Uncategorized
Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court
(JTA) — On Dec. 29, Israel swore in Benjamin Netanyahu’s sixth government. The Likud leader became Israel’s prime minister once more, and one week later, Israel’s long-anticipated judicial counterrevolution began.
In the Knesset Wednesday, newly minted Justice Minister and Netanyahu confidant Yariv Levin unveiled a package of proposed legislation that would alter the balance of power between Israel’s legislature and its Supreme Court.
At the core of this plan is a bill to allow the Knesset to override the Supreme Court. Levin’s proposals — which almost certainly have the immediate support of a Knesset majority, regardless of Levin’s assurances that they would be subject to “thorough debate” — would pave the way for Israel’s new government to pass legislation that curtails rights and undermines the rule of law, dealing a blow to Israeli democracy.
The dire implications of this proposed judicial reform are rooted in key characteristics of the Israeli political system that set it apart from other liberal democracies. Israel has no constitution to determine the balance of power between its various branches of government. In fact, there is no separation between Israel’s executive and legislative branches, given that the government automatically controls a majority in the parliament.
Instead, it has a series of basic laws enacted piecemeal over the course of the state’s history that have a quasi-constitutional status, with the initial intention that they would eventually constitute a de jure constitution.
Through the 1980s, the Knesset passed basic laws that primarily served to define state institutions, such as the country’s legislature and electoral system, capital and military. In the 1990s, there was a paradigm shift with the passage of two basic laws that for the first time concerned individuals’ rights rather than institutions, one on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) and the other on Freedom of Occupation (1994). These laws enshrined rights to freedom of movement, personal freedom, human dignity and others to all who reside in Israel.
Aharon Barak, the president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006, argued that these laws constituted a de facto bill of rights, empowering the court to review Knesset legislation and to strike down laws that violate civil liberties, a responsibility not explicitly bestowed upon the court in the basic law pertaining to the judiciary. In 1995, the Supreme Court officially ruled that it could indeed repeal legislation that violates the country’s basic laws, heralding an era of increased judicial activism in Israel in what became known as the “judicial revolution.” The court has struck down 20 laws since, a fairly modest number compared to other democracies.
The judicial revolution of the 1990s shifted the balance of power in Israel’s political system from one of parliamentary sovereignty, in which the Knesset enjoyed ultimate power, to one in which the legislature is restricted from violating the country’s (incomplete) constitution. Israel’s Supreme Court became a check on the legislative branch in a country that lacks other checks and balances and separations of power.
As a result of these characteristics, the Supreme Court currently serves as one of the only checks on the extraordinary power of Israel’s 120-member Knesset — which is why shifting that balance of power would have such a dramatic impact on Israel’s democracy.
Levin’s proposed judicial overhaul includes several elements that would weaken the power and independence of Israel’s Supreme Court. The plan includes forbidding the Supreme Court from deliberating on and striking down basic laws themselves. It would require an unspecified “special majority” of the court to strike down legislation, raising the threshold from where it currently stands.
Levin has also called for altering the composition of the selection committee that appoints top judges to give the government, rather than legal professionals, a majority on the panel. It would allow cabinet ministers to appoint legal advisors to act on their behalf, rather than that of the justice ministry, canceling these advisors’ role as safeguards against government overreach. Should a minister enact a decision that contravenes a basic law, the ministry’s legal advisor would no longer report the violation to the attorney general, and would instead merely offer non-binding legal advice to the minister.
The pièce de résistance is, of course, the override clause that would allow the Knesset to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court by 61 members of Knesset, a simple majority assuming all members are present. The sole restriction on this override would be a provision preventing the Knesset from re-legislating laws struck down unanimously, by all 15 judges, within the same Knesset term.
This plan’s obvious and most immediate result would be the effective annulment of the quasi-constitutional status of Israel’s basic laws. If the Knesset’s power to legislate is no longer bound by basic laws, these de facto constitutional amendments no longer have any teeth. There are no guardrails preventing any Knesset majority from doing as it wishes, including violating basic human rights. The Knesset could pass laws openly curtailing freedom of the press or gender equality, for example, should it choose to do so.
This counterrevolution, in effect, goes further than merely undoing what occurred in the 1990s.
