This is my first law review article published in English, and I am grateful for the opportunity to present a nuanced argument about Israeli law. Although much of the article was written before October 7, I hope it will contribute to ongoing debates over how Hamas defendants should be prosecuted.

The article further argues that, despite its reputation for interventionism, the Israeli Supreme Court may often feel constrained by lack of democratic accountability in national security contexts. It is available here: scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol39/i...

The article incorporates interviews with five key stakeholders, including Supreme Court justices, a Military Advocate General, and defense attorneys. They reveal that the Supreme Court perceives the Courts Martial and the Occupied Territory Courts differently in terms of quality and character.

After reviewing every relevant accessible case over 20 years, the article argues that the Court tends to avoid intervening in cases involving national security, though it is more inclined to engage when the primary issue is not directly tied to national security concerns.