Israel’s supreme court just handed Hamas Its biggest victory yet

The Israeli Supreme Court's ruling prohibiting the full disclosure of details regarding the deal with Hamas is not merely a technical decision—it symbolizes a deep failure to understand the essence of democratic sovereignty. National security, as presented by the state, is not necessarily identical to the security of its citizens, yet the conflation of the two allows governing authorities to maintain power regardless of their actual effectiveness in ensuring public safety.

When the state conceals vital information about a deal that directly affects its citizens' fate, it is not acting in their interest but against them. The choice to keep the public in the dark is not a protective measure but a tool of control, serving the state as a bureaucratic entity rather than the citizens, who are supposed to be its central component.

The Government’s Failure and the Supreme Court as a Collaborator

In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on the statements of the state’s respondents—officials who had already failed disastrously in managing security and preventing terror attacks. Can these same authorities, proven incapable of protecting their citizens, be trusted to determine exclusively what constitutes "national security"? Moreover, by continuing to place blind trust in the government and security establishment—rather than critically examining their decisions—the Supreme Court perpetuates the failure instead of correcting it.

In doing so, the Court reinforces the state’s monopoly on information, even when it is clear that this monopoly has led to disastrous decisions. Why does the Supreme Court insist on the government’s exclusive control over classified information, even after it has been shown that the government abandoned its citizens? The reason is simple: the judiciary has a vested interest in preserving state power, as its own authority, salaries, and influence depend on the state’s stability rather than the well-being of the public.

The Court’s Avoidance of Addressing "National Security"—A Suspicious Shift in Approach

One of the striking aspects of this ruling is the Supreme Court’s refusal to directly assess whether releasing the deal’s details truly compromises national security. In the past, the Court has frequently ruled on security matters, determining what constitutes a risk to the state. Now, suddenly, it refuses to engage with the issue and dismisses the petition without examining which sections of the deal pose a security threat.

The obvious question is: Why has the Court suddenly become "unqualified" to discuss security matters? If it has ruled on such issues hundreds of times before, what has changed now? Is this a submission to government pressure, or an institutional interest in avoiding scrutiny of the system itself?

Financing and Strengthening Hamas—How the Israeli Government and Supreme Court Enable It

If Hamas is a declared enemy of Israel as is by the court, why does the Supreme Court allow Netanyahu’s government to continue supplying it with resources, sustaining and funding it? Section 99(a) of Israel’s Penal Code deals with aiding an enemy during wartime—shouldn’t this be a legitimate legal concern?

It appears that the Court prefers to avoid holding the government accountable for its actions, as judicial power depends on the institutional structure of the state, rather than on the well-being of its citizens. If the judges effectively enable the continued indirect support of Hamas, are they not failing in their duty as guardians of the law? And if so, does the Supreme Court itself become part of the apparatus assisting the enemy?

Do Those in Authority Truly Possess the Necessary Knowledge?

The state and security establishment often assert: "We know what’s best for Israel’s security." But if these are the same entities that have repeatedly failed in past agreements with Hamas? This claim is based on power rather than facts. If citizens are not allowed to examine the information, how can they challenge government decisions? One cannot demand blind trust from those who have suffered the consequences of repeated failures.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is yet another step in consolidating power within the state at the expense of its citizens. In the name of "national security," the government continues to make fateful decisions without allowing public oversight or real accountability.

The Supreme Court, which has often acted as a defender of rights, has now chosen to be a partner in concealment rather than an agent of justice. Citizens are not just victims of failed decisions—they are entirely excluded from influencing policies that shape their future.

A free society cannot exist where critical information is hidden from the public. If the government claims that publishing the deal’s details would endanger national security, it must prove it—not hide behind vague and ambiguous rulings.