Israel’s justice minister is creating a dictatorship in the judicial system

A group of senior experts examined the claims made by Justice Minister Yariv Levin with regard to appointing a chief justice and the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee.

The group comprises Yarom Ariav, Dorit Beinisch, Prof. David Harel, Dan Halutz, Moshe Ya’alon, Prof. Hagai Levine, Prof. Barak Medina, Dr. Miri Mizrahi-Reuveni, and Eran Etzion.

This is their response: Levin’s claims versus the facts.

1

Levin’s Claim: Most of the public supports changing the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee. Yet the will of the majority is not accepted.

The Facts: During the 2022 election campaign, this judicial overhaul was not presented by the Likud, Levin’s party, at all. On the contrary: it was deliberately concealed from voters. The mandates won by Likud were based on promises to address security and the cost of living. (So much so that when Levin presented the reform, it surprised even parts of the coalition.)

The claim that the majority supports the overhaul has never been put to the public test, and polls do not indicate that the Israeli public supports it; in fact, the opposite is true.

It’s important to note that the structure of the Judicial Selection Committee is long-standing and has been in place under both left- and right-wing governments in Israel. It is widely considered a highly balanced system worth preserving, akin to the idea that “the path is wiser than those who walk it.”

2

Levin’s Claim: A minority (the judges participating in the Judicial Selection Committee) imposes its will on the majority, thereby denying the majority its democratic expression.

The Facts: Within the Judicial Selection Committee, there is a majority that wants — and even explicitly requests — to elect a chief justice for the Supreme Court. Paradoxically, it is the minority in the committee that is acting in an undemocratic manner by preventing the majority’s decision.

Refusing to appoint a chief justice or any judges in cases where Levin is in the minority (such as additional Supreme Court judges, judges for the Jerusalem District Court, or a judge for the National Labor Court) amounts to an illegitimate veto. This obstructs the majority’s will as prescribed by law, effectively creating a dictatorship led solely by the justice minister.

Refusing to appoint a chief justice or any judges in cases where Levin is in the minority amounts to an illegitimate veto. This is effectively creating a dictatorship led solely by the justice minister

Israel has never entrusted a single politician with such excessive power. This constitutes an arbitrary, forbidden, and undemocratic interpretation of the law. Levin is simply using force to block democratic decision-making in the Judicial Selection Committee.

3

Levin’s Claim: The High Court judges who issued the court order (instructing Levin to appoint a chief justice by January 16) are preventing Levin, as justice minister, from performing his duties.

The Facts: The judges issued an order requiring Levin to fulfill his duties (after waiting an extended period for him to act independently). These duties include convening the Judicial Selection Committee and properly putting forth candidates for appointment in cases where there are judicial vacancies, including for the position of chief justice.

All justice ministers to date — from both the right and the left — have worked with the committee in its current composition. Every previous justice minister has convened the committee to address urgent matters, including appointing judges and selecting a chief justice for the Supreme Court.

It is crucial to note that part of the current dispute revolves around the appointment of a chief justice based on the seniority system, which stipulates that the most senior judge on the bench becomes the chief justice. The Supreme Court judges are not preventing Levin from fulfilling his role as minister but are asserting that the committee must be convened, and the matters must be brought to a vote.

The Supreme Court judges are not preventing Levin from fulfilling his role as minister but are asserting that the committee must be convened, and the matters must be brought to a vote

4

Levin’s Claim: The High Court’s order effectively dismisses Levin from his role as justice minister.

The Facts: The court did not introduce any new ruling and did not dismiss Levin from his position. On the contrary, Levin has neither been dismissed nor stripped of his authority (nor even found in contempt of court, despite his refusal to comply with its orders and his open opposition).

In Israel, no Justice Minister has ever appointed judges alone: The process involves a committee composed of representatives from various branches of government, reflecting the principle of separation of powers. If politicians were to appoint judges, the separation of powers would be undermined, preventing judges from acting independently of political influence.

5

Levin’s Claim: Appointments based on the seniority system override the will of the elected leadership.

The Facts: The seniority principle is specifically designed to prevent judges from being appointed through a politicized process where judges campaign for their positions, creating hostility among them and a “race” to curry favor with politicians.

