ISRAEL’S Supreme Court has long been a solid pillar of the Jewish state’s democracy, holding to account governments of all political stripes. But as the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, puts the finishing touches to his fourth coalition after an election in March, he is preparing for an unprecedented fight to muzzle the court. The outcome of the contest—between politicians and judges, and between nationalist and universal values—could tear his government apart, and determine the future character of Israeli politics.

A new coalition is likely to be agreed on in the next few days. Five of its six parties are committed to vote for new legislation that would fulfil the long-held aspiration of right-wing and religious parties to limit the Supreme Court’s power to strike down laws passed by the Knesset.

Mr Netanyahu favours an “override clause”, under which the court could overturn laws only if eight or more judges vote to do so (currently a simple majority of the bench, for big cases usually 11 judges from a total of 15, is needed). Even then the Knesset would be able to push the law through with another vote. He also plans to expand the judicial appointments committee, which chooses all of Israel’s judges. By adding a minister and an additional Knesset member to the existing nine-strong committee, politicians would gain the upper hand; the legal profession currently has a majority, with three Supreme Court justices and two members of the bar association. The change could open the way for the government to pack the court.

Just how interventionist the Israeli Supreme Court has been is open to debate. Some civil-rights groups think it is too timid, especially on security-related issues. In a landmark decision in 1992, the court opposed the mass expulsion of 415 Hamas members to Lebanon; but after a 14-hour pause it allowed the government to proceed. Two weeks ago, in another decision that angered the left, the court upheld a law that allows cases to be brought against Israelis who call for any form of boycott against Israel and its settlements in the West Bank. The court, however, struck down a clause allowing compensation to be awarded without proof of damage.

But such rulings in favour of the government and security forces have not endeared the court to the right. Likud and its allies were incensed by two rulings in recent years that struck down laws allowing the authorities to hold African migrants in long-term detention without trial. The ultra-Orthodox parties see the court as a secular enemy, because of its rulings on issues of state and religion—including a judgment that yeshiva students should not be exempt from serving in the army.

The biggest obstacle before Mr Netanyahu is the second-largest partner in his proposed coalition, the centrist Kulanu Party, which opposes his changes. Without Kulanu’s ten members, the prime minister has only 57 votes, four short of a majority. In discussions this week Mr Netanyahu made it clear that he was resolved to pursue his campaign. One option is to keep up the pressure on Kulanu’s leader, Moshe Kahlon, the intended finance minister, to accept judicial changes in return for greater freedom to reform the economy.

Ironically, Likud was historically the party of both Jewish nationalism and deep respect for the judiciary. Its first leader, Menachem Begin, was admiringly (though mistakenly) quoted by followers as accepting an unfavourable ruling with the words “there are judges in Jerusalem!”

Today Likud is run by a leader who has sworn to break the power of the “old elites” and whose colleagues see the Supreme Court judges as remnants of a privileged left-wing establishment which disregards Jewish values in favour of secular and universal principles. The struggle to limit the powers of the Supreme Court is part of a broader contest over the nature of Israel—pitting religious and nationalist activists against advocates of a more liberal and secular-minded country.

There are a few survivors of the old Likud spirit. One is Mr Netanyahu’s rival, President Reuven Rivlin. On April 29th Mr Rivlin made a rare political intervention by criticising the new proposals, saying “we have to ensure a strong democracy.” The Supreme Court’s president, Miriam Naor, also departed from protocol, declaring that “the court is the last barrier preventing harm to human dignity and other basic rights. It is one of the reasons Israel is seen as a member of the family of democratic nations.” What she might have added is that, with Israel facing potential indictments for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, it can ill afford to tarnish the image of its Supreme Court.