With the participation of the Justice Minister, Members of Knesset, and public figures, the Sovereignty Movement held its “Zion Shall Be Redeemed Through Justice” conference on judicial dictatorship and the prospects for meaningful change that would restore to the people the authority to determine their own destiny.
Under the title “Zion Shall Be Redeemed Through Justice,” the Sovereignty Movement held a special conference at the Heroism Encampment in Jerusalem. The event explored the importance of the judicial arena for protecting the rights of Israeli citizens. Participants included Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Constitution Committee Chairman MK Simcha Rothman, MK Amit Halevi, and other public figures.
Israeli Law Must Reflect the Values and Sanctity of the Land
The event opened with remarks by Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, co-chairs of the Sovereignty Movement and initiators of the conference, who explained their choice of the biblical verse “Zion Shall Be Redeemed Through Justice” as its title.
“The Land of Israel is not merely a piece of land, but a land of purpose, holiness, and values. It is the homeland of the Jewish people, who carry a heritage spanning thousands of years. The prophet Isaiah teaches us that the redemption of Zion is connected to justice. It is not enough to return to the Land, build communities, establish an army, and form a Knesset and a government. For Zion to be redeemed, and for its redemption to be complete, it needs justice. The redemption of Zion is not merely political and territorial. It is also moral, ethical, and judicial,” Katsover said.
In her remarks, Nadia Matar recalled a statement by the late Dr. Israel Eldad regarding the Hebrew letter Tsadi (צ) in the term Bagatz (the High Court of Justice): that it should represent not only a High Court of Justice, but also a High Court of Zionism.
“We cannot return to the Land of Israel and establish an independent state while leaving unresolved the question of what kind of legal system is appropriate for the state of the Jewish people. We did not return to our homeland to become a nation like all other nations. We returned to renew our national life, culture, and values. Therefore, the question is not only who makes the decisions—the Knesset or the judges—but also what the legal system of a Jewish state should look like, and what place Torah law and Jewish law should have in shaping our public life.”
Katsover and Matar emphasized the need for a proper balance between the branches of government and for the judiciary to respect elected representatives, who reflect the spirit and will of the people.
“An independent judiciary is an important foundation of a democratic state. However, the Knesset, which represents the people, and the government, which is responsible for running the country, must also have clearly defined powers. The balance between the branches of government is not a technical matter. It concerns the very ability of the Jewish people to determine their own destiny through the institutions of their state.”
The two highlighted the interconnected challenges of strengthening Israel’s hold on its Land and defining the character of its legal system as the homeland of the Jewish people. “If the Land of Israel is a land of holiness and values, then the legal system operating within it must also reflect its values and heritage.”
MK Amit Halevi- An Elitist Group Is Taking Us Back to an Age of Tyranny
In his address, MK Amit Halevi argued that the issue is not only who holds ultimate authority in the country, but how that authority is exercised in practice. Through great skill and carefully measured steps, he said, Aharon Barak succeeded over approximately three decades in transferring decision-making power to the Supreme Court, at the expense of citizens’ ability to exercise their will through their elected representatives.
“That same group, which appropriated for itself the authority to strike down laws and invalidate legislation under various pretexts, effectively seized the power to have the final say. They did so over many years under the guise of democracy,” Halevi said.
He went on to discuss the two Basic Laws advanced by Aharon Barak in 1992, which were granted constitutional status despite Israel not having a formal constitution. Since then, the Court has relied on this framework to strike down legislation.
Halevi noted that years later, when the Knesset enacted the Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People and the Basic Law: The Judiciary, 12 of the 15 Supreme Court justices ruled that Basic Laws could be struck down, despite the Court’s previous position that they could not be invalidated.
Halevi cited another example of what he considers the erosion of citizens’ democratic authority: the Court’s support for Ronen Bar’s refusal to resign as head of the Shin Bet, despite a government decision adopted in accordance with the law.
“These examples demonstrate the severity of the problem. The great achievement of modern humanity is freedom. Through our ballot, we express our will. Throughout history, a series of revolutions brought us from the sword to the ballot. But a small group, an intellectual elite, is taking us back to an age of tyranny. This is a dangerous development.”
To underscore the gravity of the danger, Halevi declared that “the judicial sphere is a security matter.” He pointed to Arab family reunification, which he argued is permitted in Israel because of the Supreme Court, despite the Shin Bet’s determination that approximately 1,000 terrorists who murdered Israelis were the result of such family reunifications.
Halevi also referred to his own recent legislative initiative to prohibit family reunification for relatives of terrorists, which was frozen by Justice Daphne Barak-Erez.
MK Simcha Rothman - Israel Will Not Become Iran
In his address, MK Simcha Rothman, Chairman of the Knesset Constitution Committee, reiterated one key fact that he believes right-wing voters must keep firmly in mind when they go to the polls.