Most crucially, the Knesset that would once again enjoy full parliamentary sovereignty in 2022 is not the Knesset of Israel’s first four decades. Shackling the Supreme Court is essential to the agendas of the new government’s various ultra-right and ultra-religious parties. For example, the haredi Orthodox parties are eager to re-legislate a blanket exemption to the military draft for their community, which the court struck down in 2017 on the grounds that it was discriminatory. They also have their sights on revoking recognition of non-Orthodox conversions for immigrants to Israel, undoing a court decision from 2021.
The far-right, Jewish supremacist parties of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, see an opportunity to deal a decisive blow to an institution that has long served as a check on the settlement movement. They hope to tie the court’s hands in the face of oncoming legislation to retroactively legalize settlements built on private Palestinian land, which are illegal under Israeli law. But this is only the beginning: Neutering the authority of the court could pave the way for legal discrimination against Israel’s Arab minority, such as Ben-Gvir’s proposal to deport minorities who show insufficient loyalty.
The timing of Levin’s announcement Wednesday could not be more germane. The Knesset recently amended the basic law to legalize the appointment of Aryeh Deri, the Shas party leader who is serving a suspended sentence for tax fraud, as a minister in the new government. The Supreme Court convened Thursday morning to hear petitions against his appointment from those arguing that it is “unreasonable” to rehabilitate Deri given his multiple criminal convictions, a view shared by Israel’s attorney general. Levin’s proposals would bar the court from using this “reasonability” standard.
The Israeli right has long chafed at the power of the Supreme Court, which it accuses of having a left-wing bias. But a judicial overhaul like this has never enjoyed the full support of the government, nor was Netanyahu previously in favor of it. Now, with a uniformly right-wing government and Netanyahu on trial for corruption, the prime minister’s foremost interest is appeasing his political partners and securing their support for future legislation to shield him from prosecution.
In a system where the majority rules, there need to be mechanisms in place to protect the rights of minorities — political, ethnic and religious. Liberal democracy requires respect for the rule of law and human rights. Yariv Levin’s proposals to fully subordinate the Supreme Court to the Knesset will concentrate virtually unchecked power in the hands of a few individuals — government ministers and party leaders within the coalition who effectively control what the Knesset does. That those individuals were elected in free and fair elections is no guarantee that the changes they make will be democratic.
—
The post Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Venezuelan Jewish Leader Expresses Hope for Democratic Future After US Captures Maduro
A person holds up an image depicting Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, as people celebrate after the US struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Santiago, Chile. Jan. 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Pablo Sanhueza
A Venezuelan Jewish leader expressed renewed hope for a return to democracy after President Nicolás Maduro’s capture in a US operation, seeing it as a potential turning point following years of authoritarian rule and economic turmoil.
Miguel Truzman, president of the Confederation of Israelite Associations of Venezuela — the umbrella organization for Venezuelan Jews — described the moment as being met with “faith, hope, and optimism” for Venezuelan families and the nation’s future.
“The American military’s operations across different parts of the country caught us by surprise. It’s truly an extraordinary moment,” Truzman told Spain-based Radio Sefarad in an interview earlier this week.
“Thanks to the careful execution of the operation, the physical safety of most Venezuelans was not at risk,” he said.
“We are now closely following these remarkable events in Venezuela and hope for stability as the country enters a new year shaped by these changes. We face the future with faith, hope, and optimism — for both families and the nation,” Truzman continued.
On Saturday night, the US launched a major military operation in Venezuela that struck state infrastructure and captured long-serving President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores — in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
Shortly afterward, Vice President and Oil Minister Delcy Rodríguez, 56, was formally sworn in as the country’s interim president. She demanded the “immediate release” of Maduro and his wife, arguing that the arrests were made under false pretenses as part of a broader effort to impose regime change and seize the country’s natural resources
“The country is gradually returning to normal — synagogues, for example, have reopened their doors for daily services,” Truzman said during his interview.
“Venezuela is entering a new chapter of governance. For our community, the most important focus is preserving our daily Jewish life, fostering connections with other religious communities, and safeguarding the well-being of our members,” he continued.
“The Jewish community of Venezuela is a Zionist community that strongly supports the State of Israel as a sovereign nation, with a legitimate right to exist, defend itself, and maintain its territorial integrity,” Truzman said.
On Monday, Maduro and his wife appeared in US federal court in New York City, pleaded not guilty to drug‑trafficking and other criminal charges, and were scheduled to return for their next hearing on March 17.
