Netanyahu government unanimously votes to refuse to recognize the Supreme Court ruling on the state media regulator, setting up a constitutional crisis between the judiciary and executive branches.

By World Israel News Staff

The Israeli government unanimously approved a declaration Sunday saying it will not recognize decisions by the Second Authority Council if the media regulator continues operating under a High Court of Justice ruling that ministers say contradicts the law, escalating the coalition’s confrontation with the judiciary ahead of expected elections.

The proposal, brought by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, states that the government will not accept any decision, approval, appointment or action taken by the council if it does not meet the minimum membership threshold set out in statute.

The Second Authority for Television and Radio regulates Israel’s commercial television and radio broadcasters.

The dispute centers on whether the existing council may continue to act after the number of serving members fell below the legal requirement.

The government’s declaration said that “the rule of law in the State of Israel means the subordination of all governing authorities to the law” and that neither the government, the Knesset nor the Supreme Court stands above the law.

Ministers argued that a court decision requiring a public body to act contrary to what they called the explicit language of a statute “is not an expression of the rule of law” and does not constitute legitimate judicial review.

The government said it was responding to a June 17 High Court decision that allowed the Second Authority Council to resume activity despite the coalition’s claim that its membership no longer met the threshold required by Section 21 of the Second Authority Law.

Karhi framed the decision as a refusal to accept what he called judicial rewriting of legislation.

“High Court justices are not the Knesset, and an abuse of power does not give them the authority to erase an explicit statutory requirement simply because they find it inconvenient,” Karhi said. “The rule of law is not the rule of judges.”

“Today, the government made its position clear: when the High Court tramples the law, the state will not cooperate. A two-thirds majority is a legal requirement, not a recommendation, and a council that does not meet the statutory threshold established by the legislature has no legal standing and its decisions are null and void.”

Levin said the government would continue challenging the ruling through legal channels.

“The government has a duty to ensure that the law, and only the law, serves as the source of governmental authority,” Levin said. “We will continue to use every lawful means available to restore the rule of law.”

The move is the latest confrontation between the government and the High Court over judicial authority, media regulation and public appointments.

In May, Justice Alex Stein issued a temporary order freezing the activity of the new Second Authority Council, barring it from convening or making decisions while petitions against the government’s appointments were pending.

The petitions challenged Karhi’s effort to reshape the regulator after his broader communications overhaul stalled.

The confrontation over the Second Authority comes days after the High Court invalidated the Knesset vote appointing Michael Rabello as state comptroller, ruling that the secrecy of the ballot had been compromised.

The Movement for Quality Government, which petitioned against the vote, said the court had protected “one of the fundamental principles of democracy – the secrecy of the vote.”

The court’s ruling on the state comptroller vote drew sharp criticism from coalition lawmakers. Simcha Rothman, chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee and one of the leading architects of the government’s judicial overhaul, accused the court and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara of overstepping their authority.

“When it acts within its authority, its rulings should be respected,” Rothman told Ynet. “The moment it ignores the law, we will follow the law.”

Rothman also criticized judicial review of parliamentary procedures, saying: “Judicial review of proceedings in the Knesset is a serious jurisdictional problem. The High Court cannot serve as the Knesset’s internal auditor.”

He said he hoped the coalition would revive an “override clause” after the election, allowing the Knesset to reenact laws struck down by the Supreme Court with a parliamentary majority.

The override proposal was one of the most contentious elements of the government’s 2023 judicial overhaul, which triggered months of mass protests and a constitutional crisis.

The dispute has since resurfaced in a series of clashes over judicial appointments, the powers of legal advisers, the attorney general’s authority and court intervention in government and Knesset decisions.

Rothman also accused Baharav-Miara of improperly limiting ministerial action ahead of the expected election.

“Legal advisers are limiting ministers’ actions during the election period based on absurd legal arguments,” he said. “The attorney general is preventing the government from acting, citing the upcoming election period.”

The post Israel faces constitutional crisis as gov’t rejects Supreme Court ruling appeared first on World Israel News.

UNRWA petitions Israel’s Supreme Court, demanding the court halt planned demolitions and overturn a law passed by the Knesset barring the agency’s operations in Israel.

By World Israel News Staff

The United Nations relief agency UNRWA has petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to halt the demolition of UNRWA facilities in Jerusalem and to overturn a law passed by the Knesset that targeting the agency over its ties to Gaza terror groups including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

On Tuesday, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court, seeking an interim injunction freezing planned demolitions of UNRWA facilities in Jerusalem, and barring the implementation of a law outlawing the provision of utilities – including water and electricity – to UNRWA sites.

UNRWA has already challenged the Israeli law, passed last month, with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

However, the hearing on the law will not take place until February 2.

Israel previously banned UNRWA from operating in the country, including the capital, Jerusalem.

Until now, bureaucratic red tape has hampered the eviction of UNRWA from facilities across the city for more than a year.

On Tuesday, the Israel Land Authority, in conjunction with Jerusalem district police, carried out a major demolition operation, seizing control of UNRWA’s regional headquarters, located in Jerusalem’s Ammunition Hill neighborhood, tearing down buildings and paving the way for the compound to be repurposed for a housing project.

Hours after the demolition, Adalah filed the emergency request for a Supreme Court injunction, after city officials signaled their intention to seize UNRWA property in Kafr Aqab, a village located partially within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.

The city has requested that the IDF provide forces to secure the operation.