“We must understand and remember that the government and Knesset elected on October 27 will appoint ten Supreme Court justices. That amounts to two-thirds of the Court. Each and every one of us has the power to determine whether we will see genetic clones of Yitzhak Amit, or whether justices who are connected to the people of Israel will be appointed.”
Rothman also pointed to the appointments expected during the next term, including the Attorney General, the head of the prosecution service, the head of the Police Internal Investigations Department, and other key positions.
Rothman sees the shift in public consciousness during the current term as the foundation for challenging the dominance of the judicial elite.
“Today, the public understands the significance of the deep state. It understands that there are officials who are accountable only to their own circle. The public understands that for decades, the judicial system and the bureaucracy were playing against an empty goal. The people never took the field and kept conceding one goal after another. That is how the country was taken from them, without their understanding how they could vote for the right and end up with the left. Now the picture is clear, as is the need to bring about change through lawful means.”
According to Rothman, the judicial reform debate has made Supreme Court justices more fearful of public criticism. He argued that this fear has enabled a series of appointments and legislative measures to proceed without opposition or intervention by the Court. He said this should directly affect how right-wing voters approach the coming election.
“Anyone considering voting for a party that is not one thousand percent committed to reforming the judicial system must understand that they are handing the keys to the country to Yitzhak Amit, Yair Golan, and Gilad Kariv for the next fifty years.”
Rothman rejected the argument that the opposition objected to the judicial reform because of the way it was carried out.
“That argument is nonsense. Where is Eisenkot’s plan to reform the judicial system? You said reform was necessary, but that you would do it differently. So what is your alternative? How would you reduce the extraordinary power currently held by the Court?”
“There are people here who have grown accustomed to controlling the State of Israel without winning elections. I, on the other hand, believe in democracy. The public must elect its representatives, and those representatives must govern. A judicial dictatorship must not be accepted,” Rothman said.
He argued that a system in which a small group of people who consider themselves wise makes decisions for the entire nation without having been elected to do so exists only in Iran. “Israel will not become Iran.”
Atty Eran Ben Ari- The Political Leadership Is Responsible for the Continued Absence of Sovereignty
Attorney Eran Ben Ari, a member of the National Council of the Israel Bar Association and a member of the Amcha Yisrael party, also addressed the judicial system’s extensive powers. However, he devoted a substantial part of his speech to criticizing the fact that Israeli sovereignty has yet to be extended to even part of Judea and Samaria—a step that, he argued, requires only a government or Knesset decision.
Ben Ari blamed the political leadership for the failure to advance sovereignty. Had the government convened to promote the move and the Court blocked it, he said, there would have been grounds to criticize the judiciary. But no such initiative took place, not even during the four years of a right-wing coalition.
Ben Ari noted that one of the changes during the current term was the expansion of the department responsible for approving settlement construction, from four or five lawyers to 30. According to him, the lawyers in the expanded department now look for ways to authorize and advance settlement construction rather than ways to demolish it, as had been the case in previous years.
“The judicial system did not prevent this. So I ask: Why has Israeli sovereignty not been applied to a single centimeter of Judea and Samaria?”
He also rejected international pressure as an excuse. When the Israeli government was determined to act, as in the case of construction in the settlements, he said, it proved possible. He similarly dismissed arguments concerning relations with Saudi Arabia.
“The Land of Israel is more important than diplomatic relations with one country or another. If Saudi Arabia needs our help against the Houthis, it should pay a diplomatic price.”
In Ben Ari’s view, any move to extend Israeli sovereignty should be carried out with the broadest possible national consensus. For that reason, he believes Israel should begin by applying sovereignty to the existing settlements and the Jordan Valley.
“This should be the work plan for the next Knesset,” he said, arguing that such a move would almost certainly prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, since the law prohibits transferring sovereign territory to foreign hands without the support of more than 80 Knesset members or a referendum.
Atty Yiska Bina -Supreme Court Rulings Put Israel’s Security at Risk
Adv. Yiska Bina, chairwoman of the Movement for Governability and Democracy, discussed the ways in which the Supreme Court has encroached on the authority of the political and military leadership, including on matters concerning Judea and Samaria. She emphasized that this process began long before Aharon Barak’s judicial revolution.
Immediately after the Six-Day War, she said, the Court assumed the authority to hear cases concerning territories over which Israeli sovereignty had not been extended, granting standing before it even to Arabs who are not Israeli citizens.
Bina presented several examples, among many others, of legal proceedings brought before Israeli courts and the High Court of Justice on matters that she considers exclusively security-related or political. Among them, she cited the provision of aid to the enemy entity in Gaza, which she argued is contrary to Israel’s obligations under international law.
