Religious Zionism Unveils Next Phase of Judicial Overhaul
The Religious Zionism party has revealed its plan for the next stage of judicial reform, dubbed "Law and Justice 2.0" and titled "Releasing the Blockage." Party leader Bezalel Smotrich and MK Simcha Rothman presented the proposals, which aim to reshape Israel's legal system in the upcoming Knesset term. Smotrich declared, "This time, no one will say they didn't know," framing the upcoming election as a referendum on judicial reform.
Key proposals include appointing new legal advisors to the government and a new State Attorney, alongside ten new Supreme Court justices. Smotrich specifically attacked Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, calling him "violent" and criticizing the judiciary for overstepping its bounds. He argued that legislative changes made in the previous term, such as the near-abolition of the reasonableness standard, were insufficient because of judicial intervention.
The plan also seeks to transform the roles of the Attorney General and government legal advisors into trust-based appointments, similar to political appointments. Additionally, it proposes public hearings for Supreme Court nominees and a secret ballot among all Israeli judges to elect the Court's president and vice president.
Legislative changes proposed include an "override clause" allowing the Knesset to re-pass laws struck down by the Supreme Court, limiting the Court's ability to invalidate legislation, and restricting the duration of interim court orders. In criminal law, the party aims to eliminate the state's ability to appeal acquittals, limit interrogation durations, and abolish the offense of breach of trust, under which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is indicted.
Rothman described the reform effort as a necessary response to a "deep state" embedded within security forces, the police, and the Shin Bet. The party also seeks to alter state service appointments, allowing the government and ministers to appoint up to 50% of senior positions by abolishing existing appointment committees.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.