The Supreme Court has given the state one day to respond to the request for an emergency injunction.

The post UN turns to Supreme Court to overturn law barring UNRWA from Israel appeared first on World Israel News.

Likud MK Ariel Kallner says the commission will be powerful, egalitarian, live-streamed and uncompromising.

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

At a press conference Sunday, where he presented a bill to establish a commission of inquiry into the Hamas-led invasion that triggered the two-year War of Revival, MK Ariel Kallner called Oct. 7 “the biggest failure” in the country’s history.

“We deserve the truth — and all the truth” about it, he said, and therefore the investigation will be “thorough, uncompromising and unbiased,” so that a tragedy like this “can never happen again.”

Kallner said the government’s proposed commission would be the most wide-ranging ever established.

“Everyone who had a say in influencing the security of the state over the years” must be investigated, whether from the military, political or judicial echelons, he said.

“No topic will be hidden away,” and no witness will be left unquestioned, he vowed.

He addressed vociferous objections from the opposition and a large part of the country to forming something other than a state commission of inquiry, which has the legal power to subpoena witnesses and recommend specific consequences for those it concludes acted improperly regarding the events and decisions under review.

Repeating comments made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Kallner said neither option currently provided for by law — a commission appointed solely by the government or one appointed solely by the chief justice of the Supreme Court — would work because “many in the country won’t have faith” in the objectivity of either.

A commission appointed by a right-wing government would be suspected by left-wing critics of glossing over mistakes made by the right, while a commission formed by the Supreme Court, which the right views as a bastion of the left, would be suspected of the opposite, he said.

Kallner described his proposed “egalitarian, balanced” body as “the commission of the nation,” in which everyone “could believe that there is at least one person in it whom they can trust.”

The proposed bill to form the new “National State Investigation Committee” says that it will have all the obligations and powers of a state commission of inquiry — “and more,” said the Likud lawmaker.

Six members of Knesset would need to gain the approval of at least 80 of their fellow MKs to serve on the commission within 14 days of the law’s passage.

If that threshold is not met, the government and the opposition would each appoint three members.

If the opposition refuses, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana would appoint their members.

Ynet reported Monday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering allowing Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit to appoint the opposition’s members instead of Ohana, who is a member of Likud.

The six appointees would then agree on a chairperson.

Four representatives of bereaved families would join them as supervisors, as their commitment to finding out the truth is unassailable, Kallner said.

They would “ensure that no one can hide and no topic remains unaddressed” and serve as the commission’s “ethical compass.”

The bill also stipulates that if as few as two of the six members demand opening a line of inquiry, reviewing documents or questioning witnesses, the request must be honored.

That differs from a state commission of inquiry, where only the chairperson can make such demands, Kallner said.

All commission discussions would be broadcast live, except those required to remain confidential for security reasons, he added.

Although Kallner called on the government’s political rivals to cooperate in establishing the new commission so that “together we can arrive at the truth,” opposition leader Yair Lapid said Sunday he would have nothing to do with it.

Other critics said they doubt the Supreme Court would allow the law to stand, even if the Knesset passes it.

The post Government proposes bill for new model for Oct. 7 inquiry appeared first on World Israel News.

In spite of the war against Hamas ongoing and terror threats in Lebanon, Judea and Samaria, Israel’s attorney general urges Supreme Court to prevent Netanyahu from appointing new security chief.

By World Israel News Staff

Israel’s Attorney-General, Gali Baharav-Miara, has called on the Supreme Court to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from appointing a new chief to head a key security agency, despite the ongoing war with Hamas and terror threats in southern Lebanon and Judea and Samaria.

Baharav-Miara, who is currently facing a government effort to remove her from office, penned a response to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, urging justices to reject a petition to permit the prime minister to name a successor to former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar.

Bar resigned earlier this month following efforts by the government to fire him.

Coalition members had accused Bar of stymying the government and weaponizing probes of the police department and Netanyahu’s aides. Bar had also faced criticism and calls for his resignation over his agency’s failures prior to the Oct. 7 invasion by Hamas.

However, the Supreme Court issued an injunction on Netanyahu from removing Bar from office after Baharav-Miara accused him of having a conflict of interest, given the Shin Bet’s role in investigating employees of the prime minister’s office.

“It is not the place of the prime minister, as a party with a conflict of interest, to determine the identity of the party in charge of investigating his associates,” she wrote.

After Bar stepped down on June 15, the agency’s deputy chief, whose identity has not been publicized, stepped in to serve as acting chief for a one-month period.

Netanyahu has named retired IDF Maj. Gen. David Zini as his choice to replace Bar as head of the Shin Bet – an appointment that has drawn criticism from the Israeli Left.

Baharav-Miara wrote to the Supreme Court Tuesday that Netanyahu cannot appoint a new Shin Bet chief, saying the conflict of interest he allegedly faces is not limited to Bar but touches on the Shin Bet as a whole, given the agency’s role in investigating two Netanyahu aides.

Under Israeli law, the Shin Bet agency operates under the authority of the Prime Minister’s Office and thus is under Netanyahu’s direct purview.

According to the statutes, Shin Bet chiefs are nominated by the prime minister and confirmed by the cabinet.

Appointments must be made in consultation with a special committee, though it is the vote of the cabinet, not the committee, that establishes a candidate’s position in office.

