Israel, on the wire: "the level of tension is not good for anyone"

In the latest edition of "De Cara al Mundo" on Onda Madrid, we had the participation of Gabriel Ben-Tasgal, Israeli journalist and political scientist, who analysed in an interview with Javier Fernández Arribas the situation of division in Israel following the unprecedented protests against the judicial reform of Benjamin Netanyahu's government.  

Is it an exaggeration to say that Israel is or has been on the brink of civil war because of this judicial reform by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?  

Yes, it is a bit of an exaggeration, but there really is a lot of tension at the moment because the reform was very drastic and the people are not ready for the ideas that were being put forward, even though there was some justification for a need to reform the judicial system.

But it seemed that one of the beneficiaries might be Netanyahu himself, is that true?  

Relatively, because the argument against this reform said that if the trial against Netanyahu was continued and Netanyahu was sentenced in a way that did not benefit him in a possible retrial, then he could somehow indirectly influence the appointment of a certain judge, but the truth is that this issue is quite distant.   

That's not why the fundamental argument of why reform was needed. It is because the population in Israel tends to vote for conservative parties. They are from right-wing and religious parties, whereas the judiciary is perceived fairly or unfairly as representing universalist or left-wing values, and that mismatch caused the government to decide that it has to intervene indirectly to make it more representative.  

Is the crisis caused by this reform perhaps also the result of other serious problems in Israeli society, and that this reform has served as a spur to reform it?  

Yes, of course, absolutely. For example, the decisions that the government takes and that the parliament does not decide and allows the judiciary to intervene from a political point of view, also damaging the image of this policy. There are a lot of issues that have not been decided, are not decided, and this no-man's land is used in a certain way by the judges.  

Have the demonstrations also been used as an opportunity to use the Palestinian issue?  

Very little. The Palestinian issue is not on the national agenda at the moment; it is mostly an internal issue. Certain decisions that the executive and parliament have taken in recent years have been cancelled by an intervention, an excessive judicial activism, where judges overrule the decisions of the executive under the argument of reasonableness.  

The issue of reasonableness is a very subjective issue. At that point, the ideology of the judge comes into play, because if there is no law and you interpret what you consider to be correct, it is all very subjective and that subjectivity is what has damaged the prestige of the judiciary.

What the Prime Minister has done is to postpone this reform, but until 30 April, will we have the same demonstrations, the same problem and the same crisis or worse?  

Maybe. It depends on whether the government and the opposition can reach an agreement to make a reform that is more acceptable to everyone. What happened is that what the government did was to propose a number of measures that were too extreme for what the public was prepared for, for example, giving Parliament the possibility of annulling laws with a majority of 61 deputies. Those kinds of measures are very extreme in the public eye because it is a simple majority in parliament. If there is no agreement, for example, to change this number from 61 out of 120 to 70 or 75, there will be no consensus. But it depends on what happens in those weeks, whether they will be able to agree or not.  

That or what Mr Netanyahu has proposed, to be able to have a real dialogue or negotiation, will he be able to do it?   

It is difficult to know. I think so because there is a level of tension in the country that is not good for anyone. Everyone understands that this situation is abnormal, that is, that the kind of protests in a town that is threatened from the outside, what it does is to show forces like Hezbollah or Hamas that there is a social weakness, and this can be exploited. Since Israeli society cannot afford such luxuries, it is likely that social pressure will bring about some kind of agreement, but it is still too early to tell.   

Does the involvement of US President Joe Biden in the controversy, saying that Israel cannot go down this path, and the response it has received, benefit or harm Netanyahu? How do you assess the US president's intervention in this issue?  

It's a bit strange. On the one hand, it damages Israel's international prestige because it shows that the country's most important ally is no longer such an ally. On the other hand, Netanyahu has had and gained a reputation for standing up to, for example, Barack Obama on the Iranian nuclear issue. Netanyahu came out against Obama and said that what he was doing with Iran was a bad deal, and on this specific point Netanyahu proved that he was more right than Obama. Netanyahu understood Iran's intentions better than the US president, and that earned him domestic prestige, as Israel has a prime minister capable of standing up to the highest US authority if he sees fit.  

But this confrontation can play both sides, because it can show Netanyahu as a strong leader and also as a leader who loses his most important ally.  

The National Guard created by Ben Gvir is also proving very controversial, is this more fuel to the fire?  

Yes, it is more fuel to the fire because the current Israeli government is made up of very right-wing parties where Prime Minister Netanyahu is seen as the most left-wing of his government. So this is not good for stability, and if you add to this a measure such as a kind of private guard, which is made by an extreme right-winger like Itamar Ben-Gvir, it does not help the opposition to feel more supported by a stable government.  

It is all trouble for Mr Netanyahu. Perhaps we should think about changing the electoral law and seek formulas of understanding, of consensus, so that Israel could be governed more easily, so to speak.  

It may be that the problem does not lie precisely in that direction, but in the fact that Netanyahu is being prosecuted and, therefore, the natural allies in the centre of the political map are boycotting him and saying that he cannot be prime minister. The problem is really that Netanyahu has been in power for many years and that creates a logical attrition. My personal opinion is that a prime minister cannot be in power for so many years, even if the law allows it.