The article aims to further the understanding of the current constitutional crisis in Israel through the lens of political polarisation. Israel, like other countries around the world, is experiencing a substantial increase in political polarisation. Recent data shows that since 2009 affective polarisation (the extent to which individuals have negative feelings towards members of the opposing party or group and positive feelings towards their own party or group) has risen by 180 per cent. The article discusses the various phenomena associated with an increase in polarisation and the problems it raises, traces the reasons for the increase in polarisation in Israel, and argues that polarisation has played an important role in creating the conflict between the current government and the Supreme Court, and in making it so intense and intractable.

There are many ways in which to examine the current Israeli constitutional crisis. This article uses the lens of anti-corruption, a global movement which has changed politics in many countries. The long empowerment of the legal system in Israel arguably has its origins in policing corruption, which may be a particularly powerful motivator for the current governing coalition's efforts to assert more control over the Supreme Court. The dynamics of anti-corruption in Israel are somewhat distinct from those of other countries in ways that may bode well for the Court in its confrontation with the government.

The ‘constitutional reform’ planned by the government that assumed power in Israel in December 2022 is not an end in itself. Its aim is to provide the basis for planned policies and actions of the government that are incompatible with Israel's present constitutional order, and that are unlikely to stand up to judicial review before the present judges of the Supreme Court. This article discusses the connection between various parts of the reform and the plans to make a radical change in Israel's policies in the occupied West Bank. It examines the coalition agreement between PM Netanyahu's Likud party and the Religious Zionist Party, and exposes the connection between the commitment in that agreement to the policies regarding the occupation and the planned ‘reform’.

The protests against the Israeli government's proposed constitutional changes, which started in January 2023, have escalated into overall social upheaval. Protestors, politicians and academics have claimed that the existing ‘social contract’ has been violated, that Israel needs a ‘new contract’, and that such ‘new contract’ should be enacted through a constitution. This article argues that while the calls for the enactment of a constitution are understandable, Israel's current form of control of the West Bank and its commitment to the settlement project hinders the political feasibility of the enactment of a constitution. Those calling for a constitution for Israel perceive it as a solution to the indeterminacy and ambiguity that plague the Israeli constitutional framework. However, Israel's current form of control of the West Bank depends on ambiguity, on the existence of legal grey areas, and on fragmentation of the normative framework. The resolution of these is thus inconsistent with the maintenance of this form of control.

This article addresses the concept of ‘constitutional moment’ in contemporary Israel, where an illiberal constitutionalisation process is in progress, and in Hungary, where the illiberal constitutional system has been in place since 2010. After discussing the judicial overhaul of the current Israeli government and the widespread protest movement against it, the article raises the question of whether the moment to adopt a written constitution has arrived. In Hungary, where a semi-electoral autocratic constitutional regime has been entrenched, the question is what are the perspectives on a return to a liberal democratic constitution.

Constitutional courts are expected to operate under certain conditions (independence, transparency, democratic pedigree) and to resolve controversies in accordance with legal rules, principles and procedures. When these expectations are repeatedly frustrated, the legitimacy of the court is damaged and it is perceived as a partisan institution. This article discusses four structural problems in the operation of the Israeli High Court of Justice, which have contributed significantly to the Court's current legitimacy crisis: fact-finding, panel composition, standing, and judicial selection. The article examines the governmental reform plan with regard to these structural problems and proposes practical solutions for each of the problems.

A central element in the Israeli government's agenda to overhaul the judiciary, unveiled in January 2023, is its proposal to give it and its parliamentary coalition control over the selection and promotion of judges. This article shows that this proposal is an attempt to capture the courts. To illustrate this, the article looks at the government's proposal through three different perspectives: first, the perspective of the rationale of the current system of judicial selection, against the background of court governance in Israel and its constitutional system; second, the perspective of changes in Israel's judicial selection system over the past two decades; third, the comparative perspective of trends in judicial selection in other democracies.

This article examines the necessity for constitutional adjudication in a democracy. Democracy is not the government of the minority by the majority, but self-government of the people in a pluralist society. The article regards constitutional adjudication as a necessary component of a constitutional democracy to preserve self-government and individual rights as a pre-condition for the acceptance of majority decisions by the minority. Thus, constitutional adjudication is needed to uphold the possibility of democratic change and to protect individual rights also against the majority. Recent critique of individual decisions does not change this basic insight and practice of constitutional democracies.

In the comparative constitutional field relating to backsliding democracies, it is difficult to find an example of a single constitutional event that undermines the basic principles of democracy. Democracies die in a slow and gradual process. Each of the laws passed is not in itself fatal for democracy but when the measures are examined together, cumulatively, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is the big picture, the whole series of legal moves, that brings about a fundamental change in the state's regime until it is no longer a liberal democracy. In these situations of gradual erosion there is no single law that can reveal the magnitude of the change inherent in it. To understand the risk, it is therefore necessary to refer to its overall institutional context. The proposed reform in Israel may result in serious harm to the principle of separation of powers. Moreover, given the importance of imposing limits on governmental power as a tool for protecting human rights and the ‘rules of the game’ in democratic regimes, the reform would seriously harm the protection afforded to these rights and principles, and constitute a clear and present danger to Israel's liberal democracy.

In the last year Israel has been going through its most severe constitutional crisis in its history. The newly elected right-wing government has initiated a judicial overhaul that would limit the authority of the judiciary and grant the executive almost absolute powers. In response, the country has witnessed unprecedented civil protestations and opposition from nearly all segments of civil society, academia and economic sectors. In this article we argue that the judicial overhaul must be analysed as a populist constitutional project. We also explain that compared with other systems, Israeli democracy is especially vulnerable to populism, because of its unique institutional design factors coupled with social factors. Only with understanding these factors can one grasp the risks that the judicial overhaul poses to Israeli democracy.

As the result of the initiation of the ‘judicial reform’ in January 2023, and the huge wave of public protest, Israel is currently undergoing a political turmoil which may develop into a fully fledged constitutional crisis. In this article I provide an account of the roots and causes of the present crisis from a public law theory perspective. In particular, I discuss the relationship between constitutional and administrative law in Israeli law. I argue that the core of Israel's constitutional structure has always been the institutions of administrative law as created and developed during the ‘administrative revolution’ of the 1980s. In contrast, Israel's constitutional law has always been a peripheral in the core structure of judicial review over the political branches. Contrary to common wisdom, I argue that the ‘constitutional revolution’ of the mid-1990s has not changed this core structure, but rather provided an external belt of normative barricades for this core structure. Accordingly, and despite the pretentious constitutional discourse developed in the 1990s by the Court, Israel was and still is a monistic democracy with no true constitutional layer of norms that enjoys higher status vis-à-vis regular legislation.