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
Iran Warns Against Any US Strike as Judiciary Hints at Unrest-Linked Executions
FILE PHOTO: Cars burn in a street during a protest over the collapse of the currency’s value, in Tehran, Iran, January 8, 2026. Photo: Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS/ File Photo
Iran‘s president warned on Sunday that any US strike would trigger a “harsh response” from Tehran after an Iranian official in the region said at least 5,000 people — including about 500 security personnel — had been killed in nationwide protests.
Iran‘s protests, sparked last month in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar over economic grievances, swiftly turned political and spread nationwide, drawing participants from across generations and income groups – shopkeepers, students, men and women, the poor and the well‑off – calling for the end of clerical rule.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to intervene if protesters continued to be killed on the streets or were executed. He said in an interview with Politico on Saturday: “it’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.”
Iran indicated on Sunday it might go ahead with executions of people detained during the unrest, and with its clerical rulers facing mounting international pressure over the bloodiest unrest since the 1979 Islamic revolution, is seeking to deter Trump from stepping in.
Iran‘s President Masoud Pezeshkian on X warned that Tehran’s response “to any unjust aggression will be harsh and regrettable,” adding that any attack on the country’s supreme leader is “tantamount to an all-out war against the nation.”
RIGHTS GROUP REPORTS 24,000 ARRESTS
Protests dwindled last week following a violent crackdown.
US-based rights group HRANA said on Saturday the death toll had reached 3,308, with another 4,382 cases under review. It said it had confirmed more than 24,000 arrests.
On Friday, Trump thanked Tehran’s leaders in a social media post, saying they had called off scheduled executions of 800 people. He has moved US military assets into the region but has not specified what he might do.
A day later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei branded Trump a “criminal,” acknowledging “several thousand deaths” that he blamed on “terrorists and rioters” linked to the US and Israel.
Iran‘s judiciary indicated that executions may go ahead.
“A series of actions have been identified as Mohareb, which is among the most severe Islamic punishments,” Iranian judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir told a press conference on Sunday.
Mohareb, an Islamic legal term meaning to wage war against God, is punishable by death under Iranian law.
The Iranian official told Reuters that the verified death toll was unlikely to “increase sharply,” adding “Israel and armed groups abroad” had supported and equipped those taking to the streets.
The clerical establishment regularly blames unrest on foreign enemies, including the US and Israel, an arch foe of the Islamic Republic which launched military strikes in June.
Internet blackouts were partly lifted for a few hours on Saturday but internet monitoring group NetBlocks said they later resumed.
One resident in Tehran said that last week he had witnessed riot police directly shooting at a group of protesters, who were mostly young men and women. Videos circulating on social media, some of which have been verified by Reuters, have shown security forces crushing demonstrations across the country.
HIGHEST DEATH TOLL IN KURDISH AREAS
The Iranian official, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, also said some of the heaviest clashes and highest number of deaths were in the Iranian Kurdish areas in the country’s northwest.
Kurdish separatists have been active there and flare-ups have been among the most violent in past periods of unrest.
Three sources told Reuters on January 14 that armed Kurdish separatist groups sought to cross the border into Iran from Iraq in a sign of foreign entities potentially seeking to take advantage of instability.
Faizan Ali, a 40-year-old medical doctor from Lahore, said he had to cut short his trip to Iran to visit his Iranian wife in the central city of Isfahan as “there was no internet or communication with my family in Pakistan.”
“I saw a violent mob burning buildings, banks and cars. I also witnessed an individual stab a passer-by,” he told Reuters upon his arrival back in Lahore.
Uncategorized
Pentagon Readies 1,500 Troops for Potential Minnesota Deployment, US Officials Say
People protest against ICE, after a US immigration agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis, in New York City, January 7. Photo: REUTERS/Angelina Katsanis
The Pentagon has ordered about 1,500 active-duty soldiers in Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment to Minnesota, the site of large protests against the government’s deportation drive, two US officials told Reuters on Sunday.
The US Army placed the units on prepare-to-deploy orders in case violence in the state escalates, the officials said, though it is not clear whether any of them will be sent.
