Democracy at Stake: Israel's Judicial Crisis and the Risks of Executive Dominance

Introduction

Israel's democratic system is facing one of the most consequential constitutional crises in its modern history. At stake is not merely a policy dispute over judicial reform but the core separation of powers that anchors Israeli democracy. In 2025–26, the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu advanced a suite of legislative changes that significantly curtail the judiciary's power and reshape the balance between Israel's executive, legislative, and judicial branches. These moves, carried out in wartime and amid intense social and political polarization, are widely seen by critics — domestically and internationally — as threatening the very institutional safeguards that have sustained Israel's democratic character.

As of January 2026, the crisis has intensified with the government advancing multiple legislative initiatives designed to erode judicial independence, including attempts to fire the Attorney General, restructure legal advisory systems, and assert control over media institutions. The governing coalition is pushing legislation aimed at eroding the independence of legal institutions, including subordinating ministerial legal advisers to political appointees rather than the independent attorney general.

Historical Anchors: The Role of the Judiciary in Israeli Democracy

Israel lacks a single formal written constitution. Instead, its constitutional framework rests on a series of Basic Laws and entrenched norms upheld over decades. The Supreme Court of Israel, particularly since the late twentieth century, has played an indispensable role as a check on both legislative and executive power, defending civil liberties and ensuring rule-of-law constraints on government action. Through judicial review — including the ability to strike down government decisions and limit abuses of executive authority — the court has helped balance competing political pressures in a deeply pluralistic society.

Without a constitutional charter of rights in the style of many Western democracies, Israel's Supreme Court became, for many citizens and civil society actors, the principal guardian of democratic accountability and minority rights. Throughout the early 2000s and 2010s, even amid sharp disagreements over controversial rulings, a broad consensus persisted on the need to preserve judicial independence as a cornerstone of democratic governance.

The 2025–26 Judicial Overhaul: Scope and Mechanisms

The Judicial Selection Committee Reform

On March 26, 2025, Israel's parliament approved a law to overhaul the judicial appointment process, with 67 members voting in favor and one opposed, as opposition factions boycotted the vote in protest. This law fundamentally altered the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, which appoints all judges in Israel. Under the new law, the committee's makeup was changed to grant the minister of justice and government representatives more direct influence over appointments, while diminishing the role of Supreme Court justices and the Israel Bar Association in selecting judges.

The reform replaces the two Israel Bar Association representatives with one attorney selected by the coalition and one by the opposition, and lowers the threshold for Supreme Court appointments from a supermajority of seven votes to a simple majority of five out of nine committee members. Critics describe this as transforming judicial appointments from a merit-based system toward one dominated by political calculation, with politicians and their representatives now controlling six seats on the nine-member committee, meaning that selection of justices would likely become a matter of political horse-trading.

Significantly, the new system is not scheduled to take effect until after the next Knesset election in October 2026, while until then, the existing committee requires unanimous agreement from all members to appoint judges. This has created an effective deadlock in judicial appointments, with the Supreme Court announcing that all eleven justices will hear the case challenging the reform, likely in June 2026.

Attempts to Restructure Legal Institutions

The January 2026 legislative push extends far beyond judicial appointments. The government is currently advancing legislation that would remove ministerial legal advisers from under the authority of the attorney general, placing them instead under directors general of ministries, who are political appointees of ministers. This change would fundamentally alter the independence of legal advice provided to government officials.

Additional proposed legislation includes:

• Bills to divide the attorney general's role into three politically appointed positions
• Legislation to give the justice minister control over the Department for Internal Police Investigations
• Measures to allow government appointment of civil service commissioners without competitive professional processes
• Proposals blocking the High Court from exercising judicial review over Basic Laws

Justice Minister Yariv Levin has declared his intent to dismantle the legal system "brick by brick," signaling a comprehensive strategy rather than isolated reforms.

