Who checks whom? Israel's major parties on the courts, side by side

Intro

0:00Two laws that change who controls Israel's legal system take effect right after this election. Nearly every major party has a plan for what comes next, and many of them use the same words to describe it. My question for you is whether any of those plans would outlast the government that passes them. This is Close Read, and this is the fourth of five episodes this week where I put the parties, according to the latest polls, side by side on one issue, and I tell you what I think. When I'm giving my own view, you'll see it marked on screen. Some background. Israel has no written constitution. It has basic laws, passed one at a time.

The map

0:37Judges are chosen by the committee of nine, three of them Supreme Court justices. In March 2025, the Knesset gave the committee's two bar association seats to lawyers, picked by the politicians, one by the coalition and one by the opposition. A Supreme Court appointment would need five of the nine votes, including one from the coalition side and one from the opposition side. And it would no longer need any justice to agree. That takes effect with the next Knesset. The high court heard petitions against it in June, and as far as I could find, it hasn't ruled yet. In July, the Knesset passed a law 65-51 that lets the government disregard the attorney general's legal opinions and decide how the attorney general was hired and fired. It takes effect on January 1st, 2027. Here is where the 13 parties land. Five want to keep the court independent and write the rules down.

1:26Be'yachad, Yashar, Yisrael, Beiteinu, the Democrats, and the joint list. Be'yachad, Yashar, and the Democrats would repeal the selection committee law. On October 21st, Bennett added that the attorney general law and the two others to his list to be repealed as soon as the new Knesset is sworn in. Two want to shift power toward elected officials. By agreement, Amcha Yisrael and the reservists. Four want to continue the overhaul. Otsma Yehudit, Shas, Likud, and Religious Zionism, Zahut, whose website calls its plan the Rathman Plan, after Simcha Rathman, who sponsored the July Law. And two have no detailed position. Raam declined to give Ynet a current view, and United Toward Judaism hasn't published a plan. The phrase you'll hear most is basic law, legislation.

Same words, different plans

2:18Yashar, Be'yachad, the reservists, and the Democrats all promise one. It would set how basic laws are passed and when a court can strike a law down. Then look inside. The reservists told Ynet that Knesset should be able to override a ruling with more than 72 votes. Yashar told Ynet it opposes an override. The Democrats want rights to health, education, and housing in basic laws with supreme status. So four parties use one name for what could be two opposite laws. One version gives the Knesset the last word, if it can gather a big enough majority. The other hands the court more rights to protect. When a candidate says basic law legislation, this week, ask which one they mean. Bennett promised one on October 21st, and he didn't say which.

3:08Splitting the Attorney General's job works the same way. Amcha Yisrael, the reservists, Shas, and religious Zionism all want it. In Amcha Yisrael's version, one person advises the government, another heads the prosecution. In religious Zionism's, the advisor becomes, quote, a position of trust of the government, end quote. And each ministry's legal advisor becomes the minister's own appointee. The Democrats want the opposite, the binding status of legal advice written into law. I think a split is a reasonable idea on its own terms. The person who tells the government what the law allows doesn't have to be the person who decides whether to prosecute its ministers. But a split where the advisor serves at the government's pleasure is a different reform from one that keeps both offices independent. And the one word covers both.

3:59Put the trust version next to the July law, which already lets the government set aside the advisor's opinion. And I don't see who's left to tell a government minister no. Underneath the shared words, the camps disagree about one question. Who checks whom?

Who checks whom

4:17Here is the rights case at its strongest. Israel never wrote a constitution. So the court decided for itself which laws it may strike down. And judges who helped pick their own successor's answer to no one. That's a fair point. And the center and the left mostly answer it by defending the court as it is. Yaakov Asher of United Torah Judaism put that case in one line. The only interpreters of a basic law are, quote, 15 people, end quote. And the left's case at its strongest. Israel has one House of Parliament. And the government controls it. Weaken the court and the attorney general. And the very little, very little stands between a majority and whatever it wants. That's a really good point, too.

