Posted on March 2, 2025
“…I truly believe the threat to our democracy is serious.”
My name is Noa, Amitim 1999. I’m a mother of three and live in Kfar Saba. I teach law at both Tel Aviv University and Sapir Academic College in the Negev and I’m a postdoctoral researcher at The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University. My research focuses on parliamentary work and how the legislative process shapes the legal framework established by parliament.
Helping Students Pick Up the Pieces
Sapir College, the only academic institution located in the Gaza envelope, suffered terribly on October 7.
Forty-seven people, including administrative staff, faculty members, graduates, and students were murdered in the massacre, and many staff and students—residents of the Gaza envelope—were evacuated. A vast number of them were called up for reserve duty, and those who weren’t called up had siblings or partners in the reserves. We switched to online learning as soon as the war broke out; the semester was shortened. While I still delivered the course material, most of the time I just tried to help them start functioning again—working one-on-one, even on Zoom, and letting them work on their assignments during the lessons. Of course, they were also helping me get back on track. The atmosphere in Tel Aviv was different. Although a substantial portion of the students were in the reserves, there was a sense that we were on the home front and maintaining a routine. At Sapir, it was really about picking up the pieces—which the college handled admirably—while in Tel Aviv, there were simply no students to teach. I had 15 students in my course, 10 of whom were marked “Iron Swords group 1+.”
Walking a Tightrope When Talking About the Knesset
The course I teach focuses on the Knesset and the issues surrounding the legislative process itself – key decision points, the opportunities we provide to stakeholders, how decisions are made, and whether the outcomes are representative, inclusive, etc. I’ve been teaching this course for 10 years, but my experience in academia has changed over the last two.
The topic of decision-making in the Knesset has always been heated, and I’ve never expected students to necessarily share my views. However, since the judicial overhaul began in early 2023, I’ve noticed two changes: First, people now make assumptions about my personal views before I even speak. They assume I’m left-wing—which, to be fair, is not far from the truth—jumping to conclusions before I’ve even opened my mouth. So, the first challenge I face is dispelling the fear that I’m going to indoctrinate them with left-wing views (though, of course, adhering to the rule of law is hardly a political stance). Second, although I’m teaching the same course I always have, I now feel I have to walk on a tightrope, constantly being careful not to say anything that might trigger accusations of imposing my personal opinion. There’s a real sense that if I slip even slightly, all hell will break loose.
The Judicial Overhaul 101
In a nutshell, the judicial overhaul—or judicial reform—is a series of legislative amendments that was announced by the coalition, led by Minister of Justice Yariv Levin, six days after the government was formed. The amendments include fundamental changes to existing laws as well as new bills designed to increase the coalition’s ability to govern by removing obstacles to decision-making and implementation.
The judicial reform proposes several major changes: restricting the grounds for incapacitating the Prime Minister, excluding reasons such as legal incapacity or conflicts of interest; limiting the court’s ability to annul laws and overturn government decisions; changing the role of the Attorney General, making it a political appointment, and limiting their legal opinions to advisory rather than binding; altering the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee to give the government more control over the decisions; and abolishing the ‘reasonableness’ standard, preventing the court from canceling government decisions it deems ‘unreasonable.’
While these are the key points, there are other changes in the works as well. Some laws have already passed and petitions have been filed with the High Court, while others are still being debated and voted on. In short—it’s a lot to process.
It’s important to understand that Israel doesn’t have a strict constitution—we have Basic Laws. The problem is that Basic Laws—which are meant to define the state’s character and form our constitution—follow the same legislative process as regular laws. And our legislative process isn’t set by law but by the Knesset’s Rules of Procedure. This makes it quite flimsy, as it can be changed by a decision of the Knesset Committee with plenum approval. Essentially, the coalition can alter the process whenever it wants, since it has the majority. But mainly, the process of amending basic laws today is rather simple.
While Students Intuitively Align with the Court, They End Up Opposing It
A key point of debate at the heart of this reform is: Does the court have the authority to interpret the Basic Laws? I have an exercise I do with my students when discussing the legislative process and this question inevitably comes up.
A private bill (i.e., initiated by a Knesset member) is restricted from being racist or undermining Israel’s Jewish character (by the way, there’s no mention of its democratic character). However, no such restrictions apply to government bills. So, I ask my students, “Can the government legislate a racist law?” They respond, “No, of course not! You can’t pass racist laws!” I reply, “But I just told you! This limitation applies only to private initiative legislation, not government bills. The government can absolutely pass racist laws.”
Why do they immediately insist that racist laws can’t be passed? Because their intuition tells them that in a democracy, racist legislation is not possible. Essentially, they are applying judicial review, as the court would. If the government passes a racist law, a petition would go to the High Court of Justice, and the court would rule, “In a democracy, we have fundamental values that prevent racism.”
At their core, the students think like the court. Their intuition is correct, but they get caught up in the haze of the overhaul and in questioning whether the court has overstepped its authority. While there is certainly room for debate on this point, the lack of understanding regarding the substance of the court’s activities is very frustrating. This confusion leads them, despite intuitively aligning with the court, to ultimately oppose it.
A Serious Threat to Democracy
There’s a debate between liberals and conservatives on whether our democracy should be substantive or procedural—the former prioritizes human rights and limits on the legislature, while the latter prioritizes majority rule, giving the legislature the final say as long as proper processes are followed. This debate has become very real, and I truly believe the threat to our democracy is serious.
This coalition is troubling. I can’t understand how anyone could accept majority rule as the sole basis for decision-making. While I understand the political motivations behind this view, unless you believe you’ll always be in power, I don’t see how anyone can genuinely support majority rule without limits to its authority. It’s frightening—the majority can decide so much. Our society is highly diverse, and if we don’t address the big issues—Haredim vs. secular, religion and state, Jews and Arabs, equality, conscription—and only focus on procedural rules, these rules could backfire. If our rules only require a majority, we must confront the big questions.
We Need to Trust Each Other
There are various initiatives and proposals to resolve the crisis—the Constituent Assembly, the Fourth Quarter, and more—which aim to think long-term, above political and party interests. The problem is, we need to trust each other. With polarization so extreme, we’ll need to find a way to meet in the middle. Bronfman thought about this a long time ago. We need to find a way to meet, and calm the situation, and only then will we be able to build trust.
