Supreme Court President Amit Apologizes for Remarks on Religious Public

President of the Supreme Court, Justice Yitzhak Amit, has expressed regret for statements made during a High Court of Justice hearing that he acknowledges may have offended members of the religious public. The remarks, which dealt with the issue of "kosher" phones, led to complaints filed against Amit.

The complaints stemmed from comments Amit made during a hearing on a petition concerning the broadcast range of regional radio stations. The complainants argued that Amit's remarks about simultaneously possessing a kosher phone and a smartphone deeply offended many within the religious community. Amit clarified in his response that his statements were part of a factual discussion relevant to the case, not a criticism of the religious public. He explained that the phenomenon of using both kosher and non-kosher phones concurrently had been raised in the current proceeding, previous High Court cases concerning the "kosher tier," and in public discourse.

Amit also addressed his use of the phrase "kosher phone to boast about," stating it referred to a viewpoint within parts of the religious public itself regarding the importance of presenting the kosher phone as a form of identification within the community. He noted that the term "to boast" is also used in this context in religious-affiliated media. "Unfortunately, it seems my words were echoed in the media in a distorted light, which did not express my true intention," Amit wrote. However, he conceded that after reviewing the complaints and the hearing recording, he should have phrased his remarks differently. "Given the public sensitivity of the issue, it would have been better if the statement in question had been phrased and expressed differently, and I regret that the words offended the feelings of the complainants or others in this regard," he stated.

Commissioner Kula concluded that given Amit's clarification that he did not intend to offend the religious public, his acknowledgment that the remarks could have been better phrased, and his expression of regret for the offense caused, there was no need to continue the investigation, and he decided to close the case.