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
The last hostage returned. Can Israel finally exhale?
Israelis went into this week preparing for the possibility of yet more military confrontation. A United States aircraft carrier and other warships were moving toward the Middle East, giving the sense that an attack on Iran might be imminent. Tehran was warning that any strike would be answered with missiles, and that Israel would be implicated whether it participated in U.S. action, or not.
And then came a moment of true peace — perhaps the first since the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023. The last hostage came home.
Israelis have been holding their breath for nearly 28 months. With the return of the remains of Staff Sergeant Ran Gvili, they can finally stop.
Gvili’s tragic story is also almost uniquely heroic — and profoundly Israeli. Despite being in recovery for a fractured shoulder, the 24-year-old put on his uniform on the morning of Oct. 7, when news of the Hamas attack broke, and rushed south. He helped rescue civilians fleeing the Nova music festival. He fought at Kibbutz Alumim.
Then, wounded and surrounded, he was overpowered and murdered. His body was taken to Gaza.
Gvili embodied the most demanding and meaningful quality of Israeli citizenship: obligation. He went in first. He came out last.
The return of his body, which was reportedly discovered in a north Gaza cemetery, resolved one of the two war aims Israel set for itself in the aftermath of Oct.7 catastrophe: to bring every hostage home. It is a milestone worth celebrating. There has been something deeply revealing in how Israelis have spoken about the return of the remains of the last hostages: a refusal to accept that death dissolves social ties. A declaration that dignity does not end when life does.
This is a society obsessed with survival, but not indifferent to honor and human dignity.
Unfortunately, the other aim, the destruction of Hamas, remains disturbingly unfulfilled.
The hostage issue fostered a certain moral unity in Israel. The country was divided over everything else: the conduct of the war, the devastation in Gaza, the government’s competence, the international backlash, the collapse of trust after the judicial overhaul crisis.
But on the hostages there was something closer to consensus. For most, they were family.
Every Saturday night, hostage families gathered in the plaza outside the Tel Aviv Museum, which became known as Hostages Square. Joining them there — to protest in demand of the hostages’ return — became a ritual. My wife went there weekly, along with many thousands of others. For most Israelis, closely following the hostage talks — the rumors and leaks, partial releases and collapses — became part of daily life.
This meant that as the government continued to pursue the Gaza war, the hostages became a massive liability for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet. Long before military stalemate set in, by mid-2024, polls showed overwhelming support for a deal that would end the fighting after Hamas had been badly degraded in exchange for the return of all hostages.
The government did not listen. Hard-liners in the coalition, who controlled its fate, wanted the war to go on indefinitely. They even wanted Gazans forcibly expelled and the territory settled by Jews. Netanyahu basically had to have his arm twisted by President Donald Trump to strike a ceasefire deal in September.
In part because of that delay, today, virtually every poll suggests that forthcoming elections will produce a crushing defeat for Netanyahu’s coalition. Netanyahu rushed to the cameras Monday to declare Gvili’s return a great success, but my sense is that few Israelis are inclined to grant him credit. The state has completed an obligation, but the government has not redeemed itself.
That sense may have implications on the ground in Gaza, in the quest to rid the strip of Hamas once and for all.
The argument that movement toward a second phase of the Gaza framework must wait until the final hostage is returned is gone. The most likely first step is a partial reopening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt, which is as significant to Gazans as the hostage issue was to Israelis. If, as Israeli and American officials have suggested, that reopening moves forward, it will mean an end to the brutal, suffocating total siege of the strip. Coming days will see talks on who and what can get through, who has a role in checking for smuggling, and what limitations might be applied.
They will also see an intensification of discussion on the other main condition for moving forward: the disarmament of Hamas, which still controls large parts of Gaza. The militant group still believes time is on its side; it imagines that by returning the hostages it has purchased survival.
One thing is for sure: In a week when missiles may yet fly, when Israel may yet face costs far beyond its control, something quietly monumental happened. The country exhaled. The last hostage came home. In an cynical era of promises routinely broken, this one in a way has finally been kept.
The post The last hostage returned. Can Israel finally exhale? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Western Countries Crack Down on Hamas Terror Threat in Europe
A flag is flown during a protest in support of Palestinians in Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, outside the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, France, Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
Western authorities are intensifying efforts to curb Hamas’s terror threat in Europe, arresting suspected operatives in Germany and imposing US sanctions on key Hamas-linked figures and organizations.
On Friday, German authorities arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as Mohammad S., at Berlin Brandenburg Airport, who is suspected of belonging to a terrorist cell that plotted attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets across the country
According to local media, he is the fourth member of a cell – three of whose members were arrested last year – with links to Hamas, and he is accused of supplying the Palestinian terrorist group with weapons.
The German federal prosecutor’s office ordered the arrest of Mohammad S. upon his return from Lebanon, after investigators found that he acquired 300 rounds of ammunition in August 2025 in preparation for potential Hamas attacks on Israeli and Jewish institutions in Germany and across Europe.
