Reactions to the 2023 Israeli Judicial Reform

The judicial overhaul was first presented in the Knesset on January 4, 2023, by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who argued on that date that elected officials — not unelected judges — should govern: "we go to the polls, we vote, we choose, but time and again, people we did not choose decide for us . . . this is not democracy!"[3] The package of proposed changes included limiting courts' use of the reasonableness standard in reviewing government decisions, restructuring the judicial-appointments committee to reduce a judicial veto and give elected officials greater influence, constraining the Supreme Court's ability to strike down Knesset legislation, and altering the status of government legal advisers.[4][2]

An INSS analysis characterized the dispute as a struggle over the balance between the judicial branch and the executive and legislative branches, summarizing the competing arguments as follows: proponents said the changes would reduce what they saw as excessive judicial power, while opponents argued they would hand the executive and legislature uncontrolled authority at the expense of judicial independence and the rule of law.[5] The same analysis described the conflict as rooted in competing understandings of Israel as both Jewish and democratic, and noted that the new coalition had aggravated existing social and political controversies.[5]

One week after Levin's Knesset presentation, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut condemned the plan in an unprecedented public speech on January 12, 2023, warning that the proposals would "crush the justice system [and] deal a fatal blow to the independence of the judiciary."[2] She argued specifically that abolishing the reasonableness test would leave courts without tools to protect individual rights when government authorities violated them, citing welfare benefits, surrogacy services for LGBTQ couples, religious services, and freedom of expression and assembly as areas at risk.[2]

Attorney General Gali Beharev-Miara likewise described judicial independence as central to the balance of power and warned that increased political influence over judicial appointments would diminish the relative weight of legal-system professionals.[2]

The Law Library of Congress recorded that reform proponents, including Levin, presented the changes as strengthening governance and rebalancing the branches of government, arguing the High Court had exceeded its authority and hampered elected officials' ability to implement policy.[2] Critics countered that greater political control over judicial appointments could erode public trust, weaken judicial independence, and reduce the courts' ability to protect rights and the rule of law.[2] The Jewish Virtual Library summarized that while many opponents accepted that some judicial reform might be necessary, they argued the government's proposals went too far and called for negotiations and broad consensus before changes of this magnitude were enacted.[6]

The anti-overhaul protest movement grew rapidly in scale and geographic spread. What began as a gathering of a few thousand quickly expanded to hundreds of thousands, drawing participants from diverse political backgrounds around the shared stated goal of preserving Israel's democratic character.[7] Weekly Saturday-night demonstrations spread beyond Tel Aviv to cities and towns across the country, with additional weekday protests and targeted actions.[8] January 14 — dubbed the "protest of the umbrellas" — drew an estimated 80,000 people to Tel Aviv in heavy rain.[8] By February 11, organizers estimated 145,000 participants in Tel Aviv and 83,000 elsewhere, for a total of approximately 228,000 across the country on a single evening, though police did not provide independent estimates.[9]

The movement's scale continued to grow. On March 11, protest organizers estimated that 240,000 people attended the Tel Aviv rally alone — a figure organizers described as a record for the campaign, citing television footage and camera analysis — alongside roughly 50,000 in Haifa and about 10,000 in Beersheba.[10] Speakers at those demonstrations included former Israel Air Force commander Amir Eshel and former police commissioner Moshe Karadi.[10] Across the full eight-month period beginning January 4, 2023, INSS counted 1,816 demonstrations against the overhaul at roughly 200 locations; police figures cited by INSS reported more than 7 million cumulative protest appearances, while the protest movement claimed more than 10 million.[1] These totals represent counted protest appearances, not distinct individuals.[1]

The Washington Institute described the opposition as a nonviolent grassroots movement that drew support from middle-class voters, national-security personnel, and high-tech workers, and whose leaders claimed it had played a greater part in securing the March legislative pause than the formal political opposition had.[7] Protest participants included grandparents, parents, children, and many people who reported taking part in political action for the first time.[8] Demonstrations spread to the Negev and to communities near the Gaza border, and the movement encompassed businesspeople, technology entrepreneurs, doctors, teachers, and combat pilots.[11]

