Israeli Law Professors' Forum for Democracy

The forum's work centers on legal analysis and public education through position papers, lectures, and discussion groups in private homes.[1] It has also responded to proposed compromises and helped draft an alternative program for constitutional and judicial reform.[6][7] In addition, it has sought participation in litigation addressing Basic Laws and the scope of judicial review.[5]

Across these activities, the forum has argued that structural constitutional changes should preserve judicial independence and be adopted through open discussion and broad agreement rather than by a governing coalition acting alone.[8]

The forum traces its origins to 2019, when a proposal for a legislative override clause prompted its initial formation.[1] Activity diminished during the COVID-19 period and Israel's successive election campaigns before resuming with considerable force in January 2023, when Justice Minister Yariv Levin unveiled a comprehensive judicial overhaul.[1]

As of January 2023, the forum counted approximately 70 active lecturers and the support of roughly 130 more.[1] Participants identified in that account included Adam Shinar, Eliav Lieblich, Yaniv Roznai, Tamar Hostovsky Brandes, Meital Pinto, Ronit Levine-Schnur, Nurit Zimmerman, and Nadiv Mordechai.[1]

Dr. Adam Shinar described the forum as having no hierarchy, chief executive, or chair, with lecturers from across the political spectrum reaching positions collectively.[1] In August 2023, Calcalist reported that the forum operated within Bashaar, a nonpartisan association bringing together approximately 2,000 academic faculty members from Israeli higher-education institutions, including Nobel and Israel Prize laureates.[5]

A core function of the forum has been the preparation of detailed position papers analyzing the coalition's legislative proposals section by section, citing academic literature, comparative legal systems, and Israeli case law while explaining their implications for the public and politicians.[1] Members also gave public lectures and hosted discussion groups in private homes as part of a public-education mission aimed at making complex legal arguments accessible to non-lawyers.[1]

Tamar Hostovsky Brandes argued that the danger of an override clause might not be immediately visible because the clause is an instrument rather than an immediate policy outcome. She warned that it could later be used to enact measures affecting women, Arabs, and LGBTQ people without an effective avenue for judicial review.[1] The forum also prepared papers responding directly to arguments advanced by the Kohelet Policy Forum in support of the government's proposals.[1]

An early and prominent document was the February 1, 2023 opinion titled "A Summary Opinion Concerning the Revolutionary Regime Transformation Proposed by Israel's Government." The Institute for National Security Studies cited it in an assessment discussing the possibility that the judicial proposals were part of a broader effort to remove restrictions on government action.[9][10]

The forum brought organized academic public-law analysis into Israel's wider constitutional debate. Its position papers were cited in external assessments by the Institute for National Security Studies and the Law Library of Congress, while its public lectures and explanatory materials were designed to translate technical legal arguments for lawmakers and non-lawyers.[1][8]

Its role extended beyond opposition to particular legislation. Through the Independence Initiative, the forum joined other participants in formulating an alternative program addressing constitutional rights, judicial review, legal advisers, judicial appointments, the public service, and access to justice.[7]

The forum operated within an intensely disputed constitutional debate. It challenged comparative-law arguments advanced by the Kohelet Policy Forum, while supporters of the government's overhaul argued that changes were necessary to restrain judicial power and strengthen elected officials.[1][11] The forum's descriptions of the proposals as threats to democracy, human rights, and judicial independence represented its institutional position within that dispute.

Financing also received public attention. A Jerusalem Post review reported that the New Israel Fund allocated $30,000 for activity and social-media coordinators at the volunteer-based forum.[2] The report did not characterize the allocation as the forum's total budget or identify it as funding for any individual member.

The forum's central argument against the 2023 judicial overhaul rested on Israel's distinctive constitutional situation. In a position paper, it argued that Israel lacks several checks found in other democratic systems, including a comprehensive rigid constitution, two legislative chambers, a presidential system, federalism, regional elections, and subordination to supranational human-rights courts. Selectively importing foreign arrangements that strengthen governmental authority without corresponding restraints, the forum warned, risked placing Israel alongside countries experiencing democratic backsliding, such as Turkey, Hungary, and Poland.[11]

The March 27, 2023 version of the proposed judicial-selection legislation would have expanded the Judicial Selection Committee from nine to 11 members, assigned six seats to government and coalition representatives, removed the Israel Bar Association's representatives, and permitted appointment of a Supreme Court president or deputy president who was not then serving on the Court.[8]

The forum argued that increasing political control over judicial selection would harm public trust and would "severely hinder the judiciary's ability to carry out its duties."[8] It characterized proposed coalition control over the committee as a preliminary step—what Position Paper No. 32 called adopting "the Polish protocol"—intended to ensure that later measures could not be invalidated by the Supreme Court.[8] The forum held that "changes in constitutional structures that will affect us all for generations can be made only on the basis of open discussion and broad consensus."[8]

In August 2023, 140 jurists associated with the forum, led by Dr. Ronit Levine-Schnur of Reichman University, argued that the High Court of Justice retained authority to review Basic Laws because the process for enacting them is substantively similar to ordinary legislation.[12] They warned that treating the label "Basic Law" as an automatic shield would permit a coalition majority to immunize actions from judicial scrutiny: "The words 'Basic Law' are not a magic key that locks all the doors to judicial review, or else every law can be called a Basic Law, shielding every unacceptable norm from judicial review."[12] The statement also characterized the coalition's conduct as an attempt to function simultaneously as a constituent assembly, legislature, executive, and judiciary without a constitution or sufficient self-restraint.[12]

