The political landscape in Israel has been dominated by a fierce debate over judicial reforms spearheaded by Justice Minister Yariv Levin. Levin’s proposed reforms aim to fundamentally reshape the Israeli legal system, granting the government greater control over judicial appointments and limiting the power of the Supreme Court. At the heart of this controversy lies the Judicial Appointments Committee, the body responsible for selecting judges, including those serving on the Supreme Court. Levin, who chairs the committee, has refused to convene the body until he secures a majority that aligns with his agenda, effectively seeking to stack the committee with political appointees.
This power struggle has intensified with the impending appointment of Justice Yosef Amit as the next President of the Supreme Court. Traditionally, the presidency is determined by seniority, with the most senior justice assuming the role upon the retirement of the incumbent. Levin, however, seeks to dismantle this system, aiming to give politicians more influence over the selection of the Supreme Court President. He has indicated a willingness to accept Amit’s appointment only under the condition that he, Levin, can appoint two additional Supreme Court justices – one a settler from the West Bank and the other a known right-wing extremist. This proposed quid pro quo highlights the depth of the conflict between the executive and judicial branches of the Israeli government.
The Supreme Court, however, has rejected Levin’s attempt at political bargaining and is poised to convene without him to confirm Amit’s appointment. This act of defiance underscores the Court’s resistance to Levin’s reforms and its determination to maintain its independence. Levin’s actions have ignited widespread protests and accusations of attempting to politicize the judiciary. Critics argue that his reforms threaten the democratic principles upon which Israel was founded and could lead to a dangerous erosion of checks and balances.
In an attempt to derail Amit’s appointment, Levin has initiated investigations into the judge’s past, searching for any potential compromising information. These investigations, which have been described by some as a smear campaign, have unearthed minor infractions such as the construction of a roof over a veranda without prior permits, which Amit subsequently obtained retroactively. Another issue raised concerns Amit’s ownership of an apartment under a previous surname, a technicality that has been deemed inconsequential by legal authorities. Both the police and the attorney general have reviewed these matters and concluded that there are no grounds for criminal charges. These investigations, however, further illustrate the lengths to which Levin is willing to go to exert control over the judiciary and obstruct the appointment of a Supreme Court President who might not align with his political agenda.
Levin’s pursuit of judicial reform has profoundly divided Israeli society. The proposed changes, which have been characterized by opponents as a “judicial coup,” have sparked mass demonstrations and raised concerns about the future of Israeli democracy. The intense political climate surrounding these reforms reflects the deep ideological divisions within the country. Levin, supported by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argues that the reforms are necessary to curb the power of an overly activist judiciary and restore balance to the branches of government. Opponents, however, fear that the reforms will undermine the independence of the judiciary, erode democratic norms, and potentially pave the way for authoritarian rule.
The escalating conflict between the executive and judicial branches reached a critical juncture in 2023, with Levin’s proposed legislation fueling widespread protests and social unrest. The Hamas attack in October forced a temporary pause in the legislative process, but Levin has since renewed his efforts to advance his “judicial revolution” with renewed vigor, backed by Netanyahu. The ongoing struggle over judicial reform represents a pivotal moment in Israeli history, with far-reaching implications for the country’s democratic future and the balance of power within its government. The outcome of this conflict will determine the future of the Israeli legal system and the extent to which political influence shapes the judiciary.
