Back in the day, no-confidence motions meant something. Journalists would speculate whether Menachem Begin, the leader of the opposition for much of Israel's early history, would submit a no-confidence motion over a given issue. Begin always solemnly explained to them that the public must understand that the opposition would only use this weapon for important matters. When Begin submitted a no-confidence motion, the public paid attention. A failed no-confidence motion would be interpreted as the Knesset's endorsement of government policy, something the opposition had no interest in. Haaretz once reported that Yigal Allon was proposing the construction of a bridge that would enable the Palestinians to reach Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount without entering Israeli territory. Allon talked about this idea during a meeting with four journalists. Begin later questioned me (and I assume other journalists) twice about the meeting, before he submitted a no-confidence motion against the government over the matter. Nothing remains of Begin's norms. These days, slews of useless no-confidence motions have been thrown around the Knesset with complete contempt. The head of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee David Rotem (Yisrael Beytenu) is now trying, with the support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to make it more difficult to submit frivolous no-confidence motions. Rotem's proposal is flawed, because it would destroy a means for the public to express discontent. But the proposal is also itself a type of no-confidence motion against the conduct of opposition parties over the past few decades. Instead of brandishing a legislative sword against no-confidence motions, it would be preferable for the coalition and opposition to reach an informal, but practical, agreement to restore honor to the practice. There are several positive components in the government reform legislation that has been proposed. One is that governments would be limited to 19 ministers and only four deputy ministers. But anyone familiar with Israeli politics knows how quickly the Knesset backtracks on good laws it passes. In the past, there was a law limiting governments to 18 ministers, but Ehud Barak got rid of it after he was elected prime minister in 1999. However, the proposal to raise the electoral threshold to four percent might be problematic, because it would be viewed in the world as an anti-democratic step, even though this wouldn't actually be true. Under the proposal, the smallest Knesset party would have five seats. Small parties would unite with each other to ensure they make it into the Knesset. If this proposal had been in place ahead of the most recent Knesset election, Kadima (with its MKs Shaul Mofaz and Yisrael Hasson), would not be in the Knesset. It's hard to see the exclusion of Mofaz and Hasson from the Knesset as a reason to avoid raising the threshold.
