In the 1990s, under the leadership of Chief Justice Barak, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned previous judicial precedents and declared the Basic Laws to be constitutional in nature. With no formal constitution and no effective checks on judicial powers, the court became a hybrid super-legislature.

Barak’s judicial revolution unfolded in three waves. In the 1980s, he diluted the standing rules, allowing NGOs to bring political issues before the court, and ruled that “everything is justiciable.” He also discarded the strict traditional Wednesbury test of reasonableness—used in other common law countries—in favor of a “balancing” test that enabled judges to replace executive decisions with their own preferences under the guise of legal review.

In the 1990s, the court transformed the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty—originally a modest compromise between liberals and conservatives in Israel—into a sweeping quasi-constitution. And in 2024, it reached the apex of its power by annulling a constitutional amendment designed to curtail judicial overreach itself. The Israeli court is now unique in the democratic world in its assertion of the authority to cancel a constitutional amendment, absent any “eternity clauses” in the Israeli Basic Laws.

The real roots of this power imbalance are sociological as much as legal. Since Menachem Begin’s historic electoral victory in 1977, Israel’s traditional Ashkenazi secular elite has gradually lost its political dominance. In response, this liberal, globally connected minority sought to entrench its influence through institutions it continued to control: the courts, academia, the Bank of Israel, and key departments within the civil service.

The security establishment, particularly the Shin Bet (Israel’s equivalent to the FBI) and IDF General Staff, have also become instruments of this unelected power bloc. Time and again, elected governments have been thwarted not by parliamentary opposition, but by hostile bureaucracies and security chiefs willing to challenge their authority on ostensibly legal or professional grounds. The idea that it is vital for democracy for the Shin Bet head to serve as a check on the prime minister echoes the circus America experienced during President Trump’s first term and is just as preposterous. But that is why the elite has embraced Bar—precisely because he runs an agency that operates with vast extra-legal power.

These dynamics were on full display this week, as the Shin Bet director and the attorney general refused to attend a cabinet meeting discussing their own dismissals. Instead, they submitted letters challenging the legitimacy of the elected government. Their open defiance marks a pivotal moment: We are no longer dealing with internal bureaucratic resistance, but with an institutional rebellion.

The judiciary, too, is actively escalating the confrontation. Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit—appointed in open defiance of the current government—has handpicked a judicial panel to rule on the dismissal of Ronen Bar. Research by professor Yair Givati shows how Israeli Supreme Court presidents have long manipulated their power to form judicial panels in order to produce desired rulings. This week’s decision appears no different. The panel includes two out of three justices known for their hyperactivist bent. In Israel, as the saying now goes, the justices shoot the arrow—then draw the target.

Meanwhile, Baharav-Miara has denounced as “politicization” a parliamentary bill that would reform judicial appointments by requiring consensus between the government coalition and the opposition. Yet in virtually every constitutional democracy—including the U.S.—Supreme Court justices are appointed by elected officials.

Israel’s constitutional crisis is not a legal debate. It is a struggle over sovereignty. One side seeks to preserve a system in which unelected elites in robes and uniform dictate national policy. The other side, embodied by the current government, is trying to restore democratic accountability.

The judiciary, emboldened by decades of activist jurisprudence, is now openly resisting any attempt to reform its power. Meanwhile, security agencies, legal advisers, and civil service bureaucrats are acting in lockstep to block the government’s agenda—even at the cost of subverting democratic norms.

This is no longer just Israel’s crisis. As Elon Musk recently warned, the fight against the unelected bureaucratic class—what many now call the deep state—is a global struggle. From Washington to Brussels to Jerusalem, elected governments are being boxed in by entrenched elites who use the language of law, security, and “professionalism” to undermine democratic mandates. What is needed now is not only internal reform, but international solidarity among nations—and citizens—who value representative government over rule by unaccountable institutions. Israel’s struggle is the front line of a wider battle. It is time for those who believe in self-government to form alliances across borders, cultures, and political divides. The alternative is not stability—it is permanent rule by those who were never chosen.