No, Israel does not have a written constitution in the sense of a single codified document. Instead, it operates under a set of individually enacted “Basic Laws” that together function as its constitutional framework. Fourteen of these laws have been passed since 1958, covering the structure of government, certain individual rights, and national identity. They were meant to be assembled one day into a unified constitution, but that assembly has never happened.
Why Israel Never Adopted One
Israel’s Declaration of Independence anticipated a constitution and called for a Constituent Assembly to adopt one by October 1948. The deadline passed without agreement. The core obstacle was a deep split between secular and religious factions over the character of the new state. David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister, believed forcing a written constitution into existence would inflame those tensions dangerously. Others argued that with mass immigration ongoing, a constitution written before the population stabilized would not reflect the views of future citizens. Ben-Gurion himself was reportedly reluctant to see executive power constrained by judicial review.
The compromise arrived on June 13, 1950, in the form of the Harari Resolution. Named for Knesset member Yizhar Harari, it directed the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee to build a constitution chapter by chapter, each enacted as a separate Basic Law. Once all chapters were complete, they would be combined into a single constitution. Seven decades on, that final step has never been taken. Basic Laws have instead been passed sporadically, with no agreed-upon endpoint.
What the Basic Laws Cover
The fourteen Basic Laws address most of the subjects a constitution would, though not in one document and not with uniform legal weight:
- The Knesset (1958): establishes a 120-member parliament elected by proportional representation.
- Israel Lands (1960): restricts the transfer of ownership of state-owned land.
- The President of the State (1964): defines the role and election of the president.
- The State Economy (1975): governs taxation, loans, and budget procedures.
- The Military (1976): establishes the Israel Defense Forces and civilian authority over the military.
- Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (1980): declares Jerusalem the capital.
- The Judiciary (1984): sets up the court system and judicial appointments.
- The State Comptroller (1988): creates an independent auditor of government operations.
- Freedom of Occupation (1992, revised 1994): protects the right to engage in any occupation or profession.
- Human Dignity and Liberty (1992): protects life, bodily integrity, personal liberty, privacy, property, and freedom to leave and enter the country.
- The Government (1968, current version 2001): governs the formation of the cabinet and the prime minister’s selection.
- The State Budget (2009): allows multi-year budget cycles.
- Referendum (2014): requires a public vote before ceding sovereign territory.
- Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People (2018): defines national identity, language, and symbols.
How Easily They Can Be Changed
Most Basic Laws can be amended by a simple majority of whichever Knesset members happen to be voting, which makes them far easier to change than constitutional provisions in most democracies. Some contain “entrenchment clauses” requiring a higher threshold. Basic Law: The Knesset, for example, requires a majority of all 120 members to change its electoral-system provision, and 80 members to extend the Knesset’s term.1Government of Israel. Basic Law: The Knesset But those entrenched provisions are the exception. A bare coalition majority of 61 seats can pass or amend most Basic Laws with no special procedure, which is why critics describe the framework as fragile.
How the Basic Laws Became Enforceable Law
For decades, the Basic Laws sat without a clear enforcement mechanism. The turn came with two laws passed in 1992: Human Dignity and Liberty, and Freedom of Occupation. Each contained a “limitations clause” saying rights could be restricted only by a law that fits the values of the state, serves a worthy purpose, and does not go further than necessary.
In 1995 the Supreme Court decided United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal Cooperative Village. The court held that the Knesset acts in two distinct capacities: as an ordinary legislature when passing regular laws, and as a constituent assembly when enacting Basic Laws. Because Basic Laws carry constitutional status, the court declared them supreme over ordinary legislation and asserted its own power to strike down laws that violate them.2Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project. United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal Cooperative Village The ruling, often called the “Constitutional Revolution,” turned the Basic Laws from aspirational statements into enforceable higher law.
Which Rights Are Protected, and Which Aren’t
Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty is the closest thing Israel has to a bill of rights. It protects life, bodily integrity, personal dignity, property, personal liberty, privacy, and freedom of movement. Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation protects the right to work in any trade or profession. These are real, enforceable protections; the Supreme Court has struck down ordinary laws for violating them.
The gaps matter. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to equality are not explicitly guaranteed by any Basic Law. Courts have partially filled the space by reading some of these rights into the concept of “human dignity,” but that interpretive bridge is contested. The absence of an explicit equality guarantee became especially charged after the 2018 passage of Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, makes Hebrew the sole official language while giving Arabic “special status,” and promotes Jewish settlement as a national value.3The Israel Democracy Institute. Nation-State Law Explainer Critics said elevating Jewish national identity to constitutional status without any counterbalancing equality principle sent a message of exclusion to non-Jewish citizens. Supporters argued existing laws and precedents already protect minority rights.
The 1948 Declaration of Independence promises a state “based on freedom, justice and peace” that will “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”4The Avalon Project. Declaration of Israels Independence 1948 The Supreme Court, however, ruled early in Israel’s history that the Declaration is not a binding constitutional document. It operates as a moral reference point for interpretation, not as enforceable law.
The System Under Stress: 2023–2024
The fragility of this framework became front-page news in 2023, when the governing coalition proposed major changes to judicial power: restructuring the committee that selects judges, letting the Knesset override Supreme Court rulings that strike down legislation, and eliminating the “reasonableness standard” the court had long used to review executive decisions. In July 2023 the Knesset passed an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary stripping courts of the reasonableness power. Mass protests followed.
On January 1, 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the amendment in an 8-to-7 decision. It was the first time the court had ever annulled a provision of a Basic Law. A majority of the justices first ruled that the court has authority in principle to review Basic Laws in exceptional cases where the Knesset exceeds its constituent powers, then concluded that eliminating the reasonableness standard inflicted severe harm on the separation of powers and the rule of law.5Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project. Judicial Review – Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. The Knesset6The Israel Democracy Institute. The Supreme Court Ruling on Canceling the Reasonableness Clause – Implications The ruling restored the doctrine but left larger questions open. In March 2025, the Knesset passed a law restructuring the Judicial Selection Committee. The broader confrontation over how much power any coalition majority should have in a system with no entrenched constitution continues.
How This Compares to Other Democracies
Israel is not the only democracy without a single codified constitution, but it belongs to a small group. The United Kingdom relies on a mix of statutes, judicial precedents, and conventions. New Zealand and Canada operate under partially codified systems where constitutional principles sit across multiple documents.
The comparison with the UK is instructive. Both countries lack a single written constitution, but the UK has a bicameral parliament, with the House of Lords acting as a check on the elected majority. Israel’s Knesset is unicameral. A coalition of 61 seats out of 120 can pass virtually any legislation with no second chamber to slow it down. That structural difference explains why the Supreme Court has become the primary check on legislative power in Israel, and why attempts to curb the court’s authority provoke such alarm. Without a written constitution or a second legislative chamber, the court is often the only institution standing between a coalition majority and unchecked power.