RSS
‘A time of emergency’: What you need to know about the fight over Israel’s court system
TEL AVIV (JTA) — In the coming days, Israel’s parliament is due to vote on a measure that, advocates on both sides say, will determine the country’s fate — or whether it can even survive.
It isn’t a peace deal or an attempt to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What it will do, if passed, is bar the Supreme Court from striking down government decisions it deems “unreasonable.”
Behind that somewhat technical language is a struggle over Israel’s soul. It’s an escalating fight that has seen the largest, most sustained protest movement in Israel’s history. It has seen demonstrators block highways, march from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and pledge to boycott army service. It has seen both Netanyahu and his opponents warn that the end of democracy is nigh. And it has seen Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a figure meant to rise above the political fray, warn that the government’s push for major legislative change, and its critics, could lead to “real civil war.”
The reason for the dire pronouncements is that the “reasonableness law” is one piece of a broad plan, put forward by Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition in January, to significantly weaken Israel’s judiciary. If passed in its totality, the overhaul would sap the Israeli Supreme Court of much of its power and independence, removing a major check on what the Israeli government can do.
But even though Netanyahu enjoys a solid majority in parliament, the plan, so far, has yet to be enacted. That’s largely due to a massive protest movement that says Netanyahu is endangering Israel’s democratic system. The demonstrations have brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis into the streets and led to widespread civil disobedience.
Both sides of the debate say the internal conflict is a test of Israel’s system of government. Now, a growing number of voices are using increasingly anxious language that would have been unthinkable just a year ago, from threats of street violence to warnings that the Israel Defense Forces could implode.
“This is a time of emergency,” Herzog said Sunday. “An agreement must be reached.”
The civil strife is occurring against the backdrop of heightened Israeli-Palestinian violence and while Netanyahu, 73, is on trial for corruption and has recently been hospitalized twice. Here’s a primer on the judicial overhaul, what supporters and opponents say is at stake, and what may happen next.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seen during a vote in Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, March 22, 2023. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Netanyahu and his allies want to fundamentally change Israel’s court system.
At the end of last year, Israeli voters returned Netanyahu to office — and he assembled a coalition with far-right partners that holds 64 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Days later, his justice minister unveiled a plan that, in its original form, would have rendered the Supreme Court largely powerless.
The initial plan would have given the coalition complete control over the selection of judges, and would have allowed the Knesset to overrule Supreme Court decisions with a bare majority. Another measure took aim at the “reasonableness” clause.
Netanyahu and his allies portrayed the legislative package as a curb on an increasingly activist Supreme Court that was out of step with the country’s right-wing majority. Its composition, they charged, was a vestige of Israel’s secular, Ashkenazi elite and did not reflect the country’s ethnic and Jewish religious diversity, including the country’s large number of Mizrahi Jews.
But a growing number of critics — from centrist and left-wing Israelis to foreign leaders to American Jewish organizations — cautioned that the overhaul would endanger Israel’s status as a democratic state.
Because the governing coalition by definition commands a majority in parliament, they say, the court reform would effectively give Netanyahu and his partners complete control over all three branches of government. The court has historically been a protector of the rights of minorities — from Arabs to LBGTQ Israelis to liberal Jewish movements — and critics of the plan worry that it would put those safeguards at risk. Those worries are exacerbated, they say, because the prime minister leading the effort to weaken the judiciary is currently on trial.
A Tel Aviv protest at the start of Yom Haatzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day, featured a sea of flags, April 25, 2023. (Ben Sales)
The overhaul effort has sparked a historic and growing protest movement.
Those critiques have coalesced into the largest protest movement in Israeli history, which has seen hundreds of thousands of Israelis take to the streets every week, many waving Israeli flags, to oppose the plan. Pro-government demonstrations, much less frequent, have also occurred.
Anti-government protest organizers have also escalated their tactics — blocking major highways, calling for strikes, crowding the main airport terminal and, this week, leading a days-long march of thousands of people from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And it has spread to cities across the United States and the globe, disrupting American Jewish gatherings in Israel and confronting Israeli officials on their visits abroad.
The most striking protest tactic has come from a growing group of IDF reservists — as of this week more than 10,000 — who have pledged to stop showing up for duty if the overhaul, or any piece of it, is enacted. Within Israel, the IDF is the country’s most widely trusted institution, and is seen as an indispensable guarantor of Israel’s security.