Certain tactics within the protest movement were themselves contested. Road blockages, disruption of access to Ben Gurion Airport, and demonstrations outside private homes were noted both by observers who described them approvingly and by government officials who condemned them.[8][12] At a March 27 pro-reform counter-rally, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich condemned what he called "anarchy," while Communications Minister Shlomo Karai said the government would not surrender to "anarchists."[12] The government also portrayed protesters more broadly as backed by outside forces seeking to bring down the government by force.[6]

Despite the overwhelmingly anti-overhaul character of the street protests, the coalition held its own demonstrations. The March 27 counter-rally near the Supreme Court was organized by right-wing groups including Regavim, Im Tirzu, Ad Kan, Bezalmo, and Torat Lehima.[12] A much larger pro-overhaul rally followed in Jerusalem on April 27, drawing more than 150,000 people, with a police-source estimate cited by Channel 12 placing attendance between 150,000 and 200,000.[13][14] Levin, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and Knesset committee chairman Simcha Rothman addressed that crowd. Some attendees booed Levin when he expressed willingness to reach a negotiated agreement and chanted that they wanted full legal reform.[14] INSS contrasted the 1,816 anti-overhaul demonstrations during the first eight months with approximately 70 demonstrations in support of the government and its initiative.[1]

Multiple surveys tracked Israeli opinion throughout 2023, though they asked different questions at different times and cannot be treated as directly interchangeable. A Globes–Shiluv survey conducted January 31–February 1, 2023, among 507 Israeli adults found that 42 percent did not support the government's proposed reform at all, 22 percent supported some items, 19 percent supported all items, and 17 percent had no view or did not know — a maximum sampling error of ±4.4 percent.[15] An Israel Democracy Index poll from January found that 34 percent of Jewish respondents described Levin's reform as good and 44 percent as bad; among Arab respondents, 19 percent said good, 40 percent bad, and 41 percent did not know.[16] A separate Maariv poll that month found 39 percent supported the government's judicial reform and 44 percent opposed it.[16]

Channel 12 surveys cited by INSS found that 62 percent of respondents supported halting the reform process and 66 percent supported delaying it for national debate; 24 percent and 21 percent, respectively, favored proceeding as planned — though INSS did not provide survey dates, sample sizes, or detailed demographic breakdowns.[5] A Channel 12 poll reported in a Times of Israel article found roughly one in four Israelis supported proceeding with the overhaul in its then-current form.[9] By contrast, a July 2023 poll cited by the Congressional Research Service found Israelis favored a compromise-based reform process over the government's proposals by more than two to one, although that report did not identify the polling organization, field dates, or exact percentages.[17]

The Washington Institute reported that more than 70 percent of Israelis wanted dialogue and compromise, while noting that few believed the existing negotiations would produce serious results and that most did not regard President Herzog as an impartial arbitrator.[7] It also noted that 64 percent of Israeli Jews identified as right-wing, meaning support for dialogue included a substantial share of right-of-center Israelis.[7]

Tel Aviv University's Peace Index offered more granular findings. The September 2023 edition found 51 percent of respondents opposed the judicial changes the government was advancing, 37 percent supported them, and about 12 percent did not know.[18] It reported a sharp political divide: a majority of coalition voters and those identifying as right-wing on security issues supported the changes, while a clear majority of opposition voters and center-left identifiers opposed them.[18] Opponents of the changes generally wanted the protest movement to expand its agenda beyond judicial matters; both Jewish and Arab respondents in that category agreed the movement should address the government's handling of violence in Arab society.[18]

Jewish respondents also wanted attention to equal military or national-service recruitment, while Arab respondents were more divided on that question; most Arab respondents wanted the protests to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whereas Jewish respondents were more hesitant.[18]