The Assault on the Attorney General

The government's conflict with Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara represents one of the most dramatic institutional confrontations in Israeli history. In August 2025, the cabinet voted unanimously to fire Baharav-Miara, but the High Court immediately froze her dismissal and ultimately annulled it in December 2025. The court found that the government's decision to change the dismissal process was approved "hastily" and "without an appropriate factual or legal basis, without consulting professional bodies, and without considering other alternatives".

The attempted firing followed months of escalating conflict. Justice Minister Levin sent an 85-page letter in March 2025 chronicling allegations against the Attorney General, including derailing governmental policy, legislation, and appointments, and refusing to represent the government effectively in court. Baharav-Miara responded that what Levin presented as disagreements were actually her insistence that the government follow the law, and that accepting removal of attorneys general for opposing legal violations would effectively place the government above the law.

Despite the December court ruling reinstating her, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi vowed not to obey the court order, declaring it "invalid" and calling for immediate appointment of a replacement. This public defiance of a Supreme Court ruling represents an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority in Israel.

Democratic Risks: Weakening Checks and Balances

What makes the current crisis so dangerous is not isolated technical tweaks to judicial procedure. Rather, the cumulative effect of legal changes, political rhetoric, and institutional weakening undermines the system of checks that prevents authoritarian consolidation.

Politicization of Judicial Appointments

The overhaul transforms judicial selection into a highly political process. Without a strong professional buffer, judges risk being seen (and selected) as extensions of partisan agendas. This erodes public confidence in judicial neutrality — essential for the rule of law. The reform marginalizes the power of judges on the selection committee and eliminates the bar association's involvement in judicial appointments altogether, concentrating appointment power in political hands.

Erosion of Judicial Review

Curtailing court oversight of executive action removes one of the few remaining brakes on unchecked political power. If the legislature or executive can shield itself from legal challenge, a central pillar of democratic accountability collapses. The government has already demonstrated willingness to defy court orders: Attorney General Baharav-Miara stated in late 2025 that the government was violating the High Court's order to draw up concrete policies for enforcing the military draft on ultra-Orthodox men within 45 days.

In January 2026, Justice Minister Levin warned he is prepared to paralyze the Supreme Court, defy its rulings, and advance legislation declaring court decisions void. Such threats represent a fundamental assault on the principle of judicial independence.

Attacks on Press Freedom

The government's efforts to control the media landscape have accelerated dramatically. In November 2025, the Knesset approved in first reading a Communications Reform Bill that opponents see as an attempt to deepen government control over media and erode freedom of expression. The proposed legislation would create a new broadcasting authority largely composed of members appointed by the Communications Minister, despite opposition from the Attorney General who argued it could undermine the free press's essential role in democracy.

Israel's ranking dropped to 112th out of 180 countries in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, with Reporters Without Borders noting that "disinformation campaigns and repressive laws have multiplied in Israel and pressure on Israeli journalists has intensified".

Additional press freedom concerns include:

• In December 2025, the cabinet voted to shutter Army Radio, with the defense minister ordering the IDF to wind down operations by March 2026, despite legal and press freedom concerns
• Extension of legislation allowing authorities to ban foreign media deemed harmful to state security without judicial oversight, remaining in force until 2027
• Legislation to privatize Israel's public broadcaster and expand government control over media regulatory bodies
• Prime Minister Netanyahu has not granted an interview to Israel's three main broadcasters in over four years, accusing them of "brainwashing" and claiming they assist Israel's enemies

Senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler observed that "in the past two years, the Israeli government has launched a coordinated political, regulatory and rhetorical campaign to weaken the media".

Pressure on Military and Security Institutions

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and reserve forces have a long tradition of political neutrality and subordination to civilian control. Yet the judicial overhaul has created unprecedented tensions within the state's security apparatus.

During the 2023 protests against judicial reform, nearly 10,000 military reservists announced they would refuse to volunteer for duty if the controversial "reasonableness" bill was passed, with more than 1,000 reservists from the Israeli Air Force threatening to quit. Among the air force reservists who signed protest letters was a 61-year-old F-16 pilot who stated: "I came to the conclusion that this government is the biggest danger that Israel faces right now. More than any external enemy or threat".

