In a normal country, appointing a Supreme Court president clouded by ethical allegations would dominate headlines for days.
In a normal country, a justice minister declaring that he does not recognize the new Supreme Court president and will not work with him would also be a top news story for days.
While Israel may be a “normal” country, these are definitely abnormal times, and other significant developments have overshadowed this story: the welcome release of hostages from Hamas captivity, the return of Gaza residents to their communities in the northern Strip, a major military operation in Judea and Samaria, and the IDF facing off against Hezbollah provocateurs in southern Lebanon.
Yet this is a huge story, if only because it exemplifies a country undermining itself – a textbook case of an “own goal.”
In the aftermath of October 7, one of Israel’s urgent needs is to restore public trust in its governing institutions – from the IDF to the Knesset, the presidency, the media, and, especially, the courts.
Especially the courts. In the last two decades, the public’s faith in the courts has plummeted, going – according to the Israel Democracy Institute’s annual democracy index – from 79% in 2004 to only 39.5% in 2024.
That less than 40% of the public has faith in the country’s Supreme Court is staggering. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears significant responsibility – having waged a relentless campaign against the judiciary since the police began investigating him in 2016 – the court itself is not blameless. Its perceived arrogance in repeatedly striking down laws and policies of elected governments has contributed to this erosion of trust.
Whatever the reasons, the court’s current standing is undeniable: It enjoys only a fraction of the public trust it once did. Following the judicial reform turmoil that convulsed the country in 2023 and the divisions this unearthed that emboldened Israel’s enemies, one might expect that everyone would understand the importance of restoring the public’s faith in the Supreme Court.
The controversial manner in which Isaac Amit was appointed on Sunday by the Judicial Selection Committee – boycotted by members of the government and coalition representing more than 50% of the public – suggests otherwise.
Voting 5-0, the committee elected Amit as the permanent chief justice, filling a position vacated by Esther Hayut’s retirement 15 months ago.
A victory despite some opposition
The appointment was hailed as a victory for the judiciary, pushing Amit’s appointment through despite Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s staunch opposition. Levin wanted to see a more conservative judge head the court.
Amit should have stepped aside himself for the good of the court until an independent body dismissed several ethical allegations against him. While the police declined to investigate, and the attorney-general argued that the selection committee itself should address these concerns, that is insufficient. The allegations of conflict of interest are serious enough to warrant scrutiny by an independent body.
These allegations, uncovered by media organizations like Yediot Aharonot and television channels 11 and 12, which cannot be accused of having an anti-court bias (Channel 14, which can be so accused, also uncovered some allegations), have to do with various cases in which Amit adjudicated cases in which he had a conflict of interest.
These reportedly involved disputes linked to a Tel Aviv property he co-owned (albeit under a different name), building violations at his private residence in Mevaseret Zion, and allegedly presiding over a case that directly impacted his brother.
Amit denies any wrongdoing and, echoing Netanyahu’s rhetoric in defending himself, claims to be the victim of a witch hunt.
Appointing him now as Supreme Court president, even though this cloud above his head has not been dispelled, only gives fodder to those who already say that, for various reasons, the court is illegitimate. The court should want to deprive its detractors of ammunition to use against it or to chip away at its legitimacy, not give it more ammunition.
The controversy also has broader implications. Under Israeli law, the Supreme Court president appoints the head of a government commission of inquiry. Should a commission be formed to investigate the failures of October 7, Amit’s ethical controversies could taint the process. Critics now have a new reason to oppose such a commission: How can Amit, under ethical scrutiny, select its head?
Moreover, how could a judge accused of conflict of interest sit and judge others – like Netanyahu, if an appeal to his ongoing trial ever reaches the High Court of Justice – centered on conflicts of interest, even if the allegations against the prime minister are far more serious?
It’s a bad situation. And it’s a bad situation made even worse by Levin, who, after Amit’s appointment, wrote a letter saying he would not recognize Amit as the head of the Supreme Court.
It is not exactly clear what that means. It is inconceivable that in a democratic country, the justice minister will not recognize the decisions of the president of the Supreme Court. That would place Israel not on the road to a constitutional crisis, but rather anarchy.
As legal commentator Yuval Elbashan wrote in Yediot Aharonot on Monday, in 1957, US president Dwight Eisenhower sent paratroopers to Little Rock, Arkansas, after the state’s governor refused to implement a Supreme Court order to desegregate the schools.
Is Israel headed in that direction?
Unlikely. Most observers interpret Levin’s statement as a refusal to cooperate with Amit on logistical and budgetary matters or recognize him as the court’s symbolic head.
In practice, Levin’s stance means he will not convene the Judicial Selection Committee. Consequently, until his term as justice minister ends – barring early elections, in October 2026 – no new judges will be appointed to the court, which currently operates with only 10 of 15 seats filled.
Administrative decisions requiring joint action by Levin and Amit will not be made, budgets will not increase, and long-term planning will stall.
In addition, Levin is now expected to try to push through one of the key planks of his judicial reform – changes in how the court is selected.
What Israel is witnessing is a power struggle. Amit secured his appointment because he had the votes. With a Knesset majority, Levin may push through pieces of his controversial judicial reforms because he has the votes.
Levin and Amit are trying to show who is boss. But this is not what the country needs – the two men battling for dominance will only deepen the polarization over the courts.
Israel doesn’t need one side to triumph over the other; it needs compromise to rebuild confidence in the judiciary and prevent the courts from being seen as representing only one segment of society.