30 Years Since the 'Mizrahi Bank' Decision: The Impact on the Relations Between Branches of Government
The conference was held in Hebrew
30 Years Since the Bank Mizrahi Decision
November 9, 2025 | The Israel Democracy Institute
Thirty years after the landmark Bank Mizrahi ruling, the Israel Democracy Institute hosted a special conference bringing together leading jurists, former Supreme Court justices and minister of justice, academics and senior public officials to reflect on the decision’s enduring legacy and the state of Israel’s democracy today. The roundtable conversations combined historical reflection with deep concern about Israel’s constitutional direction, as participants examined the ruling’s meaning, its long-term consequences, and the tensions it still evokes between the judiciary, the legislature, and the public.
Background: In the landmark Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village ruling, Israel's Supreme Court found that Basic Laws hold a quasi-constitutional status and therefore have supremacy over ordinary legislation passed by the Knesset. This allowed the Court to establish that it holds the right to strike down laws that violate Basic Laws. Read more about this landmark case.
Thirty years later, that framework remains both a cornerstone and a fault line in Israeli democracy. The conference revisited Mizrahi not as a historical precedent, but as a living debate about the role of judicial authority, the balance between branches of government, and the meaning of democracy in Israel today.
Prof. Aharon Barak, who served as President of the Supreme Court when the Mizrahi decision was handed down, opened the discussion with personal remarks about recent loss and health challenges, tying his private struggles to his sense of national concern. He warned that Israel is “sliding from the liberal democracy we once had toward an illiberal democracy whose end is dictatorship,” stressing that although the country is not yet there, but urgent action is needed to halt the decline.
He defended the Court’s broad interpretation of human dignity, asserting that even though the Knesset did not explicitly include equality or freedom of expression, those rights naturally flow from the Basic Law’s spirit and purpose. Barak admitted that some questions left open in Bank Mizrahi—such as the limits of amending Basic Laws—should have been clarified further.
Barak also reflected on his past work with the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) working to advance a constitutional framework in Israel.
“I remember sitting here [at IDI], in discussions, when the Institute proposed that there be a Basic Law on the Preparation of a Constitution - a law that would define how to draft a constitution. One of the ideas was that the constitution would be written by Knesset members, but that within the Knesset there would be a special committee for drafting the constitution, not the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. I remember that this was proposed, and then I went to Bibi [Netanyahu] and said to him, ‘I’m offering you this idea - it’s an excellent idea.’ But he said, ‘It’s not a good idea, because the Knesset won’t accept it, and there will be a debate about whether we even need a constitution or not. Let’s have the debate about the constitution itself, not about which committee will draft it.’ I think he was right. And so, nothing was done.
Consensus is necessary - when there is consensus, I will be willing to make compromises.”
Turning to the present, he emphasized the urgent need for a comprehensive Basic Law to define the relationship between the branches of government and prevent ongoing constitutional ambiguity. He called for its drafting to be based on broad political consensus, including both coalition and opposition, after the upcoming elections.
He concluded with a message of guarded optimism: “Liberal democracy is under attack not only in Israel but worldwide. Our troubles are greater-but so is our ability to repair.”
Dan Meridor, who served as the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Likud party when the Knesset passed the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, revisited the political and legislative process behind the Basic Laws on Human Dignity and Freedom of Occupation, which laid the foundation for the Bank Mizrahi ruling. He expressed both pride and reservation: pride in helping enshrine core democratic rights, but concern that the decision led to an imbalance between the branches of government.
He warned against structural conflicts of interest, such as having the same legal advisors serve both the government and the Knesset, arguing that this weakens parliamentary independence. At the same time, he emphasized that without Bank Mizrahi’s recognition of constitutional hierarchy, Israel’s democracy would be in a far poorer state.
Meridor reaffirmed that majority rule must never be absolute, and that the essence of a constitutional democracy lies in binding even the majority to respect basic rights and institutional limits.
Justice Dorit Beinisch, Former President of the Supreme Court of Israel provided a historical and analytical view of the Court’s constitutional role since Bank Mizrahi. She explained how judicial review has evolved gradually. It has gone from overseeing administrative regulations to reviewing primary legislation since the Knesset has blurred distinctions by using Basic Laws to shield legislation from scrutiny.
Beinisch described this abuse of Basic Laws as one of Israel’s greatest constitutional dangers, warning that turning Basic Laws into political tools undermines both the rule of law and the idea of a stable constitution. Discussing the 2023 “reasonableness” amendment, she argued that the Court’s decision to strike it down was necessary to protect democratic values from erosion.
She expressed grave concern about the declining respect for the judiciary and for the separation of powers: “Our system faces contempt for its most basic constitutional principles. When the government and Knesset act as one, citizens are left unprotected.” Yet she also voiced hope that Israel can return to institutional balance through civic strength and renewed public trust.
Ilan Bombach, Attorney and expert in administrative law, offered countering arguments in response to the previous discussions. He cautioned that judicial legitimacy depends on consistency, humility, and restraint. He argued that every act of judicial review- especially the striking down of a Basic Law—must rest on a clear, unified normative foundation. The lack of consensus among justices on the source of such authority, he argued, risks weakening the Court’s credibility.
Bombach questioned whether the Supreme Court’s increasing involvement in political controversies fosters or erodes public confidence. While acknowledging the necessity of judicial oversight, he emphasized that democracy also requires fidelity to the written law and the electorate’s will. “The rule of law,” he said, “means first of all obeying what is written in the law.”
Prof. Suzie Navot IDI’s Vice President of Research closed the conference by summarizing the key lessons drawn from the day’s discussions. She noted that over the course of the sessions, it became clear that the idea of a “constitutional revolution” has many claimants and interpretations - yet, in reality, it’s not a sudden upheaval but rather a more natural development of Israel’s constitutional identity.
She cautioned that a thin or rushed constitutional arrangement would not have prevented the democratic erosion of recent years, nor the conflicts over the reasonableness clause, judicial appointments, or the incapacitation amendment. Institutional fixes alone, she emphasized, are insufficient without a shared moral and civic foundation.
“The real question,” she concluded, “is not only how to legislate but what values will guide us. No constitutional framework can stand without principles - without the rule of law, civic responsibility, and the vision expressed in the Declaration of Independence.”
Ending on an optimistic note, Prof. Navot expressed hope that Israeli society will find the strength and wisdom to achieve genuine democratic renewal, thanking all participants and organizers “for helping keep the democratic conversation alive.”