Senior military and intelligence officials warned the government that the contentious judicial overhaul was eroding both troop morale and Israel's operational readiness, and that Israel's enemies were eager to exploit these internal developments. The IDF chief asked government critics to refrain from disparaging the protesting pilots, while US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reiterated that "broad consensus through political dialogue" was critical to maintain democracy.

The government has also attempted to remove security officials who challenged its policies. The Supreme Court declared Netanyahu's attempt to fire Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar "unlawful," though Bar ultimately stepped down when his term ended in June 2025.

Polarization and Public Trust

The judicial crisis has sharpened affective polarization in Israeli society and politics, as reflected in parliamentary discourse and public debate. Recent academic analyses show emotional and ideological divides deepening in Knesset proceedings — a reflection of broader social fragmentation. Polarized political rhetoric erodes trust not only among citizens but also in core institutions, making democratic compromise more difficult.

Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak declared in January 2026 that Israel is "no longer a liberal democracy," stating that "this is a process in which essential aspects of Israeli democracy are under withering attack, and democracy is weakening". He further argued that "our system of governance is a rule of one political branch, which in practice is controlled by one man, the same one who rules the government and the Knesset".

Current Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit has also spoken forcefully about the threats to democracy. At a December 2025 conference, Amit described Justice Minister Levin's boycott of him as a boycott of the entire judicial system and of the Israeli public, which is being harmed by paralysis in the courts. Barak addressed Amit directly, saying: "Be strong and courageous. Do not surrender. You are the president of the Supreme Court, and we have full confidence in you as judge and president".

Violent Rhetoric Against Judicial Leaders

The polarization has manifested in increasingly violent rhetoric directed at Supreme Court leadership. In late 2025, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich referred to Supreme Court President Amit as a "violent, predatory megalomaniac who steals Israeli democracy," and warned that "the result will be that we will crush him". Over 100 retired judges and former court presidents issued a public statement expressing "deep concern" over what they described as an ongoing campaign of incitement, verbal violence, and humiliation directed at Amit and the judiciary.

Law faculty deans from universities across Israel released a joint statement warning that political disagreement can never justify personal delegitimization, verbal violence, or insinuations of physical harm toward judges, and that such rhetoric undermines the democratic fabric and endangers the safety of judges.

The Role of Press and IDF Support for Judicial Independence

The press and leaders within the security establishment have taken positions in defense of judicial independence, reflecting concerns that unchecked executive power threatens both civil liberties and national resilience. Yet critics — particularly in the governing coalition — have attacked these institutions as partisan or even anti-national. Such attacks are perilous for several reasons:

Undermining Institutional Legitimacy: When political leaders publicly discredit independent institutions, it erodes citizens' trust in those institutions and, by extension, the rule of law. The Israel Democracy Institute's Amir Fuchs noted that government ministers' attacks on the Supreme Court are part of a broader effort to delegitimize the court and weaken it as a check on government power.

Weakening National Cohesion: Attacks on the press and IDF figures for their views risk dividing society further along political lines, at a time when national unity is crucial for security and international standing. The move to clamp down on public protest appeared aimed at preventing a repeat of 2023, when waves of reservists said they would refuse to serve in protest of Netanyahu's judicial overhaul efforts.

Reducing Accountability: Independent media and judicial review act as guardrails against government excesses. Efforts to delegitimize them diminish accountability mechanisms precisely when they are most needed. Politicians have significant influence over appointments to broadcasting regulatory bodies, and since 2021, only journalists working for Channel 14, a media outlet that covers Prime Minister Netanyahu favorably, have been granted interviews with the country's leader.

Comparative Context: Democratic Backsliding Patterns

Israel's judicial reforms bear striking similarities to democratic erosion patterns observed in other countries. The reforms parallel what occurred in Poland, where the ruling Law and Justice Party made extensive changes to the judiciary that compromised its independence, with the Polish government taking charge of judicial appointments and limiting courts' power to contest executive actions, resulting in a notable decline in democratic standards.

