Uncategorized
‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests
(JTA) — When Benjamin Netanyahu put his controversial calls for judicial reform on pause two weeks ago, many thought the protesters in Israel and abroad might declare victory and take a break. And yet a week ago Saturday some 200,000 people demonstrated in Tel Aviv, and pro-democracy protests continued among Diaspora Jews and Israeli expats, including those who gather each Sunday in New York’s Washington Square Park.
On its face, the weeks of protest have been about proposed legislation that critics said would sap power from the Israeli Supreme Court and give legislators — in this case, led by Netanyahu’s recently elected far-right coalition — unchecked and unprecedented power. Protesters said that, in the absence of an Israeli constitution establishing basic rights and norms, they were fighting for democracy. The government too says the changes are about democracy, claiming under the current system unelected judges too often overrule elected lawmakers and the will of Israel’s diverse electorate.
But the political dynamics in Israel are complex, and the proposals and the backlash are also about deeper cracks in Israeli society. Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, recently said in a podcast that the crisis in Israel represents “six linked but separate stories unfolding at the same time.” Beyond the judicial reform itself, these stories include the Palestinians and the occupation, a resurgent patriotism among the center and the left, chaos within Netanyahu’s camp, a Diaspora emboldened to weigh in on the future of Zionism and the rejection on the part of the public of a reform that failed the “reasonableness test.”
“If these protests are effective in the long run, it will be, I think, because they will have succeeded at reorganizing and mobilizing the Israeli electorate to think and behave differently than before,” said Kurtzer.
I recently asked observers, here and in Israel, what they feel is really mobilizing the electorate, and what kind of Israel will emerge as a result of the showdown. The respondents included organizers of the protests, supporters of their aims and those skeptical of the protesters’ motivations. They discussed a slew of issues just below the surface of the protest, including the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, divisions over the increasing strength of Israel’s haredi Orthodox sector, and a lingering divide between Ashkenazi Jews with roots in Europe and Mizrahi Jews whose ancestry is Middle Eastern and North African.
Conservatives, meanwhile, insist that Israeli “elites” — the highly educated, the tech sector, the military leadership, for starters — don’t respect the will of the majority who brought Netanyahu and his coalition partners to power.
Here are the emerging themes of weeks of protest:
Defending democracy
Whatever their long-term concerns about Israel’s future, the protests are being held under the banner of “democracy.”
For Alon-Lee Green, one of the organizers of the protests, the issues are equality and fairness. “People in Israel,” said Green, national co-director of Standing Together, a grassroots movement in Israel, “hundreds of thousands of them, are going out to the streets for months now not only because of the judicial reform, but also — and mainly — because of the fundamental question of what is the society we want to live in: Will we keep living in a society that is unequal, unfair and that is moving away from our basic needs and desires, or will it be an equal society for everyone who lives in our land?”
Shany Granot-Lubaton, who has been organizing pro-democracy rallies among Israelis living in New York City, says Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and the coalition’s haredi Orthodox parties “are waging a war against democracy and the freedoms of citizens.”
“They seek to exert control over the Knesset and the judicial system, appoint judges in their favor and legalize corruption,” she said. “If this legal coup is allowed to proceed, minorities will be in serious danger, and democracy itself will be threatened.”
Two researchers at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Herzliya’s Reichman University, psychology student Benjamin Amram and research associate Keren L.G. Snider, said Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reform “undermines the integrity of Israel’s democracy by consolidating power.”
“How can citizens trust a government that ultimately has no limitations set upon them?” they asked in a joint email. “At a time when political trust and political representation are at the lowest points, this legislation can only create instability and call into question the intentions of the current ruling party. When one coalition holds all the power, laws and policies can be swiftly overturned, causing instability and volatility.”
A struggle between two Israels
Other commentators said the protests revealed fractures within Israeli society that long predated the conflict over judicial reform. “The split is between those that believe Israel should be a more religious country, with less democracy, and see democracy as only a system of elections and not a set of values, and those who want Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state,” Tzipi Livni, who served in the cabinets of right-wing prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert before tacking to the center in recent years, recently told Haaretz.