The March 2023 Peace Index captured sharply divergent expectations about what the reforms would actually do. Large majorities of coalition voters believed the changes would help protect soldiers and commanders from arrest abroad and prosecution in international courts, preserve security forces' freedom of action, enable reserve mobilization and military operations, and protect minority rights. Majorities of opposition voters believed the reverse on nearly every one of those questions — that the changes would harm security forces' freedom of action, soldiers' protection abroad, reserve mobilization, and minority rights.[19] On the question of minority rights, about half of Jewish respondents overall thought the changes would harm them, including half of those identifying as moderate right who had an opinion.[19]

On the specific question of the reasonableness standard — one of the proposals' most contested elements — the Globes–Shiluv survey found that 28 percent favored allowing the Supreme Court to intervene in government decisions only in extreme cases on special grounds, while 19 percent agreed with the government's position that such intervention was not the court's role at all. Adding together respondents who favored the existing standard, intervention only in extreme cases, or intervention limited to human-rights violations, the survey found that 69 percent opposed completely abolishing judicial review under the reasonableness test.[15]

Arab citizens, who make up approximately one fifth of Israel's population, largely did not participate in the mass protests in large numbers, despite significant reported concern about the proposed changes. An Israel Democracy Institute survey conducted in late February 2023 found that 87 percent of Arab citizens feared their rights could be jeopardized if the reforms were approved.[20] INSS attributed the hesitation partly to a lack of trust in state institutions and to a perception that the demonstrations were an intra-Jewish political struggle that did not sufficiently address occupation or discrimination against Arabs.[20]

Some Arab political leaders nonetheless called for engagement. Ayman Odeh attended a Tel Aviv demonstration on March 11, 2023, and urged Arab citizens to join the protests; at a Wadi Ara demonstration on March 17, he argued that Arab society should be an integral part of the broader struggle.[20] Mansour Abbas called for dialogue under the president's auspices while also calling for the protests to continue.[20] Arab rallies were held in Kafr Manda and Wadi Ara, and organizations including the Abraham Initiatives campaigned for Arab citizen participation.[20]

The picture was not uniform among Arab citizens themselves. Some were concerned that the Supreme Court had not adequately protected equality and collective rights, and felt that protest organizers had minimized Arab participation or discouraged Palestinian flags and discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[20] Advocates of participation countered that the Court had helped prevent Arab parties or candidates from being barred from elections, and that joining the protests could both protect rights and demonstrate Arab society's commitment to civic integration.[20] The March 2023 Peace Index separately found that on most questions, at least 40 percent of Arab respondents — roughly twice the rate among Jewish respondents — did not express an opinion, and that a majority of Arab respondents believed the changes would help prevent Israeli soldiers from being prosecuted abroad, a view Jewish respondents were more divided on.[19]

The dispute's impact on military cohesion and national security became one of its most politically charged dimensions. Military reservists — including personnel in critical Israel Air Force roles — joined protests or threatened to suspend volunteer service if the proposals passed without significant change.[21] Ahead of the July 24 Knesset vote on the reasonableness standard, approximately 1,142 Air Force reservists, including hundreds of pilots, and about 10,000 additional reservists announced they would stop volunteering.[22] IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi warned publicly that the military depended on reservists' "volunteering spirit," which he linked to preserving the IDF as the "people's army" in a Jewish and democratic state.[21] Defense Minister Yoav Gallant also warned that the national rift was endangering IDF readiness and Israel's security.[23]

Reservists' threatened refusals were themselves deeply divisive. Some framed their stance as defending the social contract underlying a democratic state; the government regarded such reservists as insubordinate; and some former senior security officials publicly supported the protest as a legitimate response to what they viewed as a breach of that contract.[6] A July 2023 Israel Democracy Institute survey found that 65 percent of left-wing voters considered reservist refusals a legitimate form of protest, compared with only 9 percent of right-wing voters — up from 56 and 17 percent, respectively, in March.[6] Overall, 63 percent of Israelis did not consider refusal a legitimate form of protest in July.[6]

