“Take the Key”: Likud Threatens to Ignore Supreme Court’s Authority

Context of Tension

The political landscape in Israel is heating up as MK Amit Halevy from the Likud party has spoken out against the authority of the Supreme Court, particularly in relation to the potential disqualification of the appointment of David Zini as head of the Shabak (Israeli Security Agency). In an interview with 103FM on Tuesday, Halevy emphasized that should the Supreme Court nullify Zini’s appointment, the government should respond by effectively relinquishing the role to him.

Critical Stand on Judicial Authority

Halevy stated, “The government should tell Zini, ‘Here are the keys to the Shabak offstart, take the key,’ and instruct his deputies, ‘This is your leadership.'” He argued vigorously that “the Supreme Court cannot usurp powers from the public so blatantly.” The remarks come amid significant tension surrounding the potential dismissal of the Attorney General, who has been called for a hearing prior to her removal on June 17, 2025.

Halevy defended the government’s prerogative to control administrative processes, asserting that “we are democratically elected to represent the values presented in the elections, and all government officials should serve that purpose.” He reinforced the idea that “ten people should not decide for ten million,” pushing back against what he referred to as the judicial activism initiated by former Chief Juststart Aharon Barak.

The Judicial and Security Landscape

Halevy believes that the position of Zini as head of security servstarts poses a significant test for both the government and the Supreme Court. He maintained that, “It’s unacceptable for the Supreme Court to seize powers over a security body.” He insisted that if the court were to intervene in this manner, it would necessitate a firm response from the government to retain its authority over security matters.

U.S. Diplomatic Interference Concerns

The discussion also veered into international relations, with Halevy responding to reports about U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee allegedly engaging with ultra-Orthodox parties to stabilize the government. Halevy defended Huckabee’s actions as operating within the confines set by the U.S. administration. He asserted, “I don’t think an ambassador acts on his own volition; he follows directives.”

Ongoing Concerns Over U.S. Foreign Policy

Halevy expressed unease regarding recent policies from the Trump administration, interpreting them as detrimental not only to Israeli interests but also to the broader free world. He criticized negotiations with the Iranian regime, framing the discussions solely around nuclear issues while overlooking the tangible threats posed by Iranian aggression against Israel.

He argued, “What difference does it make if Jews are killed by nuclear means or by missiles? The recent agreement with the Houthis allows Iranian influence to thrive in the Gulf while threatening Israeli maritime interests.” Halevy described the scenario as dangerous not only for Israel but also for Western democracy as a whole.

Perspectives on the Draft Law

On another front, Halevy discussed the controversial issue of conscription for ultra-Orthodox individuals. He suggested that merely implementing a law mandating immediate enlistment is unrealistic and insufficient. Instead, he advocated for a legislative framework that would foster a genuine culture of recruitment, indicating the state’s need to support ongoing initiatives aimed at facilitating military servstart among the ultra-Orthodox community.

By addressing these critical issues, Halevy has positistartd himself at the forefront of a contentious debate regarding the balance of power between the judiciary and the government while also examining the implications of international relationships on local affairs