The internal struggle over the soul of the Israeli state has reached a volatile juncture, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government intensifies a systemic effort to dismantle the country’s traditional checks and balances. What has evolved into a multifaceted Israel’s constitutional crisis is no longer limited to legislative debates; it has manifested as a direct confrontation between the executive branch and the judiciary, characterized by rhetoric that some legal experts describe as unprecedented.
The tension peaked on April 15th during a Supreme Court hearing regarding a complaint filed by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara against National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. During the proceedings, David Peter, the attorney representing the government, employed a stark mythological metaphor to warn the justices. Peter invoked Actaeon, the hunter from Greek mythology who was torn to pieces by his own dogs after angering the gods by overstepping his bounds, suggesting the court was similarly risking a backlash by intervening in government affairs.
While the court ultimately declined to issue a definitive ruling, it directed Ben-Gvir and Baharav-Miara to resume negotiations to limit the minister’s influence over the police force. The incident serves as a microcosm of a broader “war at home,” where the government, bolstered by a Knesset majority of 64 seats, is moving to neutralize the legal and institutional obstacles to its agenda.
The Campaign to Reshape the Judiciary
Central to this struggle is a legislative effort to fundamentally alter how Supreme Court justices are selected. Historically, the appointment process was designed to ensure a broad consensus, requiring seven votes from a committee composed of justices, cabinet ministers, and representatives from the Bar Association. This structure acted as a safeguard against any single political faction dominating the bench.
A year ago, the Knesset enacted a law that shifted this balance. The new rules replace the Bar Association representatives with lawyers nominated by the Knesset—one of whom is appointed by the government coalition—and lower the threshold for appointment to five votes. This change effectively grants coalition politicians precedence over jurists in the selection process.
The impact of this shift is already evident. There are currently four vacant seats on the court, yet they remain unfilled because the government has maintained a veto until the new law is fully implemented following the next elections. This strategic vacancy leaves the judiciary understaffed while the government prepares to seat justices more aligned with its ideological goals.
The pressure has also extended to the office of the Attorney General. Gali Baharav-Miara, who serves as both the government’s legal adviser and the state’s chief prosecutor, has become a primary target for the coalition. The Religious Zionist Party has pushed a bill, which passed a preliminary vote in the Knesset, to split these roles. Such a move would transform the Attorney General from an independent watchdog into a government in-house counsel, stripping the office of its power to prosecute government officials.
This institutional friction reached a breaking point last summer when the Cabinet held an unprecedented vote to fire Baharav-Miara. Although the Supreme Court unanimously annulled the firing in December, the event deepened the constitutional divide, leaving the Attorney General in a position of precarious authority.
Expanding Influence Over Media and Academia
The government’s efforts to curb institutional independence extend beyond the courts. A series of moves targeting the press and higher education suggests a desire to minimize nonpartisan scrutiny of state policy.
The administration has attempted to shut down Galatz, the army radio station known for its nonpartisan programming, though it continues to operate under a court injunction. Simultaneously, the coalition is advancing legislation that could lead to the privatization or closure of Kan, the public TV and radio broadcaster.
Further proposals include the creation of a new regulatory council for all broadcast news sites, with a majority of its members appointed by the Communications Minister. This would grant the executive branch significant leverage over the narrative presented in Israeli news media.
Academia is facing similar pressures. The government is advancing a bill to place the Council of Higher Education—which oversees university accreditation and manages a five-billion-dollar budget—under the direct control of the Education Minister. In a joint letter of protest, the presidents of Israel’s nine public research universities warned that this move would place academic oversight “into political hands,” potentially compromising the independence of research and tenure.
The Haredi Draft and the Path to Election
Perhaps the most volatile issue facing the Netanyahu coalition is the conscription of ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) youth. Since 1948, these populations have been largely exempt from military service, a practice the Supreme Court has repeatedly found unconstitutional. In 2024, the court ruled unanimously that the Israel Defense Forces must begin conscripting Haredi men.
This ruling has created a paradox for Netanyahu. While his coalition depends on the support of ultra-Orthodox parties, his own Likud party is divided on the issue of the draft. To appease his partners, Netanyahu has attempted to fast-track legislation that would supersede the court’s ruling—a move opposed by more than 80% of the Israeli public.
| Stakeholder | Position on Haredi Draft | Primary Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Mandatory Conscription | Legal equality and national security |
| Ultra-Orthodox Parties | Total Exemption | Preservation of religious study |
| Likud (Divided) | Mixed/Conditional | Coalition stability vs. Public opinion |
| Opposition Parties | Democratic Draft | Ending preferential exemptions |
The delay in implementing the draft has led ultra-Orthodox leaders to threaten the dissolution of the Knesset, which could trigger early elections. While a general election must be held by the end of October if the government falls, the political calculus is complex; Likud remains dependent on these parties to maintain a majority.
Current polling suggests that the Netanyahu bloc is unlikely to secure more than 50 seats in a new election, a figure well below the 61 needed to form a government. This puts the Prime Minister in a delicate position: he must balance the demands of his ideological allies against a public increasingly weary of judicial erosion and military inequality.
The next critical checkpoint will be the upcoming Knesset votes on the draft legislation and the potential for a fresh Supreme Court challenge to the government’s attempts to bypass conscription. These developments will likely determine whether the current coalition can survive or if Israel is headed toward a premature electoral cycle.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on these developments in the comments below.
Disclaimer: This article discusses ongoing legal proceedings and constitutional disputes. It is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
