Israel’s supreme court has overturned a law passed by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government last year that would have limited the power of the Israeli courts. This legislation, known as ‘the reasonableness bill’ was meant to put a stop to the courts’ ability to cancel decisions made by the government if they were deemed to be ‘extremely unreasonable’. Yesterday, judges threw out the law, claiming that the government lacked the authority to implement it.

The law was part of a package of judicial reforms initiated by Netanyahu’s far-right government; many in Israel argued that the reforms would weaken the courts and undermine Israeli democratic institutions. From the moment it was introduced, the proposed legislation ignited mass demonstrations against the government and widespread calls for Netanyahu to resign. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets every week. These only stopped when the war in Gaza started in October, although anti-government protests are now gradually starting up again.

The political crisis ignited by Netanyahu’s government gave Hamas the opportunity to attack

Netanyahu’s government has become deeply unpopular over the past twelve months. Its policies were seen as serving his personal interests, namely to stay in power and avoid being found guilty in the various ongoing corruption trials against him. Weakening the courts would have also served those ministers from hard right populist coalition parties in the government who sought to undermine the rights of minorities and women, restrict journalistic independence and freedom and give themselves undue power.

As soon as the verdict was handed down, the supreme court came under attack from Netanyahu’s supporters, who criticised the court for delivering such a dramatic blow to the government during wartime. The former president of the supreme court, judge Esther Hayut, defended the timing, saying that ‘even at this difficult hour, the court must fulfil its duty and decide on matters brought to it, in particular matters pertaining to the essential characteristics of Israel as a democratic and Jewish State.’

Members of Knesset – the Israeli parliament – serving in Netanyahu’s government have long criticised the supreme court for what they saw as excessive activism. The Israeli court is considered one of the most daring and active in the world. It holds considerable power and many Israelis agree that a reform is necessary. Just not the populist changes pushed for by Netanyahu’s hawkish and amateurish Justice Minister Yariv Levin, which would have undermined the court’s judicial independence.

Ironically, by pushing for a law that stood on shaky legal grounds, Levin has achieved the opposite of what he tried to do. As part of the ruling, favoured by eight judges against seven, 12 of the 15 judges agreed that the supreme court has the authority to intervene in Israel’s basic laws (the fourteen quasi-constitutional laws based on the individual liberties set out in the country’s declaration of independence). This is nothing less than a constitutional revolution that will undermine the government’s entire plan for reform.

The ‘reasonableness’ law and other policies pushed for by the government last year caused a major rift amongst the Israeli public. They firmly contradicted the will of the majority. Divisions also appeared in the Israeli army, with reservists from elite units refusing to serve in the months leading up to the war because of their objection to the government’s policies.

When Hamas attacked on 7 October, Israel was caught at unawares. Netanyahu has since been accused of neglecting Israeli security because he was preoccupied with personal survival, his reforms and petty politics. He had repeatedly ignored warnings from the intelligence and defence communities in the months leading up to the attack that his reforms placed Israel in danger, with the risk of war increasing significantly.

Hamas understood that there was a rare chance to strike Israel while it was divided and distracted and took advantage of the situation. It resulted in the greatest and most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and a war in which Israel is attacked from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran simultaneously.

The general belief is that the political crisis ignited by Netanyahu’s government gave Hamas the opportunity to attack. This view received further support yesterday from the spokesman of the Israeli Defence Forces, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari. Hagari admitted during a press briefing that Israel’s crisis was probably one of the reasons Hamas attacked when it did. This will increase pressure on Netanyahu to resign – although he will unabashedly cling to his seat.

Despite the government’s criticism of the decision made by the supreme court, and their claim that the court cannot rule on basic laws, it is unlikely to pursue the judicial reform it wants to following yesterday’s ruling. Although the public is now united in the war effort and grief, support for Netanyahu has plummeted. The fierce public criticism that the government will face if it resumes reforms during the war, which is likely to carry on for months, is deterring many coalition members from pursuing it further.

The supreme court has fulfilled its role as defender of democracy, and Netanyahu’s initiative has come to a spectacular end. The court signalled to the government yesterday that it will strike down any laws that stand in opposition to Israel’s democratic principles. This is a blow to Netanyahu and to those in his government who had planned to demolish any oversight over their actions that would have allowed corruption and extremism to flourish.