AUTHOR=Sommer Udi , Colson Rachel , Schmidt Nathaniel 

TITLE=Reconceptualizing the 1990s judicial revolution in Israel and its implications for 2023–25

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Political Science

VOLUME=Volume 7 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1535824

DOI=10.3389/fpos.2025.1535824

ISSN=2673-3145

ABSTRACT=The proposed judicial reform of 2023 is often framed as a countermovement to the judicial revolution of the 1990s. In this narrative, Chief Justice Aharon Barak, along with other Supreme Court justices, led a top-down transformation that established the court as a dominant institution, driven by the ambition—and perhaps the ego—of those on the judicial bench. If this interpretation were accurate, the 2023 reform could be viewed as a legitimate and necessary step to restore popular sovereignty and counter what might be seen as an overreach of judicial power. We reject this account and argue that the key to understanding these developments lies in the enduring tension between the Jewish and democratic components of Israel’s identity, a conflict evident as early as the Proclamation of Independence. Instead, we argue and empirically demonstrate how the changes of the 1990s were less about judicial ambition and more about the local response to a global shift triggered by the end of the Cold War. During this period, Israelis—across political elites and the broader public—sought alignment with the Cold War victors: Western liberal democracies. This alignment motivated a broad push to enhance the democratic dimensions of the nation’s identity, often at the expense of its Jewish elements. Drawing on extensive empirical evidence, including legislative committee debates, political speeches, and patterns of ratifications of international treaties by the Knesset, we demonstrate that this shift was not the product of judicial machinations but rather a reflection of the era’s historical and global dynamics. Framing the changes of the 1990s in this light fundamentally alters our understanding of the 2023 judicial reform. It challenges the popular—and often populist—narrative justifying the reform and reveals it as a response to a much deeper historical process rather than a simple correction of judicial overreach.