The pattern follows what scholars call "executive aggrandizement" — where leaders gradually reduce checks on their power while maintaining democratic appearances. By diminishing the independence of the judiciary, the government is lessening the limits on executive power, undermining accountability, and weakening protection for minority rights.

International and Strategic Impacts

Israel's democratic identity has been a cornerstone of its strategic relationships, particularly with Western democracies. In past debates, international leaders, including U.S. officials, have warned that radical judicial reforms threaten Israel's reputation as "the sole democracy in the Middle East" — a status that underpins diplomatic support and military cooperation.

The international legal implications are also significant. Many IDF reservists expressed concern that legislation promoted to overhaul the judicial system would compromise judicial independence, increasing the risk of legal proceedings before the International Criminal Court in The Hague and foreign judicial authorities due to their military activities.

Moreover, instability at home can have security repercussions. A society deeply polarized over governance structures may struggle to marshal the sustained unity required for external threats, especially in a volatile regional environment.

The Mechanism of Democratic Breakdown

The current trajectory reveals a systematic dismantling of democratic safeguards:

1. Judicial Capture: Restructuring appointment processes to ensure political control over the judiciary
2. Neutralization of Legal Oversight: Removing independent legal advisers and attempting to fire the Attorney General
3. Media Control: Asserting government influence over broadcasting, shuttering independent outlets, and empowering political appointees to regulate media
4. Delegitimization Campaign: Sustained rhetorical attacks on independent institutions, preparing public opinion for defiance of court rulings
5. Institutional Defiance: Public statements by ministers refusing to obey court orders, undermining judicial authority

As constitutional law expert Yaniv Roznai observed, "They have tried to capture institutions, and when that fails they weaken and delegitimize that institution so that it is no longer effective as a check on government power".

The Stakes in January 2026

As of January 2026, Israel stands at a critical juncture. Justice Minister Levin has laid out plans to counter the judiciary through a discussion with Likud activists, warning he is prepared to paralyze the Supreme Court, defy its rulings, and advance legislation declaring court decisions void. In this discussion, Levin framed his ongoing judicial overhaul push as a power struggle with what he described as a "small," "radical" elite controlling the courts.

The coalition is set to bring motions declaring that court orders against legislative amendments to Basic Laws are void, which, although lacking the force of law, would symbolically pit the Knesset against the court in a further effort to undermine judicial authority.

Meanwhile, all eleven Supreme Court justices are scheduled to hear the case challenging the judicial selection reform, likely in June 2026, just months before the scheduled October 2026 elections.

Conclusion

The unfolding judicial crisis in Israel is more than a domestic legal dispute. It poses a profound question about the future of Israeli democracy itself: Can a system that dismantles its own checks on executive power, weakens press freedom, and politicizes institutions remain a robust democracy?

The historical role of the Supreme Court, the ongoing reforms, the attempted firing and reinstatement of the Attorney General, government defiance of court orders, the assault on press freedom, and the polarization of Israeli society all point to a precarious moment. Attacks on independent institutions not only risk weakening the democratic framework but also undermine the cohesion and resilience of the state at a time of heightened security challenges.

The trajectory is clear: systematic legislative changes combined with rhetorical delegitimization and institutional defiance create conditions for democratic breakdown. As former Supreme Court President Barak warned, protecting human rights, separation of powers, the rule of law, and judicial independence are all being weakened, with Israel's system becoming "a rule of one political branch, which in practice is controlled by one man".

Without restoring balance and respect for institutional autonomy, Israel risks sliding from constitutional democracy toward a system where power is unchecked — a trajectory that, if unchecked, may erode the democratic character for which generations have struggled. The coming months, particularly the June 2026 Supreme Court hearing and October 2026 elections, will prove decisive in determining whether Israel's democratic institutions can withstand this assault or whether the consolidation of executive power will fundamentally transform the nation's governance system.

The international community, Israeli civil society, and citizens committed to democratic values must recognize that what is at stake extends beyond judicial procedure or institutional politics. At stake is the fundamental question of whether democracy in Israel — with all its checks, balances, and protections for minority rights — will survive this crisis intact.