Because of its mandatory draft, it has also historically been viewed as a reflection of Israel’s diverse Jewish citizenry. But those who have pledged to boycott their duty say they are unwilling to continue risking their lives for a government that is no longer democratic.
The overhaul’s proponents, including Netanyahu, say that threats to refuse military service cross a bright red line in a society that faces external threats and prizes national service. In a recent address, Netanyahu said threats to avoid reserve duty as a pressure tactic violated the principle that the civilian government must wield control over the military.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog addresses the nation in a speech exhorting a delay on proposed judicial reforms, Feb. 12, 2023. (Courtesy Herzog’s office)
Efforts at compromise have failed and rhetoric is becoming only more severe.
Months ago, the government took steps to advance the major pieces of the judicial overhaul. A rapid spike in protests and criticism in March, however, convinced Netanyahu to pause the legislative effort and enter dialogue with his political opponents.
But those talks — brokered by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, whose role is largely ceremonial — have collapsed. A few weeks ago, Netanyahu announced that he was restarting the legislative process with the “reasonableness law.”
Now, both sides are making arguments that, at their core, sound almost identical.
Critics of the plan say that a country without an independent and empowered court system cannot be a democracy. They have accused Netanyahu of ramming through a major change to Israel’s governing system without broad consensus, and point to surveys showing that most Israelis oppose the overhaul plan.
The plan’s supporters say that, in fact, they are the majority — pointing to the fall elections that their side won. The true failure of democracy, they say, is the elected coalition being rendered unable to govern due to a protest movement that is blocking roads and calling on soldiers to shirk their duty.
This week, the military reserve protests have led to more urgent warnings. The Institute for National Security Studies, a respected think tank, warned on Sunday that the IDF “is at risk of disbanding.”
IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi has a similar message.
“If we will not be a strong and unified army, if the best do not serve in the IDF — we will no longer be able to exist as a state in the region,” he wrote in an open letter.
View of the Jewish settlement of Eli, in the West Bank, Jan. 17, 2021.(Sraya Diamant/Flash90)
The internal Israeli turmoil is happening alongside increased Israeli-Palestinian violence.
In tandem with the conflict over the court reform, clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank have escalated this year. More than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed in IDF military raids on terrorist cells, while more than two dozen Israelis have been killed by Palestinian attacks in the West Bank and Israel. There has also been conflict with Hamas in Gaza, and concern over Iran backing attacks on Israel.
Recent months have also seen a series of riots by Israeli settlers, who have entered Palestinian villages, torched cars, homes and shops and injured Palestinians in response to terror attacks. Palestinians have been killed amid the riots, and senior Israeli figures have described the riots as a “pogrom” or “terrorism.”
Hardline figures in Israel’s government have called for harsh tactics in response to the violence. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for a Palestinian village to be wiped out before walking the remark back and apologizing. Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, has expressed sympathy for the rioters while also speaking out against vigilante justice.
While the riots are not directly connected to the overhaul effort, there are links. One of the right’s criticisms of the Supreme Court is that it has restrained Israel from expanding West Bank settlements, while critics worry that weakening the courts will mean removing an occasional protector of Palestinian rights. Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir and other right-wingers have charged that the government is responding more harshly to the settler rioters than to disruptive anti-government protesters in Israel — something he has called “selective enforcement.”
President Joe Biden answers a question during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the White House during an official state visit, Dec. 01, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The situation is leading observers to question the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Heated discourse about Israel’s conflicts has spread to the United States. President Joe Biden has repeatedly criticized the judicial overhaul effort and has recently issued a series of warnings suggesting that if passed, the legislation could damage the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Speaking to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman last week, Biden said the protests display “the vibrancy of Israel’s democracy, which must remain the core of our bilateral relationship,” and said that Netanyahu needs to “continue to seek the broadest possible consensus here.”
Elsewhere in the Times opinion pages, Nicholas Kristof wrote that the recent news out of Israel has led him to question if “it really make[s] sense for the United States to provide the enormous sum of $3.8 billion annually to another wealthy country?” That annual foreign aid allocation is at the core of U.S.-Israel relations and has been portrayed as sacrosanct by presidents from both parties.
