The given article utilizes the empirical and quantitative methods of studying the relationship between the Supreme Court and the High Court Justice (HCJ). In addition, the mentioned study also overviews the latter is in correlation with the political system of Israel. Assaf Meydani uses petitions as a major instrument of his research, where the biggest finding is HCJ, for the most part, is not involved in the government’s work 1 . This indicates that although HCJ has a high potential to have a political influence, it does not engage in them. The biggest problem of the study, as the author himself points out, is the lack of detailed explanations. The author should have pointed out that the creation in Israel of a Constitutional Court would meet the desire to achieve at least the minimum political denominator, which is so lacking in today’s Israel. Moreover, such a court with much greater reason could be called the highest court of justice. This is the main feature of the system adopted in Israel. The High Court of Justice is subject to the principle of a related initiative, that is, in other words, it does not have the right to consider the constitutionality of normative acts, including laws, on its action. The Supreme Court was allowed to consider the degree of the legality of the powers of military censorship. At the same time, the article should also focus on the practice of judicial activism, which is reflected in the growing interference of the Supreme Court in decisions of other state instances, is a powerful stimulating stimulator for filing lawsuits on any issues to the Supreme Court. With minimal costs for filing a lawsuit, there is a real chance to achieve a fairly quick change in the decisions of various government bodies. Currently, various interested forces initiate judicial control of almost any decision of the legislative and executive authorities, around which there is no public consensus 2 . As a result, the Supreme Court can intervene in virtually any decision of the Knesset and the government, which creates a fundamentally new situation. Legislative and executive powers have become a kind of preparatory branch of government whose decisions become final only after they are approved by the judiciary. Lastly, the study needs to address crucial elements of the Israeli system. Despite all the disputes, as well as the ambiguous attitude to the decisions of the Supreme Court and changes in its policy, today, this institution arouses the greatest public confidence. It is especially noticeable against the background of a decrease in the authority of the executive and legislative branches. Public confidence in the institution of the judiciary was manifested in the constant increase in the number of appeals to the Supreme Court. Like any institution of power, the Supreme Court reflects the political culture of society – its norms, dogmas, and prejudices. Today in Israel, the values of democracy are becoming more affirmed due to the fact that the rule of the ruler is replaced by the rule of law. Reference Meydani, Assaf. “The Intervention of the Israeli High Court of Justice in Government Decisions: An Empirical, Quantitative Perspective.” Israel Studies 16, no. 3 (2011): 174-190. Footnotes  1. Assaf Meydani. “The Intervention of the Israeli High Court of Justice in Government Decisions: An Em