After 18 hours of intense debate, the Knesset has passed the controversial law to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, a key piece of the government’s legal revolution. The law passed in the early hours of the morning, with 67 Knesset members supporting it and only one opposing, MK Mickey Levy from the Yesh Atid party, who later claimed his vote was a mistake.
The new legislation significantly alters the makeup of the Judicial Selection Committee, transferring much of the power to select judges from the judiciary to political figures. Under the new framework, the committee will consist of nine members: the President of the Supreme Court and two Supreme Court justices (elected by the judges themselves), the Minister of Justice (who will head the committee), another minister designated by the government, two MKs chosen by the coalition and opposition, and two public representatives who are qualified lawyers (with at least ten years of experience as lawyers), selected by the coalition and opposition.
Minister Levin Claims Victory for Judicial Diversity
Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who spearheaded the legislation alongside Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, hailed the approval as a historic moment for the judicial system. Levin argued that the law would end the "closed" nature of the judiciary and introduce greater diversity and balance in the selection of judges. He criticized the old system for being biased and insular, stating that the new law would end the “friend brings friend” system and open up the judiciary to a broader spectrum of legal views.
“This is an end to the 'friend brings friend' system, and an end to disqualifying worthy candidates simply because their legal views differ from the line that the heads of the system have dominated over the years,” Levin said after the vote.
Protests and Legal Challenges from the Opposition
Immediately following the vote, large-scale protests erupted across the country in response to the law. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) filed a petition with the High Court of Justice, urging the court to repeal the law. ACRI’s petition, led by attorney Gil Gan-Mor, argues that the law significantly increases political control over the judiciary, which undermines the independence of the courts.
The opposition, including Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and other prominent figures like Benny Gantz, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Golan, also vowed to challenge the law. They have promised to repeal it in the next government, claiming that the law politicizes the judicial selection process and could lead to the appointment of ideologically loyal judges, undermining the impartiality of the judiciary.
“This is a law to ensure that judges become subject to the will of politicians,” Lapid said. “It’s happening while 59 Israelis are still held captive in Gaza, and the government is focusing on divisive legislation instead of the nation’s real problems.”
Minister Sa'ar Defends the Law
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar defended the law, calling it an evolutionary change that reflects Israel’s political tradition. Sa’ar dismissed opposition claims, arguing that the new law strengthens the opposition’s role in the committee and is more balanced than previous proposals. He pointed out that the opposition had previously agreed to a similar framework under the Herzog outline, which also sought to reduce the veto power of Supreme Court justices in the judicial selection process.
“The opposition’s objections are puzzling,” Sa’ar said. “They agreed to a similar proposal two years ago. Now, their resistance to a law that actually strengthens their role makes no sense.”
Gali Baharav-Miara, the Legislative Counselor to the government, strongly opposed the legislation and indicated that she would not defend it if challenged before the High Court on constitutional grounds. Baharav-Miara argued that an independent judiciary is the cornerstone of Israel's democratic system and that the new law undermines this principle by prioritizing political consensus over professional qualifications.
Attorney Amit Bachar, the chairman of the Bar Association, which is expected to be sidelined by the law’s changes, also voiced strong opposition. Bachar warned that the law is part of a broader political takeover that would erode judicial independence, turning the judicial system into a tool of political power.
Future Legal and Political Consequences
The passage of the law is expected to have significant long-term consequences for both Israel's judiciary and its political landscape. While the government frames the law as a necessary reform, the opposition and civil rights organizations argue that it represents a dangerous step toward the politicization of the courts.
With legal challenges already underway and widespread public protests, the battle over judicial reform in Israel is far from over. The next steps will likely involve intense legal scrutiny, as well as continued political debate about the balance of power between Israel’s elected government and its judiciary.
Comments