Gad Barzilai

Barzilai was born in 1958.[1] His education encompassed advanced degrees in public administration, history, Jewish studies, international relations, and law, as well as training in statistical methods for the social sciences.[1] The institutions at which he studied included the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University, Tel Aviv University, Yale University, and the University of Michigan.[1]

He earned his doctorate in political science at the Hebrew University and completed postdoctoral work at Yale.[3] He also qualified as a lawyer and worked at senior law firms before moving into academia.[3][1]

Barzilai entered academic life as a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, subsequently worked at the University of Washington, and later joined the University of Haifa Faculty of Law.[3] In 1992, he founded Israel’s first undergraduate program combining law and political science.[1] He also held visiting professorships at institutions including Yale and the University of California, Berkeley.[3]

From 2011 to 2013, he served as president of the Association for Israel Studies, with institutional affiliations at the University of Washington and the University of Haifa during that period.[6] While serving as dean of Haifa’s law school, he was among the speakers at a law-and-security conference addressing the rule of law, maritime security, cyber-warfare, and the role of courts in balancing legal and security considerations.[7] From 2016 to 2019, he served as the University of Haifa’s vice rector and headed its International School.[3] His final professional roles included the presidency of the Israel Political Science Association.[3]

His early publications examined war, political order, and Israeli public opinion.[8][9] Democracy in War appeared in Tel Aviv through Sifriat Hapoalim in 1992; it was subsequently cited in academic discussion of motivations for service in the Israel Defense Forces.[8] His book War, Internal Conflict and Political Order: A Jewish Democracy in the Middle East was published in Albany, New York, in 1996.[9]

Barzilai collaborated with Efraim Inbar on studies of Israeli public opinion after the Gulf War, published in 1992; public opinion on military options, published in 1996; and the national-security positions of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox political leadership, published in 1997.[10] With Giora Goldberg and Inbar, he also coauthored the 1991 study The Impact of Intercommunal Conflict: The Intifada and Israeli Public Opinion.[10] Their research on intercommunal conflict and on attitudes toward federal solutions before and after the Gulf War was cited in analysis of the 1992 Knesset elections.[11]

The Supreme Court was another recurring subject of his scholarship.[12][13] In 1994, he coauthored the Hebrew-language The Supreme Court in the Eyes of Israeli Society with Ephraim Yuchteman-Yaar and Zeev Segal.[12] His article “Courts as hegemonic institutions: The Israeli Supreme Court in a comparative perspective” appeared in Israel Affairs, volume 5, issues 2–3, in 1998, on pages 15–33.[13]

Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities was published by the University of Michigan Press in 2003 in its Law, Meaning, and Violence series.[14] The 370-page volume included bibliographical references on pages 313–349 and an index.[14] It became a co-winner of the 2004 Yonathan Shapiro Best Book Award, which covered books published in 2002–2003.[4]

In 2010, Barzilai published a Hebrew policy paper through the Israel Democracy Institute examining whether the state prosecution and the government’s legal-advisory functions should be institutionally separated.[15] The study compared dozens of political systems to evaluate institutional models and reform options while taking Israel’s political and social circumstances into account.[15]

Barzilai also conducted quantitative research on High Court of Justice intervention in government decisions with political scientists Maoz Rosenthal and Assaf Meydani.[16] A preliminary account covering 1995–2016 described an examination of 9,490 petitions against government decisions.[16] In those reported findings, the court rejected 87 percent of petitions, sided with petitioners in 10.5 percent—approximately 1,000 petitions—and ruled partially against the government in another 2.5 percent.[16] The researchers chose 1995 as their starting point because it marked the beginning of what was commonly called the constitutional revolution.[16]

A separate account of the research covered 1995–2015 and described 9,070 rulings by five Supreme Court justices, with 11 percent of petitions against decisions by ministers or the prime minister accepted fully or in part.[1] That account identified the Bank Mizrahi ruling with the practical beginning of the constitutional revolution.[1] It also reported that petitions concerning religion and state succeeded at three times the rate of petitions in other fields, whereas only about four percent of security-related petitions were accepted.[1]

Barzilai died on April 10, 2023, aged 65.[2] The Association for Israel Studies paid tribute to his life and work at its 39th conference in New York.[2] His scholarship encompassed law, politics, human rights, and Israel Studies.[2] University of Haifa president Ron Robin remembered him as a “clear and fresh voice” who engaged sharply and compassionately with the intricacies of Israeli society.[3]

The Gad Barzilai Early Career Award recognizes scholars whose publications and scholarship have contributed to Israel Studies and demonstrate the potential to shape the field.[17] Established by the Association for Israel Studies, it carries a $5,000 prize.[17] His institutional legacy also included the undergraduate program combining law and political science that he founded in 1992.[1]

In the debate over judicial reform in 2021, Barzilai supported separating the positions of attorney general and chief prosecutor, arguing that this could strengthen the judicial system while preserving the attorney general’s responsibilities for advising and representing the government.[18] He urged that an independent committee consider the change carefully.[18]

He opposed parliamentary hearings for Supreme Court nominees, warning that they could make appointments a “dangerous, chaotic political party affair,” and defended the existing process as professional and independent.[18] His interpretation of his quantitative research likewise emphasized judicial restraint: he described its broader picture as that of “a considered court that takes its limitations into account.”[1] These positions formed part of the debate over the Supreme Court’s activism and the institutional design of Israel’s legal system.[1][18]