Ongoing friction between justices on Israel’s Supreme Court has exposed deep ideological divides and is creating mounting pressure for reform within the court’s ranks. The growing tension, particularly over how cases with high public profiles are handled, has placed conservative Justice Noam Sohlberg at odds with Supreme Court President Yitzchak Amit, who is known for his judicial activism.
Recent rulings and hearings have drawn criticism from both legal experts and the media, with many alleging that the court is projecting a one-sided tone and failing to maintain the objectivity and balance expected in major legal decisions.
These concerns were amplified last week as the court deliberated on several sensitive cases, including the outgoing Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, the appointment of General Zini, and matters relating to the Civil Service Commission. During these proceedings, sharp disagreements emerged between the justices, with Chief Justice Amit adopting an assertive, activist stance.
In one notable exchange during the debate over General Zini’s appointment, Justice Alex Stein responded to the Attorney General’s representative by asserting that a prime minister has the right to disagree with the legal opinion of the attorney general. Justice Amit sharply opposed this, stating, “I do not agree. If every minister makes up his own law, we’ll be meeting here every day.”
Tensions reached a new level when Justice Stein accused the attorney general’s position of contradicting a previous Supreme Court ruling, a claim Justice Amit rejected outright. The dispute highlighted not only ideological differences but also a growing frustration within the court’s leadership.
Against this backdrop, legal affairs journalist Netael Bendel of Ynet reported that Justice Sohlberg has held several private discussions with Chief Justice Amit, advocating for more diversity in judicial panels—both ideologically and numerically—when hearing cases of major public importance. Sohlberg reportedly believes that expanding the number of justices and varying their perspectives would bolster the court’s professional integrity and public trust.
However, this proposal presents a serious dilemma for Justice Amit. Agreeing to broader and more ideologically diverse panels could dilute the court’s activist orientation, particularly as some of the newer judges, like Justices Mintz and Elron, lean toward a more conservative judicial philosophy than judges such as Amit or Barak-Erez.
Moreover, moving away from the traditional seniority-based system Amit uses for appointing justices to panels could erode his influence. This was seen clearly during the recent debate on Zini’s appointment, where Amit found himself at odds with Justices Stein and Canfy Steinitz.
Ultimately, the situation poses a fundamental question about the role of the Chief Justice. If Yitzchak Amit cannot effectively guide the outcomes of the court’s most critical discussions, then what added value does his leadership truly bring?
{Matzav.com Israel}