The query of whether Israel stands before a constitutional crisis resonated widely through national broadcasts this week.

In truth the tensions have lingered for years, stretching back to the judicial overhaul ideas floated by the 2021 administration and the widespread protests that followed, and even earlier. The push for reform arose for clear reasons.

Israel may not confront a full constitutional breakdown so much as impending elections due no later than October 27. Rival political sides seek rallying points. The Left warns of democracy's demise while the Right highlights a juristocracy that sidelines elected leaders.

This week's flashpoint arose from an unexpected source: rulings tied to the Second Authority for Television and Radio, the body regulating commercial outlets, amid a bid to acquire the modest Channel 13.

Following multiple resignations after a fresh council gained government approval in March, the authority lacked the quorum required to greenlight any acquisition. Officials argue that without sufficient members the body could not lawfully endorse the deal, whose supporters are seen as critical of the Netanyahu administration.

Last month the High Court decided the Second Authority could proceed despite falling short of the ten-member quorum and without input from departing members while reviewing challenges to the new picks.

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin led a Sunday cabinet move declaring the government would disregard actions by the prior council lacking the mandated membership, even after the High Court greenlight.

President Isaac Herzog, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and multiple opposition figures quickly condemned the cabinet stance.

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett, now leading the Together list alongside Yair Lapid, warned that ignoring the court would spark street disorder and state breakdown, adding that change would come soon under one law for all.

Speaking at the Israel Hayom conference, Levin stressed that the Supreme Court stands equal to the Knesset and government, not above them, as the core of democratic balance.

Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs sought to ease tensions on social media, clarifying that the statement offered pointed critique of a ruling clashing with statutory text rather than outright defiance, and that the government would pursue all lawful avenues to overturn it later.

The deeper rift extends far past Channel 13 or the fate of pro-Netanyahu Channel 14, which rivals vow to shutter upon regaining power. It centers on a long-standing question of ultimate authority: courts or elected government.

Since the judicial expansion under former Chief Justice Aharon Barak in the 1990s, debate has intensified while clarity has faded. Barak's view that everything falls under judicial review allowed courts greater scope to nullify Knesset legislation.

Consequently the Supreme Court has weighed in on matters that are fundamentally political. During Barak's tenure the Knesset passed two Basic Laws in 1992 that courts treat as a de facto constitution.

Among the large crowds protesting in early 2023 and chanting for democracy, many opposed government moves to curb the Reasonability Clause, which empowered judges to void laws, appointments or other actions based on subjective notions of reasonableness rather than strict legal grounds.

Israel's adversaries clearly viewed the domestic strife and civil-war rhetoric before the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and ensuing multi-front conflict as signs of weakness. When reservists signal reluctance to serve, that message reaches Tehran as readily as Jerusalem.

The shock of invasion and war fostered unity, yet partisan divides and judicial involvement persisted. Just last week the High Court blocked publication of key sections from the October 7 inquiry by outgoing State Comptroller Matanayahu Englman and mandated a Knesset revote on his successor Michael Rabello after some members documented their ballots despite secrecy rules.

Striking a Balance Between Majority Rule and Minority Protections

It remains both routine and unusual that Israel debates internal politics while still engaged in a war stretching from Iran through Gaza and Lebanon.

Recent coverage centered on Netanyahu's trial. Judges for the second time in three years urged prosecutors to drop the bribery count in Case 4000, the gravest of the three matters facing the prime minister. The case alleges Netanyahu traded regulatory concessions to Shaul Elovitch for favorable Walla website coverage.

Those claims later shifted to assertions of unusually responsive treatment, though clear proof of markedly positive coverage proved elusive.

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara features prominently in current constitutional discussions. While prior governments also floated splitting the attorney-general and state-prosecutor roles, her record supplied fresh arguments. In several instances she pursued action against the government she is tasked to counsel rather than defend it, and she has declined to step down despite evident friction with Netanyahu.

Courts have overturned several of her positions, including recent efforts to block Roman Goffman as Mossad chief and David Zini as Shin Bet head. She also sought to retain Ronen Bar through legal channels after he consented to resign, drawing courts into an unwanted dispute.

Neither agency heads nor courts and the attorney-general are meant to hold final say over such sensitive appointments. The impasse has produced the odd result of Justice Minister Levin withholding recognition of Yitzhak Amit as Supreme Court president.

The resulting gridlock is plain to see, as is the path forward. Governance falters when elected leaders and unelected courts pull in opposite directions. A workable equilibrium must safeguard minority rights while honoring majority decisions. Both political actors and judicial institutions should ease rhetoric and seek common ground.

No administration can operate effectively if courts routinely override its choices, and public trust in the judiciary erodes when rulings appear driven by partisan leanings.

Israel's democracy faces no existential threat, yet neither branch can claim unchecked authority.