Rulings

1. ZOA
2. ZOA Coalition

- V. -

1. AZM Board
2. American Zionist movement

by Attorney Yaron Herman and/or Rimon Gan-Ad Mia et al.
of Goldfarb Gross Seligman & Co.
Azrieli Center, Round Tower, Tel Aviv-Yafo, 6701101
Tel: 03-6074444; Fax: 03-6074422
Email: Yaron.herman@goldfarb.com

ZOA, Zionist Organization of America, filed a petition requesting that the process of selecting 11 judges to the Tribunal of the American Zionist Movement held at the Executive Meeting on March 23, 2026 be cancelled, and also to order that the ZOA's candidate, Attorney Lauri Regan, be brought to a vote at the regular meeting for 2027.

The petition was denied.
The Respondent offered the Petitioner a reasonable summary to resolve the dispute and the Petitioner rejected this offer and insisted on holding the hearing. Consequently, the Respondent was forced to incur representation costs. The Respondent's attorney requested that costs be imposed. The Court granted the request.

1. Presidium of the Zionist General Council
   by Attorney Amir Leon and/or Maor Harosh et al.

V.

1. Eretz Hakodesh in the World Zionist Organization
   by Attorney Eliyahu Kaplan and/or from the Office Kaplan et al.
2. Eretz Israel Faction in the World Zionist Organization
   by Attorney Nathaniel Rosenstein
3. Arzenu
4. Aish Ha'am Tikvah Chadasha
5. Beitnu Olami
6. Likud in the National Institutions
7. Social Zionism
8. Blue and White
9. Merkaz
10. Meretz UPZ
11. Etz-Herut
12. Liberal Center Movement

The Court rejected the request:

1. There is the essential importance of holding a physical and face-to-face debate when voting on changes to the Constitution as we have previously determined (see ruling in case 0001/2024);
2. By its very nature, the Constitution is a rigid document that can only be amended after in-depth debate;
3. The Constitution has been amended by the Congress and the Zionist General Council over the years. The drafters of the Constitution were aware of the possibility of holding debates in alternative ways, and even the Constitution refers to non-face-to-face debates. Despite this, with regard to changing the Constitution, they chose to require an explicit face-to-face debate;
4. The fact that the issue of expanding the executive was not discussed at the recent 39th Zionist Congress weakens the claim of urgency that justifies a deviation from the basic provisions;
5. We believe that holding a virtual conference for this purpose constitutes a preference for political interests over constitutional principles.

The Eretz Hakodesh Movement in the Zionist Congress
by Attorney Eliyahu Kaplan et al.

Plaintiffs

- V. -

1. The Presidium of the Zionist General Council
2. The Zionist General Council
   By Attorney Amir Leon et al. from the Balter, Gut, Aloni & Co. Law Firm

Respondents

1. World Organization of Synagogues and Orthodox Communities
2. Chairman of the Constitution Committee of the Zionist General Council Adv. Gadi Perl
3. Arzenu
4. The Liberal Center Movement - Hanoar HaTzioni
5. Labor
6. Yesh Atid
7. Blue and White
8. Kol Israel
9. World Merkaz
10. Meretz
    3-10 by Attorney Uri Haberman et al.
    From the firm of Sharkon, Ben Ami, Asher & Co. – Law Firm
11. World Shas Faction in the Zionist Congress
12. Over the Rainbow Faction in the Zionist Organization
13. The World Likud faction
    by Attorney Nerya Meir

Submitted a response

Following cases 004/2024 and 009/2024 and the respondents' appeal to the District Court in hearing in Tel Aviv 46340-08-24, the District Court (Honorable Justice Oded Gordon) returned the dispute to the Zionist Supreme  Court.

At the hearing held at the Supreme Zionist Court, the Court made a proposal and requested the Zionist General Council's announcement on the matter.

1. The Eretz Yisrael faction in the Zionist Congress
   by Attorney Eliyahu Kaplan and/or his associates from Kaplan & Co. Law Firm 

-V.-

1. The Zionist Congress
2. Presidium of the Zionist Congress
3. the Zionist Executive
4. Yesh Atid Meretz Artzenu alliance
5. Mizrahi faction
6. Likud faction in the national institutions
7. Etz Alliance the Herut Alliance
8. Eretz Hakodesh faction
9. Merkaz Olami faction
10. World Shas faction
11. World Lavi faction, the National Union faction,
12. Beitenu Olami faction
13. World Am Yisrael faction
14. Hanoar Hatzioni faction
15. Social Zionism faction
16. Blue and White faction
17. True Likud faction
18. Land of Israel faction
19. Tikva Chadasha faction, the Fire of the People faction
20. Kol Yisrael faction
21. World Likud faction
22. Mr. Yaakov Hagoel
23. Ms. Yifat Ovadia Lusky
    by Attorney Raz Nizri; Attorney Avinoam Segal-Elad; Attorney Nadim Aboud from the Piron Law Firm

The Eretz Yisrael faction appealed against its exclusion from the Zionist Executive. After a hearing was held and the petitioner's attorney heard the court's comments, and consulted with his client, he announced his withdrawal from the appeal. The court ordered the petition to be struck out.

1. Eretz Hakodesh faction
2. Shas faction
3. Mizrahi Olami faction
4. Am Yisrael faction
5. Likud faction in national institutions
6. Religious Zionism faction

- V. -

1. Gil Segal
2. Yakov Haguel
3. World Zionist Organization
4. Presidium of the Congress
5. Permanent Committee of the Congress
   By B"K Attorney Raz Nizri; Attorney Avinoam Segal-Elad; Attorney Nadim Aboud
   of the Piron Law Firm

The Likud faction in the national institutions and others filed a motion for an injunction to prevent a vote from being held at the Zionist Congress for approval of the Zionist Executive.
In addition, the petitioners demanded that the court order the Standing Committee to prepare a new resolution that would pass by broad consensus. The petition was filed after the opening of the vote.
In its interim decision, the court ruled that once the vote had begun, it could not be stopped. However, it ordered that the votes not be counted until a hearing was held and a judgment was issued.

In its final judgment, the Court held that the petitioners’ claim that there exists a binding custom requiring a wall-to-wall coalition agreement should be rejected. Such a custom was not formalized and is not binding.
The petitioners’ claim of a “fait accompli” (procedural ambush) and of a defect going to the root of the process was also rejected. The Court ruled that despite the short time frame between the setting of the vote and the opening of the voting, this did not amount to a defect justifying judicial intervention or requiring the holding of a new vote.
The tribunal permitted the publication of the voting results.

Chairman of the Central Elections Committee requests the response of the WZO executive to the applicant’s allegations