In spite of the law explicitly granting the premier the power of nominating candidates to head the Shin Bet, Baharav-Miara argued to the Supreme Court that Netanyahu should yield his authority and delegate it to a government minister.

That, the A-G argued, would be a “reasonable solution that correctly balances the conflict of interest in which the prime minister finds himself and the clear public interest in appointing a permanent Shin Bet head by the government, which is the appointing body by law.”

The post Despite Gaza war, AG bars Netanyahu from appointing new security chief appeared first on World Israel News.

Israel poised for constitutional crisis as minister officially summons Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to a hearing prior to her termination, while a senior Coalition member declares government will not accept Supreme Court ruling against the firing.

By World Israel News Staff

A new Israeli ministerial committee established on Sunday has formally summoned the attorney general to a hearing next week, initiating the process of her termination.

On Sunday, the Cabinet voted to back a proposal by Justice Minister Yariv Levin (Likud) to alter the rules for removing a sitting attorney general from office, enabling the government to consult a committee of ministers prior to terminating the AG rather than being forced to consult with the committee responsible for appointing attorneys general.

The chairman of the new committee, Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud), penned a letter to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara on Monday, summoning her to a committee hearing next Tuesday.

The hearing marks the first step in the process of removing Baharav-Miara from office.

An appointee of the Bennett-Lapid government, Baharav-Miara has clashed with the Netanyahu government repeatedly since it came to power at the end of 2022, culminating in the unanimous Cabinet decision in March to back her removal from office.

Baharav-Miara’s office has pushed back on the effort to fire her, claiming that Sunday’s vote was illegitimate and did not properly address the safeguards for the AG’s office included in the previous statutes, passed in 2000, which the Cabinet voted to amend.

Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon penned a response to the amendment, decrying it as a purely political move that weakened the role of the attorney general.

Amid the controversy over the amendment and the effort to remove Baharav-Miara from office, Transportation Minister Miri Regev (Likud) warned the Supreme Court not to interfere with the government’s bid to fire the AG.

“We are acting in a very legal manner, and I suggest that the Supreme Court not pull the rope too far,” Regev said at a conference hosted by Yedioth Aharanoth.

Regev hinted that the government could ignore a Supreme Court ruling striking down Baharav-Miara’s termination.

“Because if it says no, then there may very well be a situation where we say: enough is enough. In other words, we will not respect the Supreme Court’s ruling — absolutely.”

“The Supreme Court does not respect the decisions of the government,” she continued. “The Court does not adhere to the very clear separation between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches. The Supreme Court has taken for itself too many powers that belong to the Knesset and the government. I suggest the Court return to its traditional role — namely, to allow the government to carry out its duties as we were elected by the public to do.”

The post Likud prepares to fire AG; minister signals gov’t will reject Supreme Court attempts to overturn decision appeared first on World Israel News.

“The idea that ‘the majority decides,'”  said Justice Yitzchak Amit, “is fourth-grade democracy.”

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

The president of Israel’s Supreme Court was heard scoffing at the principles of democracy in a recording publicized on Sunday by Channel 14.

While talking on Thursday to a group of students soon to be drafted into the army, Justice Yitzchak Amit defended the court’s judicial activism, including the nullification of Basic Laws passed by the Knesset.

His comments included an explicit rejection of what he dubbed “electoral democracy.”

“Stop bothering me about what’s colloquially called ‘electoral democracy’…. that’s fourth-grade democracy,” he said.

“Democracy is not just ‘the majority decides,’ because we have certain rights that are specifically meant to protect the minority and also to protect certain values,” he continued. “Electoral democracy is a very, very tattered one.”

Amit went even further when someone in the audience asked, “If the majority gave the Supreme Court the authority to invalidate laws, why can’t it take [that right] away from the judges?”

The justice answered, “Because then you won’t have democracy; you’ll have something else.”

Since electoral democracy means the public voting in its representatives to the Knesset, Amit was essentially stating that the legislative branch of government should not, and could not, be the final arbiter of the law.

Instead, it is the job of the courts, whose judges are not elected by the people, to decide what “rights” and “values” are supreme, and can overturn laws that do not fit those rights and values.

The Supreme Court has often canceled new Knesset laws over the last several years, even those that passed with large, but right-wing majorities, revealing a bias that has caused most people on the conservative side of the political map to distrust the court’s claims of impartiality.

The panel on Channel 14, which is known as a right-wing media outlet, argued that Amit’s statements were an “expression of deep contempt for the citizenry” and that the justice was “deciding what democracy means according to what is convenient for him.”

Amit also compared Supreme Court justices to soccer referees, saying that just as in a game the referees decide what is a legal or illegal on the field, the last word in the country must belong to the court.

This was ridiculed by the panel, which pointed out that if an umpire makes too many errors in judgment, the league will not allow him to officiate at future matches, while there is no recourse when justices are proven to be biased towards one side or another.

Amit was elected as head of the Supreme Court in January after his own court forced the Knesset’s Judicial Selection Committee to do so based on the tradition, but not law, that the most senior justice becomes president when the post becomes vacant.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin boycotted the vote because he fiercely opposed Amit’s selection, believing him unfit to serve in the position due to his left-wing bias, and several cases where, he said, Amit had “apparently acted while in a conflict of interests, and concerning building infringements at his home,” without “a professional and objective enquiry into these claims” being made.

The post Supreme Court chief justice blasts Israeli electoral democracy appeared first on World Israel News.

Army data shows that few ultra-Orthodox men receiving draft orders have enlisted, prompting the Supreme Court to grill the government over its failure to enforce the court order.

By David Rosenberg, World Israel News

The Israeli Supreme Court is demanding that the government explain why the recent push to draft ultra-Orthodox men has failed to reach its goals, after data collected by the army showed a declining response rate to draft orders.

On Sunday morning, the court issued an order demanding the state respond to petitions submitted by three left-wing NGOs, including the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Protective Wall for Democracy Forum, and Israel Hofsheet, all of whom called on the court to force the government to adhere to a landmark June 2024 ruling by the court demanding the IDF cease issuing draft deferrals for yeshiva students.

Since then, the army, under instructions from the Defense Ministry, has issued nearly 20,000 draft notices to ultra-Orthodox men – in keeping with the court order – though the response rate has remained low, declining from roughly 20% during the first wave of draft orders last year to 5% during the second wave.

Between July and October 2024, the IDF issued 3,000 draft orders to ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students who hitherto had received draft deferrals, according to data released by the army.

Of those, just 627, or slightly over 20%, appeared at induction centers in response, while 962 declared they would not serve.

Eighteen of the 2,373 who refused to show up to induction centers are under arrest orders, while 1,394 are barred from leaving the country.

During the second draft period, from November 2024 through this February, 7,014 draft orders were issued for ultra-Orthodox men, with only 367 men reporting to induction offices, for a response rate of 5.2% – roughly a quarter of the response rate during the prior four months.

The army has issued more arrest orders (2,473) and fewer travel bans (446) during the second draft period.

Since February, the IDF has mailed out 9,000 additional draft notices to ultra-Orthodox men, with 5,000 more expected during the next two months.

According to a report by KAN, Israel’s national broadcaster, 994 ultra-Orthodox men have responded to draft calls since February, with arrest warrants issued for 2,491 and travel bans imposed on 184.

In total, during the first eight months of its efforts to draft ultra-Orthodox men, the army has succeeded in beginning the draft process – measured by the number of draftees reporting to induction centers – for less than 2,000 men, far below the 4,800 annual quote set for the government.

The low enlistment figures have hampered efforts by the army to create a new, all-ultra-Orthodox brigade, dubbed the Hashmonaim Brigade.

While the program was launched last year, with the hopes of initially recruiting at least 280 soldiers, the brigade has had to repeatedly reduce its expectations, and is now projected to recruit less than one company’s worth of soldiers, with projections falling from 280 soldiers to 140 to 80 and, according to KAN radio, now a paltry 40 to 50 soldiers.

“I would be happy if there was support from [the haredi community],” Brig. Gen. Shay Taib told Galei Tzahal, the IDF radio station, “but unfortunately we have yet to see any change.

The Supreme Court has given the state until June 24, 2025 to explain why it has thus far failed to meet draft quotas in the ultra-Orthodox sector.

The post Few ultra-Orthodox enlisting in IDF despite draft push appeared first on World Israel News.

A statement from the Prime Minister’s Office called the ruling “puzzling,” because the justices admitted the premier has the authority to fire the head of the Shin Bet.

By Lauren Marcus, World Israel News Staff

Israel’s Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday to freeze the dissmissal of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, who was recently fired by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, potentially laying the groundwork for a constitutional crisis.

Some members of Netanyahu’s coalition have hinted that they may ignore a court ruling reversing Bar’s dismissal, citing an Israeli law which specifically permits the premier to fire the intelligence chief.

After a marathon 11-hour hearing, the court accepted a petition from anti-government advocacy groups, which claimed that Bar’s firing was rife with procedural errors and questioned whether Netanyahu had provided sufficient grounds for his dismissal.

The justices also required Netanyahu and his government to continue working with Bar, banning the premier from interviewing candidates to replace him, along with stating he cannot appoint someone to act as interim head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).

The terms of the ruling require both the petitioners and the coalition to submit additional affidavits to the court, with the justices asking the government to provide evidence for why Bar’s termination was justified.

A statement from the Prime Minister’s Office called the ruling “puzzling,” stressing that the justices “repeatedly emphasized during the discussion that there is no dispute regarding the government’s authority to remove the head of Shin Bet from office.”

Considering the justices’ admission that Netanyahu had the right to fire Bar, the “decision to delay the end of the Shin Bet head’s term by 10 days” is questionable, the statement added.

The ruling was met with pushback from Israeli coalition officials, who said that the court had overstepped its authority.

“Until today, many Israeli citizens lived under the illusion that they live in a democracy — a country where the explicit words of the law hold meaning,” said Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud) in a media statement.

“Tonight’s unfortunate ruling, under the guise of compromise, strips ministers of their authority and turns the court into the de facto guardian of the Knesset and the government,” he added.

The ruling was welcomed by far-left MK Yair Golan of the Democrats party, who previously called for a civil uprising should Bar be ousted.

Golan said that should Netanyahu’s coalition ignore the court’s decision, he would lead efforts to topple the government.

“Any attempt to bypass the Supreme Court will be met with an unprecedented civil struggle by a determined democratic majority,” Golan said.

“A government that does not obey the law cannot remain in office another day.”

Netanyahu fired Bar from his position in late March, citing a “lack of trust” between the two men that made working together impossible.

Bar has countered that his firing was due to political considerations, with many of his supporters alleging that the so-called “Qatar-gate” investigation into Netanyahu’s aides is the real reason for his dismissal.

Netanyahu’s dismissal of Bar marks the first time that a premier has terminated the tenure of a Shin Bet chief.

The post Netanyahu shocked at court’s ruling over Shin Bet leader’s firing appeared first on World Israel News.

“We call on all Israeli citizens to hug their children tightly and arm themselves,” warns NGO representing terror victims and bereaved families.

By World Israel News Staff

The Supreme Court rejected a petition on Sunday morning that sought an injunction to prevent the Israeli government from implementing a ceasefire and hostage deal.

The justices made the decision without hearing oral arguments, solely based on written arguments submitted to the Court.

The petition was filed by Choosing Life, an NGO composed of the family members of fallen soldiers and victims of terror attacks.

In its ruling rejecting the petition, the Court wrote that it does not intervene on matters of national security and foreign policy.

“This is one of the cases in which the limits of the law is clear. Our hearts go out to the families of those who have not yet returned, as well as to those who see the murderers of their loved ones leave prison and their eyes are filled with tears. Alongside this, there is still hope that sons and daughters will indeed return to their homeland,” wrote Justice Dafna Barak Erez.

“The values ​​at the heart of the discussion, primarily the sanctity of life and the redemption of captives, are not in dispute; however, there is also a sharp debate regarding the implementation” of a ceasefire deal, she added.

Choosing Life also requested that the family members of those murdered in terror attacks would receive an advance phone call warning them that their loved one’s killers were being released from prison.

The Court rejected the request, calling it “unnecessary.”

Following the ruling, Choosing Life said that the Court often intervenes on security matters, such as how prisoners are treated.

“Apparently, if we had petitioned to improve the conditions of the terrorists, the High Court would at least hold a hearing, but we are just families whose murderers of loved ones are released, so we’re not important,” the NGO said in a media statement.

“We explained in the petition that the reckless decision [to release thousands of terrorists] was made, the streets will be filled with murderers, and there is no one to save them. Not the political echelon, not the security echelon, not the legal echelon. We call on all Israeli citizens to hug their children tightly and arm themselves.”

The post Supreme Court rejects petition against hostage deal and ceasefire appeared first on World Israel News.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the architect of the abortive 2023 judicial reform plan, hints at new bid to pass the reform, accusing Supreme Court of running roughshod over Knesset’s and government’s rights.

By David Rosenberg, World Israel News

The Israeli government and the country’s Supreme Court may be on a collision course that could result in another attempt to reform the judiciary and restore the balance of power among the three branches of government, Justice Minister Yariv Levin (Likud) said Saturday night.

More than a year after the war in Gaza forced the government’s judicial reform plan off the agenda, and a year and a half since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu froze efforts to move forward with the reform in the face of large-scale protests, Levin suggested over the weekend that Israel’s Supreme Court may force the coalition to revive his shelved reform plan.

On Saturday night, Levin published a lengthy Facebook post accusing the Supreme Court of running roughshod over the rights of the country’s legislative and executive branches.

Levin and the High Court have clashed for over a year over the appointment of new justices as well as the naming of a new chief justice for the Supreme Court.

Under Israeli law, the judicial appointment committee – responsible for appointing judges at all levels of the judiciary – is made up of nine voting members, of whom four come from the Knesset and the government (including the justice minister), along with three sitting Supreme Court justices (including the chief justice) and two members of the Israel Bar Association.

While most appointments require only a simple majority of five out of nine members, appointments to the High Court require a supermajority of seven, including at least some level of support from both the Supreme Court’s delegation and the governing coalition, which controls at least three seats on the committee.

Since 2023, the court and the government have remained deadlocked over the appointment of three new Supreme Court justices and the naming of a new chief justice.

The last chief justice, Esther Hayut, finished her term in October 2023, with no replacement named to fill the position.

Justice Uzi Vogelman declined offers to replace Hayut, given that his remaining term on the court was one year. Vogelman took over Hayut’s duties, however, as acting chief justice for one year, before leaving the court this past October. Since then, Yitzhak Amit has served as acting chief justice.

The court has pushed to formally appoint Amit as Hayut’s successor, citing his seniority on the bench.

The Israeli government, however, has refused to back his appointment, noting that there was no statutory requirement to appoint the most senior justice to head the court.

Amit is widely associated with the court’s liberal wing, raising concerns in Israel’s right-wing government.

As a compromise, Levin has proposed to have the committee appoint conservative-leaning justice Yosef Elron as chief justice for a single year, after which he would be replaced by the court’s choice, likely Amit.

Under the compromise, the government and the court would each nominate two justices, with the committee backing one appointment from each list and the third vacancy to be filled by a female judge acceptable to both sides.

However, Acting Chief Justice Vogelman and his successor, Amit, rejected the proposal while the court moved to strip Levin of his authority as justice minister.

“Immediately after the outbreak of the war, the coalition announced a freeze on all activity related to judicial reform,” Levin wrote. “At the time, I believed it was inappropriate to address contentious issues while the country was engaged in a multi-front war.

“Minutes after I sent my proposal to Judge Vogelman, he rejected it contemptuously without even discussing it. Judge Vogelman was well aware that I was open to discussing the details of the proposal. The current acting chief justice, Judge Yitzhak Amit, also knows this. However, they chose to entrench themselves in their refusal.”

“Several months ago, the Supreme Court, in a panel led by Justice Willner, ruled that my role as Minister of Justice would be in title only,” he continued. “Justice Willner issued an order that effectively stripped me of my statutory authority to determine the agenda of the Judicial Selection Committee, thereby invalidating the consensus-based process that had so far achieved an unprecedented number of appointments.”

The ruling, Levin wrote, “is patently unlawful;” nevertheless, the minister continued to cooperate with the court, he claimed.

Levin noted that the court also took the unprecedented step of striking down an amendment to Israel’s Basic Laws – a proto-constitutional set of documents the Supreme Court has claimed have the status of a de facto constitution.

Since then, the Supreme Court has attempted to force through the appointment of Amit as chief justice.

“The judges and representatives of the Bar Association blocked the broadcasting of the committee’s deliberations, allowing them to appoint Judge Amit behind closed doors, ignoring the many objections and difficult questions raised.

“The Court did not stop there — since the war began, it has deliberated on the conditions of the terrorists who perpetrated the October 7 massacre, on humanitarian aid to Hamas in Gaza, on potentially ordering the state to release the bodies of terrorists while our hostages languish in Hamas tunnels, and on many other issues. This evening, it was revealed that Justice Ruth Ronen even visited Ofer Prison to personally oversee the detention conditions of high-ranking terrorists.”

Given the situation, Levin said, the government is now compelled to return to the judicial reform.

“The Court is leaving the Knesset and the government no choice but to act at this time to restore their powers. They have left us no choice. This cannot continue. We, too, have rights.”

The post Supreme Court forcing return of judicial reform, says justice minister appeared first on World Israel News.

Israeli Attorney General orders IDF to immediately implement Supreme Court ruling on ultra-Orthodox draft, calling for thousands of yeshiva students to be called up for military service.

By World Israel News Staff

The Israeli military must begin the immediate drafting of thousands of yeshiva students, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara instructed the IDF following a landmark ruling by Israel’s high court.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Israeli government’s decision to continue to issue annual draft deferments to full-time yeshiva students and to fund students relying on the deferments despite the court’s striking down of the draft law years earlier.

“The state does not have the authority to instruct a broad exemption from service and in the absence of a law, funding cannot be made from state coffers for yeshiva students who were not legally exempt from service,” the court ruled, noting that no new draft law had been passed since the prior one was struck down seven years ago.

Later on Tuesday, Baharav-Miara wrote to the IDF and various government ministries instructing them to begin implementing the court’s ruling, and demanding the immediate drafting of 3,000 yeshiva students and the freezing of funding for yeshiva students who are now liable for the draft.

Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon wrote that the army “is obligated to act immediately to implement the ruling to draft yeshiva students who are obligated to perform military service, in accordance with the needs of the army and its capabilities, and in accordance with its commitment to draft 3,000 recruits.”

In 2017, the court tossed out a 2015 Knesset law which largely restored the deferments system as it existed prior to a 2014 law, which encouraged yeshiva students to enlist in the military and set quotas for ultra-Orthodox recruitment.

While the court had granted delays in the implementation of the ruling due to the political quagmire of 2019-2020, the coronavirus pandemic, and the outbreak of the Gaza war, it refused to further extend the struck-down 2015 draft law beyond June.

An estimated 63,000 full-time yeshiva students are potentially eligible for the draft, the IDF has said, though the military is unable to induct more than 3,000 at this time.

Ultra-Orthodox leaders and media outlets quickly condemned Tuesday’s ruling, calling it a ‘declaration of war’ on the community.

The ruling constitutes a “shattering of the status quo and declaration of war on the Torah world,” wrote Hamodia, mouthpiece of the Hasidic faction within the Knesset’s United Torah Judaism party.

The post IDF ordered to immediately draft thousands of ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students appeared first on World Israel News.

‘If there’s a dispute between the Netanyahu government and the army, it’s for them to hash out, not the court,’ said retired Israeli judge Haran Fainstein.

By David Isaac, JNS

When the IDF announced it would institute 11-hour “tactical pauses” in the fighting near a road through Rafah and into Khan Yunis to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, the news took Israel’s prime minister and defense minister by surprise.

Some say that’s because the decision was driven by the Supreme Court, not the government, again illustrating judicial overreach.

On Monday, Lt. Col. Avichay Adraee, head of the Arab media division of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, announced that to “increase the scope of humanitarian aid,” military operations would cease between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. from the Kerem Shalom border crossing into the Gaza Strip on part of the Salah al-Din Road, Gaza’s main north-south highway.

While some argue this was an effort to address international criticism, which culminated in the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor seeking arrest warrants for Israel’s leaders, others point to pressure closer to home, namely the Supreme Court’s hearings on a petition brought by five radical anti-Israel NGOs.

Those NGOs argue that Israel isn’t letting enough humanitarian aid through and hold it entirely to blame for the situation in Gaza.

On June 10, the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, held its third hearing on the matter. The petitioners were represented by attorney Osnat Cohen-Lifshitz of Gisha—Legal Center for Freedom of Movement.

NGO Monitor, an Israel-based group that tracks nonprofit organizations hostile to the Jewish state, notes that Gisha, typical of most anti-Israel NGOs, espouses extremist positions and pulls the vast majority of its budget (73.1% of total donations in 2017-2019) from foreign countries.

Speaking in defense of the government was IDF Maj. Gen. Ghasan Alyan, the current head of COGAT, the Defense Ministry unit handling aid to Gaza, and Ministry of Justice attorney Yonatan Berman.

