Under attack by coalition, Supreme Court chief and AG warn the government is dismantling democracy

Israel’s two most senior judicial officials, Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, issued stark warnings on Monday, accusing the government of deliberately working to destroy Israeli democracy with their assault on the judiciary.

In a speech at a conference of the Israel Bar Association, Amit deplored the erosion of truth in society, asserting that elements in Israel, including elected officials, are deliberately spreading false information to undermine the Supreme Court and its rulings and “were a danger to democracy.”

Meanwhile, Baharav-Miara, who has been targeted and vilified by ministers, said in her speech to the Bar Association that the government had opened up a race to “eliminate democratic institutions” ahead of the upcoming elections.

Amit, who has been boycotted by the government since he was appointed in January 2025, spoke out specifically against false allegations that the court, in its capacity as High Court of Justice, interfered with IDF rules of engagement in 2018, which right-wing politicians and organizations have wrongly claimed enabled the October 7 attacks, and that he “appointed himself president.”

Amit said that such false information could even undermine public trust in elections

And he said that a clear wall must be established “between fact and fiction” both in court and in the public space, and that a “legal, social, and public price be paid for lying.”

Numerous cabinet ministers and coalition MKs, as well as right-wing organizations, have denounced the Supreme Court and its justices over its rulings over the last three years, attacked the justices personally on numerous occasions, and called on the government not to abide by its rulings.

Court proceedings have also been repeatedly interrupted and justices berated by members of the viewing public, including by cabinet ministers and coalition MKs, a phenomenon almost unheard of before the current government took office.

“The spread of fake [information] is a direct danger to democracy and social cohesion,” Amit told the Bar Association conference.

“When the public sphere is flooded with false information, it is very difficult to distinguish between truth and fiction,” he continued, adding that many of those who spread false information do so in order to “erode the value of truth” deliberately.

“From here it is a short path to rejecting binding rulings, ignoring obligations under the law, and even to ‘resolving’ disputes by force and violence, God forbid.

“This is how spreading fake [information] becomes a complementary strategy for radicalizing the discourse against the justice system. The ‘fake’ prepares the ground; divisiveness sows the seeds; and violence grows wild.”

In raising concerns about trust in elections, Amit quoted his predecessor, acting Supreme Court president Uzi Vogelman, who said when he was head of the Central Election Committee that if technology can convincingly distort reality, it could undermine public trust in elections, and therefore democracy itself.

“As we have said, when we normalize lying and fakery, we also normalize the erosion of the foundations of our shared life,” said Amit.

The Supreme Court president noted in particular that in a 2018 High Court decision on petitions against the IDF’s open-fire regulations, the court upheld the army’s position and did not instruct the IDF “to change even a comma of the open-fire instructions.”

Right-wing politicians have frequently alleged, falsely, that the IDF made its open-fire regulations more restrictive following the 2018 decision and that this enabled Hamas terrorists to approach the border fence to carry out the October 7, 2023 attacks.

This claim has been refuted by IDF officers and lawyers who drew up the open-fire regulations.

The Supreme Court president also noted the allegations from right-wing politicians that he “appointed himself” as president, saying that these claims were also “fake.”

He pointed out that Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who has led the government’s boycott of Amit, convened the Judicial Selection Committee himself, albeit after the High Court ordered him to do so, and that the committee duly elected him in a legal vote.

Responding to Amit, Levin claimed the public did not have trust in him, and accused him of “trampling” on the public.

“Judge Amit has deep contempt for vast communities,” said Levin, again refusing to use Amit’s title as he has done since he was appointed Supreme Court president in January 2025.

“He tramples on the people’s decision and the standing of the government and the Knesset, with arrogance. But he too knows that there is one thing that cannot be forced on the public by any order — trust. And the public does not believe him and does not recognize him,” said the justice minister.

Also speaking at the conference was Baharav-Miara, who said the government had opened up a race to “eliminate democratic institutions” ahead of the upcoming elections.

Baharav-Miara pointed to two bills currently being advanced through the Knesset as especially problematic: one that would gut the position of attorney general of its powers to act as a check on the government, and another that would give the justice minister control over the Department for Internal Police Investigations, which investigates and prosecutes wrongdoing by the police.

“If in the past we talked about democracies falling in small steps, [today] a race to eliminate democratic institutions has begun due to the approaching end of the current Knesset’s term,” said the attorney general.

She said that the approval of the two bills in question would change the character of the law enforcement system in Israel.

“In a situation where the government calls for disobeying court rulings, the day will not be far off when a court ruling will be perceived by the public as non-binding,” added Baharav-Miara in reference to numerous calls by multiple cabinet ministers not to abide by High Court rulings.

Just on Sunday, Levin implied that he would not abide by a High Court ruling ordering him to convene the Judicial Selection Committee to make judicial appointments to district courts.