Author and translator David Hazony called this “a struggle between two Israels” — one that sees Israel’s founding vision as a European-style, rights-based democracy, and the other that sees that vision as the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland.
“Those on the first side believe that the judiciary has always been Israel’s protector of rights and therefore of democracy, against the rapaciousness and lawlessness of politicians in general and especially those on the right. Therefore an assault on its supremacy is an assault on democracy itself. They accuse the other side of being barbaric, antidemocratic and violent,” said Hazony, editor of the forthcoming anthology “Jewish Priorities.”
As for the other side, he said, they see an activist judiciary as an attempt by Ashkenazi elites to force their minority view on the majority. Supporters of the government think it is entirely unreasonable “for judges to think they can choose their successors, strike down constitutional legislation and rule according to ‘that which is reasonable in the eyes of the enlightened community in Israel,’” said Hazony, quoting Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and bane of Israel’s right.
(Naveh Dromi, a right-wing columnist for Yediot Achronot, puts this more bluntly: “The problem,” she writes, “lies in the fact that the left has no faith in its chance to win an election, so it relies on the high court to represent it.”)
Daniel Tauber, an attorney and Likud Central Committee member, agrees that those who voted for Netanyahu and his coalition have their own concerns about a democracy — one dominated by “elites,” which in the Israeli context means old-guard Ashkenazi Jews, powerful labor unions and highly educated secular Jews. “The more this process is subject to veto by non-democratic institutions, whether it be the Court chosen as it is, elite military units, the Histadrut [labor union], or others, the more people will lose faith in democracy,” said Tauber.
Green also said there is “a war waging now between two elites in Israel” — the “old and more established liberal elite, who consist of the financial, high-tech army and industry people,” and the “new emerging elite of the settlers and the political far-right parties.”
Israelis protest against the government’s planned judicial overhaul, outside the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, March 27, 2023. (Jamal Awad/Flash90)
And yet, he said, “I think we will lose if one of these elites wins. The real victory of this historic political moment in Israel will be if we achieve true equality, both to the people who are not represented by the Jewish supremacists, such as the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to the people who are not represented by the ‘old Israel,’ such as the haredi and Mizrahi people on the peripheries.”
The crises behind the crisis
Although the protests were ignited by Netanyahu’s calls for judicial reform, they also represented pushback against the most right-wing government in Israeli history — which means at some level the protests were also about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of religion in Israeli society. “The unspoken motivation driving the architects and supporters of the [judicial] ‘reform,’ as well as the protest leaders, is umbilically connected to the occupation,” writes Carolina Landsmann, a Haaretz columnist. If Netanyahu has his way, she writes, “There will be no more two-state solution, and there will be no territorial compromises. The new diplomatic horizon will be a single state, with the Palestinians as subjects deprived of citizenship.”
Nimrod Novik, the Israel Fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, said that “once awakened, the simmering resentment of those liberal Israelis about other issues was brought to the surface.” The Palestinian issue, for example, is at an “explosive moment,” said Novik: The Palestinian Authority is weakened and ineffective, Palestinian youth lack hope for a better future, and Israeli settlers feel emboldened by supporters in the ruling coalition. “The Israeli security establishment took this all into account when warning the government to change course before it is too late,” said Novik.
Kurtzer too noted that the Palestinians “also stand to be extremely victimized following the passage of judicial reform, both in Israel and in the West Bank.” And yet, he said, most Israelis aren’t ready to upend the current status quo between Israelis and Palestinians. “It can also be true that the Israeli public can only build the kind of coalition that it’s building right now because it is patently not a referendum on the issue of Palestinian rights,” he said.
Religion and state
Novik spoke about another barely subterranean theme of the protests: the growing power of the haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, parties. Secular Israelis especially resent that the haredim disproportionately seek exemption from military service and that non-haredi Israelis contribute some 90% of all taxes collected. One fear of those opposing the judicial reform legislation is that the religious parties will “forever secure state funding to the haredi Orthodox school system while exempting it from teaching the subjects required for ever joining the workforce. It is to secure for them an exemption from any military or other national service. And it is to expand the imposition of their lifestyle on non-Orthodox Israelis.”