Alyan detailed the steps Israel had taken to ensure entry of humanitarian aid and the safety of the civilian population. Berman noted that COGAT and other Israeli agencies had gone “above and beyond” what international law required.

The court didn’t reach a decision to impose an injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the presiding judge, acting Chief Justice Uzi Vogelman, said, “We will weigh the matter and send you our decision.”

Keep the court satisfied

Amichai Shilo, who writes for HaKol HaYehudi and is covering the hearings, said that the state wants to keep the court happy so that it doesn’t reach a decision that would limit its freedom of action.

“You saw how Maj. Gen. Ghasan Alyan came to the hearing and listed all the things that they’re doing to keep the Supreme Court satisfied,” he told JNS.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t really need to make decisions to have a very great influence on the decision-making of the government and the officials.”

Alyan devoted his roughly 20-minute presentation to listing IDF measures in support of Gaza’s population.

Providing an example of the lengths the military had gone, he said it even allowed the entry of “dozens of items that could be considered dual-use,” that is, turned to military purposes by Hamas, in order to improve Gazan field hospitals.

Six days after the hearing, the IDF announced its tactical pauses. Shilo said the two events are connected.

“The Supreme Court is telling the army and the state’s representatives, without involving the prime minister, that they should introduce more humanitarian aid. I believe that the prime minister isn’t following these hearings; that he didn’t know.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately criticized the decision. “When the prime minister heard the reports of an 11-hour humanitarian pause in the morning, he turned to his military secretary and made it clear that this was unacceptable to him,” an Israeli official told reporters.

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant also said he learned about it the day of the announcement. He denied giving his approval for tactical pauses.

The IDF, in defending its move, insisted that Netanyahu and Gallant had in effect given the army carte blanche to call for daily timeouts when they OK’d in broad strokes the entry of more humanitarian aid. How best to accomplish that goal was left to the army’s discretion, the military argued.

A shadow government

However, retired Israeli judge Haran Fainstein, who teaches at Bar-Ilan University’s Department of Criminology, said that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the IDF decision was a response to the Supreme Court pressure, with army brass figuring it was best to do more in the way of humanitarian aid than risk an adverse court decision.

Over the last 30 years, the court has inserted itself into all aspects of political and military life to the point where it could be considered a shadow government, Fainstein said.

He argued the court had no business intervening on this issue at all. It should have rejected the petition outright.

“Everybody has to ask themselves if this is really within the court’s purview. Is it a legal, political or military matter? Is it a legal matter if 200 aid trucks enter or 300 aid trucks enter? No, it’s not a legal matter. It’s not in their jurisdiction,” Fainstein told JNS.

If there’s a dispute between the Netanyahu government and the army, it’s for them to hash out, not the court, he said.

“In the Catholic Church, when the pope doesn’t want to receive a petition, he says, ‘Non possumus—we cannot do it.’ What the Supreme Court should have said is ‘Listen, it’s a political-military matter. Don’t come to us now. Come back again after the war.’”

The court agreed to hear the petition because it can’t pass up an opportunity to exert its authority. The court won’t risk undercutting the belief that it’s the address to turn to on all important matters, Fainstein said.

“It’s because they don’t want to lose control over the government and over the State of Israel. So they take every petition.”

Fueling the court’s willingness to hear the petition is its ideological alignment with the petitioners. Of the three justices presiding, two, Yitzhak Amit and Vogelman, are leftists, Fainstein said.

“Amit is very political and wants to be the next president of the Supreme Court. Vogelman, who retires in two months, has made no secret of his opposition to Netanyahu and the government,” he said.

The third judge, Noam Sohlberg, is conservative. But this is a common tactic of the court to give the appearance of balance, Fainstein said, and the fix is in as it’s two-to-one.

“Show me the judge and I’ll tell you the outcome,” he said, saying he could predict the final decision in every Israeli Supreme Court case simply by looking at the bench.

During the hearings, Amit and Vogelman did appear considerate to the petitioners’ attorney. “This court is at your disposal, and makes itself available to you,” Amit said at one point.

Fainstein said that solicitousness stems from the fact that the court needs those petitioners to hear the cases. Leftist NGOS make the perfect partner for the activist court.

Anyone in Israel can bring a petition on any issue as the court years ago did away with the need for standing, the need to prove a personal investment in the outcome of the case.

“When I was a young lawyer, I had to prove when I petitioned the Supreme Court that I or my client would be hurt by the decision. Now it’s public. Everyone can go to the Supreme Court,” Fainstein said.

“Personally, I feel as if I’m in ancient Rome with the bread and circuses. Here it’s the circus of the lawyers and the judges,” he said.

The post Israeli Supreme Court blamed for IDF’s ‘tactical pause’ fiasco appeared first on World Israel News.

Barak is defending Israel in its genocide case, which South Africa filed.

By The Algemeiner

Israel has named its former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak as its addition to an International Court of Justice panel due this week to hear a genocide allegation filed against it, an Israeli official said on Sunday.

Under the ICJ’s rules, a state that does not have a judge of its nationality already on the bench can choose an ad hoc judge to sit in their case.

Barak, a champion of Supreme Court activism, was a focus of opposition for members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, whose judicial reform push last year bitterly polarized the public.

South Africa, which falsely accuses Israel of genocide in the Gaza war, has also appointed an ad hoc judge, former deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke, South African media said.

