Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has stated that he would resign if the judicial reform bill is blocked, urging that the government should not be forced into a stalemate that could destabilize governance. He implied that his support for the coalition would continue from outside parliament if necessary, signaling a willingness to influence policy beyond the cabinet rather than withdraw his backing outright.
Ben-Gvir also conveyed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his allegiance to the coalition would endure even if he chose not to hold a formal cabinet seat. His stance reflects a broader strategy of leveraging political leverage from outside the executive branch to shape the reform agenda while maintaining party discipline within the coalition.
Former Israeli president Reuven (Yitzhak) Herzog urged an immediate halt to the judicial overhaul to prevent long-term damage to the country27s unity and social fabric. Herzog warned that continued confrontation could fracture public trust and provoke deeper societal divisions, stressing the need for dialogue and measured steps to resolve the impasse responsibly.
Prime Minister Netanyahu reaffirmed the government27s commitment to the reform initiative while calling on coalition partners to refrain from provocative actions. He also asked demonstrators to maintain nonviolence and responsible conduct, emphasizing that peaceful, law-abiding protest is essential for a healthy political process and for keeping channels open for negotiations.
On the morning of March 27, a parliamentary committee cleared the first component of the judicial reform for its final readings. Debates intensified as lawmakers prepared to debate the package on the chamber floor, with supporters arguing that changes were needed to restore balance among the branches of government while opponents warned of eroding checks and balances and the potential impact on civil liberties.
Public demonstrations across Israel continued to mobilize large numbers, with turnout on March 26 reaching well over 600,000 participants. This figure represented more than six percent of the population, underscoring the scale of concern about the reform. Proponents of the changes argued that the reform would recalibrate the judiciary to reflect parliamentary sovereignty, while opponents cautioned that concentrated power could weaken judicial independence and erode democratic norms. As the reform process advanced, organizers urged restraint and encouraged constructive dialogue in order to prevent escalation and to preserve social cohesion while the policy debate proceeds.