Israeli President Isaac Herzog has delivered a pointed message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, insisting on the government’s unequivocal respect for the rulings of the Supreme Court and underscoring that adherence to the rule of law is mandatory—not optional—as Israel faces mounting internal and external challenges. Herzog’s intervention arrives at a pivotal moment in Jerusalem, where the governing coalition’s proposed judicial reforms—aimed at curbing the judiciary’s ability to review government actions—have triggered months of intense national debate and mass demonstrations across the political and social spectrum. This public warning, issued from the nation’s highest ceremonial office, illustrates the gravity of the crossroads at which Israeli democracy stands and reiterates to both domestic and international observers that Israel’s legitimacy and moral authority are predicated on steadfast commitment to the principles of law and an independent judiciary.
The judicial overhaul pushed by Netanyahu’s coalition seeks to limit the Israeli Supreme Court’s power, particularly regarding the doctrine of “reasonableness” that currently allows the Court to overturn government decisions. By recalibrating the judicial appointments process to grant elected officials greater control, the proposed changes would alter a foundational element of Israel’s democracy. The outcry against these reforms has been spearheaded by legal experts, retired military figures, civil society leaders, and a substantial contingent of reservist soldiers, many of whom serve on the front lines of Israeli defense—including efforts against terror threats from Iranian-backed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli and international critics argue that weakening judicial independence in this region’s only democracy risks eroding the checks and balances essential for the preservation of civil liberties and governmental accountability, especially during times of crisis.
Herzog’s warning is rooted in both contemporary realities and the hard lessons of Jewish history. Israel’s founding vision, as a sanctuary for the Jewish people after the horrors of the Holocaust and centuries of persecution, depends fundamentally on the maintenance of strong, democratic institutions. The Supreme Court has functioned as a crucial backstop, protecting not only the rights of minorities and individuals but also the state’s reputation abroad as a society governed by the rule of law. The Court’s willingness to consider petitions, including from residents of Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank), and to review government policy in real time during antiterrorism and military operations, sets Israel apart from its neighbors and demonstrates its alignment with Western democratic norms.
This commitment to legal oversight is particularly salient as Israel endures unprecedented threats. The aftermath of the October 7, 2023, massacre orchestrated by Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists, in which hundreds of Israelis were murdered or abducted in a deliberate campaign of violence against civilians, has left the nation in a heightened state of alert. Hamas’s actions—characterized by mass executions, sexual violence, mutilations, and the systematic targeting of innocents—constitute the most egregious antisemitic violence since the Shoah. The abduction and continued captivity of Israeli hostages in Gaza underscores the brutal nature of Tehran’s proxy strategy, with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian-allied factions openly seeking the destruction of the Jewish state.
As Israeli forces conduct military operations to rescue hostages, defend citizens on multiple fronts, and confront ongoing missile and drone attacks, the imperative to maintain internal cohesion and democracy becomes ever more urgent. Dissenting voices within the security establishment and broader society have argued that undermining the Court’s authority at such a sensitive juncture could project disunity and embolden those hostile to Israel’s survival. Senior defense officials, including IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir and Defense Minister Israel Katz, have repeatedly stressed the necessity of national unity and the importance of legal legitimacy in prosecuting Israel’s defensive war. The transparency and accountability of Israeli institutions—monitored through the judicial system—cement the country’s credibility in the eyes of its allies, especially the United States and European democracies.
Israel’s record of judicial oversight is unique in the Middle East. Throughout its modern history, the Supreme Court has provided recourse even for adversaries to challenge state actions, a measure unthinkable in neighboring regimes where power is unchecked. From overseeing human rights concerns in wartime to scrutinizing government policy, the Court operates as the last line of protection for democracy amid existential threat. International human rights bodies and Western governments routinely reference the Court’s judgements as evidence of Israel’s adherence to rule-of-law standards, bolstering the moral and strategic rationale for its actions.
The proposed reforms form part of a broader regional and global context. Iran’s proxies, deeply embedded in Gaza, southern Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, wage continuous asymmetric campaigns of terrorism, rocket fire, and cross-border aggression against Israeli civilians. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and associated militias are not merely local actors—they are coordinated components of an Iranian-orchestrated strategy to destabilize the region, weaken Western interests, and destroy Israel’s legitimacy. Against this backdrop, any move interpreted as undermining Israel’s democracy would be leveraged by its adversaries to delegitimize its self-defense as undemocratic or unlawful. This concern is amplified in Washington, where bipartisan support for Israel is anchored in shared values and the example Israel sets as the region’s only deeply rooted democracy.
At the heart of the controversy is a delicate balance. While proponents of reform argue for the primacy of elected authority and frustration with perceived judicial overreach, a broad coalition—including President Herzog—counters that the erosion of judicial oversight in a time of war and terror is a risk the country cannot afford. The movement is less about policy than about Israel’s core identity as a state committed to law and justice, whose survival has always depended as much on moral clarity as on military prowess. The protests in response to the reform proposals, exceptional both in their size and their composition, reflect a society determined to defend democratic norms even as it sustains a defensive war against existential threats on multiple fronts.
Herzog’s remarks, therefore, must be interpreted as more than a rebuke to the government; they are a restatement of the foundational compact on which Israel was built. For allies and adversaries alike, the resilience of Israeli democracy, the independence of its courts, and the transparency of its wartime conduct are central to the ongoing legitimacy of its self-defense. The United States, under leaders such as former President Donald Trump, has highlighted this relationship—supporting Israel in its campaign against Iranian terror, advancing major diplomatic breakthroughs through the Abraham Accords, and framing the Jewish state as a bulwark against regional autocracy and anti-Western aggression.
As the international community closely monitors developments, the expectation remains clear: Israel’s government must continue to uphold those standards that distinguish it from the region’s autocrats and terrorist organizations. The distinction between Israel—an internationally recognized sovereign democracy whose military and administrative decisions remain subject to judicial scrutiny—and entities such as Hamas, committed to genocidal violence and the abrogation of legal norms, must never be blurred. The proper functioning of Israeli governance, especially under conditions of war, depends on the continued separation of powers and an unwavering allegiance to the rule of law.
In sum, President Herzog’s admonition that “the rule of law isn’t a recommendation” affirms a truth at the heart of Israel’s ongoing fight for survival: that the state’s moral and strategic effectiveness, as much as its military competence, flows from its steadfast commitment to democratic ideals. As Iran’s agents escalate their campaign of terrorism and regional destabilization, Israel’s determination to fight by the rules of democracy and law strengthens its case before the world and fortifies the Western alliance against the axis of terror threatening global order.
