December 4, 2025
Source (Hebrew): https://www.gov.il/he/pages/judgespeech041225
Introduction
Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit addresses the Israeli Association for Public Law in Haifa on December 4, 2025, against the backdrop of a country emerging from two years of war and facing an internal assault on democratic institutions. With hostilities easing but public divisions raw, Amit warns that Israel’s judiciary, judges and law enforcement system remain under sustained political and populist attack. He likens Israeli democracy to an aircraft caught in turbulence, requiring stabilizing mechanisms to keep it aloft, and argues that courts provide precisely that function.
He acknowledges that “criticism of the judicial system is legitimate and even necessary. The public and institutional criticism is the lifeblood of a democratic society that wants to live. In a true democratic regime, no ruling authority is exempt from criticism and from supervision of its actions.”
But Amit distinguishes between legitimate criticism of judicial rulings, which he welcomes as vital to democracy, and a new phenomenon of organized disruption, personal vilification and courtroom intimidation designed to delegitimize judges themselves. He emphasizes that Israel’s courts operate under rigorous internal and public scrutiny through open hearings, published opinions and dissenting judgments. What now threatens democracy, he argues, is the replacement of substantive legal debate with social-media-driven incitement and political boycotts that paralyze the court system.
Within this atmosphere, Amit presents the judiciary not as a political actor, but as a front-line public service charged with protecting individual rights, preserving the rule of law and maintaining democratic stability in a period of national strain.
— Ken Stein, January 5, 2026
Retired Presidents and Justices of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak, Asher Grunis, Uzi Fogelman, Hanan Melcer, Dalia Dorner and Meni Mazoz; President of the Association of Public Law, the Vice President (retired) Elyakim Rubinstein; the attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara; judges; the national public defender, Anat Meyased-Knaan; Chairman of the Northern District of the Israel Bar Association Muhammad Na’amneh; Chairman of the association Professor Keren Winshel Meragel; honorable people.
Good evening.
I thank my colleague Justice (retired) Rubinstein, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak here at the conference of the Association for Public Law.
The return of this traditional conference to its home in Haifa indicates a return to routine after two difficult years of fighting and civilian struggle in the wake of the brutal and murderous terrorist attack of October 7. Within this complex reality, there is great comfort in the knowledge that most of the hostages have already returned to us, and we hope for the swift return of First Sgt. Ran Gvili (z”l) for a proper burial. Even at this time, the men and women of our security forces stand at guard, and I would like to send a prayer for their well-being from here, as well as for a quick and complete recovery for the physically and mentally injured.
Indeed, with cautious optimism, it can be said that the intense war that has been a part of our reality for the past two years has changed its face. Now a new-old reality is revealed in sharper and clearer colors, and there is no doubt that the attack on the judicial system, judges and law enforcement continues in full force.
In the judgment regarding the reasonableness doctrine, I compared democracy to an airplane that is in need at all times of mechanisms that will stabilize it and preserve its vitality and flight. In the past few years, it seems that the plane of the State of Israel’s democracy has been caught in a turbulent whirlwind, from which we have not yet emerged.
As the head of the judiciary, I would like to clarify: Criticism of the judicial system is legitimate and even necessary. The public and institutional criticism is the lifeblood of a democratic society that wants to live. In a true democratic regime, no ruling authority is exempt from criticism and from supervision of its actions.
The Israeli judicial system includes criticism as a structured and necessary element. Thus, the appellate courts are tasked with examining the correctness of the previous court’s determination and making the judicial decision more precise, considering the circumstances of the case and with a forward-looking perspective. Additionally, the judges that sit together on a panel discussing a particular proceeding criticize each other’s positions more than once. In contrast to certain legal methods in the world, in Israel debates between judges on a panel are not left behind the scenes. Majority and minority opinions all see light, in detailed opinions that correspond with one another. The entire judiciary conducts more self-dialogue than ever, out of an understanding of the gravity of the responsibility involved in doing justice.