The forum engaged critically with major attempts to broker a compromise on the judicial overhaul. In March 2023, it assessed President Isaac Herzog's draft framework as an improvement over the coalition's plan but identified critical remaining flaws.[6] It argued that electing judges by an ordinary committee majority would politicize adjudication and seriously damage separation of powers, calling instead for an 8-of-11 decision rule within the Judicial Selection Committee and constitutional entrenchment of the practice of selecting the Supreme Court president by seniority.[6]

The forum further objected that requiring 10 of 15 Supreme Court justices to invalidate legislation would effectively leave the governing coalition with unlimited legislative power. It proposed instead that any special judicial-review procedure require a panel of nine justices deciding by a two-thirds majority.[6] It also opposed the draft's absence of substantive limits on subjects that could be enacted as Basic Laws, criticized transitional provisions that could permit contradictory changes during the following year, and objected to a narrowing of equality protections that would exclude discrimination against Arab citizens.[6]

The forum similarly rejected a compromise plan proposed by former Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, arguing that its core provisions remained substantially aligned with the government's original proposals on judicial appointments, judicial review, an override clause, the reasonableness standard, and the status of government legal advisers.[13] In a position paper, it stated that accepting the provisions would create infrastructure for violations of human rights, damage judicial independence, politicize the judiciary, and cause fatal harm to Israel's democratic character.[13]

Co-founders Eliav Lieblich and Ronit Levine-Schnur argued that President Herzog's proposal did not adequately protect Israel's democratic foundations, human rights, judicial independence, or the independence of the Knesset and courts. They called for a Basic Law guaranteeing human rights, rejected blanket immunity for Basic Laws from judicial review, opposed an unrestricted override mechanism, and argued that the coalition must not control judicial appointments. They also urged that structural changes take effect only with the next Knesset.[3]

The forum was one of the initiators and co-drafters of the Independence Initiative, an alternative program for reforming and strengthening Israel's legal system.[7] The initiative called for a constitution based on Israel's Declaration of Independence, protection of human and civil rights including equality, a Basic Law: Legislation establishing the superiority of constitutional Basic Laws, explicit Supreme Court review of legislation, protected independence for legal advisers, a judicial-selection committee not controlled by the coalition, an independent public service, and improved access to justice.[7]

The Independence Initiative stipulated that constitutional change should occur only through broad agreement and that changes to Basic Laws dealing with rights and core governmental structures should require a special process, a supermajority, multiple readings, and a minimum interval between readings.[7] It also called for no restriction on the Supreme Court's judicial-review authority until the proposed framework was established and rejected politicization of the attorney general's legal-advisory system.[7]

During proceedings on petitions against the judicial-reform reasonableness amendment, the forum applied to participate as an amicus curiae. The High Court rejected ten amicus applications, including the forum's, along with applications from Im Tirzu, Lavi, and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.[14] The Jerusalem Post report did not provide the court's reasons for the rejections.[14]

In its amicus application, submitted through Ronit Levine-Schnur, the forum proposed that the Court recognize a stricter standard for the enactment of Basic Laws.[5] It argued that exploiting weaknesses in Israel's constitutional process to strengthen the executive at the expense of other branches constituted an abuse of constituent authority. It identified possible remedies including narrow interpretation, relative invalidity, and returning legislation to the Knesset for correction rather than outright annulment.[5]

In 2024, the forum joined hostage families from Forum Chaim in petitioning the High Court of Justice to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from deciding alone whether to approve a hostage-release deal.[15] The petition sought an order requiring the matter to be transferred to the full government for discussion and decision, following the forum's prior appeal to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara concerning what the petitioners characterized as Netanyahu's exclusive and unlawful conduct.[15]

Following the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023, the forum engaged directly on the hostage crisis. On October 11, 2023, it sent several letters to international organizations calling for the release of abductees held in the Gaza Strip. The letters analyzed the prohibition of kidnapping under international law and characterized the holding of hostages in Gaza as a crime against humanity.[4]

Two days later, on October 13, 2023, the forum issued a statement calling for the immediate release of the hostages. The statement was signed by hundreds of Israeli and international experts in international law.[4]

The forum continued to intervene in Israeli constitutional debates beyond the initial overhaul controversy. In December 2024, it opposed proposed legislation that would transfer appointment of the Public Complaints Commissioner for Judges from the Justice Minister and Supreme Court president to the Knesset, with election by secret ballot and a 70-member majority.[16] The forum argued that the professional nature of the post required an appointment process independent of politics, that the proposal would politicize the process, and that changing the appointment rules while a new commissioner was being selected amounted to altering the rules mid-game.[16] It characterized the bill as part of a wider effort to strengthen the government against other branches and undermine judicial independence.[16]

In January 2025, the forum warned that the Levin-Saar framework for judicial reform would deepen politicization, particularly in the Supreme Court.[17] Its position paper argued that the proposed system would prioritize political considerations over professional qualifications and could cause judges to be identified as representatives of political camps, harming adjudicative quality and public trust.[17] The forum also argued that a proposed deadlock mechanism could prevent broad-consensus appointments and instead produce judges with more extreme political identification, and it criticized the coalition's expedited and unilateral process for advancing the proposal.[17]