Reform supporters turned these arguments around: they argued that the protests themselves, and especially the reservist refusals, were the true threat to national security and the economy.[6] On March 23, Netanyahu condemned reservists' refusals as dangerous to national security, while opposition leader Lapid replied that Netanyahu's insistence on advancing legislation showed he had no genuine interest in dialogue.[24]

Defense Minister Gallant's call for a legislative halt, and Netanyahu's decision on March 26 to dismiss him, proved to be a pivotal moment in the crisis. The dismissal triggered an immediate escalation of demonstrations, and on March 27 the Histadrut labor federation — led by secretary general Arnon Bar-David — announced a general strike, which Bar-David described as a historic action involving both workers and employers.[23] The strike encompassed technology companies, banks, local authorities, shopping malls, and a halt to takeoffs at Ben Gurion Airport.[23] As protests and labor action escalated, Netanyahu announced a pause in the overhaul.[7]

Economic concerns were woven through the crisis from the outset. In January 2023, at a meeting with Netanyahu, Bank Hapoalim CEO Dov Kotler acknowledged that some savings accounts were being moved out of Israel but cautioned that it was "not on a dramatic scale," adding that the bank was concerned it might be the beginning of a trend.[25] Discount Bank CEO Uri Levin called for an immediate pause and for changes to be made cautiously and with broad agreement.[25] Netanyahu responded by arguing that the reform would actually benefit the economy, predicting it would cause the economy "to take off."[25]

By early February, more than 50 businesspeople sent letters to the president, prime minister, Supreme Court president, Knesset speaker, and opposition leader warning that the proposals, as being advanced, could deepen divisions and seriously harm the economy.[26] The signatories said they respected the election result and believed the legal system could be improved, but argued that Israel's economic achievements depended in part on democratic balance, checks among government branches, and confidence in the rule of law.[26] Around January 22, 130 technology companies and other businesses allowed employees to join a warning strike following a demonstration reported to have drawn 130,000 participants.[27]

Fifty former director generals of economic ministries — including some who had served in Netanyahu-led governments — wrote that economic stability and international confidence depended partly on an independent judiciary and civil service, warning that weakening those institutions could damage the economy, lower Israel's credit rating, and make it harder for technology companies to raise capital.[28] A group of 56 U.S. economists signed an open letter warning that weakening the rule of law could harm Israel's economic growth; Israeli venture capitalist Ben Rabinowitz said investors needed predictable rule of law and protection of property rights, and warned that doubts about those protections could deter investment.[29]

The U.S. Department of State's 2023 investment climate report noted that critics said the proposals could weaken checks and balances, the rule of law, and property rights, while the government argued the changes would reduce frivolous lawsuits that allegedly delayed major investment projects.[30] Many economists and business leaders predicted reduced investment and economic harm; several Israeli technology companies announced withdrawal of funds.[30] Economists estimated that billions of dollars in personal savings and potential investment left within weeks of the reform's proposal, though the State Department report did not specify a more precise figure.[30]

SAPIR Journal essayist Amir Tibon wrote that about six weeks into Netanyahu's sixth term, several high-tech companies moved billions of dollars out of Israel, and that CEOs of Israel's largest banks privately warned the prime minister that capital movement was spreading beyond wealthy entrepreneurs to upper-middle-class customers — though neither the companies nor the banks were named.[31]

When the Knesset advanced the reasonableness-standard legislation in July, economic solidarity with the opposition widened: banks Leumi and Hapoalim allowed workers to demonstrate without losing pay, around 150 large companies went on strike, and Azrieli and Big shopping centers closed stores.[32] A Jewish Review of Books account attributed the government's earlier retreat partly to a fall in the shekel's value and concern about a possible credit-rating downgrade, alongside demonstrations, reservist threats, business warnings, capital movements, and foreign pressure.[8]

