointment of Aryeh Deri as interior minister because of prior convictions.

The government says the reasonability standard is anti-democratic, because it allows judges to override the decisions of an elected parliamentary majority. A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank, found that just 14% of the Israeli public supports the legislation, while roughly 60% oppose it.

The survey, conducted earlier this year, questioned 3,077 Israeli adults and had a margin of error of 1.8 percentage points. If the justices strike down the law, the stage may be set for a constitutional crisis. Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana hinted this week that he wouldn't accept the court's ruling, saying he wouldn't allow the Knesset to be "trampled."

Netanyahu hasn't publicly committed to following the ruling of the court, but posted Ohana's comments to social media on Thursday. The hearing set for Tuesday is the first of three overhaul cases on the court's docket this month.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Thousands rally in support of judicial reform ahead of court hearing appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just wants an off-ramp that would allow the judicial reform saga to go away. Perhaps not for good, but for the time being for sure. The compromise proposal presented by the president to the Opposition leaders and the protesters — from which the Likud distanced itself – is a plan he would gladly embrace. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

He believes it gives everyone what they want – the Opposition will get the long pause to the legislation on judicial reform; Justice Minister Yariv Levin and other die-hard supporters of the reform in the Coalition would get a veto on the Judicial Selection Committee under the official letter of the law, which would include a right to handpick the Supreme Court's chief justice. They can come back for more later. 

Video: PM Netanyahu speaks about judicial reform / Credit: Twitter/Prime Minister's Office

Netanyahu doesn't believe that accepting the plan would be tantamount to surrender. He won't give the Opposition such an accomplishment, which would only reinforce the feeling among right-wing voters that they are second-class citizens because it would underscore the Right's inability to govern even when winning elections. 

In recent days Netanyahu has been devising a strategy that would divide his term into two phases: The first, for a duration of just over a year, would see the judicial reform put on hold (except for the Judicial Selection Committee changes), and this would go ahead even without the Opposition's input. The remainder two years of his term (or 18 months if the government collapses and early elections are called), will see the judicial reform movement move full steam ahead. 

He doesn't see a contradiction in the two phases of his term, he believes this is just a necessity. The launching of the judicial reform was flawed and got the Left mobilized because of its bombastic and dramatic declarations, essentially sucking out the air from all the other policy goals of the government. The public no longer listens to what the ministers say, despite the government working for the citizens and doing big things, because Israelis have been distracted fully by the judicial reform process. This is not where Netanyahu wanted the government to be some 8 months after its formation. He has big things on the agenda: Meeting President Joe Biden and finalizing a deal with Saudi Arabia, as well as bolstering Israel's economy and dealing with the pressing security needs in the wake of growing terrorism. 

Netanyahu wants all the background noise to go away to get all this done, and he is willing to give the Opposition a long pause in judicial reform and even legislate a bill that would prevent the removal of the attorney general for that duration. He believes this would calm the Left's concerns, but no one on the other side is willing to talk about compromise. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Netanyahu's plan: Secure 2 years of calm with a unilateral compromise appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Former Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz and other officials took the stage on Wednesday at aconference organized by HaShomer HaChadash and Israel Hayom on governance and personal security in Israel.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

In their comments, they warned that Israel must not ignore the various problems it faced amid growing threats from within and from outside, also hitting back at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's focus on reforming the judiciary and once again rebuffing his call to join forces on the effort.

Gantz said the following:

"We are definitely in a critical period, in the State of Israel there are great challenges, great political opportunities. Security threats on all fronts, a tremendous economic challenge of internal security and the critical fight against crime that you and your organization took the initiative to combat.

"I claim that the national priorities are simply wrong, Netanyahu is not leading it correctly. If he wants the judicial reform, let him do it and actually go through with it, if not, let him stop it. Now what happens is he's shooting in all directions.

Video: Itamar Ben-Gvir speaks at the Israel Hayom-Hashomer HaChadash conference / Credit: ILH Staff

"The most important thing in the country is personal security, the least important thing is the judicial reform. Even before Operation Guardian of the Walls, the matter of internal security, the quality and reliability of law enforcement was important. During the period of the previous government, we managed to create a change and start increasing the Israeli guard. You have to do an operation that can last for years, and for that reinforcement of the police is required."

Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich said the following: "A court is not authorized to invalidate basic laws, that is the end of democracy. We want to balance and correct. We want a strong and resourceful judicial system, but not one that puts a strain on people. I hope that the Supreme Court will come to its senses."

He added regarding governance and personal safety: "Prtection rackets are an economic barrier. Harassing small businesses is unacceptable and I say it unequivocally from my side, we will eradicate the protection money chain. We will join forces and restore our economy that has been strangled by crime organizations.

The state's money will not go to criminal organizations and will not fuel them. These are one of the perpetrators of crime that we as a country have shed."

MK Mansour Abbas chairman of the Ra'am party said the following: "I suggested to Netanyahu to lead a project to eradicate crime in the Arab sector."

Abbas has already proposed to declare a state of emergency, carry out preventive arrests and join the Arab civil society in the effort. He also added that: "Preventive arrests, house arrests, electronic handcuffs will disrupt the crime organizations."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The post 'The most important thing is personal security, not carrying out the judicial reform' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.