Israel’s Judiciary on Trial: Necessary Reform or Government Overreach?

Amid war and political turmoil, Israel’s judiciary and government are at odds, and the results of the clash may determine the future of Israeli democracy

Alongside the war in Gaza, Israel has spent the past many months embroiled in another intense conflict. Now, proposed changes to the judicial system—termed the “judicial reform” by proponents and the “judicial overhaul” by critics—have risen back to the top of Israel’s political agenda. If enacted, the overhaul could determine the future of the state of Israel that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently on trial for alleged corruption.

The current Israeli government and its supporters are at the head of the overhaul initiative, which they describe as a necessary recalibration of power between the judiciary and other branches of government. Critics say Netanyahu’s involvement in the judicial overhaul is a conflict of interest, especially as he faces legal problems.

In a recent speech at the Public Law Association conference, Justice Isaac Amit, acting president of the Supreme Court, criticized efforts to politicize judicial oversight and judicial appointments.

We are witnessing attempts to undermine the judiciary’s resilience and weaken it

“We are witnessing attempts to undermine the judiciary’s resilience and weaken it—raising significant concerns about the erosion of its institutional independence and the principles of separation of powers,” Amit said.

He criticized the institutional obstructionism threatening the judiciary. “We are witnessing additional steps beneath the surface aimed at restricting the judiciary’s activities, complicating court operations and wearing down judges, registrars, and employees who already face an unparalleled workload in the Western world,” he said.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, a senior member of the government from Netanyahu’s Likud party, posted on social media about the recent decision to put the judicial overhaul back in motion. “The government acted responsibly and suspended all discussions on the reform when the war broke out,” Levin wrote. “In stark contrast, the court irresponsibly chose to exploit the situation to continue its takeover of the powers of the Knesset and government.”

He said that the court’s actions have left the government with “no choice but to act to restore their rightful powers.”

Prior to the outbreak of the war, tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets weekly to protest the reforms. Those protests came to halt after the October 7 attacks.

A spokesperson for a minister from Likud’s far-right wing told The Media Line that Levin was open to negotiating with protesters. The spokesperson, who requested anonymity due to lack of authorization to speak on the matter, said Levin was willing to engage in dialogue to address the protesters’ concerns.

“Levin’s primary objective is to reform the court by introducing new perspectives and voices that have historically been excluded from its ranks,” the spokesperson said. “⁠Minister Levin respects the protesting citizens and has proposed several times to sit down and negotiate to reach agreements to advance the legislation, but they refused.”

Experts in law, governance, and democracy expressed their concerns to The Media Line regarding the proposed judicial overhaul.

The proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system would have effectively given the government total power

“The proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system would have effectively given the government total power. A coalition, even with only a 51% majority in the Knesset, would have been able to do almost anything,” Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, told The Media Line.

Menahem Zvi Reich, a professor of journalism at Ben-Gurion University, said that the government has spent the pause in the judicial reform carrying out a series of attacks meant to leave Israeli society numb. “Every day, there is a new attack on the left wing and the center of Israeli politics,” Reich told The Media Line. “Some proposals are ridiculous at first but later become serious, leading to a constant barrage of attacks. We are growing accustomed to things we shouldn’t.”

He said that supporters of the judicial overhaul have exploited the war for their own ends. “Even Prime Minister Netanyahu, who used to be more moderate, responsible, and balanced, seems to have abandoned checks and balances. This has emboldened extremists who feel they have the government’s support for extreme measures,” he said.

Similarly, Fuchs described a “silent overhaul” that was taking place before the reforms were officially called back on.

“They started passing regular laws that didn’t require basic law amendments but still undermined democratic principles—for example, efforts to take over the media, weaken the attorney general, and restrict freedom of speech,” he said.

This “salami method”—slicing off components of Israel’s democratic institutions, bit by bit—made it harder for the public to organize in protest, Fuchs explained.

He cited as an example the justice minister’s refusal to appoint a permanent president to the Supreme Court. For more than a year, the court has been led by an acting president.

“People are preoccupied with the war, the economy, and the hostages, but it’s a silent overhaul,” Fuchs said.

In his social media post, Justice Minister Levin wrote that Justice Uzi Vogelman, who was acting Supreme Court president until October 2024, had refused to discuss a proposed compromise.

“Justice Vogelman knew well that I was open to negotiating the details of the proposal. The current acting president, Justice Isaac Amit, also knows this, but they chose to entrench themselves in their refusal,” Levin wrote, arguing that the Supreme Court had effectively stripped him of his authority over the judicial selection committee.

The appointment of new judges has been another topic of heated debate between the Israeli government and the justice system. Critics of the government accuse Levin of nominating judges for political reasons.

“The court is a professional body, not a political one,” Fuchs said. “It’s not meant to mirror the Knesset majority but to uphold human rights, the rule of law, and minority protections. Nevertheless, the court has already become more conservative over the years, partly because the judicial selection committee includes government representatives.”

If the government really believed it had public support for the overhaul, Fuchs said, it would call for new elections. “But they know they’d lose,” he said. “More fundamentally, democracy isn’t just about majority rule. It’s about protecting human rights and ensuring checks and balances. Courts exist precisely to prevent majorities from infringing on the rights of minorities. This is the essence of democracy.”

The anonymous Likud minister’s spokesperson said that “it is not too late for a resolution” between Levin and the members of the court. But at the moment, neither side seems ready to budge, and polarization between supporters and opponents of the reform is growing.

People are losing the capacity to make sense of news because everyone interprets it according to their own biases

“The external balances, the traditional restraining mechanisms, are now missing,” Reich said. “This has fueled growing polarization, less tolerance, and an inability to engage in constructive dialogue. People are losing the capacity to make sense of news because everyone interprets it according to their own biases. This undermines the common ground of Israeli society.”

Acting Supreme Court President Amit conveyed that the court is still committed to its basic objectives, even as the debates drag on.

“We will continue to uphold judicial independence and provide legal services to the public using the tools and resources at our disposal,” he said. “I again call on the justice minister to fulfill his basic duties—not for my sake or his, but for the citizens of Israel, who deserve quality and efficient judicial services.”