Right-wing MKs say Amit can’t be Supreme Court chief due to conflict of interest claims
After report questions justice’s failure to declare potential conflicts in property lawsuits, and other potential irregularities, conservative lawmakers demand he be booted

Acting Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, the top candidate to become the permanent court chief, did not notify the court system of apparent conflicts of interest he had in some civil lawsuits, and appeared in the relevant paperwork under a different name, the Ynet news outlet reported Monday.
Under a High Court order, Amit is expected to be appointed to the permanent position later this week. Reacting to the report, a number of coalition lawmakers who have long opposed the liberal judge demanded he barred from the court presidency.
Justice Amit is listed as Isaac Goldfreind, his previous name, alongside a signature, in three cases involving a property he owns in Tel Aviv together with his brother Hanoch Goldfreind, the Ynet report said. It said his brother had apparently signed those documents for him, as he had notarial power of attorney to act on his behalf.
The report also said Amit has heard cases presented in court by an attorney’s office that was representing him in one of the civil cases, and was directly involved in a selection committee that considered the advancement of another judge who presided over a case regarding the Tel Aviv apartment, on Eilat Street.
The Judicial Authority defended Amit, saying that due to power of attorney arrangements, he was represented in the cases by others and had no knowledge of the proceedings, and had made no attempt to conceal his identity. It also said Amit had had no knowledge of the potential conflicts of interest until he was approached by the outlet on the matter.
According to court laws, the Supreme Court president decides where a case will be tried when it has ties to a judge. A judge who is involved in a civil case needs to make it known so that the information can be passed on to the Supreme Court president, the report said (Amit has only served as acting president since October 2024).

According to Ynet, there is no record of Amit reporting his personal cases since 2019. He also did not include the names of the lawyers representing him in a list judges must draw up that is intended as a reference to prevent conflicts of interest, it said.
The revelations came at a sensitive time, when many in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition and its supporters accuse the court system of being left-leaning and hostile. Several days earlier, the High Court of Justice ordered Justice Minister Yariv Levin to hold a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee for a new president of the Supreme Court by January 16, a move the justice minister has resisted for over a year, as such a vote with the committee’s current makeup would confirm Amit, who is viewed as adversarial by Levin and others in the hard-right government.
In listing incidents of possible conflict of interest, Ynet mentioned three civil cases relating to construction projects at the Tel Aviv apartment building. In all those cases, Amit was signed on paperwork under the name Goldfreind by his brother.
In one of the cases, the brothers were represented by the Raisman-Gur office of attorneys. Moran Gur appears as the attorney in those cases, though in practice the representation was done by another lawyer at the company and Gur himself was not directly involved. Amit presided over three Supreme Court proceedings in which Gur presented cases to the court, the report said.
It further said that a petition regarding the Eilat Street apartment was at one point filed to the Tel Aviv District Court, where it was heard by Justice Kobi Vardi.
In 2024 the Judicial Selection Committee announced Vardi as a candidate for a permanent position on the court. Sources told Ynet his name was put forward following a discussion between Supreme Court judges, one of whom was Amit.
Ynet stressed there is no indication that Amit attempted to benefit either the judge or the attorney’s office, but that according to existing rules he should have declared the apparent conflicts of interest.

The Judicial Authority said in a statement that Amit only became aware of the various connections he had to Vardi and Raisman-Gur in court cases when Ynet submitted questions on the matter. It noted that neither Amit nor his brother had ever met Gur or spoken with him.
The statement further pointed out that in 2016, Amit had signed over power of attorney concerning Eilat Street property and another property to his brother “precisely in order not to be involved in anything related to them.”
It said the papers were signed as “Goldfreind” because that is the name that was used on the original ownership paperwork, and that any claim that Amit was trying to conceal his identity was “unfounded and without substance.”
In another episode reported by Ynet, the Tel Aviv municipality filed criminal indictments against all the landlords at the Eilat Street building over unresolved safety issues, but then later withdrew the charge only against Amit’s apartment. In that case, he was listed in legal documents under the name “Isaac Amit.” During that period, around 2019, Amit tried cases involving the municipality, the report said. After repair work was completed, the municipality withdrew its lawsuit and a court canceled the indictments.
The Tel Aviv municipality in a statement confirmed that a criminal lawsuit was filed against the landlords of the Eilat Street apartment in 2019 and later withdrawn in 2020. It did not explain why the specific indictment against Amit’s property was pulled.
In response to the report, MK Simcha Rothman, chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, a member of the far-right Religious Zionism party and a key player in the government’s 2023 judicial overhaul effort, wrote on X that Amit “is not suitable for the role of Supreme Court president, and the Judicial Selection Committee must not appoint such a person to be responsible for the disciplinary process of judges.”
Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party said, “A Supreme Court judge who hides his identity in legal proceedings, ignores the requirement to report on conflicts of interest, and presides over cases that he has a personal interest in — this is a serious blow to the most fundamental principles of a proper legal system.”

“I didn’t see, I didn’t hear, I didn’t know,” Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi wrote on X, mocking Amit’s responses. “Not only are his verdicts dark, delusional, anti-democratic, and occasionally even post-Zionist, but he simply scoffs at the law! Shame and disgrace!”
Khari called on Levin to convene the Judicial Selection Committee to deliberate removing Amit at the very meeting in which he is expected to be appointed president.
In videos posted to X, firebrand Gotliv said Amit “not only can’t be the president of the Supreme Court, he can’t be a magistrate judge!”
“I would like to see a single citizen in the country who believes that a cheater can be a judge,” she said.

Gotliv also panned the response of the Judicial Authority, saying it depicted Amit as “an idiot, and relies on all of us being idiots.”
“But that’s the thing. We really aren’t idiots,” she said.
There was also more guarded criticism from the opposition, with Yesh Atid MK Merav Cohen telling Ynet that judges “need to be an role model. If there are ethical and legal issues they must be dealt with seriously.”
Israel Bar Association chair Amit Becher said in a statement that the process to select a new president for the court should go ahead nonetheless.
“I advise the justice minister, and all those who are just looking to cause division and rift, to bring that to an end,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Im Tirzu right-wing legal aid group said it had appealed to the Judges Complaints Commission and the Judicial Selection Committee, asking that Amit’s candidacy for president be halted until the matter is probed.