In addition to the internal criticism of the system, the judiciary is also subject to broad public scrutiny. By virtue of the principle of publicity of the hearing, most legal proceedings are visible to the public both at the stage of the hearing and at the stage of publishing the judgments with their detailed reasons. Courtrooms throughout the country are open to the general public, who can come and get their own impression of the judicial work carried out in the various courts. Some of the court hearings are even broadcast live, in a way that fulfills the principle of the publicity of the hearing in the broad sense.
Unfortunately, these days we are witnessing an unprecedented phenomenon of attempts, organized and timed, to interfere with and disrupt proceedings in courtrooms. Indeed, as the well-known saying goes, in a democratic country justice should be both done and seen. But one should not accept the exploitation of the principle of public discussion to undermine the discussion itself. Attempts to prevent the courts from doing their job should not be accepted — a role they play in public service, in accordance with the basic principles of the state. It is important to clarify: The court exists for the public. When the disturbances in the courtroom disrupt the ability to hear the arguments of the parties, they thwart the rights of the litigants — petitioners, plaintiffs, defendants and respondents — to their day in court. The harm is not done to the court itself, but to the public that seeks a serious and in-depth investigation of the legal dispute.
This unacceptable phenomenon is not recognized in any democratic country in the world and for good reason. When there is an attack on the very ability to conduct a hearing, there is no need to elaborate on the dire consequences that may be caused to human and civil rights, not only in the courtrooms, but in the entire country. For this reason, we decided in principle only three days ago — according to which, where there is a concern that the hearing will be interrupted and where the hearing is broadcast — that it will be permitted to limit the entry of the audience into the courtroom.
The phenomenon of disturbances and riots in the courtroom, to the point of disrupting the hearing, is part of an unfortunate and broader trend that has been expanding in recent years of pushing back on substantive criticism in favor of unrestrained attacks on the judiciary and its officeholders. At times, it seems that the relevant legal discourse is in danger of extinction and has been replaced by a populist and dangerous persecution of the judge himself.
It is precisely now important to remember: Beneath the cloak of judgment, the human heart beats. Israel’s judges are public servants in the deepest sense of the term. These are skilled and dedicated professionals who work from morning to evening and from evening to morning, under unimaginable load, for one goal: to provide a just, fair and efficient response to the tens of thousands of legal disputes that are being discussed in the system.
The task placed on the shoulders of our judges is extremely difficult. Every day they are required to decide fateful questions, such as whether to convict a person of criminal offenses or to deprive him of his liberty; whether to remove a minor from the custody of his parents; who bears responsibility for an accident that caused injury or, God forbid, death; whether a governmental authority has resorted to prohibited gender or sectoral discrimination; and more.
But this is not the end of the legal process. Every case requires the provision of countless ongoing procedural decisions, which also involve a material impact on the rights of the parties: who is allowed to be summoned to testify; how much time will be devoted to hearing the arguments; when will an exemption from a fee or guarantee be granted; and so on and so forth.
It should also be remembered that the judicial toolbox is not unlimited. Basic Law: The Judiciary states that “in matters of judgment there is no authority over a person who has judicial authority, other than the authority of the law.”
The significance of this is twofold: The judge is not subject to external considerations such as public opinion, and at the same time he is required to maintain the framework of the law, even if his personal inclination is different. The judge is not allowed to convict a person when there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt, even when the heart cries out at the pain of the victim of the offense. The judge is not allowed to consider evidence that is inadmissible according to the law.
Israel’s judges sit among their people, and they experience and breathe the same complex Israeli reality that accompanies us all. At the end of the workday, they return to their homes, their families and their community, carrying with them the burden of the decisions they have made and must make. More than once, the dry text of the judgment is too narrow to contain the mental doubts that preceded it. The written word does not betray those long nights of deliberation and the loneliness and the weight of responsibility that rests on the shoulders of the judge. Even a short decision of a few lines may be the result of long days of deliberation and research.
In this reality, the contrast is striking between the proficiency, depth and seriousness that characterize judicial work and the superficiality and speed that characterize parts of the public discourse. The digital space is constantly flooded with headlines, reports, claims and speculation that have no place in the legal process, which is conducted according to the rules of substantive law and the rules of evidence. There is a huge, almost unbridgeable gap between detailed and reasoned rulings and the “tweet culture” in which the hand is easy on the keyboard. Social networks leave no room for complexity or second thought, and the digital space flattens and flattens reality into catchy slogans.
