President Isaac Herzog and his staff are pressuring negotiators from the coalition and from the opposition to announce a first agreement on the government’s proposed judicial reforms, as pressure grows ahead of the June 15 deadline to vote on the Knesset’s representatives in the Judicial Appointments Committee, Ynet reported on Monday morning.
The Office of the President denied the report.
“There are no agreements, there is a struggle to create agreements. The Office of the President once again recommends not to rely on tendentious and one-sided leaks. When agreements are reached, they will be presented to the public fully and transparently,” the office said in response to a query.
According to Maariv, one proposal was for the opposition negotiating teams, which represent Yesh Atid and National Unity, to announce their agreement to relatively minor laws, in exchange for a promise by the coalition not to legislate anything one-sidedly for the rest of the 25th Knesset’s term.
The first law, known as the “Attorney-Generals’ Law,” is one that would enable ministers to receive their own legal representation if their actions or policies are challenged in court and the Attorney-General supports the challengers, and not the minister. The second law would define and reduce the cases in which the High Court of Justice may use the “extreme unreasonableness” as a basis to strike down government decisions.
WILL THE talks under the auspices of President Isaac Herzog allow top opposition figures Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz to reach an agreement with the government coalition on judicial reform? (credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)Yesh Atid said in a statement on Sunday that there would be no agreements until the Judicial Appointments Committee convenes and begins its work. “Any agreements that will or will not be made will be given only within the framework of general agreement over all of the issues, and a commitment to ending the debates on Israel’s system of governance,” the party said.
The impending June 14 vote for the Judicial Appointments Committee
The Knesset is scheduled to vote for its two representatives on the nine-member Judicial Appointments Committee on June 14. The coalition traditionally allows the opposition to occupy one of the two seats. However, some ministers, including Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, called on the coalition to break the tradition and appoint coalition Knesset members to occupy both spots. Both Yesh Atid and National Unity threatened in recent weeks that if the coalition does so, they will leave the negotiation table.
However, even if an opposition does win a spot on the committee, Justice Minister Yariv Levin is not required by the law to convene the committee nor appoint judges by a certain deadline. Levin could therefore choose not to convene the committee, with the hope that the coalition may still be able to alter the committee’s makeup such that it has a majority. This is arguably the most contentious proposal in the judicial reforms, as the opposition has argued that it will lead to a politicization of the courts.
Yesh Atid therefore demanded in the statement above that no agreements will be met until the committee actually convenes and begins its work.
The “National Protest Leadership” condemned the “emerging agreement”, calling it a “threat to Israeli democracy.”
“If the reports are indeed true, this so-called ‘compromise’ agreement amounts to nothing more than a surrender that compromises the very essence of Israeli democracy in exchange for empty promises from Netanyahu. This is an unacceptable betrayal of the trust and aspirations of the millions who have actively voiced their concerns,” the protest leaders said in a statement.
“The proposed agreement reflects Netanyahu’s calculated strategy of eroding the judicial review process and undermining the role of the attorney general, thereby jeopardizing the foundations of our democracy. It is alarming that Netanyahu’s own coalition partners have openly labeled him a liar, and yet, opposition Leader Lapid and MK Gantz seem willing to trust him.
“The millions of people who have joined the protests over the past five months did not rally for a surrender agreement. We reiterate that Lapid, Gantz, and Herzog do not possess the mandate to sign away our democratic values. If they choose to proceed with such a surrender, they will quickly find themselves rendered irrelevant, as the public’s trust in their leadership crumbles. They must remember that they have no authority to submit to those who seek to transform Israel into a dictatorship,” the protest leaders said.
They called on protestors to demonstrate outside of the President’s Residence on Friday.
Leaders of the opposition parties continued to spar on Monday over the judicial reform talks and over the identity of the opposition’s representative on the Judicial Appointments Committee.
Yesh Atid, National Unity and Labor have all offered candidates – MK Karin Elharrar, MK Pnina-Tamano Shata, and MK Efrat Rayten, respectively.
Asked about the matter at a press conference ahead of his party’s weekly meeting, Lapid said that he was having trouble communicating with Labor since there were “different voices” speaking for the party. This was a jab at the existing tensions within Labor, since under party leader MK Merav Michaeli it is polling consistently below the electoral threshold.
However, Lapid stressed the importance of presenting one candidate so as not to split up the opposition’s vote, and Michaeli agreed. She responded to Lapid’s jab by saying that Labor was a democracy and different voices were welcome – an implied criticism of Lapid, whose party does not hold primary elections.
Yisrael Beytenu chairman MK Avigdor Liberman criticized Gantz and Lapid for continuing to participate in the talks at the President’s Residence, arguing that any deal would be giving legitimization for Netanyahu’s government, and the opposition should instead focus on bringing down the government.
“Stop with this game. You are simply harming our ability to destabilize Netanyahu’s reign, and you are also harming the chance not only to talk but also to found a constitution in the future,” Liberman said.
Comments are closed.