What’s next
Predictions for the future range from warnings of a civil war (by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, among others) to an eventual compromise on Netanyahu’s part to the emergence of a new center electorate that will reject extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
David E. Bernstein, a law professor at the George Mason University School of Law who writes frequently about Israel, imagines a future without extremists. “One can definitely easily imagine the business, academic and legal elite using their newfound political voice to insist that future governments not align with extremists, that haredi authority over national life be limited, and, perhaps most important, that Israel create a formal constitution that protects certain basic rights,” he said. “Perhaps there will also be demand to counter such long-festering problems as corruption, disproportionate influence over export markets by a few influential families, burgeoning lawlessness in the Arab sector and a massive shortage of affordable housing.”
Elie Bennett, director of International Strategy at the Israel Democracy Institute, also sees an opportunity in the crisis.
In the aftermath of the disastrous 1973 Yom Kippur war, he said, Israel “rebuilt its military and eventually laid the foundations for today’s ‘startup nation.’ In this current crisis, we do not need a call-up of our reserves forces, or a massive airlift of American weaponry to prevail. What we need is goodwill among fellow Israelis and a commitment to work together to strengthen our society and reach an agreed-upon constitutional framework. If we are able to achieve such an agreement, it will protect our rights, better define the relationships between the branches of government, and result in an Israel that is more stable and prosperous than ever as we celebrate 75 years of independence.”
—
The post ‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel Prepares for ‘Extreme Scenario’ With Iran, Warns Regime Will Face ‘Unimaginable’ Response if Tehran Strikes
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference in Jerusalem, Sept. 2, 2024. Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/Pool via REUTERS
Amid escalating regional tensions, Israel has warned Iran that any attempt to attack the Jewish state will be met with an “unimaginable” response, attempting to deter Tehran while preparing for an “extreme scenario” in which the Iranian regime strikes the Israeli homeland with an unprecedented level of force.
“Extremist forces refuse to lay down their arms and are regrouping to confront us once more … We are ready and remain on high alert to defend ourselves against any threat,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a speech at the graduation ceremony of the 74th Combat Officers Course of the 1st Airborne Division on Thursday.
“We are coordinating closely with our key ally, the United States. One thing is certain: If the ayatollahs [Iranian leaders] make the mistake of attacking us, they will face a response they can’ even imagine,” the Israeli leader continued. “We are prepared to fight to safeguard our security.”
According to Hebrew media reports, Israeli officials have been on high alert in recent weeks over what they describe as an “extreme Iranian scenario,” amid concerns about a potential surprise attack involving hypersonic missiles, drone swarms, and covert operatives targeting critical infrastructure and key air bases.
Under this scenario, Tehran could launch a coordinated, multi-front attack targeting Israeli Air Force bases, military headquarters, power and water infrastructure, fuel depots, major transport routes, and airports, with the goal of paralyzing the Israel Defense Forces’ air defenses, degrading strike capabilities, and disrupting reserve mobilization.
Israel’s main concern is that a sudden, concentrated barrage of Iranian weapons could overwhelm its air defense system, potentially forcing the IDF to focus on protecting key strategic sites while leaving population centers more exposed, according to Israeli news outlet Walla.
However, Israel has also seen increased backing from the US, which has expanded its military presence in the Persian Gulf and across the Middle East with additional air defense batteries and advanced radar systems.
Amid reports that nuclear talks between the US and Iran have yet to produce any meaningful results, large numbers of US forces are deploying to the region, signaling heightened tensions and the potential for renewed conflict.
According to military news site The War Zone, a significant fleet of fighter, surveillance, and intelligence aircraft have been sent to the Gulf, marking the fastest deployment pace seen in the past month.
At least a dozen F-22 fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia and F-16s from bases in Italy, Germany, and South Carolina have been deployed to the region.
Meanwhile, F-35 jets from the United Kingdom are now headed to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan — a recent hub of US air operations — while a dozen US Navy warships are also active in the area.