Unfortunately, there are those who take advantage of this reality to promote a discourse that is offensive, false and offensive toward the judges themselves. This discourse is not limited only to verbal violence against judges, which is serious in itself, but also adopts a dangerous pattern of labeling and cataloging. The question is no longer about the reasons for the ruling, but about the judge’s own jar — about his origins, his place of residence, his beliefs and even about his family.
This discourse relates to the judge as a symbol — a symbol of a system, of a political party or of a sectarian affiliation. And when a person becomes a symbol of a certain group, and the reasons for the decision or the judgment on its merits are ignored, it is permissible to restrain a personal attack on the judge.
This trend of personal attacks on judges is not accidental. It is part of a much broader campaign to erode and undermine judicial independence. These attacks are part of an attempt to erode a critical defense mechanism in Israeli democracy, which is intended for the benefit of Israel’s citizens and residents.
I reiterate: It is permissible and desirable to express criticism of a judgment or judicial decision. The dispute is an inseparable part of the world of Israeli law, and it is essential for its development. Dialogue and mutual control among the three branches of government are a cornerstone of our democracy. But there is an abysmal distance between substantive criticism and personal lashing. The first respects democratic discourse, while the second seeks to destroy it.
The public’s trust in the judiciary is not in the interest of the judges, but rather an essential asset of the public as a whole. The attempt to erode this trust is not limited to insulting the dignity of the specific judge, but rather undermines the foundations of the court itself as the trustee of the public. This is therefore an attempt to weaken the ability of the judiciary to serve as a defensive wall for individual rights; to provide relief to those who have been harmed; to preserve basic freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of occupation; to protect the property of the citizens and residents of the state; and to stop the erosion of these rights by the government.
An integral part of that campaign to harm the judiciary is the boycott that the minister of justice is using against the president of the Supreme Court. In practice, this is not a boycott of me, Yitzhak Amit, in my role as president of the Supreme Court. The boycott is on the entire judicial system and its role in a democratic society.
Few people remember, but the boycott by the minister of justice began in the days of my predecessor, acting President Fogelman. For the past year and a half, the minister of justice has been boycotting the judicial system, thus boycotting the Israeli public that turns to the courts. Throughout the boycott period, I repeatedly called on the minister of justice to return to the negotiating table and to the path of cooperation. At the time of my declaration of allegiance to the position of president of the Supreme Court, I emphasized that “we are ready for dialogue, dialogue and substantive cooperation, which puts the public and service to the citizen at the top of their priorities — and I hope that we will meet a sister’s hand in this context.” I have since repeated this call on various occasions, but it remains unanswered. Not a sister’s hand, but a turn of the back.
The minister of justice’s refusal to attend work meetings delays a long list of substantive matters. Among other things, the minister of justice refuses to promote the establishment of a search committee for the appointment of a president of the Central Lod District Court. The minister refuses to promote the establishment of a search committee to recommend vice presidents, and at this time there is a shortage of no less than 19 vice presidents in the system. The minister refuses to appoint senior judges to the courts and to fill a long list of necessary positions.
These are essential roles for advancing the handling of pending legal proceedings and for managing the judicial burden. The presidents and vice presidents are responsible for the day-to-day management of the entire district: the distribution of cases; the regulation of burdens among judges; and the proper functioning of the courts in routine and emergency situations.
I wonder: What reason should one refrain from appointing a vice president to the Jerusalem Family Court? Why refrain from appointing a vice president to the Magistrate’s Court in the Krayot? Why harm the entire litigant community in the Central District by preventing the appointment of a president to the District Court? It is important to emphasize: Presidents and vice presidents are not just titles given to judges; they are professional and experienced entities that promote processes for professionalization and improvement of the legal service provided to the public. Refraining from promoting such appointments is part of the attempt to harm the judiciary’s work, strength and independence.
I will also mention the minister’s refusal to appoint associate judges. These are judges who have retired and are willing to return to their judicial positions to lend their time and help with their workload. In 2024 the system was staffed by 33 associate judges, who made a real contribution to promoting the hearing of cases and providing a response to the public. However, at the end of the coming year, only 16 associate judges will remain. That is, 17 standards of associate judges which are not staffed due to the refusal of the minister. Anyone who claims that a shortage of 17 judges “does not affect the citizen” either does not understand the enormous burden on the court system, or service to the citizen simply does not interest him.
