Ignoring massive protests, Israel passes law to tighten control over judicial appointments

The Israeli parliament passed a controversial law late last night, giving the government more power in the process of selecting and appointing judges, including those to the Supreme Court. The audacious move by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition has reignited deep-seated tensions and divisions in Israel, as politicians will now have greater sway over judicial appointments.

Passed after an exhaustive overnight debate in Israel’s 120-member Knesset, the two new laws will drastically reshape the Judicial Selection Committee, the body in charge of appointing judges since 1953. While critics warn that this shift threatens the independence of the judiciary, its key backers, such as Netanyahu and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, say it offers a much needed balance between the three branches of the government and curbs the influence of an unelected “deep state”.

The passing of the new laws marks the revival of a judicial overhaul that was put on hold in 2023 after huge protests, and, of course, the war in Gaza. And it has resurfaced at a moment when Netanyahu has decided to abandon a fragile ceasefire with Hamas and push through with more aggressive manoeuvres, with the backing of the Donald Trump administration in the United States. With 67 lawmakers voting in favour and the opposition largely boycotting the session, the laws passed in a half-empty chamber, underscoring the polarised state of Israeli politics. Outside the Knesset building in Jerusalem, crowds held placards and voiced dissent, though their focus was split between opposing the reforms and demanding action to free hostages still held by Hamas.

Historically, the Judicial Selection Committee comprised nine members: three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two Knesset members (one each from the ruling coalition and the opposition) and two representatives from the Israel Bar Association (IBA). This structure was designed to protect judicial appointments from political interference, balancing professional expertise with limited political input. The new laws, however, replace the IBA representatives with two “public representatives”—one appointed by the government and one by the opposition—both required to meet the qualifications for a Supreme Court appointment.

Other changes involve the voting thresholds for appointments. For Supreme Court justices, the previous requirement of a 7-2 supermajority has been lowered to a 5-4 simple majority, though each appointment must still secure the support of at least one government and one opposition representative. Appointments to lower courts will need approval from one coalition member, one opposition member and one judge. To address potential gridlock in Supreme Court appointments, a “deadlock mechanism” allows each side to propose three candidates after a year with two or more vacancies, with the opposing side obliged to select one. This mechanism, however, is limited to once per Knesset term. The law also stipulates that at least two-thirds of Supreme Court justices must have prior experience as regional court judges.

Levin hailed the legislation as a historic step, accusing the Supreme Court of undermining the Knesset’s authority for decades. Knesset Constitution Committee chair Simcha Rothman agreed, framing the reforms as a means to return power to the people. Netanyahu, in a combative speech in the Knesset, dismissed claims of democratic backsliding in Israel, asserting that the “rule of bureaucrats” and the “deep state” would not be tolerated.

The legislation, however, is a scaled-down version of the ruling coalition’s original 2023 proposals, which had sought to give politicians near-total control over judicial appointments. That earlier effort sparked widespread unrest, culminating in what became known as “the Night of Gallant” after then-defence minister Yoav Gallant was sacked for warning of national security risks posed by the reforms. Netanyahu paused the overhaul to maintain unity following the Hamas attack in October 2023, and its resumption has reignited fears of a politicised judiciary.

Levin and other supporters of the new laws present them as a compromise. By retaining a degree of opposition input and delaying its implementation until the next Knesset, they argue it avoids handing the government unchecked power. Critics, however, see it as a power grab. The opposition, the attorney general and civil society groups argue that replacing IBA experts with political appointees tilts the committee towards partisan influence as six of nine seats would now be controlled by politicians. They say appointment of judges could descent into chaos and horse-trading and could bring more ideologically extreme justices to the Supreme Court. In a country without a formal constitution, where the judiciary serves as a check on executive power, such changes could weaken democratic oversight.

“This law has one purpose—to make judges subservient to politicians,” said an opposition statement, highlighting the timing of its enactment as 59 hostages remain in Gaza. Yesh Atid, a centrist political party, and the Movement for Quality of Government have already petitioned the Supreme Court against the legislation.

The judicial reforms are part of a broader pattern of actions by Netanyahu that critics view as clear indications of an authoritarian streak. Last week, the prime minister dismissed Ronen Bar, head of the Shin Bet security service, citing a loss of trust amid investigations into possible Qatari interference in his office. Days later, the government moved to oust Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, a frequent adversary who oversees the ongoing corruption trial against Netanyahu.

These steps, combined with the judicial overhaul, have fuelled accusations that the coalition is overwhelming a distracted general public to enact sweeping changes, basically using the war to reshape Israeli democracy. The protests outside the Knesset last night point towards a nation split down the middle. While some rallied against the legislation, others focused the hostage crisis, their signs pleading for a deal with Hamas. This division shows how the Gaza war has sapped the energy of the civil society, once directed at resisting the judicial overhaul. It seems to have given Netanyahu a chance to press forward with less resistance than in 2023.

Netanyahu’s rhetoric, echoing Trump’s attacks on a “deep state”, resonates with his base but alienates others who see the judiciary as a bulwark against authoritarian drift. The laws may not go as far as Levin’s original vision of absolute control, but by lowering the bar for Supreme Court appointments and amplifying political influence, they shift Israel’s delicate balance of power.