And last week, an address by Herzog to a joint session of Congress, meant to be a celebration of Israel’s 75th birthday earlier this year, took place shortly after a prominent progressive Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, called Israel a “racist state” — a remark she later walked back. Six other Democratic members of Congress boycotted Herzog’s speech.
What happens next?
The vote on the “reasonableness” bill will almost certainly take place in the coming days and, if Netanyahu’s promises are any indication, could pass along party lines. But that almost definitely won’t be the end of the struggle over the judicial overhaul, even as a large number of Israelis say they fear civil war.
Netanyahu’s right-wing allies, including Ben-Gvir, have vowed to pass the overhaul’s more sweeping components next, while opponents of the legislation have pledged to maintain and escalate their opposition.
It remains to be seen who will prevail in the conflict, or what winning might even look like after more than half a year of civil unrest. Supporters, opponents and observers of the overhaul have all made clear that at this point, what is at stake is no longer just a piece of legislation but rather the military, the governmental system and, perhaps, the future of the country itself.
—
The post ‘A time of emergency’: What you need to know about the fight over Israel’s court system appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
‘Activist Judge’: White House Vows to Fight Harvard After Legal Setback Over Funding
US President Donald Trump replies to a question in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 2, 2025. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect
A US federal judge ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump acted unconstitutionally when he confiscated about $2.2 billion in Harvard University’s federal research grants as punishment for the institution’s alleged failing to address antisemitic harassment and discrimination on campus.
In her ruling, US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who was appointed to her position in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama, said that the Trump administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
Burroughs went on to argue that the federal government violated Harvard’s free speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment and that it was the job of courts to “ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard became a hub of campus antisemitism in the wake of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza. The wave of incidents included a public assault on recent Harvard Business School graduate Yoav Segev in which assailants allegedly identified him as a Jew and proceeded to encircle him while screaming “Shame!” in his face; an anti-Zionist faculty group’s sharing an antisemitic cartoon aimed at inciting anti-Jewish hatred in the Black community; masses of students roaming the halls calling for a genocide of Jews in Israel; and the university’s admitting that it has refused to afford Jews the same protections against discrimination enjoyed by other minority groups.
Burroughs’s ruling has restored Harvard’s access to billions of dollars in funds paid for by the American taxpayer, preventing a fiscal crisis which has caused draconian budget cuts at other institutions facing similar financial penalties imposed by the Trump administration.
The decision also awards Harvard University president Alan Garber a major political victory, as he has in recent weeks endured growing criticism from faculty and Democratic lawmakers for entertaining a settlement with the Trump administration which would have included concessions to the conservative movement on issues ranging from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to viewpoint diversity on campus. Such a deal would risk inciting a mutiny at Harvard, where 94 percent of faculty donated to Democratic candidates in 2024.
On Wednesday, the White House vowed to continue fighting in court — which may include requesting emergency proceedings at the conservative-leaning US Supreme Court — accusing Burroughs of being compromised by partisanship.
“This activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” Liz Huston, spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement following the ruling. “We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”
Harvard said on Thursday that the ruling supported its contention that the Trump administration had acted unlawfully.
“The ruling affirms Harvard’s First Amendment and procedural rights, and validates our arguments in defense of the university’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education,” Garber said in a statement. “Our principles will guide us on the path forward. We will continue to champion open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, and to build a community in which all can thrive.”
Harvard’s legal woes did not draw to a close with Wednesday’s decisions, as it sits at the center of yet another federal lawsuit alleging that school officials, including its private law enforcement agency, exposed a Jewish student to antisemitic abuse by refusing to intervene and correct a hostile environment even as the misconduct escalated to include violence
Filed in July, the mammoth complaint, totaling 124 pages, lays out the case that the university miscarried justice in the aftermath of two students, Ibrahim Bharmal and Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, allegedly assaulting Segev during the fall semester of the 2023-2024 academic year — just weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel — by refusing to discipline them and later rewarding them the university’s highest honors.
“This malicious, violent, and antisemitic conduct violated several university policies — such as its anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies — and it prompted criminal charges,” the complaint said. “No one doubts for a second that Harvard would have taken swift, aggressive, and public actions to enforce its policies had the victim been one of Harvard’s ‘favored’ minorities.”
