In normal times, thousands of people would have poured into the streets to celebrate the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a central piece of the Netanyahu government’s plan to cripple democracy. The so called reform had triggered immense, constant protests for months.
Alas, since the horrific Hamas attack on Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza, celebration would have felt grotesque. But the all-consuming conflict should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the struggle for democracy in Israel continues.
In a single decision handed down on Jan. 1, the court ruled on two issues. The first concerned an overarching principle: The court affirmed that it could overrule even constitutional measures if they violated core democratic principles. An overwhelming 13 of the 15 justices concurred on that point, establishing, as a result, a protection against the government exploiting basic laws to hurt democracy.
The second issue was narrower, as was the majority: by an 8-7 vote, the justices ruled that the intensely controversial law passed last summer that crippled judicial review of government actions is inimical to democracy — and overturned it.
This is good news, and a reminder that Israel is not only a country of its current extreme leaders. The government’s power grab provoked broad, peaceful public resistance and has now been blocked by a courageous court.
But the domestic conflict over the future of democracy is not over. It has at most been postponed until after the war ends.
Indeed, the court’s ruling is both momentous and fragile. Justice Minister Yariv Levin of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, who is widely seen as the architect of the government plans for a more autocratic regime, has remained intent on changing how justices are appointed in order to guarantee a submissive court. Two of the majority’s eight justices have already reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. The question of who will replace them could determine whether the landmark decision guides the court — or is eventually reversed.
Under current law, judges are appointed by a panel including Supreme Court justices, lawyers, cabinet ministers and Knesset members. The system requires agreement between the jurists and politicians. But over the past several years, right-wing justice ministers have aimed at increasing the proportion of conservative appointees.
The reforms to the judiciary introduced in January 2023 had several components. One was to change how jurists are selected. This part, approved in committee last March, would give the ruling coalition a majority on the panel. In the face of the massive protests, the government held off bringing the bill for a vote. Since the war began, the entire reform package has been on hold.
Meanwhile, though, Mr. Levin has been “delaying appointments,” Knesset member Karine Elharrar, of the centrist Yesh Atid party and the only opposition representative on the current panel, told me last month. “There’s no meaningful discussion” of candidates, she said.
That’s a clear sign that the government hasn’t given up on its plan and is only waiting for the war to end.
Even if the government falls, the danger is that the political focus has shifted. Now that public attention is focused on Mr. Netanyahu’s responsibility for Israel’s being taken by surprise in October and his management of the war, that debate could easily divert attention from the threat to the judicial system. If elections are held, the next government could well include right-wing rivals of Mr. Netanyahu’s, who were out of power on Oct. 7 but may quietly resume the effort to appoint tractable justices.
Ultimately, the goal for much of the political right is reducing or eliminating constraints on the power of the parliament and the executive branch. A potential result would be an autocracy of the most recently elected majority. Against that, the outgoing chief justice Esther Hayut ringingly asserted in her opinion that Israel’s constitutional tradition “informs us in a clear voice” that its identity is “as a Jewish and democratic state.” Democracy, she wrote, requires free elections, recognition of basic human rights and the rule of law — and separation of powers and an independent judiciary. Judicial oversight of parliament is necessary, she ruled.
Given how easily parliament can approve basic laws — measures designated as part of Israel’s incomplete Constitution — that might subvert the state’s democratic identity, judicial oversight is needed, Hayut concluded. The Supreme Court has the power to decide when the Knesset enacts a basic law that exceeds parliamentary authority in an “extreme and unusual” manner.
An overwhelming majority of the court concurred with that position. Potentially, this is a turning point, a victory for democracy in its liberal form.
Of course, outside the courtroom, Israel falls short of liberal democracy — most egregiously in its continuing rule over disenfranchised Palestinians in the West Bank. A tectonic political shift, not a court decision, is needed to end the occupation. But a precondition for that shift is open democracy within Israel proper.
“Israel is a fragile democracy,” Ms. Elharrar said. “The reason for the clash between the judicial branch and the legislative and especially the executive branch,” she asserts, is that the government “wants absolute power.” It won’t give up on its “judicial revolution,” she said, “unless people go out and demonstrate.”
The court’s decision is a crucial reminder: In Israel’s internal conflict, the war is at most a moratorium. The fight to preserve democracy is far from over.
Gershom Gorenberg is an Israeli journalist and historian. His most recent book is “War of Shadows: Codebreakers, Spies, and the Secret Struggle to Drive the Nazis From the Middle East.”
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads.