As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempts to avoid the establishment of an official inquiry into the failures surrounding the October 7 attack, and as Justice Minister Yariv Levin seeks to impose his will on the Supreme Court while refusing to appoint its president, prominent legal figures have warned of an impending constitutional crisis.
Attorney Dafna Holtz-Lechner, who represents numerous parties before the Supreme Court, stated that Netanyahu bears personal and administrative responsibility for this deterioration. Since being indicted on serious corruption charges, Netanyahu has waged a war against the judicial system, from the Supreme Court to the Attorney General, according to Holtz-Lechner. This campaign has escalated to the point where court rulings are ignored, and a toxic campaign against the judiciary is being promoted, aiming to undermine its credibility.
Haaretz’s legal affairs correspondent, Haim Zayit, noted that Israeli governments have respected court decisions for 60 years, with the exception of a 1950s ruling that ordered the return of residents to the Palestinian villages of Iqrit and Biram. However, in recent years, especially since Netanyahu returned to power, court decisions have increasingly been disregarded.
The crisis has reached a peak in recent months, with Justice Minister Levin refusing to appoint a Supreme Court president. Traditionally, the oldest judge is elected as the president, provided they have the support of at least five of the nine members of the Judicial Selection Committee. However, Levin and Netanyahu wish to change the appointment system to give the government absolute control or require its approval. The court views retaining this decision-making power as essential to maintaining judicial independence.
Today (Tuesday), the Supreme Court issued a warning to Justice Minister Levin, stating that if he does not convene the Judicial Selection Committee in the coming days to appoint three judges and a Supreme Court president, the court will issue a ruling next month compelling him to do so under the Court Law.