Accused of overseeing a cocaine‑trafficking network that worked with several violent groups across Latin America, Maduro faces criminal charges including narco‑terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
Simy Blomer Benchimol, a Venezuelan living in Spain, also expressed hope that the US intervention could open the door to democracy after years of authoritarian rule.
“I believe it’s a price worth paying if it means we can live in peace,” Benchimol told Radio Sefarad in an interview earlier this week.
“No one is scared — in fact, people are feeling hopeful,” she said. “After 26 years, even if progress is slow, I’m happy to see change beginning. No one went out to defend the regime.”
“This had to be done. We’ve fought for years in every possible way — even holding completely fair elections — and they stole everything from us,” Benchimol continued. “There was no other way to remove this government — this isn’t a kidnapping, but the arrest of someone who has caused immense harm to the country and the world.”
Many international observers and US allies have maintained that the Venezuelan opposition movement was cheated of victory in the 2024 election.
Venezuela’s Jewish community, once one of Latin America’s largest, has declined to roughly 3,000 – 5,000 people today, mostly in Caracas.
Maduro has a long history of antisemitic rhetoric, falsely claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t an “authentic Jew,” accusing Israel of seeking to dominate Central Asia and the Middle East and to control the US, and repeatedly praising Hamas and other terrorist groups as “freedom fighters.”
The Venezuelan leader has also previously claimed that “Zionists” were facilitating Venezuela’s takeover as the United States intensified its recent military campaign targeting drug trafficking and “narco-terrorist” networks near the country.
“There are those who want to hand this country over to the devils — you know who, right? The far-right Zionists want to hand this country over to the devils,” Maduro said during a televised speech in November.
In 2024, Maduro also blamed “international Zionism” for the large-scale anti-government protests that erupted across the country following the presidential elections, in which he claimed victory amid widespread claims of fraud.
Venezuela cut diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 under then-President Hugo Chávez, and the two countries have had no formal relations since then.
Meanwhile, under Maduro, Venezuela has strengthened its ties with Iran, becoming an increasingly important financial and operational base for the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, the Iranian regime’s chief proxy force in the Middle East.
Uncategorized
MPs Say Police Chief in UK Should Be Fired After Accused of ‘Covering Up’ Threat to Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans
WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford speaking before the Home Affairs Committee on Jan. 6, 2026. Photo: Screenshot
Jewish groups and several members of Parliament in the United Kingdom are calling for the chief constable of the West Midlands Police (WMP) to lose his job after the police force was accused on Tuesday of hiding evidence about anti-Israel locals who were threatening violence against fans of the Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv.
WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford appeared before the Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday for a second round of questioning regarding the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, whom police claimed were “uniquely violent,” from attending a Europa League soccer match against Aston Villa in Birmingham on Nov. 6 last year.
Documents revealed on Tuesday showed that the police’s initial public safety concerns surrounding the soccer match were not because of behavior displayed by Maccabi fans, but due to “high confidence intelligence” that police received on Sept. 5 about locals in the predominantly Muslim area of West Midlands who wanted to “arm” themselves” against Maccabi fans because they are from Israel. Birmingham City Council Leader John Cotton told the committee on Tuesday that police did not share with him the intelligence they received and their honest reasoning for banning Israeli fans.
Conservative MP Karen Bradley, who chaired the committee, accused the police force of “scraping” to justify their ban against Israeli soccer fans from attending the game on Nov. 6. She told WMP officials on Tuesday: “It feels to us like you felt you needed to justify banning these fans and that scraping was done to find a reason.”
In a post on X, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Guildford’s position was now “untenable.”
“West Midlands police capitulated to Islamists and then collaborated with them to cover it up,” she said. “They knew extremists were planning to attack Jews for going to a football match, and their response was to blame and remove Jewish people instead. They presented an inversion of reality and misled a parliamentary committee. We have had enough of this in Britain. The British police serve the British public, not local sectarian interests.”
Tory MP Nick Timothy, who is an Aston Villa fan and former Home Office special adviser, also called for Guildford to be fired on Tuesday. “What was left of the credibility of West Midlands police has been destroyed” following the evidence presented to the committee, he wrote on X.
