The former head of the Shin Bet security service offered his support Thursday for army reservists who are threatening to no longer show up for duty in protest of the government’s plans to restrict the nation’s judiciary, saying the legislation would bring about regime change that nullifies the reservists’ commitment.
Nadav Argaman, who led the internal security service until 2021, spoke to Army Radio hours after the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee approved for its final readings in parliament next week a key part of the overhaul — a controversial bill removing the courts’ ability to strike down governmental and ministerial decisions as “unreasonable.”
“This is a regime coup. We all served under different governments…and received different orders, in some we believed more and in some less, it doesn’t matter. There is a different reality here, regime change is a new reality,” he said.
“Any legislation that does not have a broad consensus will lead the State of Israel to chaos,” Argaman warned. “If the law passes — we are a different country. We are on the brink of civil war.”
In addition to months of mass public protests against the judicial overhaul, hundreds of military reservists have announced they will no longer volunteer to carry out their specialized duties — among them air force pilots — if the so-called reasonableness bill is passed. Most Israelis who complete their mandatory military national service are then required to also attend annual reserve duty, but those who served in special units are expected to volunteer to continue carrying out the same duties while in the reserves, a commitment they usually take upon themselves.
“If this terrible and awful legislation is passed, we are a different country, so we don’t have to abide by the ‘contract’ they signed with us,” Argaman said. “Therefore, the termination of volunteering is in order.”
Argaman was appointed to head the Shin Bet by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2016 and led the agency for five years.
He blamed Netanyahu for the situation and said “placing the responsibility on those volunteers, pilots, special units — that is a complete mistake.”
“I volunteered for a Jewish and democratic state, not to serve a dictator or a dictatorship,” he said, speaking of his own long service in the security establishment.”I would also send such a letter, the minute after the removal of the reasonableness clause had passed.
Israeli military reservists sign a declaration of refusal to report for duty to protest against plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to overhaul the judicial system, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, July 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)
Argaman conceded he is worried that refusal to turn up for reserve duty could also be used by other groups in the future to pressure the government, but said the current situation justifies the action because of what the coalition is doing.
He said IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Herzi Halevi and the head of the Shin Bet security service Ronen Bar should tell Netanyahu: “Enough.”
In March Argaman said he fears that if the judicial overhaul plans are implemented it could cause the “collapse from within” of the country’s security agencies.
The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee deliberates a bill to severely limit the courts’ use of the reasonableness judicial standard, July 17, 2023. (Danny Shem Tov/Knesset Spokesperson’s Department)
The second and third readings on the reasonableness bill, an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, will begin on Sunday in the Knesset plenum, and the bill is expected to be approved and passed into law on Monday or Tuesday.
The bill would ban the Supreme Court and lower courts from using the reasonableness standard to review decisions made by the government and cabinet ministers.
Proponents say the bar on the use of the doctrine is needed to halt judicial interference in government decisions, arguing that it amounts to unelected judges substituting the judgment of elected officials for their own.
Opponents argue, however, that it will weaken the court’s ability to review decisions that harm civil rights, and hinder its ability to protect senior civil servants who hold sensitive positions such as the attorney general, police commissioner and others, from dismissal on improper grounds.