President Isaac Herzog played a central mediating role throughout the crisis. On February 13, he urged the coalition not to bring its legislation to a first reading and presented five principles for consensual reform: rules governing Basic Laws and their relationship to the Supreme Court; narrowing the reasonableness test; changing the judicial-selection committee; expanding the number of judges; and improving judicial efficiency.[33] His proposed appointments committee would give equal representation to the executive, Knesset, and judiciary, with opposition representatives chosen by the opposition and public representatives selected jointly by the justice minister and Supreme Court president.[33]

On the reasonableness test, Herzog proposed retaining it for extreme cases while distinguishing between elected and appointed officials.[33] After his February outline, the chairpersons and CEOs of five major Israeli banks endorsed dialogue and broad consensus, saying changes should preserve national unity and economic prosperity.[33]

Netanyahu rejected Herzog's February compromise outline on March 16, saying that key provisions perpetuated the existing situation rather than creating the balance between branches of government the coalition sought.[34] On March 9 — during a nationwide "Day of Disruption" that included road blockages and a flotilla blocking the maritime route to the Port of Haifa — Herzog declared the legislation in its current form unacceptable and called it "wrong, predatory and dismantles our democratic foundations," warning that Israel was approaching "the point of no return."[35] Opposition leader Yair Lapid called for the legislation to stop immediately; Netanyahu said he welcomed efforts to reach agreement while accusing the opposition of having refused to negotiate.[35]

A broader compromise package was presented by Herzog on March 15, built around a system of balances among government authorities, including provisions on Basic Laws, judicial appointments, rights, and legal advisers. The coalition rejected it.[2] Following the March 27 legislative pause, Herzog invited coalition and opposition representatives to negotiate; the opposition delegation included lawmakers from Lapid's Yesh Atid and Gantz's National Unity Party.[2]

During negotiations in late March, a Panel Politics survey of 516 Israeli adults found that 52 percent believed there was no real chance of compromise, while 41 percent thought the talks could produce a satisfying agreement; among left-wing respondents, 74 percent expected failure, as did 61 percent of religious respondents.[36] The President's Office described the negotiations as proceeding productively; Religious Zionism Party director general Yehuda Vald said Herzog was "part of the problem, not the solution."[36]

On March 23, Netanyahu said he would continue advancing a bill changing the judicial-selection committee and condemned reservist refusals as dangerous to national security; Shas and United Torah Judaism indicated they would accept any decision Netanyahu made.[24] After an inconclusive Knesset vote on June 14 to elect members to the Judicial Selection Committee — the Knesset elected opposition member Karine Elharrar but could not agree on a coalition representative, leaving the committee unformed — Lapid and Gantz withdrew from the Herzog-mediated talks, saying Netanyahu had ended any real prospect of dialogue.[37] Netanyahu countered that they had been looking for a reason to break up the negotiations and had rejected his proposals.[37]

On July 24, 2023, the Knesset passed an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary barring courts from ruling against the government, prime minister, or ministers on the basis that their decisions were "extremely unreasonable."[38] The amendment passed 64–0 after opposition members left before the vote rather than participate in what they viewed as an illegitimate unilateral action.[38] The government had narrowed the measure from its original form — applying it to cabinet ministers' decisions rather than to lower-level officials as originally proposed.[8]

Protests intensified ahead of and on the day of the vote. Protesters chained themselves outside parliament, police used water cannon, and at least six people were reported arrested.[32] More than 10,000 reservists said they would suspend volunteer duty before the vote.[22] About 200 high-tech companies and venture-capital funds planned to join protests, with some allowing employees time off or closing operations, and several leading law firms planned to close their offices.[22]

Reform supporters argued the reasonableness standard had infringed on the government's popular mandate and that other legal doctrines remained available for judicial review.[17] Opponents argued the standard was necessary to protect uncodified rights and prevent public corruption, and that eliminating it removed an important check on executive power.[32][17] AJC said the law had been pushed through unilaterally amid deepening divisions and expressed profound disappointment, noting that the High Court would retain other oversight tools but that elected officials now faced fewer restraints.[39]

