Yotan Eyal is a lawyer who heads the Legal Forum for Israel.
The State of Israel is at war. IDF soldiers risk their lives on Israel’s borders, eliminating terrorists who seek to murder us and our families. At the very same time, while the hearts of Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide are with our soldiers and with the hostages held by Hamas, the Supreme Court repeatedly chooses to deliberate on the conditions of Nukhba terrorists.
Sadly, this conduct no longer surprises anyone who follows the developments within Israel’s judicial system. It represents a significant part of the struggle for control of Israel and Israel’s future, waged by the extremist minority that maintains control of the judiciary, as their primary lever against Israel’s identity as a Jewish state — a state where Jews can live as Jews, in safety. It manifests in almost every issue the Supreme court chooses to rule on, one might think they choose to rule mainly on matters that relate to this issue.
Today, the Supreme Court is severely understaffed. Due to major disagreements between the justices and Minister of Justice Yariv Levin regarding new appointments, no new justices have been confirmed. A court that should have 15 sitting justices now functions with only 11, soon to be 10. This reality clearly hampers the Court’s capacity. Justice Yitzhak Amit, for example, recently delayed the government’s urgent request to hear a crucial case on its authority to appoint a Civil Service Commissioner, postponing the hearing for two months. In the meantime, key state positions cannot be filled, leaving the government unable to function effectively in vital areas.
But is the lack of manpower truly the reason for these delays, or is it the justices’ selective choice of priorities?
A review of recent dockets shows that nearly 90% of the cases heard by the High Court of Justice concern the rights of terrorists — petitions that should not be in the Supreme Court at all.
Anti-Israeli organizations bring cases on issues such as whether Nukhba terrorists will receive fruit or sausages in their meals, and the Court treats them as though they are matters of national importance.
Just last week, the Court heard a petition regarding the Red Cross’s desire to visit imprisoned Nukhba terrorists. This is not a matter for the Court at all; it is a political and diplomatic issue. Yet the justices chose to hear the case, and their comments reveal much about their worldview.
It should be stated clearly: Israel has no legal obligation to allow Red Cross visits to Nukhba terrorists. Hamas is not a state but a murderous terror organization, and it does not allow Red Cross access to the Israeli hostages it holds. With no reciprocity, Israel is under no obligation. Moreover, as the State correctly argued, allowing such visits would undermine Israel’s leverage in hostage negotiations — an issue that should be obvious to anyone with a minimum of common sense.
And yet, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez expressed “concern” for the families of the terrorists, saying it was unacceptable for them not to know the condition of their relatives, and therefore Israel should allow visits and provide updates. Such a statement reflects a deeply distorted moral compass — prioritizing the comfort of terrorists’ families over the lives of Israeli hostages.
Justice Amit went further, claiming that denying Red Cross visits would make Israel “look like Guantanamo.” This is a shocking statement, demonstrating that the justices are weighing foreign policy considerations, with no connection to their purview, the law itself.
The fact that the acting Chief Justice — a justice who appointed himself to the role, not chosen by the public — is using foreign policy arguments instead of legal principles shows clearly that the Supreme Court no longer views itself as bound by law. Rather, it acts as if it were a sovereign political authority, imposing its own preferences in Israel’s most critical issues.
At a time when Israel is fighting to defeat Hamas and bring its hostages home, it must simultaneously contend with a judiciary that prioritizes terrorists over citizens. This is profoundly destructive, and it underscores the urgent need for justices who understand their role, who are committed to the State and to the law.
If the Court truly wished to serve the country, it would dismiss petitions on terrorist conditions outright and allocate its time to cases of real national significance. But for the Supreme Court, this distortion is not a bug — it is a feature.
By choosing to spend its time on terrorists’ petitions, the Court not only sends a warped moral message that legitimizes the Nukhba, it also “overloads” its own schedule. This provides a convenient excuse to delay hearings on matters vital to the government and the state — such as the appointment of a Civil Service Commissioner or a Shin Bet director — which have left Israel without people in essential leadership positions for over a year.