I would like to reiterate: The court system provides essential service to the residents of the state, both in routine and emergency situations, during the coronavirus and in times of war. On the afternoon of October 7, a family judge in the Southern District dealt with the first request to harvest the sperm of an IDF soldier, and in the days that followed, unfortunately, more similar requests were handled. In addition, orphans from a father and mother were required to obtain urgent guardianship orders, and inheritance orders were issued in a speedy proceeding because of the constraints of the time. Israel’s judges in the north and south came to the courts under fire, literally, and they did so because the service to the citizen could not be stopped.
This is just one example of the important work of the judiciary that the minister of justice has been boycotting for a long time. The justice minister’s conduct has one clear purpose, which he himself declared last April: “What we have built here for decades takes time to dismantle. It doesn’t end in one day.”
These things speak for themselves.
Before closing, the theme chosen for this year’s conference is “Public Law and Democracy: Between Crisis and Hope.” It seems that the time has come for the hope part.
Last week I attended a conference of presidents and vice presidents of the judiciary. Interestingly and coincidentally, that conference was also about hope, and its title was “Hope as a Compass.” I would like to bring up some of the things I said there:
“David Grossman described how in the days of the coronavirus, which seems so far away to us today, hope was a kind of anchor, thrown out of a suffocating and desperate existence toward a better and freer future, toward a reality that does not yet exist, most of which is made of wishful thinking, from imagination. The anchor is thrown away and clings to the soil of the future, and man, and sometimes an entire society, begins to attract themselves to it. So Grossman said.
“I see hope as a tool — mine and ours. The meaning of managing with hope is the ability to look the difficult reality in the eye, to recognize the shortage of manpower, to recognize the workload, to recognize the tensions and still to create an action plan, to aspire forward, not to give up. …
“One of the most important tasks in managing hope is to make sure that the cold winds from the outside don’t penetrate inside. We must make sure that the court remains a Noah’s Ark of sanity. We must create isolation — not isolation of detachment from reality, but isolation that protects our professional and organizational culture. Even when the discourse is inflammatory on the outside, inside we keep the discourse respectful, inclusive and professional. When on the outside there is a discourse about ‘us and them,’ inside there is only us, public servants united under mission and statehood.”
These are the things I said to the presidents and vice presidents. In this spirit of hope or, as they say, radical hope, I will once again make it clear: The entire judiciary stands behind every judge who does his or her work with dedication, a sense of mission and without fear other than the authority of the law.
I would like to conclude with warm congratulations to Professor Shimon Shitrit, Advocate Orit Koren, Dr. Irit Blass and the family of the late Dr. Jonathan Hasson on winning the Gorni Prizes, and also in the hope that the plane of the State of Israel’s democracy will soon be rescued from the current storm and will preserve its vitality and flight. There is hope, and she will win.
Thank you.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s Response
December 4, 2025
Source: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1d1xf1gbl
Judge Yitzhak Amit, what did you think would happen when you and your friends, by an illegal order, took over the judicial selection committee? What did you expect when you prevented an investigation of the serious complaints filed against you? What did you imagine when you forced yourself onto the citizens of Israel as “president” of the court, who repeatedly tramples on most of the public? You put yourself and your friends above the law. You are allowed to do everything. For over two years you prevented the investigation committee from acting, and now you are doing the same thing to prevent the investigation of the military attorney general affair. You are a leader of a culture of “close for me, and I will close for you.” So what did you expect? That I will participate with this activity?
About Baharav-Miara — you are a defender. But Biton, Bakshi, Ben Hamo, they are all invalid to you. Still, there was one thing you said right tonight: I am really dismantling. I am dismantling brick by brick your fortress of lies that you and your friends are sitting on. But I am also building. Rebuilding the judicial system as it was in its heyday under presidents like Landau and Shamgar. Judge Amit, every compromise offered to you was dismissed with contempt. So I would like to propose another compromise proposal: Respect the democracy, and I will be first to respect you.