NGOs, the Israeli Bar Association, and private individuals petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the amendment; the full 15-justice panel heard the petitions on September 12, 2023.[17][38] The Supreme Court invalidated the reasonableness amendment on January 1, 2024, by an 8–7 vote.[6] Reform supporters criticized the ruling and its timing, arguing it should not have been issued during the October 7 war because it threatened national unity; opponents viewed the Court's intervention as necessary to protect legal and democratic safeguards.[6] Weekly mass protests that had continued from January through September 2023 ended after the conflict that followed Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack.[38]

The crisis drew expressions of concern from the United States government and Jewish organizations abroad. In a March 19, 2023, phone call with Netanyahu, President Joe Biden raised concerns about the overhaul and said that "democratic values have always been, and must remain, a hallmark of the U.S.-Israel relationship…and that fundamental changes should be pursued with the broadest possible base of popular support."[40] An INSS analysis described Biden's intervention as unusually direct and warned that a lack of broad consensus could damage shared values and bilateral relations.[40] After Netanyahu announced Gallant's dismissal on March 26, a White House National Security Council spokesperson said the administration was "deeply concerned" and stressed the urgent need for compromise.[21]

In July, as the Knesset prepared to advance the reasonableness-standard amendment, Biden again urged Netanyahu and his coalition not to rush the overhaul and to seek broad consensus, saying the proposal looked "more divisive, not less" and that "the focus should be on pulling people together and finding consensus."[41]

By February 1, 2023, a statement opposing the process and scale of the proposed reforms had been signed by 157 U.S. law professors. The signatories said the proposals could give the ruling coalition power over judicial appointments, sharply restrict judicial review, and curtail the independence of the attorney general and government legal advisers; they noted that even professors who believed the Supreme Court had overreached were concerned about the reforms' speed and scale.[42]

Major American Jewish organizations took clear positions. The American Jewish Committee said it and other organizations welcomed the March 2023 suspension of legislative consideration of the reforms, calling the preceding three months painful to watch but also "a textbook case of democracy in action," and praising Israelis — political leaders, business executives, community activists, cultural figures, and ordinary citizens — who took to the streets out of love of their country.[39] In July, after passage of the reasonableness-standard law, AJC expressed profound disappointment and said the continued push for reform over compromise had strained relations between Israel and Diaspora Jewry and sowed discord within the IDF.[39] The Anti-Defamation League, AJC, and the Jewish Federations of North America were among the major American Jewish organizations that expressed dismay at the failure to seek consensus.[6]

Netanyahu responded to international and Diaspora pressure by saying that Israel made its decisions according to the will of its people, not external pressure.[6] The Washington Institute noted that the protest movement's reach among younger Israelis was helped by a perception that Netanyahu was placing political considerations above national security, and that threats by reservists to refuse service and warnings of economic consequences also affected decision-makers.[7]

Crowd-control measures by Israeli police were documented and disputed throughout the protest period. The U.S. Department of State's 2023 human-rights report, as reproduced by the Jewish Virtual Library, described weekly mass protests from January through September 2023 and noted that protest groups reported police use of stun and smoke grenades, skunk water, water cannons, horses, and physical force during demonstrations; police officials said most protests were peaceful but that some disorder required crowd dispersal.[38]

A specific documented incident occurred on March 1, when officer Meir Suissa was filmed throwing a stun grenade toward protesters; Ichilov Hospital treated 11 people for protest-related injuries that day, including one who required surgery and another who sustained a severe ear injury. The Justice Ministry's police-investigation department opened an inquiry into the officer on March 2.[38]

