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
President Herzog Doesn’t Plan to Pardon Netanyahu, Intends to Pursue a Plea Deal
Israeli President Isaac Herzog speaks during a press conference with Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics in Riga, Latvia, Aug. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ints Kalnins
i24 News – Israeli President Isaac Herzog reportedly does not plan to grant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a pardon, but will instead work to initiate a mediation process to reach a plea deal. The New York Times reported this, citing Israeli two Israeli officials with “direct knowledge of Herzog’s thinking.”
According to the report, Herzog believes that there are many options beyond the choice of granting a pardon to the Prime Minister.
The President believes that his main role is “to foster unity,” therefore, he does not plan to announce whether he approved or rejected Netanyahu’s request. Sources told The New York Times that he would prefer to resolve the issue through negotiation.
Herzog’s office later released a statement on the topic saying, “Herzog sees reaching a plea deal between the parties in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cases as a proper and correct solution.” The statement went on to say that the President “believes that it is right to first exhaust a process that could lead to the formation of an plea deal between the parties, outside the walls of the court.”
Netanyahu formally submitted the petition to President Herzog in November 2025, arguing that terminating the long-standing corruption cases was a “national interest” necessary to end societal divisions and allow him to focus on critical security challenges. The move followed significant public pressure from US President Trump, who has repeatedly urged Herzog to grant the pardon, even threatening to withhold diplomatic meetings until the matter is resolved.
Uncategorized
US-Iran Peace Hopes Fade Despite Araqchi’s Diplomatic Push
Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Special Envoy for Peace Missions listen as Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news conference after meeting with representatives from Pakistan and Iran, Sunday, April 12, 2026, in Islamabad, Pakistan. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS
Hopes of reviving peace efforts in the US-Israeli war with Iran receded on Sunday as Iran’s foreign minister returned to Pakistan despite the absence of US counterparts after President Donald Trump told envoys not to resume talks.
While Abbas Araqchi continued to shuttle between mediating countries over the weekend, Trump scrapped a visit to Islamabad by his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
US forces removed security equipment from the city, Pakistani government sources said, signalling that any US delegation was unlikely to return for negotiations soon.
Although a ceasefire has paused full‑scale fighting in the conflict, which began with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, no agreement has been reached on terms to end a war that has killed thousands, driven up oil prices, fueled inflation and darkened the outlook for global growth.
Tehran has largely closed the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries a fifth of global oil shipments, while Washington has imposed a blockade of Iran’s ports.
After holding talks in Pakistan, Araqchi flew to Oman – another mediator in the war – where he met the country’s leader, Haitham bin Tariq al-Said, on Sunday.
They discussed security in the strait and Araqchi called for a regional security framework free of outside interference, according to Iran’s foreign ministry.
Araqchi later returned to Islamabad, Iranian state media reported. Pakistani government sources said he would hold talks with the country’s leadership before heading to Moscow.
IRAN ‘OFFERED A LOT, BUT NOT ENOUGH’, SAYS TRUMP
Speaking in Florida before being rushed out of the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, Trump said he canceled his envoys’ visit due to too much travel and expense for what he considered an inadequate Iranian offer.
Iran “offered a lot, but not enough,” Trump said.
An earlier round of talks in Islamabad – in which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation opposite Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf – ended without agreement.
After the latest diplomatic trip was called off, two US Air Force C-17s carrying security staff, equipment and vehicles used to protect US officials flew out of Pakistan, two Pakistani government sources told Reuters on Sunday.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif by phone that Tehran would not enter “imposed negotiations” under threats or blockade, according to a statement from the Iranian government.
He said the United States should first remove obstacles, including its maritime blockade, before negotiators could begin laying the groundwork for a settlement.
TRUMP SAYS IRAN’S LEADERSHIP IN DISARRAY
Writing on Truth Social before the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump said there was “tremendous infighting and confusion” within Iran’s leadership.
“Nobody knows who is in charge, including them,” he posted. “Also, we have all the cards, they have none! If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!”
Pezeshkian said last week there were “no hardliners or moderates” in Tehran and that the country stood united behind its supreme leader.
The war has destabilized the Middle East – Iran has struck its Gulf neighbors and conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon has been reignited.
Israel’s military issued new evacuation orders for southern Lebanon on Sunday, ordering residents to leave seven towns beyond the “buffer zone” it occupied before a ceasefire that has failed to bring a full halt to hostilities.
Uncategorized
Trump Was Likely Target of Shooting at White House Correspondents’ Dinner, US Official Says
US President Donald Trump takes questions from media at a press briefing at the White House, following a shooting incident during the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 25, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
President Donald Trump and officials in his administration were the likely targets of a suspect who fired on a security agent guarding the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, US Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Sunday.
