Brief: As Israel navigates its own judicial reform controversy, Poland's experience with EU pressure and democratic safeguards provides crucial insights.

Israel's ongoing debate over judicial reform can draw important lessons from Poland's recent experience battling European Union pressure over its own judiciary restructuring, according to legal experts and political observers tracking both cases.

Poland's Law and Justice party government implemented sweeping judicial reforms between 2015 and 2023, seeking to limit what it viewed as an unaccountable judiciary that had grown too powerful since the fall of communism. The reforms included lowering the retirement age for Supreme Court judges, creating a new disciplinary chamber for judges, and giving politicians more say in judicial appointments.

The European Union responded with unprecedented pressure, withholding billions in funding and launching Article 7 proceedings against Warsaw, claiming the reforms violated rule of law standards. However, supporters of Poland's reforms argued they were democratically legitimate attempts to make an elitist judiciary more accountable to elected officials and ordinary citizens.

For Israel, the parallels are striking. The Netanyahu government's proposed judicial reforms similarly aim to rebalance power between the judiciary and the elected branches of government, addressing concerns that the Supreme Court has overreached its authority in recent decades.

Polish officials who defended their reforms emphasized that judicial independence does not mean judicial supremacy, and that democratic countries organize their court systems differently. They argued that the EU applied double standards, as several Western European nations maintain judicial selection systems with significant political involvement.

The key lesson for Israel may be the importance of maintaining broad public support and clearly articulating democratic principles behind any reforms. Poland's experience shows that external pressure, whether from the EU or international organizations, intensifies when reforms are perceived as weakening democratic checks and balances rather than rebalancing them.

Unlike Poland, Israel does not face the same institutional pressure from a supranational body like the EU, giving it more sovereignty in determining its own judicial structure. However, Israel does face international scrutiny and potential diplomatic costs, making the framing and implementation of any reforms critically important for maintaining both democratic legitimacy and international standing.