In her view, the very fact that such issues are debated in court constitutes a victory for the enemy, because no one asks why Israel should be required to provide even a single spoonful of water to its enemy.
She argued that these interventions have come at the cost of human lives, as a result of the Court’s involvement in security and political matters.
“We must vote only for those who intend to change these paradigms and have demonstrated that commitment,” she said, referring to the approaching election day. “We will no longer accept excuses from our elected representatives. The judicial system is harming Israel’s security, and this must come to an end.”
Bina argued that the judicial system should not be expected to support the political leadership when it chooses to advance the extension of sovereignty. Nevertheless, she said, the demand to establish Israeli sovereignty over the birthplace of the Jewish people—territories captured at the cost of the blood of Israeli soldiers—must come from the people.
For that public demand to reach the political leadership, she concluded, it is necessary to strengthen the public’s awareness of the bond between the Jewish people and their Land.
Rabbi Yaakov Yakir- The Supreme Court’s Encroachment on the Authority of Rabbinical Courts
Rabbi Yaakov Yakir, head of the Torat HaMedinah Beit Midrash, presented another aspect of the Supreme Court’s encroachment on other institutions, describing the gradual steps through which the Court has assumed powers belonging to the rabbinical courts, as established by law and historical precedent.
“The High Court of Justice operates alongside the rabbinical courts, but it erodes their authority in two ways: by interpreting the law differently and denying them jurisdiction, and by declaring that the rabbis’ existing authority requires them to rule according to the Supreme Court’s judgments rather than the rulings of Torah authorities,” Rabbi Yakir said, quoting Justice Brenner, who had stated this position explicitly.
According to Rabbi Yakir, the Supreme Court has encroached on the authority of the rabbinical courts through more than 11 separate stages. In his address, he presented several examples. One involved Justice Ayala Procaccia, who ruled twenty years ago that rabbinical judges no longer had the authority to adjudicate disputes even when both parties wished to bring their case before them, because the legislature had not yet explicitly authorized them to do so.
Many Members of Knesset tried to remedy this situation by granting the judges the necessary authority. Their efforts ultimately succeeded during MK Simcha Rothman’s tenure as Knesset Speaker, when, in Rabbi Yakir’s words, he “returned stolen property to its rightful owner.” Yet Procaccia herself subsequently saw fit to publish a strongly worded article opposing the law that granted these powers to rabbinical judges.
Rabbi Yakir also recalled the special courts established during the British Mandate, in which secular judges and rabbinical judges served together as adjudicators. The authority of this unique judicial framework was gradually eroded over the years, step by step. More recently, Justice Noam Sohlberg called for its restoration.
Rabbi Yakir also discussed the so-called “Adulterous Woman” High Court case, which became a direct confrontation in which the Supreme Court rejected and overturned a ruling by the Great Rabbinical Court. Invoking an individual's freedom to do as they wish with their own body, the Supreme Court set aside the rabbinical ruling, which was based on the biblical prohibition “You shall not commit adultery.”
Nevertheless, Rabbi Yakir concluded on a note of hope, citing a passage from the Talmud that suggests the possibility of eventual reform. According to this teaching, redemption unfolds in the order of the daily prayers: after the ingathering of the exiles comes the restoration of justice, expressed in the prayer, “Restore our judges as in former times.”
CShai Glick: itizens Have the Power to Influence the Judicial System
Shai Glick, chairman of the B'Tsalmo organization, spoke extensively from his own experience about the public’s ability to influence the judicial system through social media.
Glick described the strict policies through which the judicial system has obstructed the demolition of terrorists’ homes. According to him, these policies led the military to avoid seeking judicial approval in the first place for demolishing the homes of terrorists who had “only” wounded Jews. Interim injunctions issued by the High Court signaled to the military which cases it would be preferable to avoid bringing before the Court.
When the military finds its hands tied regarding the demolition of terrorists’ homes, Glick explained, it sometimes publishes public-relations videos showing homes being mapped in preparation for demolition. Ultimately, however, the demolitions do not take place. Following the mapping process, the terrorists’ families submit appeals and petitions, and the military lacks sufficient legal personnel to cope with the resulting flood of proceedings.
Glick said that for years the military was concerned about petitions filed by left-wing organizations and would accommodate their demands in order to avoid further controversy. In recent years, right-wing organizations and representatives have entered the arena and begun applying pressure on the military from the right. Since the military, as noted, seeks to avoid confrontation, it has come to recognize that failing to demolish a terrorist’s home will not necessarily bring the desired quiet. As a result, it is more inclined to carry out the demolition.
Such legal initiatives, Glick emphasized, begin with public pressure exerted through social media, approaches to public officials, and engagement with the media. These efforts give ordinary citizens considerable power to influence the system.
