Binyamin Netanyahu has lost his aura of invincibility

ISRAEL’S PRIME MINISTER, Binyamin Netanyahu, was for many years seen as one of the most gifted politicians of his time. His ability to keep winning elections, becoming Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, earned him the nickname “The Magician”. His tenacity—Mr Netanyahu fought five elections in four years in a bid to win a solid majority—was rewarded last year when he returned to office, after a year and a half in opposition, at the head of a coalition of religious zealots, Jewish supremacists and homophobes. Yet his panicked actions over the past few days suggest he has lost his political touch, and with it the aura of invincibility that has made him such a formidable politician for the best part of three decades.

The bargain Mr Netanyahu struck last December with religious and right-wing parties included a pledge to weaken the powers and independence of the Supreme Court. Many on the right object to unelected judges, whom they see as intent on thwarting the will of elected politicians. Yet for the past 12 weeks Israelis have come onto the streets to protect judicial independence. Their numbers have grown steadily. The demonstrations, by mainly secular Israelis, intensified in recent days as Mr Netanyahu’s government tried to push through its legislation before April 2nd, when the Knesset (parliament) enters recess for about a month.

Crucial to the protest movement too are the thousands of pilots and officers, many in elite military reserve units, who are threatening not to report for service. They have declared in petitions that they will not “serve a dictatorship”, creating potential problems for the Israeli army, which relies heavily on its reserves. The security chiefs complain this is making it difficult for them to confront escalating violence on the Palestinian front in the occupied West Bank, as well as more distant threats from Iran and its proxies in the region. The issue came to a head on March 25th when the defence minister, Yoav Galant, publicly warned that tensions over the judicial reforms were affecting the defence force and security agencies. “This poses a clear, immediate, and tangible threat to the security of the state,” he said.

A day later Mr Netanyahu fired him—in what may well have been the biggest political misstep of his career. Rather than take the advice of allies and ministers within his Likud party to pause the legislation and seek compromise, he seems to have been more concerned about losing the support of the far-right and ultra-religious parties in his coalition, whose backing he needs to stay in government. Within hours of his sacking of Mr Galant, Israelis again began pouring onto the streets, besieging Mr Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem and blocking main roads in Tel Aviv. The following morning the trade unions and the country’s main employers announced a general strike that shut ports, grounded flights at the main airport and brought much of the country to a halt. By then it was clear that the game was up.

In the evening of March 27th Mr Netanyahu backed down, announcing a “timeout” for negotiations over the legislation. Yet again instead of calming tempers he inflamed them, spluttering that “there are a minority of extremists that are willing to tear our country to shreds...escorting us to civil war and calling for refusal of army service, which is a terrible crime.”

A senior official in his government argues that these talks could provide an opportunity for Israel to grapple at last with its lack of a formal constitution and to clarify the status of its “basic” laws, to which the Supreme Court has given a quasi constitutional status. Yet the unavoidable fact is that Mr Netanyahu has lost this battle and will find it difficult to get the legislation moving in the next parliamentary session. Having risen up once, secular and liberal Israelis seem unlikely to back down in a month or two over an issue that they see as an acute threat to Israel’s democracy. Efforts to ram through changes without broad support will doubtless lead to more protests. Yet if Mr Netanyahu waters them down considerably, he may struggle to keep the support of the right-wing and religious parties.

Even if Mr Netanyahu is able to keep his coalition in power, his actions have gravely damaged him in the eyes of business and the defence establishment, two vital constituencies for a prime minister who has based his entire career on a growing economy and the security of Israel. Instead, history may remember him for bringing Israel to the brink of civil conflict, and leaving it deeply divided. ■