5:04And on the right, I don't find a plan that answers it. The two plans that go furthest on the right point in different directions. Zehut wants Supreme Court justices, quote, elected directly by the public once every 10 years, end quote. Otzma Yehudit wants a two-thirds vote for every Supreme Court justice. And its first step is firing the attorney general, quote, immediately when the next government forms. Zehout's idea is perhaps the cleanest answer anyone gives on legitimacy. And it was sent judges out to campaign for votes from the people who will one day stand in their courtroom. Otsmaa's two-thirds, if it means what it seems to, asks for six of the nine votes instead of the five that 2025 law needs. So a justice would take broader agreement than today's rules require.

5:55Then the same program removes a named official on day one. One idea needs the other side's consent and the other doesn't. I'd personally like to know which one the party means. Most basic laws can be passed and changed by an ordinary majority.

The gaps

6:10Ayahad, Yashar, and the Democrats say they'll repeal the selection law. And Bennett would repeal the attorney general law, too. Religious Zionism says it will finish what this current coalition started. That's the biggest gap in this whole debate. And in the last week of the campaign, it got wider. On October 21st, Bennett promised repeal all four overhaul laws, the day the new Knesset is sworn in. The next day, Netanyahu said the reform has to come back. So each side's first act would be to undo the other's last one. Judges picked under one system, an attorney general hired under another, and new rules with every government. I don't see how anyone comes to trust the court that way, whichever side you're on. So my test is this.

6:58Does the plan need the other side's agreement to pass? Yisrael Beiteinu's constitution would need a referendum and 80 votes to amend. The reservist's override needs more than 72 votes. So part of the opposition has to sign on. Those are the only plans I found that makes the next change harder than the last one. Term limits are the quietest agreement in this debate, and it stays inside one camp. Yashar, Beyachad, Yisrael Beiteinu, the reservists, and the Democrats all want one for the prime minister. In September, the leaders of four of them signed a declaration that gives a working group the job of drafting the next government's guidelines, and term limits and a constitution are on its list. Lieberman goes further.

7:44On October 17th, he said that once the new Knesset is sworn in, he'd pass a law barring anyone under indictment from serving as prime minister. I didn't find a term limit in any plan from the other groups. Then the wait. The Democrats told Ynet that delays and a shortage of judges are the most urgent problem, and the reservists want more judges in the local courts. Nobody else talks about it. You could pass every reform in this episode from either side, and a lawsuit would take as long as it does today. For most Israelis, that's the only part of the legal system that they're ever going to meet. Changes to the electoral system barely come up. Religious Zionism wants a lower threshold and a, quote, semi-open ballot, where voters can reorder a party's candidates. Yisrael Beiteinu wants the largest party to get the first chance to form a government.

8:35Those are two of the most concrete ideas in this debate, and no other party engages them for or against. Now, the last gap is silence. Likud has published nothing on what comes next for the courts, and neither have Raam or United Torah Judaism. On October 27th, Netanyahu told JNS the reform was, quote, completely derailed and we have to bring it back, end quote. He didn't say which parts specifically. Likud has the government that made the courts its biggest domestic fight. Netanyahu says the reform doesn't have to, quote, crush the judiciary, end quote. Fair enough. Then show us which parts come back. The override? The committee? The attorney general? Voters should be able to read the plan before they vote. Now, here's where I land. Five parties want to keep the courts independent.

Close

9:25Two want to rebalance by agreement. Four want to continue the overhaul. And two haven't said. Most of them want the rules written down, which is more common ground than this campaign lets on. But a rule written by 61 votes is a rule the next 61 can erase. To the parties defending the court, I'd ask you what you offer the Israelis who don't see it as neutral. To the parties that want to rein it in, I'd ask what checks the government has once you're done. If you'd get the chance to ask a candidate before this coming election on Tuesday, ask whether their plan needs the other side to pass. In the next episode, we're going to discuss where the parties land on the topic of living and on housing. Every source I use is linked in the description. The Close Read is free to watch and free to listen.

10:14And if you'd like to support it, you can find me on Patreon at patreon.com slash theclosedread, linked in the description.