Merav Hajaj: The Feeling at the High Court Is That It Is a Hostile Place
“We sounded the alarm, but our voices were not always heard,” said Merav Hajaj, the mother of Shir, who was murdered in a terrorist ramming attack in the Armon HaNatziv neighborhood of Jerusalem. Speaking at the conference, she referred to the warnings issued by the organization she founded, Choosing Life, about the dangerous consequences of the judicial system’s conduct for Israel’s national security.
“There is so much that can be done. The murder of Jews is not an inevitable fate,” she said, criticizing what she described as the judicial system’s indifferent attitude toward terrorism and its perpetrators.
Hajaj recounted why she felt compelled to attend the courtroom proceedings in the trial of the terrorist who murdered her daughter.
“We understood that if we were not there, there would be no justice,” she said.
She described the distress she and her husband, Herzl, repeatedly experienced when leaving these hearings. They listened as the judges meticulously examined the details of the terrorist’s home to ensure that only his room, rather than the rooms of other family members, had been damaged and demolished.
“A regulation that could have been interpreted as permitting the immediate demolition of the house and its entire surroundings was narrowed by the judges to almost nothing,” she said.
She also described the attention judges gave to the terrorists’ legal representatives and the difficulty of standing in the courtroom when it filled with members of the terrorist’s family, who exerted pressure on the judges.
Nevertheless, Hajaj said, she felt that “if we are not present at every High Court hearing, we are abandoning the field. The judges must understand that the victims are not the terrorist and his family, but us. Terrorists must understand that their actions have a price. They live in extended-family clans, and unless there is a familial and social cost, this will happen again and again.”
“The feeling at the High Court is that it is a hostile place,” she said, describing the exchanged glances and nods between the terrorists’ defense attorneys and the judges.
“Nine judges were impervious to us. They did not see us as bereaved families. When I am there, I represent the people of Israel in an effort to prevent the next attack.”
She concluded with a call for members of the public to attend court hearings involving terrorists, demonstrate that they care, and refuse to abandon this crucial arena.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin: We Are Facing a Historic Decision
The final speaker at the conference was Justice Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Yariv Levin, who described Israel’s judicial stronghold as a bastion of quiet, sustained by the fact that its decisions are implemented and accepted without public outcry. Change, the minister said, cannot take place without a shift in public consciousness and an understanding of the problem. To achieve this, he had to expose the truth in the dramatic speech in which he announced judicial reform at the beginning of his term.
“It turned out that although the right has been in power for many years, all the centers of power in the country are controlled by left-wing and far-left figures—in academia, the media, the security establishment, the Histadrut labor federation, the economy, and elsewhere. For them, losing an election is not a serious problem, because they can continue to exercise power through other channels,” the minister said.
He noted that the public debate sparked by the reform had led “many on the right to understand that this is an unacceptable situation, and that they are not second-class citizens.”
Levin recalled that the candidate for head of the Shin Bet who was considered before David Zini’s appointment was also associated with the Kaplan protest movement.
“But unlike in the past, the appointment did not pass quietly, because the truth had been exposed. A public outcry erupted, and within 24 hours it led to the cancellation of this failed appointment. We then arrived at the appointment of David Zini, who comes from a different background and holds different views.”
The appointments of the head of the Mossad and the Ombudsman for Complaints Against Judges followed. “There would have been no chance of achieving this without genuine public awareness,” Levin said.
The minister went on to describe his struggles with what he characterized as an entrenched and adversarial judicial system, and how he had managed to secure the appointment of dozens of judges to the Magistrates’ Courts, District Courts, and labor courts. He said he was unwilling to approve candidates who would eventually fall into line with the system’s demands, only to label them conservatives.
Addressing the approaching elections, Levin acknowledged that every election campaign is described as fateful and important, and that Israel is still paying the price for the results of the 1992 elections. However, he declared: “This election cycle is historic in terms of our security, from Iran to Gaza; in terms of the Jewish identity of the state; and certainly on the judicial front, because the heart and foundation of the change we need is a change in the composition of the Supreme Court.”
“In the next election cycle, two-thirds of the Supreme Court justices will be replaced. The question is whether we will be in a position to fundamentally transform the Supreme Court, so that we have a court that respects the authority of the Knesset and the government,” Levin said.
Based on the experience of the outgoing term, he argued, there is no reason for despair and meaningful change is possible.
“They may be the most powerful system, and they are trying to make us lose hope. But just as a head of the Shin Bet, a head of the Mossad, and dozens of judges were appointed, so too, if the right wins, there will be different Supreme Court justices and a different judicial system—one that is not only worthy of a Jewish state, but also worthy of a democratic state, rather than a group of judges imposing their own worldview on the people. We are facing a historic decision.”