Adv. Yitzchak Lax addressed the Supreme Court’s increasing invention of laws, warning that its decision to halt the State Comptroller’s probe of the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre risks the lives of Israelis and the Court will ultimately bear responsibility for bloodshed.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to halt, in mid-course, the State Comptroller’s examinations regarding the events of October 7 and the war is not just another controversial judicial ruling,” Lax began.

“It is an extreme, unprecedented, and irresponsible move that places the Supreme Court in a position where it is not only interpreting the law but rewriting it—narrowing an explicit Basic Law and, in practice, endangering public safety and the lives of citizens. This is an example of authority exercised with zero assumption of responsibility for the lives of Israel’s residents.

“The State Comptroller is not a political body nor a criminal investigative commission. Its historical and legal role is to identify systemic failures in real time, issue warnings, regulate procedures, and prevent the next disaster. It is a first-rate civilian defense body. When the Supreme Court paralyzes it, it does not protect democracy—it weakens it, abandons the public, and endangers our lives.

“The danger is not theoretical. It is tangible, daily, and present at every point in the country at which mass events take place or where there is a sensitive security reality.

“Imagine a nature rave taking place tomorrow in Shoham Park. Who authorizes it? Who ensures security preparations are complete? Is there a clear procedure for coordination between the police, the army, and the local authority? Who receives real-time reports? These are not academic questions—these are precisely the questions that the State Comptroller probe is meant to ask now, in the aftermath of the Nova disaster.

“The same applies to yishuvim near the security fence. Bat Hefer, for example, lies a stone’s throw from Tulkarm. Any failure in coordination or any lack in procedures or preparations can turn into a bloodbath within minutes. Without a comptroller’s report there are no regulations. Without regulations, there is improvisation. And in Israel, security improvisation means casualties. Look what happened to us on October 7.

“‘The Basic Law: The State Comptroller’ is clear and unequivocal. Section 2 states, ‘The Comptroller shall examine the legality of actions, propriety, efficiency, economy, and any other matter he deems necessary.” This is a deliberately broad authority. The legislature sought an independent, proactive body—not dependent on the will of the body being reviewed and not waiting for anyone’s approval—certainly one that can examine matters large and small, as was done only recently in the classified report regarding the Iranian threat.

“Yet in the recent ruling, the Supreme Court chose to undermine this principle. It invented new exceptions that are not written in the law: policy, strategy, broad fact-finding, and personal responsibility. All of these were effectively removed from the scope of the probe—not through legislative amendment but through judicial orders. This is restrictive judicial legislation that harms the core of a Basic Law. Moreover, the Supreme Court did all this without even seeing a single draft of the reports, without addressing the fact that hundreds of testimonies were collected, the conclusions of which would undoubtedly save lives.

“The severity is compounded by the fact that the Court itself said the exact opposite only a few months earlier. In April 2025, the Supreme Court sat in a panel on this very issue that included Deputy President Solberg and Justices Mintz and Willner. At that time, arguments were raised such as ‘It is impossible to investigate during wartime,’ that ‘the oversight process could harm the findings of a state commission of inquiry,’ and that ‘it would impair the ability of security bodies to defend themselves against criticism.’

“The Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It struck down the petition, lifted the interim injunction, and allowed the Comptroller to continue the review. Moreover, it accepted the Comptroller’s position that blocking the oversight would mean subordinating the reviewing body to the body being reviewed, in direct violation of the Basic Law.

“Nothing has changed since then until the interim order issued on Wednesday. The law hasn’t changed, nor has a state commission of inquiry been established. What has changed? The identity of the petitioners, the identity of those being scrutinized, and the Supreme Court’s—under Justice Yitzchak Amit—obsession with taking yet another step to amass power and become Israel’s ultimate legislator and final arbiter.

“On December 31, 2025, in a panel including Justices Barak-Erez, Mintz, and Stein, the Supreme Court issued orders blocking the probe, prohibiting the summoning of witnesses, demands for documents, and the publication of draft reports. This is a sharp reversal, not a gradual development. Such a reversal, in the absence of any normative or factual change, is a severe blow to judicial certainty and to public trust, which in any case is steadily eroding in the judiciary as a whole.

“This must be said openly: even judges perceived as ‘conservative’ are now participating in a new, restrictive interpretation of a Basic Law. When even judicial conservatism disappears at critical moments, there are no longer any internal checks. The Court becomes a unified block of power, expanding its authority at the expense of the other branches. It is no coincidence that some have used—and rightly so—the word ‘bulldozing.’

“It is also difficult to ignore the practical outcome. The decision effectively protects the most senior leadership, and especially former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi. Instead of broad, transparent, life-saving systemic oversight, we are getting delay, ambiguity, and postponement. The public pays—and unfortunately will continue to pay—the price. Thus, for example, reports in which Herzi Halevi’s name is mentioned must cease to be addressed, while a report dealing with the security and political cabinet and concerning the functioning of the government may continue.

“The Supreme Court cannot have it both ways—in April 2025, to recognize the Comptroller’s authority and welcome it—and in December to empty it of content. It cannot claim to protect the rule of law while simultaneously narrowing a Basic Law without authorization. Judicial stability is not a luxury—it is a basic condition for a functioning democracy.

“When the Supreme Court paralyzes the only civilian oversight body capable of operating in real time, it does not merely exceed its authority—it bears responsibility—responsibility for failures that will not be corrected, for incidents that will not be prevented, for the next disaster that could have been avoided, and, tragically, for the blood that may be shed as a result.”

In his official response to the Supreme Court ruling, State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman expressed similar concerns, saying, “Without publication of the audits to the public, failings will not be corrected—including failings whose correction could save lives.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)