MK Simcha Rothman, chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, discusses the reform’s achievements and what remains to be done.
Summing up a turbulent term fighting to reform Israel’s judicial system, Rothman, rejects portrayals of the reform as a failure. He says its first major achievement is the change it has brought about in public consciousness.
“Public attitudes toward the judicial system have changed completely. Without this change, elected officials cannot do their jobs. In the past, when an elected official clashed with the High Court of Justice or legal counsel, most people saw a corrupt politician being stopped by the Court. Even right-wing voters saw it that way, so politicians avoided confronting the judicial system, even when convinced they were right.
“The change has been dramatic and far-reaching. Today, every right-wing party feels compelled to include a serious legal figure on its list; without one, it has little to offer right-wing voters. The entire right now understands that reforming the judicial system and standing up to the deep state are central issues. This is thanks to the struggle we have led.”
Rothman says judges respond to this shift in public mood. “The High Court approves certain things and leaves alone matters in which it would previously have intervened and ruled against them. That is how we secured the appointments of Gofman and Zini, the temporary and permanent Civil Service Commissioners, the head of the Second Authority for Television and Radio, and the Ombudsman for Complaints Against Judges. The Court did not intervene. In the past, it would have cited legal impediments. That chapter is over.”
He attributes these developments to public backing for elected officials seeking reform.
“In most cases, the Court recognizes that backing and avoids confrontation. That happened over the attempt to dismiss Itamar Ben-Gvir. At the beginning of the term, the Court told Aryeh Deri, ‘You will not be a minister’; he accepted the ruling and went home. Toward the end, coalition leaders made clear they would defy a ruling if one were issued. This was not because they preferred Ben-Gvir to Deri, but because of the change we brought about among the public. The Court understands that such a clash would only benefit elected officials politically, so it avoids the fight.”
Rothman notes that the High Court struck down his legislation abolishing the reasonableness standard. “But since then, it has not dared to overturn a government decision. It knows people will point out that a Basic Law prevents it from striking down legislation, and that it cannot demand compliance with one Basic Law while erasing another. The ministers, the public and the judges all understand this.”
“In the past, elected officials feared initiating measures because the Court might strike them down. Today, they say they will do what the public asks, and if the Court strikes it down, the Court will pay a public price. That is why Yitzhak Amit reports a flood of legislation he cannot deal with throughout the day, and there are not enough judges to handle every bill. To see how successful the reform has been, listen to the judges and read Haaretz. That is why they are freezing ten rulings and withholding them until the election, fearing they could affect the result.”
Pending measures include the Police Internal Investigations Department law; Rothman’s legislation to change the composition of the committee that selects judges; media reform laws; and a bill reducing Israel Bar Association membership fees.
“This is happening because they are overloaded and because they are afraid,” he says. The last law the Court struck down was the reasonableness-standard law, in January 2024, prompting widespread public criticism. “They also know that every bill passed by my committee followed an orderly, flawless procedure and cannot be struck down.”
Orderly, Systematic Legislation Cannot Be Struck Down by the High Court
The legislation the Court avoids confronting, Rothman says, covers many areas, including defining the attorney general as an adviser only, penalties for incitement to terrorism, and the Police Internal Investigations Department law.
“Systematic work—one bill after another, one decision after another—produces results. This applies to legislative achievements and to settlement policy, where Bezalel Smotrich is doing the same.”
Of the four main components of Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s reform, Rothman says three have passed: the reasonableness standard, the method for selecting judges, and the status of the attorney general’s advice.
“Three-quarters of Levin’s reform passed its first reading in full and awaits second and third readings. It could be completed quickly. The final quarter, the override clause, was halted during the reform’s most intense period, when the coalition chose dialogue at the President’s Residence. I thought that was a mistake, but it was the coalition’s decision—not ours, but Likud’s and Shas’s.
“In the next Knesset, the national camp will be more united around the need for reform. I hope there will be fewer people undermining the effort and fewer defectors than in this term.”
A rabbi compared Rothman’s painstaking work on the Constitution Committee to the second set of tablets, given after the first were shattered despite being delivered amid thunder and lightning. Rothman says he does not join those who criticize Levin’s presentation of the reform. Nevertheless, even critics acknowledge that a gradual, step-by-step approach has broken through opposition.
“I do not judge Yariv; everyone acts in their own way. But advancing the reform has brought enormous change to Israel. A substantial majority of the public now understands that the judicial system needs fundamental, comprehensive change—and understands that I am the only one capable of making it and am doing so.”
Rothman clearly sees himself as a candidate for the next justice minister. For his party to demand the position, he says, it must enter coalition negotiations with a substantial number of Knesset seats.
His goals include completing the final quarter of Levin’s plan—the override clause—splitting the attorney general’s role, changing the “random panels” mechanism, and appointing approximately ten Supreme Court justices. Rothman claims the random-panels mechanism allows Yitzhak Amit to select a panel of judges for each case in a way that produces the outcome he wants. “It is critical that we, not Isaac Amit and Gilad Kariv, are the ones who do this.”
This article was originally published in Sovereignty Journal, Issue No. 20 (October 2026). 📖 "Click here to read the full issue