The post Former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak chosen by Israel for ICJ panel appeared first on World Israel News.

Justice Minister slams Supreme Court for hearing petition aimed at nullifying recusal law, says true aim of court case is nullifying the results of Israel’s most recent election.

By World Israel News Staff

Justice Minister Yariv Levin harshly criticized the Supreme Court as it convened to for a hearing regarding the recusal law , saying that the court had overstepped its bounds and that the true aim of the hearing is to invalidate the outcome of Israel’s last election.

In a media statement, Levin said that the petitioners who brought forth the lawsuit attempting to invalidate the recusal law “are actually trying to impeach Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu in order to put an end to right-wing rule.”

“They failed at the ballot box, and now they want to cancel election results,” he added.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the petition “is de facto a discussion of whether to cancel the election results,” Levin said in a statement to Hebrew-language media outlets.

The Court is set to rule on the legitimacy of a law passed by the Knesset in March 2023, which states that a prime minister can only be forced to resign due to issues of physical or mental fitness. The measure also states that such a move can only occur with the approval of 75 percent of the premier’s cabinet and 80 members of the Knesset.

Some legal scholars have suggested that the Supreme Court may not directly invalidate the law. Rather, the justices could rule that the law only applies to future governments, and not Netanyahu, the prime minister in office when the bill was passed.

That outcome, Levin argued, would be equally catastrophic for Israel’s democratic system.

“The meaning of delaying the implementation of the recusal law is that an unelected official… would be able to hand themselves powers that they were never given, and discuss the delusional option of ordering a prime minister to recuse himself, in total contrast with the election results,” Levin said.

“The result of this would be that Israel will no longer be a democracy, instead being ruled by people who placed themselves above the people, above the voters’ choice in the ballot box.”

MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party) supported Levin, telling Army Radio that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case was problematic.

“The very existence of such a discussion in a democratic state is a very extreme act,” Rothman said.

“It’s like the government holding a discussion on canceling elections.”

The post ‘Election nullification’: Supreme Court blasted for trying to undo right-wing election victory appeared first on World Israel News.

Justice Minister warns court striking down Basic Law would be “fatal injury” to democracy.

By World Israel News Staff

Proponents of the judicial reform, including Justice Minister Yariv Levin, argued their case against a petition demanding that the Supreme Court strike down a law limiting its power during a historic hearing on Tuesday morning.

An unprecedented panel made up of all 15 Supreme Court justices is mulling a petition filed by anti-overhaul groups demanding that the court nullify a law which voided the so-called “reasonableness clause.”

Voiding the measure, which was passed as a quasi-Constitutional Basic Law, would mark the first time that Israel’s Supreme Court invalidated a fundamental law passed by the Knesset.

Levin argued that the Court does not have the authority to decide whether or not to strike down Basic Laws.

“The court places itself above the government, above the Knesset, above the people and above the law. This is completely contrary to democracy,” he said.

“The very discussions about the possibility of striking Basic Laws, which are the top of the legal pyramid in Israel, are a fatal injury to the majority’s rule.”

MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionism) echoed Levin’s sentiments, telling the court that “the Knesset has the right to establish Basic Laws, in line with the will of the people” and that the court does not have the right to interfere with that process.

Activists in favor of judicial reform gathered outside of the court while the hearing was ongoing, expressing their displeasure over what they said was overreach in holding the hearing at all.

Members of the Zionist NGO Im Tirtzu brought 500 pounds (226 kilos) of bananas to the Jerusalem courthouse in an act of protest, saying that the hearing was indicative of Israel becoming a non-democratic banana republic.

“The fact that not a single one of the 15 justices demanded publicly that this hearing be canceled is itself a mark of shame for Israeli democracy,” said Im Tirztu Chairman Matan Poleg.

“They think that they are saving democracy, but in reality they are destroying it and turning Israel into a banana republic, a third-world country.”

The post ‘Completely contrary to democracy’ – Lawmakers, activists protest Supreme Court hearing on Basic Law appeared first on World Israel News.

“We can’t strike down Basic Laws every other day. There needs to be a mortal blow to the basic tenets of the state as a democratic state.”

By World Israel News Staff

Supreme Court President Esther Hayut said during Tuesday’s historic hearing that there would need to be a “mortal blow” to democracy for her court to justify striking down a Basic Law.

Her remarks were made to Aner Helman, who represented Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara at the hearing, in which all 15 justices heard petitions demanding that the Supreme Court strike down a law limiting its power.  Baharav-Miara was not present at the hearing because she had publicly sided with the petitioners.

Proponents of the judicial reform, including Justice Minister Yariv Levin, argued their case against a petition demanding that the Supreme Court strike down a law limiting its power during a historic hearing on Tuesday morning.

“We can’t strike down Basic Laws every other day. There needs to be a mortal blow to the basic tenets of the state as a democratic state,” Hayut told Helman.

Her remarks, ironically, echoed those made earlier in the day by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, in which he asserted that the the possibility of striking Basic Laws constituted a “fatal injury” to democracy and to the majority’s rule.

Responding to Hayut, Helman said that the reasonableness law under review indeed constituted “a major blow to the rule of law.”

“It’s dramatic,” he said.

The post Echoing Justice Minister, Supreme Court President says ‘mortal blow’ to democracy needed to strike Basic Law appeared first on World Israel News.