The study analyzed judicial decisions in order to clarify the concept of equality applied by the judges and also examined the extent to which the judges have been active in promoting the concept of equality. The study hypothesized that each judge would have an identifiable approach to issues of group discrimination and equality, but that there would be a common denominator in their individual decisions that would characterize the jurisprudence of the Court. Before analyzing the role of the judges in formulating concepts of equality for Israel and the constitutional significance of this role, the paper briefly describes the development of equality as a changing axiom of political justice and the legal concepts of equality engineered to implement the change. The study findings show that an overwhelming majority of the Court has emphasized the importance of preventing group discrimination, with only one of the seven judges profiled in the study exhibiting dialectic opposition to judicial intervention toward this end. Equality decisions have been almost consistently decided in favor of the equality petitioners. This outcome, however, has not rested on common perspectives of the individual judges but rather on the varied social philosophies of the individual judges. There is a strong indication that these individual social philosophies vary according to the group to which the judge belongs. There is little evidence of operative activism by the judges when activism is defined as a clear departure from the framework of statutory policy. Almost all of the court's decision were under the umbrella of express statutory policy. 198 notes