“We learned earlier that their initial reason for banning Israelis from Villa Park was the danger *to* away fans *from* ‘armed’ locals. But to justify the ban they portrayed the Israelis as ‘uniquely violent’ and military-trained,” he explained. “And when the Home Affairs Select Committee asked why the vital information about the danger *to* Israelis was kept secret, the chief constable ludicrously said it was because he had not been asked for it. “
“He is too arrogant to resign,” the MP added about Guilford. “The home secretary has the power to remove him under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996. She should use it.”
Timothy further criticized the police force, saying, “We basically had the mob saying we’re not prepared to have Israelis come to the city we live in and the police decided to appease the mob — and we all know where appeasement ends.” He also accused WMP of “lying” repeatedly in an effort to explain their ban against Maccabi fans and failing to take on “extreme elements in the communities they are supposed to police.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Tuesday’s committee hearing was “yet another disgraceful performance from West Midlands police.” He added that the meeting clearly showed “the threat of armed Islamist thugs was a key consideration in the force’s decision to ban Israeli fans from attending the match, but this crucial detail was held back.”
“The chief constable’s pathetic excuse that he wasn’t asked is just the latest attempt to cover up a farce of his own making,” the MP added. “His position is untenable. If he doesn’t resign, then the home secretary must use her powers to sack him, and even more importantly explain exactly what she knew and when.”
Reform leader Nigel Farage told reporters that Guildford “needs to go today” during a press conference on Wednesday to announce the party’s 2028 mayoral candidate for London.
“It was monstrous that the impression was given that the Jewish-Israeli fans would be violent, when the truth is there were serious threats of violence against them, and huge degrees of misinformation, fed in by local elected politicians in the West Midlands with the assistance of one or two mosques, who do not have good reputations,” Farage said. “I thought the performance yesterday in front of the Commons committee was absolutely abject, so he needs to go first.”
The Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews also called for Guildford to lose his job in a joint statement issued on Tuesday.
“It seems that the police reached a decision first, and then searched for evidence to justify it, apparently influenced by the threat posed by local extremists,” they said. “The police excluded (having initially included) any assessment of the significant risk to the Jewish community, and claimed to have consulted the local community in advance of the decision, which they had not.”
“In light of these events,” the Jewish groups continued, “significant harm has been done to the confidence of the Jewish community in the police. Action must be taken to ensure that these failures do not recur and to restore trust. Accountability matters. Considering the chief constable’s role in these events, a change of leadership is essential. If the chief constable does not step aside, responsibility lies with central government to intervene.”
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) also called on Guildford to step down.
“We believe Chief Constable Craig Guildford has failed to uphold the standards of neutrality and responsibility required of his office,” CAM Director of European Affairs Shannon Seban wrote in a letter to UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. “We therefore respectfully call for his resignation. Should he refuse, decisive action by the home secretary is warranted.”
Guildford insisted there “wasn’t any political interference” in the decision to ban Maccabi fans from the soccer match in November. He said he was “very much sorry,” adding, “I do regret the focus that this has placed on our local Jewish community.”
Mike O’Hara, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police, also insisted there was “no conspiracy” behind the ban when speaking to the parliamentary committee on Tuesday. “There was a lot of intelligence that people would actively seek out Maccabi fans and seek violence towards them. There was a bubbling situation locally,” he said.
The police told the committee they were informed by senior Dutch officers that Maccabi fans were responsible for violence during a match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024, but Dutch authorities have denied those claims.
The Embassy of Israel in the United Kingdom said on Wednesday that the police force’s initial portrayal of Israeli soccer fans as violent “was a gross mischaracterization that served the needs of those actively inciting against an Israeli team.”
“This framing diverted attention away from credible intelligence warnings regarding extremist elements preparing to target Israeli and Jewish Maccabi supporters, and instead placed blame on the very community that was facing the threat,” the embassy added in a statement shared on X. “The decision to obscure these assessments, and to allow a misleading narrative to take hold, raises serious questions. These acts by law enforcement institutions undermine real security risks, and even encourages a climate in which hostility towards Israeli and Jewish communities can be normalized under the rule of law. These matters require full accountability.”
Uncategorized
Yemen Separatist Leader Fails to Attend Crisis Talks as Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens
A member of the Giants Forces mans a machine gun on a patrol truck amid the southern crisis in Aden, Yemen, Jan. 7, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Fawaz Salman
The leader of Yemen‘s southern separatists failed to board a flight to Riyadh for crisis talks on Wednesday and his fate was unclear, clouding efforts to contain a military escalation that has caused a major rift between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
A fast-moving crisis in Yemen has ignited a feud between the two most powerful countries in the oil-rich Gulf and fractured a coalition headed by Yemen‘s internationally recognized government that is fighting the Iran-backed Houthis.
