Justice Minister Levin Recounts Coalition's Lack of Support for Judicial Reform

Justice Minister Yariv Levin revealed in a podcast interview that he only accepted his role after receiving commitments from all coalition party leaders to support his planned judicial reform. However, when the crucial moment arrived in March 2023, and legislation was halted due to public protests, Levin felt the promised backing was insufficient. He expressed disappointment with his political partners, stating that the opposition from within his own political camp hurt him more than attacks from reform opponents.

Levin emphasized his intention to enact significant changes in the justice system, not merely hold a title. He asserted that he secured explicit agreement from coalition leaders for his planned moves before taking office. The halt in legislation, particularly in March 2023, was difficult for him to accept, as he had warned that yielding to such pressure would lead to being "run over."

He also criticized the involvement of retired officers in protests against his initiatives, arguing that a country cannot be run by retired officers dictating terms to the Knesset and government. Despite this, Levin clarified that he does not fundamentally oppose compromise and prefers broad consensus, even with significant concessions, as long as it leads to genuine change in the justice system. He claimed to have approached opposition leaders before October 7th to discuss agreed-upon arrangements but received no response.

Levin cited the changes he advanced with Gideon Sa'ar regarding the Judicial Selection Committee as an example of his willingness to compromise. While the final arrangement differed from his original proposal, it included substantial changes, such as replacing Bar Association representatives with public figures and altering appointment approval mechanisms. He noted that the implementation was postponed to the next Knesset to broaden support, and he accepted this compromise despite not achieving all his initial goals.

He further criticized the opposition, suggesting that MK Matan Kahana considered supporting the committee reform but ultimately voted against it due to party discipline. Levin estimated that more opposition members would have supported his proposals in a secret ballot. He distinguished between compromise, which he accepts if it addresses core issues and gains broad support, and yielding the principle of change itself, which he rejects. He stated he would not accept a situation where the opposition's refusal to agree prevents any change, effectively granting them veto power.

Levin also commented on the Supreme Court's decision to cancel a Basic Law amendment, noting a perceived contradiction between the demand for broad consensus on fundamental regime changes and the Court's ability to make constitutional rulings with narrow majorities. He mentioned that after the October 7th attack, he agreed to temporarily set aside disputes and work with the existing Judicial Selection Committee to facilitate appointments during wartime, but criticized the Court for continuing to deliberate on constitutional issues at that time.

In a particularly sharp point, Levin recounted an alleged meeting with a Supreme Court justice who, he claims, proposed he "surrender" and accept candidates acceptable to the court, rather than pushing for specific conservative legal minds like Dr. Aviad Bashi and Dr. Bitton. Levin stated this resistance strengthened his resolve not to compromise on the identity of candidates, arguing that appointing conservative jurists requires more than just selecting those the current justices approve of, to ensure genuine diversity. He also criticized past appointments presented as conservative achievements, suggesting some appointees did not rule as expected, unlike Bashi and Bitton who he believes have proven their resilience.

Regarding his relationship with Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit, Levin stated that from his perspective, Amit is not the president of the Supreme Court, indicating a personal stance rather than a legal one. Levin reiterated his efforts to reach agreements on appointments but faced opposition to certain candidates. He vowed to continue pursuing legislative changes and reforms to the judicial appointment system, even if it requires difficult compromises, provided they lead to tangible changes in the justice system.

Looking ahead, Levin identified the Basic Law: Legislation as a key initiative for the next term, aiming to clarify the relationship between the Knesset and the Supreme Court and define judicial review of laws. He supports establishing a more thorough process for enacting basic laws and limiting the Court's ability to strike down legislation. However, he stressed that this cannot be separated from reforming the judicial appointment system, as the judges' identities and views ultimately shape the outcome. He is open to exploring various appointment models that gain broad consensus and ensure a more diverse and balanced court.

Considering the possibility of a broader government after the upcoming elections, Levin stated his preference for a government based on a right-wing parliamentary majority, with potential expansion to other parties only if it doesn't compromise core policy principles. He emphasized that the election's goal is not just to form a government but one capable of implementing its mandate. He also linked the upcoming elections to expected changes in the Supreme Court's composition, noting that many justices are due to retire during the next term, making their replacements a central issue.