After the July 24 passage of the reasonableness-standard amendment, further specific allegations were recorded in the State Department report: police reportedly held a female protester by her hair and threw her against a wall, beat, kicked, and choked protesters already on the ground, and aimed a water cannon at a seated protester.[38] INSS described the overall protest movement as relatively low in violence: 3.2 percent of demonstrations included incidents of violence or disorder, and the number of people hospitalized for protest-related injuries was described as relatively low compared with the movement's scale.[1]

The protest movement that had sustained itself for nine months came to an end after Hamas's October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel triggered a major conflict. The weekly demonstrations that had drawn hundreds of thousands ceased as the country mobilized for war.[38] The Supreme Court's January 1, 2024, invalidation of the reasonableness-standard amendment — by an 8–7 vote — came while the war was ongoing, and reform supporters criticized the Court's timing, arguing that issuing such a ruling during wartime endangered national unity.[6]

The reform episode left several lasting imprints on Israeli society. AJC noted that the controversy had strained relations between Israel and Diaspora Jewry and sown discord within the IDF.[39] The Washington Institute observed that the crisis had revealed the protest movement's capacity to mobilize broad civil society and had demonstrated that threats from reservists, economic alarm signals, and foreign pressure could influence government decisions.[7] The episode also exposed deep disagreements about the proper boundaries of judicial power, the meaning of democratic legitimacy, and the social contract underlying the state — disagreements that the war temporarily displaced but did not resolve.

The dispute was as much a contest over the meaning of democracy as it was a fight over legal texts. Jesse Ferris, writing in SAPIR Journal, characterized the core tension as democracy understood as majority rule versus democracy understood as limited government and protection of individual liberty. Justice Minister Levin's argument — that elected officials, not unelected judges, should decide — was met by Supreme Court President Hayut quoting Ze'ev Jabotinsky: "Democracy means freedom. A government supported by a majority can also negate freedom. And in a place in which guarantees for individual freedom do not exist — democracy does not exist."[3]

Avi Bell, writing in the same journal, argued from a pro-reform position that the Supreme Court had expanded its authority at the expense of elected branches and that the proposed changes would restore parliamentary democracy rather than undermine it.[4] He described the anti-reform campaign as including newspaper editors, economists, fashion models, schoolchildren, and academics, and argued that warnings of autocracy from former judges and government lawyers were alarmist — and that the existing judiciary itself posed a danger to liberal democracy.[4]

From the other side, Stav Shaffir described the opposition as a broad civil-society response involving businesspeople, technology entrepreneurs, doctors, teachers, and combat pilots, arguing the reforms threatened the independent Supreme Court and the rights of Israeli Arabs, women, and LGBT people.[11] The Congressional Research Service noted that many opponents came from largely secular and Ashkenazi communities with longstanding roles in government, the military, and high tech, while many supporters included settlers in the West Bank — known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria — Jewish nationalists, and ultra-Orthodox Jews, some of Mizrahi background; CRS cautioned that these patterns describe many participants, not every individual in either camp.[17]

An INSS analysis presented a counterargument to the most heated framings: the idea that the conflict was simply democracy and liberalism against nationalism and Judaism was an exaggerated dichotomy that did not represent many people in either camp.[13] Coalition supporters saw a newly empowered majority seeking to replace an old elite and restore elected institutions' authority; protest supporters viewed the judicial changes as a threat to Israel's liberal and democratic character and sought binding constitutional protections.[13]

The rhetorical temperature was high on both sides. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon were among influential protest leaders who described the government plan as a coup intended to cement Netanyahu's hold on power; the plan's architects accused the opposition of fomenting chaos and inciting rebellion to obtain by force what it had not won at the ballot box. Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit reportedly predicted bloodshed, prompting Knesset committee chairman Simcha Rothman to call for Mandelblit to be jailed for inciting violence. President Herzog warned on February 12 that Israel was nearing "societal and constitutional collapse."[3] Critics also alleged that the proposals served Netanyahu's personal interests given his ongoing legal proceedings — a claim reform supporters and Netanyahu himself rejected.[6]