Rights10/27/2026

Analysis: The Elections Could Determine the Future of the Justice System

Zman.co.il commentator Yuval Yoaz views the elections as a decisive stage in the dispute over the justice system and the rule of law. This is an interpretive analysis article, not a report on a new ruling or an enacted law.

Key facts

•Source: Analytical commentary by Zman.co.il
•Author of the original article: Yuval Yoaz
•Gali Baharav-Miara was appointed in February 2022
•The attorney general’s term is six years
•The Supreme Court is mentioned as consisting of 15 justices
•The article contains no new ruling

What the Author Argues

According to the author, the central question in the elections is whether the transformation of state institutions, which he calls a “regime coup,” will continue. He believes that a victory by Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc and the formation of the next government by Netanyahu could weaken independent oversight of the executive branch.

The Role of the Attorney General

Gali Baharav-Miara was appointed attorney general in February 2022 for a six-year term. The author believes that her tenure has helped preserve the independence of the legal advisory and prosecution system. He also fears that after her term ends, a new government lineup could appoint a successor who would be more dependent on the government.

The Supreme Court and the Basic Laws

Special attention is devoted to Esther Hayut’s tenure as president of the Supreme Court and to the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning amendments to the Basic Laws—regarding the abolition of the reasonableness doctrine and the removal of the prime minister on grounds of incapacity. The author links the possibility of judicial intervention to the development of the relevant legal doctrines and to the composition of the Supreme Court at the time, which consisted of 15 justices.

Political Changes and Oversight of the Government

The article argues that the coalition politicized the judicial appointment process and adopted provisions that weaken the attorney general and the independence of television channels. However, the source does not provide the numbers or official names of these enactments and does not report a new court decision concerning them. The conclusion that the system’s destruction will continue is the author’s prediction, not an established legal fact.

What this means for you

For residents of Israel, the outcome of the political dispute could affect the judicial appointment process, the powers of the attorney general, and the possibilities for judicial oversight of the government. However, the publication reflects the author’s position and prediction; in itself, it does not change existing law or impose new obligations on citizens.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings