Israel's top court today struck down a landmark deal aimed at paving the way for the exploitation of Mediterranean gas reserves, in a major defeat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A panel of Supreme Court justices said in their ruling that a clause in the plan that prevented it from being changed for a decade was unacceptable.
"We have decided to cancel the gas deal because of the stability clause" that would have barred future governments from altering the deal, the justices said.
More From This Section
Critics of the deal between the Israeli government and a consortium, including US firm Noble Energy, say it is overly favourable to the companies involved.
Israel's development of its Mediterranean reserves hold serious implications for the country's efforts toward energy independence.
It could also have an impact on regional diplomacy since Israel is expected to export some of its gas.
Netanyahu, who pushed forward the deal and even appeared at the court to defend it, used an obscure clause to override the anti-trust authorities.
That allowed it to move forward with the approval of the economy minister -- a portfolio he holds after the previous one resigned over the gas deal.
The court ruling was enthusiastically praised by members of the opposition parties, some of whom were part of the petition against the deal.
Opposition leader and Labour head Isaac Herzog called the court's decision "correct and courageous."
"The government can't bind its hands and judgement," he said on Twitter of the so-called stability clause.
Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, one of the deal's most vocal advocates, said the decision was "miserable" and would negatively affect Israel's "gas development, energetic security, economy," as well as bring a "loss of income to Israel and its citizens".
Steinitz, who noted the "years of delay" before the deal was formulated and signed, said he nevertheless remained hopeful "there would still be a way to save the natural gas reserves for Israel and its citizens."
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked called the ruling a "crude and unnecessary intervention in a government decision".
"It is unacceptable that the government holds the responsibility to the economy and prosperity of the state, but remains without the necessary authority to take action," she said in a statement.