It continued, “Harvard’s antisemitic intent is obvious. Several of its faculty publicly supported the attacker and tried to blame the victim (because, the faculty said, his Jewish presence was ‘threatening’ to other students). And, of course, hundreds of rabidly anti-Israel students disrupting campus life pressured the Harvard administration. Ultimately, and shamefully, the university kowtowed to the antisemitic mob it had allowed to take over its campus.”
Alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, breach of contract, and conspiracy to deny civil rights, the suit demands all relevant recompense, including damages and the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.
Nearly two years after the assault, Bharmal and Tettey-Tamaklo have not only avoided hate crime charges but also even amassed new accolades and distinctions — according to multiple reports.
After being charged with assault and battery, the two men were ordered in April by Boston Municipal Court Judge Stephen McClenon to attend “pre-trial diversion” anger management courses and perform 80 hours of community service each, a decision which did not require their apologizing to Segev even though Assistant District Attorney Ursula Knight described what they did as “hands on assault and battery.”
Harvard neither disciplined Bharmal nor removed him from the presidency of the Harvard Law Review, a coveted post once held by former US President Barack Obama. As of last year, he was awarded a law clerkship with the Public Defender for the District of Columbia, a government-funded agency which provides free legal counsel to “individuals … who are charged with committing serious criminal acts.” Bharmal also reaped a $65,000 fellowship from Harvard Law School to work at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamic group whose leaders have defended Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities against Israelis.
As for Tettey-Tamaklo, he walked away from Harvard Divinity School with honors, according to The Free Press, as the 2024 Class Committee for Harvard voted him class marshal, a role in which he led the graduation procession through Harvard Yard alongside the institution’s most accomplished scholars and faculty.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Gazan Boy, Said to Be Killed by IDF, Shown Alive in New Video, Debunking Viral Lie
Abdul Rahim Muhammad Hamdene, the Gazan boy previously reported as killed by Israeli forces, appears alongside his mother in a new video. Photo: Screenshot
A Gazan boy who was previously reported as killed by Israeli forces in May has been found alive, casting doubt on the credibility of the American contractor who spread the story.
Abdul Rahim Muhammad Hamdene, known as Abboud, appeared in recently recorded footage of an interview obtained by both Fox News and The Daily Wire showing the young boy healthy and safe with his mother.
Remember ex-GHF contractor Tony Aguilar’s claim that he saw a little Gazan boy named “Amir” run into “a wall of bullets” and suffer “a shot to the torso, a shot to the leg, dead?”
Well it’s not true. “Amir” is alive and well.
My latest for @realdailywire: pic.twitter.com/OMxdNvHIOk
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) September 4, 2025
Abboud’s supposed “death” became a flashpoint after Anthony Aguilar, a former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) who previously served as a US Army Green Beret, claimed he witnessed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shoot the child as the GHF was distributing humanitarian aid on May 28.
Aguilar presented himself as a whistleblower, and his story gained traction internationally, going viral on social media. He subsequently embarked on an extensive media tour, in which he accused Israel of indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians as part of an attempt to “annihilate” and “disappear” the civilian population in Gaza.
However, Aguilar, who erroneously labeled the boy in question as “Amir,” gave inconsistent accounts of the alleged incident in separate interviews to different media outlets, calling into question the veracity of his narrative. The military veteran initially said, for example, that the alleged killing happened outside of the GHF’s Secure Distribution Site 1 (SDS 1), before later changing his story and claiming the shooting occurred outside of SDS 2.
The GHF is an Israeli and US-backed program that delivers aid directly to Palestinians, blocking Hamas from diverting supplies for terror activities and selling them at inflated prices. The organization released a chain of text messages showing that Aguilar was terminated for his conduct. It also held a press conference to present evidence showing that Aguilar “falsified documents” and “presented misleading videos to push his false narrative.”
Nonetheless, his claims were cited widely by critics of Israel such as Tucker Carlson, Ryan Grim, and Glenn Greenwald as supposed proof of war crimes.
The GHF launched its own investigation at the end of July, ultimately locating Abboud alive with his mother at SDS 3 on Aug. 23. The organization confirmed his identity using facial recognition software and biometric testing.