The seniority principle is specifically designed to prevent judges from being appointed through a politicized process where judges campaign for their positions

According to the seniority system, Isaac Amit should now be appointed chief justice – and when he retires, in 2027, Justice Noam Sohlberg will be next in line to serve as chief justice. This established certainty and order is both reasonable and justified, preserving a long-standing tradition in Israel that is also common worldwide.

6

Levin’s Claim: Supreme Court justices, led by Isaac Amit, are in a conflict of interest because they are involved in selecting their own peers.

The Facts: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the one in a conflict of interest, using Levin as a tool to advance interests that harm Israel and its citizens.

Netanyahu has been active in politics since the 1990s, yet he did not interfere with the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee until he became a criminal defendant. Only then did this become an issue of concern for him.

The conflict of interest is clear even in the fact that Netanyahu appointed Levin, who is most associated with the campaign against the judiciary, to serve as justice minister. Levin attacks the judiciary and refuses to fill judicial vacancies in the system.

Efforts to interfere with the composition of the committee and attempts to block its meetings to select a chief justice for the Supreme Court, additional Supreme Court justices, and other judges for courts facing shortages are undemocratic, coercive and gravely harm the Israeli public.

The Supreme Court has been operating for months with a depleted bench. Currently, only 11 justices serve, out of the 15 allotted positions, potentially slowing the court’s work and reducing its efficiency, affecting every Israeli citizen who may rely on the court’s services.

Netanyahu is systematically and repeatedly violating the conflict of interest arrangement that binds him.

Netanyahu, as noted, is systematically and repeatedly violating the conflict of interest arrangement that binds him. This arrangement was a basic condition he pledged to uphold before the 11 justices of the Supreme Court in 2020, who ruled he could form a government despite his criminal indictment based on his commitment not to intervene in matters related to his trial or the judiciary.

Those who fail to honor their conflict-of-interest arrangement cannot complain about those who protect the law as part of their duty. Moreover, Netanyahu himself once explained the dangers of a criminal defendant serving as prime minister:

“A prime minister neck-deep in investigations has no public or moral mandate to make fateful decisions. There is a real, not unfounded, concern that he will decide based on his personal survival interests rather than the national interest.”

It is unacceptable to criticize others while creating a different set of rules for oneself and altering the system of governance in the process.

In Conclusion

Justice Minister Yariv Levin has no authority, right, or legitimate reason to block the election of a chief justice for the Supreme Court or the appointment of other judges to courts facing shortages, simply because he fears being in the minority.

The justice minister in Israel is not an absolute ruler, and there has never been a situation where a justice minister obstructed democratic decision-making in the Judicial Selection Committee out of fear of being in the minority. Levin’s actions are contrary to the law and to Supreme Court rulings.

The committee members must convene immediately, comply with the Supreme Court’s order, and select a chief justice for the Supreme Court as is customary and required.

The committee members must convene immediately, comply with the Supreme Court’s order, and select a Chief Justice for the Supreme Court as is customary and required

It is also time to appoint additional judges: to the Supreme Court, the Jerusalem District Court, the National Labor Court, and any other judicial body where proceedings have been stalled due to Levin’s political and irrelevant considerations.

Any further obstruction by Levin must be preemptively avoided or removed from the agenda during discussions. This is the will of the majority, the standard practice under both right-wing and left-wing governments, and the national interest.

Authors of this op-ed:

• Yarom Ariav, former Director General of the Finance Ministry
• Dorit Beinisch, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
• Prof. David Harel, President of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
• Lt. Gen. (Res.) Dan Halutz, former IDF Chief of Staff
• Lt. Gen. (Res.) Moshe Ya’alon, former Minister of Defense and IDF Chief of Staff
• Prof. Hagai Levine, Chair of the Israeli Association of Public Health Physicians
• Prof. Barak Medina, former Rector and Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University
• Dr. Miri Mizrahi-Reuveni, Director of Dina Recanati School of Medicine and former Deputy CEO of Maccabi Healthcare Services
• Eran Etzion, former Deputy Head of the National Security Council

Translated from the original on ToI’s Hebrew sister site Zman Yisrael.