Israel’s parliament has passed a crucial piece of legislation as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposed judicial overhaul, prompting significant backlash from critics who perceive it as an assertive move by his far-right government. This legislative change has been a source of fierce debate and widespread protests throughout 2023, preceding the escalation of conflict following Hamas’s attack on October 7 that same year. Recently, as tensions continue to rise, Netanyahu’s decisions regarding the handling of hostages from the Gaza conflict and the dismissal or marginalization of key officials have further inflamed opposition to his plans.
The newly passed law modifies the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, granting increased influence to the government in appointing judges. Under the new rules, the government alongside the opposition will select two additional members for the nine-seat committee, reducing the role of the Israeli Bar Association. Critics argue this will allow political appointees to veto Supreme Court and lower court nominations, undermining judicial independence. Proponents, however, claim it boosts the power of elected officials. Netanyahu, who faces corruption trials, has often claimed to be a target of what he believes is a ‘deep state’ consisting of unelected officials, law enforcement, and unwelcoming media.
Those against the overhaul assert that the changes compromise the judiciary’s independence and threaten the nation’s democratic framework of checks and balances. Although the law is poised to take effect under the next Knesset, the opposition has committed to repealing it should they return to power. During intense debates, most opposition members boycotted the final vote where the legislation passed 67-1, vowing to undo the changes they claim are intended to subject judges to political influences. Justice Minister Yariv Levin described the overhaul as a “historic and necessary change,” aiming to diversify the judicial platform. However, immediate judicial challenges have been filed with the Supreme Court contesting the law’s constitutionality.
Opponents, including the Movement for Quality of Government, argue in their petition that the new legislation dramatically alters Israel’s democratic framework, with the government accused of using wartime as a distraction to push forward a political agenda. By favoring political appointees, critics claim the judiciary’s role as a governmental check is endangered. Amichai Cohen, a constitutional law expert and senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, warns that such changes could lead to extreme political bargaining and threaten the impartiality of the judiciary. Unlike the U.S., where a separation between Congress and the president serves as a check on executive power, Israel’s system solidifies government power when the majority coalition in parliament works in concert, leaving the judiciary as the principal counterbalance.
Following the renewed aggression against Hamas which ended a temporary ceasefire, the push to implement these judicial reforms has gained momentum. This surge has bolstered Netanyahu’s coalition, consisting predominantly of far-right parties eager to continue military engagements, furthering their legislative ambitions. The government has succeeded in passing a budget, enhancing its stability to potentially govern until the next election slotted for October 2026. Nonetheless, these judicial reforms remain highly contentious, threatening to exacerbate existing divisions within the country.