ByYAAKOV KATZ

JULY 10, 2026 13:44

Is Israel moving toward its own January 6 moment? Following events this week, that possibility cannot be dismissed.

On Sunday the government stated outright that it would ignore a decision by the High Court of Justice. The specific case involved allowing the Council of the Second Authority to resume its work and may appear minor. Yet the larger message was unmistakable: the executive branch signaled that it no longer viewed itself as obligated to follow rulings from the nation's highest court.

Wednesday brought another development when Justice Minister Yariv Levin urged defiance of a separate High Court order requiring the Knesset to conduct a fresh vote for State Comptroller. The original vote weeks earlier had been compromised when lawmakers violated secrecy rules by filming their ballots.

Although voiced by a single minister, the statement carries weight. From the moment the coalition took office in January 2023 it has pursued a consistent effort to weaken public confidence in the Supreme Court and the attorney general.

While the coalition ultimately abandoned its broad judicial overhaul plan announced shortly after taking power nearly four years ago, it achieved another outcome: a steady decline in trust toward Israel's judicial institutions and the rule of law.

For nearly four years the public has heard repeated claims that the Supreme Court bears responsibility for national problems, that the attorney general blocks effective governance, and that an alleged deep state hinders Israel's security efforts.

Some of these criticisms resonated. Over the years I have noted in these pages the limited transparency surrounding judicial appointments. I have also observed how legal advisers within ministries sometimes exceed their proper role by shaping policy decisions.

Criticism aimed at improvement differs fundamentally from efforts to dismantle an institution entirely.

Over time the attacks shifted from reform to deflection. When questions arose about drafting haredim into the IDF, blame fell on the courts. When illegal outposts faced demolition, the attorney general became the target. Every challenge found an institutional scapegoat.

This approach favored deflection over accountability.

Viewed against this week's open declarations by ministers and the cabinet that Supreme Court rulings may be disregarded, the pattern reveals a longer campaign. Each accusation and delegitimization effort built toward the current situation.

Deliberate selections

Democracies erode gradually rather than overnight. Citizens must first be persuaded that institutions meant to protect democratic norms, including courts and oversight bodies, lack legitimacy. This process unfolds through sustained criticism.

The Supreme Court has been cast as an adversary to the public. The attorney general has been portrayed as an obstacle to elected leadership.

Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana has declined to recognize Justice Yitzhak Amit as Supreme Court president or extend standard ceremonial invitations. Levin has avoided convening the Judicial Selection Committee to withhold acknowledgment of the court's current composition.

With elections approaching, ministers and the cabinet now openly question whether Supreme Court decisions must be followed.

The specific rulings chosen for challenge are also revealing.

Neither concerned a major national controversy.

One addressed an obscure broadcasting regulator unfamiliar to most citizens. The other involved the State Comptroller vote, which the coalition can frame as judicial overreach even though the original process was tainted by instructions to photograph ballots.

These selections were intentional. Their relative obscurity encourages many to dismiss the defiance as unimportant. Yet the effect is to normalize the notion that court rulings are discretionary rather than obligatory.

This represents another incremental step in weakening a core element of Israeli democracy.

The path forward remains uncertain.

Perhaps the situation stabilizes. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be preserving options to either intensify or moderate the stance.

Future developments need not involve a single dramatic event. They could include measures to suppress Arab voter participation, efforts to question the election committee's credibility, or refusal to accept certified results.

None of these scenarios is certain. Still, after this week's direct challenge to the Supreme Court, they can no longer be ruled out.

January 6 remains a lasting reminder of strain on American democracy. Regardless of political interpretations, it showed that even established democracies can face attempts to bypass constitutional limits when power is at stake.

Israelis have long viewed their democracy as sturdy enough to weather political storms. Durability, however, requires active respect for institutions that limit authority.

After this week that assumption can no longer be automatic.

The writer is a co-founder of the MEAD Forum, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, and former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His latest book (with Amir Bohbot), While Israel Slept, is a bestseller in the United States.