Among my two oldest friends in Israel are former president of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak and current prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is not surprising, therefore, that I see some virtue on both sides of the debate. But I also believe that both sides have exaggerated the faults of the other.

The two major issues are the proposals that the Knesset, by a simple majority, should be able to overrule nearly all Supreme Court decisions; and judges should be selected by a modified committee controlled by politicians.

It would be a serious mistake to allow the Knesset to override all Supreme Court decisions, including those that protect minority rights, due process, freedom of speech and other core liberties. But that doesn’t mean the court should have the last word on who can serve in the government and other political and economic matters.

Some form of Knesset override might well be appropriate in such cases. It may also be appropriate to eliminate the current veto that judges have over Supreme Court appointments, while assuring that the majority are professionals, not politicians.

Both sides have exaggerated the consequences of not getting their way. Some on the right argue that unless the Knesset can override the Supreme Court, democracy will be subordinated by an elite, unelected institution.

History shows otherwise. In several democracies, including the US, the Supreme Court gets the last word on core issues of liberty, subject only to constitutional amendments, which are very difficult to enact. These countries still preserve their core democratic character, while also protecting minorities, due process and free speech.

Some on the right also argue that unless justices are nominated through a political process, the court will remain elitist and undemocratic.

Isaac Herzog F210602YS43

Isaac Herzog

But many countries have mixed systems of appointing judges that include large elements of professionalism and elitism. Indeed, it is the proper function of a supreme court to serve as a check on current popular opinion.

On the other side of the argument, some insist that the proposed changes would end Israel as a democracy and turn it into an authoritarian state. They too are wrong.

Although I disagree with most of the proposals, I do not believe that they would end Israel’s long-standing status as a vibrant democracy. They would, however, endanger some basic liberties and unpopular rights.

I strongly support President Herzog’s call to compromise. Each side must give up some of their demands and accept some from the other side. The key is to preserve the independence of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan and non-political institution.

In my private discussions with both sides, there is willingness to compromise. But in public, they tend to maintain their positions because both sides of this contentious debate are winning.

Opponents of the reforms have generated enormous grassroots support, while extremists on the right are solidifying their bases and benefitting from the divisions.

The real losers are the majority of centrist Israelis who support some reform but not all of the proposals, and the State of Israel itself, which is suffering grievously on the international stage and in the diaspora. The time has come to come to the bargaining table and hammer out a compromise.

Alan Dershowitz is an American lawyer and former law professor