Israel's judiciary faces a legitimacy crisis of its own making

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit has voiced concerns that criticism of the judiciary jeopardizes public trust in the rule of law. However, the article contends that this perspective overlooks a more fundamental issue: the growing public anger is a predictable consequence of decades of judicial and bureaucratic overreach, rather than solely the result of "fake news" or incitement.

“

Supreme Court president: Fake news, incitement against judges threaten rule of law

The prevailing mindset among Israel's legal elite, as reflected in Amit's statements, is to seek explanations for declining judicial confidence outside the judiciary itself. The narrative suggests that if millions of Israelis have lost faith, they must have been misled. Intensified criticism is framed as an attack on democracy by radical forces, and citizens questioning judicial overreach are portrayed as threats to the rule of law, rather than participants in democratic debate.

This self-serving narrative conveniently deflects from the judiciary's own role in eroding public trust. While no one defends threats against judges, the article distinguishes between criticism of judges and incitement, and between questioning judicial decisions and an assault on democracy. Challenging the power of unelected legal actors, it argues, is essential for democratic accountability.

“

Whenever confidence in the judiciary declines, an explanation is sought everywhere except within the judiciary itself.

The core problem, according to the article, is the judiciary's increasing tendency to behave as if opposition to its expanding authority is inherently illegitimate. Instead of addressing the root causes of eroding public trust, the courts demand that trust be restored while leaving the underlying issues unaddressed. The public perceives a court that frequently intervenes in political controversies traditionally resolved by elections and legislation, often stretching legal doctrines to justify its actions. Furthermore, the attorney-general is seen as a politically biased veto holder, and the system as a whole exercises immense power while remaining insulated from democratic accountability.

“

No serious person defends threats against judges. No democratic society can tolerate harassment or intimidation of public officials. But criticism of judges is not incitement. Questioning judicial decisions is not an assault on democracy. Challenging the power of unelected legal actors is not an attack on the rule of law. In fact, such criticism is often the very essence of democratic accountability.