Amid mounting regional tensions, Washington could launch military strikes on Iran as soon as Saturday, CBS News reported.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump warned that Iran must reach a “meaningful deal” in its negotiations with the White House within the next 10 days, or “bad things will happen.”
In the case of renewed conflict, US and Israeli officials reportedly expect to cooperate with regional partners to enhance surveillance and provide early warning before threats reach Israeli airspace.
As has often been the case in the past, Iran appears to be receiving only limited public backing from its allies, even as regional tensions continue to rise.
While the regime prepares for the possibility of a US strike, its proxy terrorist groups have so far held back from publicly pledging to take part in any confrontation — although some have vowed to join in the event of an attack on Iran.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stopped short of promising a direct response to an attack on Iran, opting for cautious language while expressing public support for Tehran.
“We do not want war, but we are ready to defend ourselves and will not surrender,” Qassem said during a televised speech.
However, Israel has made it clear that if Hezbollah joins a potential war scenario, it will face a severe and damaging response.
The Houthis have warned against any “adventure” against Yemen, signaling the terrorist group could take part in any retaliatory escalation, reportedly with the US presence in the region as a primary target.
In Iraq, pro-Iranian militias urged fighters to prepare for what they described as a “total war” in support of Iran.
“It must be made clear to our enemies that war against Iran will not be a walk in the park — they will taste the terrible bitterness of death, and nothing of them will remain in our region,” terrorist leader Abu Hussein al-Hamidawy said in a statement.
On Tuesday, in response to US and Israeli threats, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shared an AI-generated image depicting a US aircraft carrier sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
“The US president constantly says that the US has sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware,” the Iranian leader wrote in a post on X. “However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.”
US and Israeli pressure is not the only challenge facing Tehran, as the European Union on Thursday formally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, freezing its funds and financial assets in EU member states and prohibiting EU operators from making economic resources available to the group.
Meanwhile, the regime continues to face growing domestic unrest, with Iranians now marking the traditional chehelom — a Shiite mourning ritual observed 40 days after a person’s death — not only in cemeteries but also in streets and hospitals to honor those killed during last month’s violent government crackdown on nationwide anti-government protests.
Uncategorized
IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Advances Toward Approval in Two US States
Part of an exhibit on the Holocaust supported by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Photo: courtesy of IHRA.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism continues to make progress through state legislatures across the US, with the Wisconsin State Assembly on Tuesday approving a measure which would apply it to hate crime prosecutions and anti-discrimination statutes.
The bill, AB 446, allows for government officials to refer to the IHRA definition for guidance when “evaluating evidence of discriminatory intent for any law, ordinance, or policy in this state that prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin” or determining “enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses” in which a criminal chooses their victim based on racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.
AB 446 passed easily in the State Assembly by a vote of 66-33. Another similar bill awaits consideration by the Senate. If it succeeds there, both legislative proposals will have to be reconciled into a single, signable bill before being presented to Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat.
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
On Monday, the Missouri House of Representatives also passed a bill to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a reference tool for assessing civil rights violations and a provision of policy handbooks for educational institutions. That bill also has a companion in the upper house of Missouri’s bicameral legislature.
The legislation, which would require schools to use the definition, aims to combat antisemitism in K-12 schools and on college campuses. In addition, the bill would require schools to outline prohibited antisemitic actions in their codes of conduct.
Both states advanced the legislation weeks after the City Council of Chicago voted to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The measure was passed on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which commemorated the 81st anniversary of the day when Jewish prisoners were liberated from Auschwitz, the Nazis’ deadliest extermination camp during World War II.
“Chicago now proudly joins a global consensus of more than 1,200 entities worldwide, including the United States, 37 US state governments, and 98 city and country bodies who have adopted this definition,” city council member Debra Silverstein, alderman of the 50th Ward, said in a statement at the time praising the action. “At a time when antisemitic hate crimes are surging locally, this unanimous City Council action sends an unmistakable message that anti-Jewish hate has no place in Chicago.”
Local governments’ embracing the IHRA definition of antisemitism comes amid a historic surge in antisemitic incidents across the US and the world.
