Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Avoids Controversial Draft Law Hearing, Leaving Colleagues to Face Backlash

Israeli Supreme Court President Justice Isaac Amit has chosen not to participate in the expanded panel set to review the contentious law aimed at preventing the detention of draft-dodging yeshiva students. This decision is not merely procedural but a calculated strategic move. Despite expectations that the sitting president would lead such a significant public and legal debate, Amit appears to have deliberately distanced himself from the hearing and the accompanying public scrutiny.

The law in question is viewed by the justices, including the court's conservative members, as extremely extreme and unconstitutional due to its blatant discrimination. It grants a selective exemption from criminal proceedings solely to one sector, while the rest of the population remains fully subject to penalties. The judges are widely expected to invalidate the law. With the outcome seemingly assured behind the scenes, Amit has opted to avoid the public spotlight, leaving the more conservative judges to bear the brunt of political and public criticism from the coalition and the ultra-Orthodox community after the anticipated annulment.

Currently, the Supreme Court operates with only 11 judges instead of the full 15 due to an ongoing appointment crisis. The nine-judge panel hearing this case excludes only Amit and Justice Khaled Kabub, marking an unusual and possibly unprecedented scenario where the court president is absent from a major politically sensitive case. Kabub's exclusion also appears to be a deliberate strategic choice, likely to prevent political attacks that could arise if an Arab judge ruled on a case involving criminal proceedings against ultra-Orthodox draft evaders while the Arab population itself is exempt from military service.

The court's handling of the case has been exceptional, issuing a conditional injunction that immediately shifts the burden of proof onto the legislature to justify the law before any formal hearing or preliminary responses. This unprecedented procedural step signals that the court has effectively made its decision even before the official proceedings begin.