President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces if officials in the state do not stop protesters from targeting immigration officials after a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Increasingly tense confrontations between residents and federal officers have erupted in Minneapolis since Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was fatally shot behind the wheel of her car by ICE officer Jonathan Ross on January 7.
Mayor Jacob Frey said on Sunday that any military deployment would exacerbate tensions in Minnesota’s largest city, where the Trump administration has already sent 3,000 immigration and border patrol officers to deal with largely peaceful protests.
“That would be a shocking step,” Frey said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. “We don’t need more federal agents to keep people safe. We are safe.”
Clashes in the city intensified after the federal ICE surge and the killing of Good. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Frey should set up “a peaceful protest zone” for demonstrators.
Trump has repeatedly invoked a scandal around the theft of federal funds intended for social-welfare programs in Minnesota as a rationale for sending in immigration agents. The president and administration officials have singled out the state’s community of Somali immigrants.
“I think what he’d be doing is just putting another match on the fire,” US Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, told ABC’s “This Week” when asked about the possible military deployment.
THREAT OF TROOPS FOLLOWS SURGE OF IMMIGRATION AGENTS
If US troops are deployed, it is unclear whether the Trump administration would invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the power to deploy the military or federalize National Guard troops to quell domestic uprisings.
Even without invoking the act, a president can deploy active-duty forces for certain domestic purposes such as protecting federal property, which Trump cited as a justification for sending Marines to Los Angeles last year.
In addition to the active-duty forces, the Pentagon could also attempt to deploy newly created National Guard rapid-response forces for civil disturbances.
“The Department of War is always prepared to execute the orders of the commander in chief if called upon,” said Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, using the Trump administration’s preferred name for the Department of Defense.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order, which was first reported by ABC News.
The soldiers subject to deployment specialize in cold-weather operations and are assigned to two US Army infantry battalions under the 11th Airborne Division, which is based in Alaska, the officials said.
Trump, a Republican, sent the surge of federal agents from ICE and Border Patrol to Minneapolis and neighboring St. Paul early last week, as part of a wave of interventions across the US, mostly to cities run by Democratic politicians.
He has said troop deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Portland, Oregon, are necessary to fight crime and protect federal property and personnel from protesters. But this month he said he was removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, where the deployments have faced legal setbacks and challenges.
Local leaders have accused the president of federal overreach and of exaggerating isolated episodes of violence to justify sending in troops.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, against whom the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation, has mobilized the state’s National Guard to support local law enforcement and the rights of peaceful demonstrators, the state Department of Public Safety posted on X on Saturday.
Uncategorized
New Evidence in Leaked Classified Documents Case Links Netanyahu Advisor
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem, Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: ABIR SULTAN/Pool via REUTERS
i24 News – During an appeal hearing at the District Court over the decision not to extend restrictions in the classified documents case, police revealed new correspondence between Yonatan Urich and Eli Feldstein.
The messages suggest that Feldstein, an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was aware of the secret document and its potential leak.
Feldstein was also summoned for further questioning at Lahav 433 amid suspicions of obstruction during a late-night meeting in a parking lot.
The correspondence, dated October 13, 2024, was exchanged on the encrypted messaging app Signal. Feldstein reportedly wrote to Urich that he was considering taking advantage of a visiting Bild reporter to discuss the document. Urich responded: “Let Hasid handle it, why waste your time on it,” referring to the reporter as a “nuisance.”
Police stated that the messages contradict Urich’s previous claims that he had never seen or heard of the secret document, showing that he was not only aware of it but also discussed its publication with Feldstein.
Last Thursday, the court rejected a request to remove Urich from the Prime Minister’s Office and denied lifting restrictions on Chief of Staff Tzachi Braverman and Omer Mansour. Judge Menachem Mizrahi wrote that the requests lacked “evidentiary, substantive, proportionate, or purposeful justification,” and saw no reason to extend prohibitions on contact or work for the respondents.
The new revelations are likely to intensify scrutiny of the roles of senior aides in the handling of classified material within the Prime Minister’s Office.