Prof. Suzie Navot

In September, the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to fulfill his duty to convene the Committee because the system cannot be paralyzed. Since then, the Minister has convened the committee, but refused to appoint the Supreme Court President. Now, the Court has ordered him to do so.

After the Minister of Justice Yariv Levin refrained from convening the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint a Supreme Court President, the Supreme Court ruled that the Committee must convene to appoint a President—Prof. Suzie Navot analyzes the Court's decision.

The rule of law is a fundamental democratic principle, meaning that all governing bodies are subject to and must comply with the law. Despite the complexities inherent in ongoing war, this is true also of the IDF, and only decisive action against breaches of conduct may protect the rule of law in Israel and Jewish morality. 

The Supreme Court ruling on June 25th addresses the question of whether the government is operating in accordance with the law. It determined that the state must act in accordance with the law and act to draft ultra-Orthodox. It also connects between the issue of exemptions and the criteria for eligibility for yeshiva budget funds.

The discussion in the Supreme Court yesterday was not about whether a law exempting yeshiva students harms the principle of equality. It was about a much more basic question: is the State of Israel acting in accordance with the principle of the rule of law—that is, can yeshiva students be exempted from enlisting in the IDF, when there is no law allowing for this.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) issued new temporary orders against Israel this week. Justice Barak’s dissenting opinion would seem to offer an important lesson for the future. Professional, focused, and well-founded legal criticism—as opposed to the very different means that are currently being widely discussed and pursued—is likely the best way to deal with the ICJ.

While the ICJ decision briefly mentions the immediate context of the lawsuit, namely the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Judge Barak directs them to the full picture that they did not address. He writes about the events of October 7 as Israelis know them to be true.

This decision refocused our attention not only on the specific law it struck down but also on the unfinished business of completing our country’s constitutional framework

Fact Sheet: The Basic Law: The Nation-State

Israel's non-Jewish minorities—particularly those who are fighting and dying for the State of Israel—are worthy of appreciation and recognition, not separately, but as equals. The solution is to amend the Nation State Law, not to pass a new, separate basic law as is currently under consideration.

On the question of Unreasonableness, it appears that the dispute is not only between the Knesset and the Supreme Court, but also among the justices themselves. There are many possibilities, but only one ruling, which will be handed down no later than mid-January 2024.

Less than 24 hours after the Knesset passed the “Reasonableness Law” the attorney general filed her professional opinion to the Supreme Court on an entirely different matter: the “Incapacitation Law.” What do the two amendments share in common?

The coalition launched the first stage in its judicial overhaul. The process by which the amendment to the Basic Law: The Judiciary was passed, releasing the government and its ministers from the duty to act with reasonableness, is the best possible evidence for what we can now expect.

Tel Aviv-based journalist and Israel Policy Forum Policy Advisor Neri Zilber hosts Prof. Suzie Navot, the vice president for research at the Israel Democracy Institute, to analyze the renewed push by the Netanyahu government to overhaul Israel's judicial system.

Only a government that wishes to make extremist and corrupt decisions would be afraid of the reasonableness test. While the test would certainly benefit from discussion of the framing of its boundaries and application, the legislation currently on the table hands the government unrestrained power.

Slowing the overhaul is a sham. It’s still a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court and its ability to restrain the coalition

5 other ideas for upgrading Israel's judicial system – without destroying democracy, doing away with the mechanisms for oversight of the government or harming our basic rights.

The recently published opinion by the Attorney General, Adv. Gali Baharav-Miara, makes clear that the proposal "reform" makes no attempt to enhance the balance among the branches of government: It is quite simply a demand for unlimited government power.

If Netanyahu's new government implements its plans, human rights may soon depend on majorities. Israel's delicate political structure makes this possible.

In this edited transcript of her conversation with BICOM Director Richard Pater, Vice-President of Research at the Israel Democracy Institute Professor Suzie Navot argues that judicial reforms proposed by the right-wing bloc – to Knesset override of the Supreme Court, executive immunity, and the appointment of judges – threaten Israeli democracy and the already fragile separation of powers.

Prof. Suzie Navot sits down with Richard Pater of Bicom, to discuss judicial reform. Prof. Navot explains the background of Israel’s legal system, its uniqueness among other parliamentary democracies and the significance of potentially implementing an override clause.

The problem with the Nation-State Basic Law is what it fails to mention - equality! Thus excluding Israel’s minorities who call the country home.

The proposal to hold the public hearing of the Judicial Selection Committee is a reasonable arrangement and the fact it was agreed to by the President of Supreme Court, indicates that it is intended to increase public confidence in the selection process of justices.