After Aidarous al-Zubaidi’s unexplained absence from the Riyadh talks, his Southern Transitional Council said he was overseeing military and security operations in the southern port city of Aden. Reuters could not verify his whereabouts.
Underscoring the tensions, Yemen‘s Saudi-backed presidential council expelled Zubaidi and accused him of treason.
‘THREAT TO BOMB ADEN’
Senior STC official Amr Al Beidh said Aden was still under the group’s control. Beidh said Saudi Arabia told Zubaidi it would bomb Aden if he did not attend the talks.
Zubaidi did not travel to Riyadh for the meeting because he did not want to leave a security vacuum in the port city, said Beidh, speaking from Abu Dhabi in an online briefing. There was no immediate reaction from Saudi Arabia to Beidh’s comments.
Asked about concerns of a split within the separatist group, Beidh said: “We don’t have problems in STC regarding our people. We understand and know and trust our people.”
Another senior STC official said that he and other members of a delegation had arrived in the Saudi capital and talks would go ahead. Hours earlier, the group had said it had lost contact with its delegation.
“I have arrived in Riyadh accompanied by colleagues from Aden, and in a positive atmosphere, we will begin a series of meetings to prepare for a South-South dialogue under the sponsorship of our brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Mohammad Al Ghaithi said in a post on X.
It was unclear who would lead the STC in those talks.
Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces, meanwhile, were advancing towards Aden, Saudi state television reported without elaborating.
The Saudi coalition also said it carried out limited pre-emptive airstrikes in the southern province of al-Dhalea, Zubaidi’s birthplace, after monitoring the movements of armed forces that had left their camps.
Local sources and sources within the STC reported more than 15 strikes in the province.
LATEST FIGHTING PUTS SAUDI, UAE ON OPPOSITE SIDES
The dramatic developments dashed hopes for swift resolution of the recent turmoil in Yemen‘s south and an end to fighting that erupted last month between the STC, backed by the UAE, and Yemen‘s Saudi-backed internationally recognized government.
The UAE has pursued an assertive foreign policy and carved its own sphere of influence across the Middle East and Africa, a strategy in the spotlight after its rare military escalation with Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
The country, a regional business and trade hub, has used alliances with states or proxies and financial support mainly to counter what it views as the destabilizing, existential threat of political Islam.
Zubaidi had been due to travel to Saudi Arabia days after Yemen‘s government said it had asked Riyadh to host a forum on the southern issue.
But on Wednesday, the Saudi-backed presidential council stripped Zubaidi of his membership and referred him to the public prosecutor on charges including high treason, Yemen state news agency SABA said.
The decision, issued by presidential council chairman Rashad al-Alimi, accused Zubaidi of inciting armed rebellion, attacking constitutional authorities and committing abuses against civilians in southern Yemen.
The council has also dismissed Aden Governor Ahmed Lamlas, referred him for investigation, and appointed Abdulrahman al‑Yafie as his replacement, SABA reported.
Security forces announced the imposition of a curfew across all districts of Aden, from 9 pm until 6 am local time, SABA said.
Turki al-Maliki, the spokesperson of the Saudi-backed coalition, said there were indications that Zubaidi had moved large forces and that the coalition had asked the vice president of the STC, Abdulrahman al-Mahrami, known as Abu Zara’a, to impose security. Abu Zara’a had met the Saudi defence minister in Riyadh on Jan. 5.
LONG CIVIL WAR
Saudi Arabia and the UAE first intervened in Yemen more than a decade ago after the Houthis, an internationally designated terrorist group, seized the Yemeni capital of Sanaa in 2014.
The UAE joined the Saudi-backed coalition the following year in support of the internationally recognized government.
The Southern Transitional Council, set up in 2017 with UAE backing, ultimately joined the government coalition.
For years, it has been part of that administration, which controls southern and eastern Yemen and is backed by Gulf states.
But last month STC forces suddenly seized swathes of territory, shifting the delicate balance of power and pitting Saudi Arabia against the UAE.
The UAE pulled its forces out of Yemen last month under pressure from Saudi Arabia, which saw the southern advance on its borders as a threat to its national security. The UAE has called for de-escalation in Yemen since.