In 2024, as reported by the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) latest annual audit, there were 9,354 antisemitic incidents — an average of 25.6 a day — across the US, creating an atmosphere of hate not experienced in the nearly thirty years since the ADL began tracking such data in 1979. Incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault all increased by double digits, and for the first time ever a majority of outrages — 58 percent — were related to the existence of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state.
The ADL also reported dramatic rises in incidents on college campuses, which saw the largest growth in 2024. The 1,694 incidents tallied by the ADL amounted to an 84 percent increase over the previous year. Additionally, antisemites were emboldened to commit more offenses in public in 2024 than they did in 2023, perpetrating 19 percent more attacks on Jewish people, pro-Israel demonstrators, and businesses perceived as being Jewish-owned or affiliated with Jews.
New York City, under its new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, recently revoked the IHRA definition along with a series of other executive orders enacted by his predecessor to combat antisemitism
US Jewish groups have sharply criticized the move.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry similarly lambasted the reversal as an invitation for intensified bigotry against Jewish New Yorkers, saying, “On his very first day as New York City mayor, Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Green Party Congressional Candidate Vows to ‘De-Zionize’ US Government
Former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is running for Congress again in the 2026 election cycle, this time as a Green Party candidate. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has launched a bid to return to Washington under the Green Party, unveiling a campaign platform that sharply denounces Israel and accuses the US government of being controlled by what she calls a “dual-loyalty regime.”
In a statement posted to her campaign website, McKinney alleges a “powerful Zionist lobby has infiltrated every level of our government,” claims US tax dollars are funding what she describes as a “genocide” in Gaza, and calls the US–Israel alliance “a hostage situation.” She further references the “Epstein files,” a series of documents detailing the communications of deceased serial sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, to suggest Israeli intelligence has engaged in criminal wrongdoing, allegations for which she provides no evidence.
McKinney’s platform proposes sweeping measures such as immediately ending all US military aid to Israel, revoking tax-exempt status for organizations she characterizes as foreign agents, supporting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, backing Palestinian “right of return” claims, and ceasing US diplomatic protection for Israeli officials at international courts.
Additionally, she has posted campaign graphics calling to “De-Zionize the government” and shared a quote blaming her 2006 reelection loss on pro-Israel supporters, claiming “Zionists undermined Dr. McKinney’s reelection.” The candidate also shared a quote from the antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan which claimed that she lost reelection because “she was not pro-Zionist.”
The rhetoric marks one of the most stridently anti-Israel campaign platforms in recent US political history. While debate over US policy toward Israel has intensified amid the ongoing war in Gaza, McKinney’s framing goes well beyond the positions held by most Democrats, including many progressive lawmakers critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Advocacy groups and Jewish organizations have long warned that language describing a shadowy “Zionist lobby” controlling American institutions echoes historical antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty and secret influence. Mainstream critics of Israeli policy typically distinguish between opposition to specific government actions and broader conspiratorial claims about Jewish political control.
McKinney, who represented Georgia in Congress for six terms before losing her seat in 2006, has a history of clashing with pro-Israel groups and Democratic leadership. After her congressional career, she became the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2008. She has also previously participated in attempts to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, including voyages on the SS Dignity and Spirit of Humanity.
Moreover, McKinney is running to fill the seat previously vacated by former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene came under fire over issuing a series of antisemitic remarks suggesting that Israel exerts control over US foreign policy and that the war in Gaza is a “genocide.”
The US–Israel relationship, spanning more than seven decades, includes extensive military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and economic ties. Israel is widely viewed by US officials as a key strategic ally in the Middle East.
Under US law, foreign lobbying is regulated through the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and tax-exempt status is governed by strict Internal Revenue Service rules. Legal experts note that broad revocations based on political advocacy would face significant constitutional hurdles.
McKinney’s campaign announcement comes at a moment of heightened polarization over the Israel-Hamas war and US involvement in the Middle East. Whether her uncompromising platform resonates with Georgia voters remains to be seen, but it is likely to reignite debate over the boundaries between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and rhetoric critics say veers into conspiracy and antisemitism.