The man fired a shotgun at a Secret Service agent at a security checkpoint in the Washington Hilton hotel before being tackled and arrested. Trump and first lady Melania Trump were rushed out of the dinner.
“It does appear that he, he did, in fact, have set out to target folks that work in the administration, likely including the president,” Blanche told NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” adding that the suspect likely traveled by train from Los Angeles to Chicago and then to Washington.
The suspect will be charged in federal court on Monday with assault of a federal officer, discharging a firearm and attempting to kill a federal officer, Blanche said, adding he did not know if there was an Iran connection to the attack.
CONDEMNATION OF SHOOTING
Trump told reporters at a late-night White House briefing that he believed he was the target of the attack. He said the Secret Service officer was saved by his bulletproof vest and was in “good shape.”
US Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi confirmed the officer had been released from a hospital.
ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl reported that Trump called him on Sunday morning and insisted that the White House Correspondent’s Association reschedule the dinner. “It has to happen,” Karl said Trump told him.
Around the world, leaders condemned the attack, and expressed relief that Trump and all present were safe, demonstrating solidarity with the United States. NATO leader Mark Rutte called it an attack “on our free and open societies” and leaders stressed violence had no place in a democracy.
The British embassy, which is preparing for King Charles’ visit to Washington starting on Monday, said in a statement that discussions were taking place on whether the incident may affect planning for the visit. A pre-visit brunch hosted by Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Christian Turner, was scheduled to proceed on Sunday.
SUSPECT THOUGHT TO BE ‘LONE WOLF,’ TRUMP SAYS
A law enforcement official identified the suspect as Cole Tomas Allen, a California resident about 31 years old. Little was immediately known about Allen’s background, but social media postings suggested he was a teacher in Torrance, near Los Angeles.
Washington Interim Police Chief Jeffery Carroll said the suspect was armed with a shotgun, a handgun and multiple knives. He was taken to a local hospital to be evaluated but it was too soon to say what his motivation was, Carroll said.
Bloomberg reported that Allen purchased a shotgun 8 months ago and a semi-automatic pistol 2 years earlier, citing a law enforcement intelligence profile.
Blanche said the suspect appeared to have checked into the Washington Hilton on Friday. Without naming the person, he said the suspect was not cooperating with investigators.
“There is something unique about the threats against President Trump and his cabinet that is disgusting and it shouldn’t be happening,” Blanche said on “ABC This Week.”
The chaotic events from around 8:35 p.m. raised fresh questions about the security of top US officials, many of whom were gathered in the hotel’s expansive ballroom.
A focus of the investigation is likely to be how the gunman was able to smuggle the weapons into a hotel hosting one of Washington’s biggest black-tie events. Guests entering the lower ballroom area are screened by security, but the lobby and room levels are not secured.
The dinner was attended by many members of Trump’s cabinet and other senior administration officials amid heavy security. It was the first time Trump attended the event as president, having boycotted it in previous years.
The site of the dinner was the scene of an attempt on the life of President Ronald Reagan, who was shot and wounded by a would-be assassin outside the hotel in 1981.
Closed-circuit TV footage released by Trump on Truth Social showed the suspect running rapidly through a security checkpoint, momentarily catching security personnel off-guard before they drew their weapons.
No shots were fired at the gunman who got through two checkpoints before being brought down.
“You know, he charged from 50 yards away, so he was very far away from the room. He was moving. He was really moving,” Trump said after the gala dinner was canceled.
Officials believe he is a “lone wolf,” Trump said.
HOW IT UNFOLDED
Video footage shows Trump and his wife sitting at a banquet table on stage in conversation with someone when a commotion at the rear of the ballroom – caused by the noise of gunshots – triggers a ripple of gasps through the room.
People started screaming “Get down, get down!” Many of the 2,600 attendees dressed in tuxedos and ball gowns took cover under tables as security personnel drew their weapons, with some pushing cabinet secretaries to the floor and covering them with their bodies while others formed a protective cordon.
Security personnel in combat fatigues stormed the stage pointing rifles into the ballroom as Trump, his wife Melania and Vice President JD Vance were evacuated. Cabinet members who had been sitting at tables dotted around the vast room were escorted out by their security details one by one.
Trump stayed backstage for about an hour after being hustled from the stage, a source told Reuters. He later said he had not wanted to leave the event, a remark that echoed images of him defiantly pumping his fist after narrowly escaping an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in 2024.
In that attempt, Trump was wounded in his upper ear by a 20-year-old gunman, who was shot dead by security personnel.