If you’re an authoritarian, an aspiring autocrat, a power-hungry head of state or, frankly, just a run-of-the-mill politician, war can be a blessing.

Otherwise unpopular leaders often enjoy a temporary public opinion fillip at the onset of wars (the “rally around the flag” dynamic), which is why out-of-favor governments sometimes start them. Wars, I mean.

Relatedly, wars are a distraction from domestic problems, and can be leveraged by enterprising governments to override democratic norms, civil liberties and even human rights in the name of patriotism.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a miracle of sorts in that he’s enjoying none of the benefits which typically accrue to leaders at the onset of wars. Many Israelis blamed the October 7 Hamas attacks partly on Netanyahu, his popularity worsened after the commencement of full-on war and far from providing cover for his extraordinarily brazen efforts to undermine Israeli democracy, the conflict has, in some ways at least, thrown those efforts into even starker relief.

Cue Monday’s decision by Israel’s Supreme Court to strike down Netanyahu’s ill-fated gambit which aimed to limit that court’s power and discretion. The 8-7 ruling, delivered by a full panel of the court’s 15 justices, was yet another grievous blow to Israel’s erstwhile “king,” whose extraordinary political career is now a smoldering pile of charred wreckage.

In rejecting the law passed by parliament six months ago, the judges effectively reasserted their own power to leverage the “unreasonable” test to override government decisions. Netanyahu’s government argues the test is nebulous, inherently subjective and, ironically, injurious to democracy to the extent it makes elected officials beholden to a panel of jurists.

Netanyahu’s critics, on the other hand, say he’s just trying to remove the only guardrails Israel has against the institution of an overbearingly conservative, ultranationalist regime bent on eroding liberal democracy, likely through shameless cronyism and even outright illegality. Netanyahu has run afoul of the court’s “unreasonable” test on several occasions over the years.

Now, Israel faces a constitutional crisis, although I’m not sure that’s strictly accurate. They have no written constitution, after all. Some worry that a return to mass street protests like those which paralyzed the country last year is imminent. That seems dangerous given the conflict: Hundreds of thousands of people packed tightly together in public places is a recipe for disaster when you’re at war with the extremists next door.

Late last month, Isaac Herzog pleaded with Israelis to “Hold off [on] campaigns and political messages.” As I put it two weeks ago, Herzog’s exhortation for citizens to avoid debate lest they should harm “our children on the frontlines” was discomfiting. It’s precisely during times of crisis when debate and discussion are needed most.

The government’s controversial amendment, if it were allowed to stand, would’ve “cause[d] severe and unprecedented harm to the core characteristics of Israel as a democratic state,” the court said Monday.

Naturally, Likud painted the decision as an affront to national unity “in a time of war.” The court, the government suggested, shouldn’t rule on such a contentious flashpoint when Israelis are “endangering themselves in battle.”

In a December 30 press conference, Netanyahu insisted he has no plans to step down once the war’s over. “The only thing I’m going to resign from is Hamas,” he said. (Suffice to say the obvious joke was lost on him.)

A Channel 13 poll published last month showed 41% of the public believes Netanyahu should quit when the war ends. 31% said he should quit now.