Abboud was escorted in disguise to an undisclosed safe location by the GHF team for his safety, according to The Daily Wire, which noted that the spreading of Aguilar’s false tale put the boy’s life in danger, as his alleged death was a powerful piece of propaganda for Hamas.
Fox News Digital reported that Abboud and his mother were safely extracted from the Gaza Strip on Thursday.
In the footage obtained by both news outlets, the boy can be seen playfully interacting with a GHF representative and appearing excited ahead of their planned extraction.
“While this story ends happily, it could have ended in tragedy,” GHF executive chair Johnnie Moore told Fox News Digital. “Too many people, including in the press and civil society, were quick to spread unverified claims without asking the most basic questions.”
RSS
What Jerrold Nadler’s Retirement Reveals About Future Support for Israel
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Photo: Screenshot.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) announcement that he will retire in 2026 marks the end of one of the longest-serving Jewish voices in Congress. But his final message is not a reaffirmation of support for Israel, but instead, a call to push for an arms embargo on the Jewish State.
This isn’t just politics. It’s not simply a career Democrat bowing to pressure from the far-left or trying to placate anti-Israel activists. Nadler’s final move reflects something deeper — a worldview shared by more and more American Jews. For them, Israel’s survival is not tied to their own survival. They see themselves as individuals, detached from Jewish history, detached from the continuum of antisemitism, and detached from the idea that Israel is the guarantor of the Jewish people’s future.
Nadler’s position is reminiscent of what we’ve already seen from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who privately counseled Harvard to ignore criticism by those who felt that the school neglected antisemitism on its own campus. Many argued that Schumer and Nadler were acting out of self-preservation, bowing to progressive dogma to save their careers. But this parting shot from Nadler serves no purpose for his career, given that he’s retiring. Rather, it suggests that this is what he truly believes.
Nadler’s wish to disarm Israel, by disallowing it to have “offensive arms,” reveals a lack of understanding of what’s needed in the Middle East to defend oneself, as well as a lack of caring for the Israelis who will pay for it with their blood.
This line of thinking reflects a group of Jewish people who truly do not associate themselves with the wellbeing and safety of the only Jewish state.
For decades, Israel could count on Diaspora Jews to rally when it mattered. From Washington to London, and Paris to New York, Jewish leaders stood up for Israel on the streets and in the halls of power. That reliability is fading.
Today, Jews are being peeled away, one by one, by a culture that demonizes Israel and normalizes hostility toward the Jewish State. Even young people raised in Orthodox synagogues and schools are drifting.
One synagogue member recently described how her son — educated in Jewish day schools and camps — now feels uncomfortable walking into his parents’ home because they display a yellow ribbon for the hostages. If even this segment is being lost, the crisis is deeper than many care to admit.
The lesson for Israel is that Diaspora support is no longer a given. Yes, there remain millions of Jews and allies who stand firm — but the numbers are dwindling. Popular culture and elite institutions are reshaping Jewish identity in ways that distance it from Israel. Unless something dramatic occurs, one can expect this trend to continue.
That means Israel must prepare to stand alone. Like every other nation, Israel’s security depends first and foremost on its own strength. Alliances are based on alignment of interests — nothing more and nothing less. Ironically, this brings with it a strange kind of clarity of purpose and confidence that Israel will rise or fall based on its merits, not persuasive lobbying in foreign lands.
The Zionist dream of Israel as the center of Jewish life is coming true, just not in the way anyone thought it would come about. It’s not because of support in the rest of the world — but because Israel is increasingly left to chart its course alone.
This isn’t cause for despair, but rather a call for vigilance and realism. Israel is strong, resourceful, and resilient — but it must understand the shifting ground. From now on, Israel must act, plan, and fight understanding that its friends and allies will be determined by what Israel can offer and what value it can produce for other countries.
Israel and its people are abundant with tangible assets that other countries do value and will value. And that is a great sign of hope for the Jewish State.
Daniel Rosen is the Co-founder of a Non-profit Technology company called Emissary4all which is an app to organize people on social media by ideology not geography. He is the Co-host of the podcast “Recalibration.” You can reach him at drosen@emissary4all.org