Not really war-related:
Israel Supreme Court strikes down judicial reformsI don't have an English opinion from the Supreme Court of Israel, so I've been trying to theorize how the court came to its conclusion given how few entrenchment clauses and supermajority requirements the Basic Laws of Israel have. The best I've got is some nebulous interpretation of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
[1] (technically not part of the Basic Laws corpus) that gives rise to rights that "shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in" said declaration, per the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty §1, and are thus protected from amendments that aren't "befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required" as per §8 of the same Basic Law.
It's a massive stretch as to how this makes an amendment that prohibits the "reasonableness" standard unconstitutional (on its face at least), given that the Basic Law: The Judiciary mentions only protection from emergency regulations.
[1] Excerpt: "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."