Last year, local police arrested Lebanese-born Borhan El-K, a suspected Hamas operative, after he crossed into Germany from the Czech Republic — part of an ongoing probe into the Islamist group’s network and operations across the continent.
German authorities confirmed the suspect had obtained an automatic rifle, eight Glock pistols, and more than 600 rounds of ammunition in the country before handing the weapons to Wael FM, another suspected member of the terrorist group, in Berlin.
Local law enforcement also arrested Lebanese-born Wael FM, along with two other German citizens, Adeb Al G and Ahmad I, who prosecutors say are foreign operatives for Hamas.
As part of an internationally coordinated investigation into a global terrorist network linked to the Islamist group, German authorities uncovered evidence that it had smuggled weapons into the country for potential attacks in Europe.
The United States is also stepping up efforts to counter the threat of Hamas-linked terrorism in Europe, including imposing renewed sanctions on the group and its operatives.
Last week, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated UK-based pro-Palestinian activist Zaher Birawi, an alleged senior Hamas member, as a supporter of a Hamas-linked group, freezing his US assets and barring Americans from doing business with him.
The US government also sanctioned Birawi’s organization, the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad (PCPA), identifying him as one of its founding members and a senior official.
According to the Treasury Department, the PCPA “does not only work with, and in support of, Hamas — it operates at Hamas’s behest.”
Birawi also runs the Palestinian Forum in Britain (PFB) and holds leadership positions in the Hamas-affiliated European Palestinians Conference (EPC), organizing anti-Israel protests, flotillas, and campaigns.
Birawi drew international attention in 2025 as a key organizer of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla.
Israel, which designated Birawi as a key Hamas operative in Europe in 2013, uncovered documents last year in Gaza revealing the terrorist group’s direct role in organizing and funding the flotilla.
Among those documents was a detailed list of PCPA activists involved in the flotilla, identifying Birawi as the head of the PCPA’s Hamas sector in Britain.
According to a 2024 report on Hamas civilian fronts in the UK and Europe, Birawi was identified as “one of the most prominent Hamas- and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated operatives in the UK.”
The OFAC also sanctioned six Gaza-based charitable organizations — Waed Society, Al-Nur, Qawafil, Al-Falah, Merciful Hands, and Al-Salameh — for supporting Hamas’s military wing.
Uncategorized
Iran’s Rising Death Toll Ramps Up Pressure on Trump to Respond
Protesters gathered on Jan. 24, 2026, at Joachimsthaler Platz in western Berlin, Germany, to rally in support of anti-regime demonstrations in Iran, calling for US military intervention. Photo: Michael Kuenne/PRESSCOV via ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
More than 30,000 people may have been killed by Iranian security forces during a brutal crackdown on widespread anti-government protests earlier this month, according to new estimates that far exceed earlier death tolls.
The new figures have intensified pressure on the international community to respond to the Iranian regime’s shocking scale of violence, especially amid a US military buildup in the region following President Donald Trump’s repeated warnings to Iran and calls to help the protesters.
Two senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that the scale of the killings and executions has overwhelmed the state’s capacity to dispose of the dead, as anti-regime protests erupted across more than 400 cities and towns, with over 4,000 clashes reported nationwide. According to the officials, as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
The Iranian regime has reported an official death toll of 3,117. But new evidence suggests the true number is far higher, raising fears among activists and world leaders of crimes against humanity.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,937 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
According to Dr. Amir Parasta, a German-Iranian physician, the latest figures do not include protest-related deaths recorded at military hospitals or in regions the investigation never reached, suggesting the toll is likely to keep rising.
More than 30,000 fatalities have been registered so far. With the support of my dedicated colleagues in Iran, we have been able to submit verified figures on deaths, injuries, and executions to the United Nations and to governments, and we will continue to update these data.
— Prof. Dr. Amir-Mobarez Parasta (@ProfParasta) January 25, 2026
Aligned with the Ministry of Health’s new figures, Iran International reported that security forces killed over 36,500 Iranians during the Jan. 8–9 nationwide crackdown, marking the deadliest two-day protest massacre in modern history. Thew news outlet cited newly obtained classified documents, field reports, and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.
Iran International also noted the prevalence of extrajudicial execution of a number of detainees.
“Images released from morgues leave little doubt that some wounded citizens were shot in the head while hospitalized and undergoing medical treatment. It is evident that, had these individuals sustained fatal head wounds on the streets, there would have been no reason to admit them to hospital or begin treatment in the first place,” the outlet reported. “The images also show that in some cases, medical tubes and patient-monitoring equipment remained attached to the bodies. In other cases, cardiac monitoring electrodes are visible on the chest, suggesting these individuals were under medical care before being shot in the head. A number of doctors and nurses have also told Iran International that so-called ‘finishing shots’ were fired at wounded patients.”
Some families of protesters who were killed have reportedly been told they must pay up to $20,000 to bury their loved ones, while others were forced to sign papers falsely claiming their relatives had served in the security forces instead of participating in the protests.
According to Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of Norway-based Iran Human Rights, the Islamist regime is using this technique to conflate the number of security forces killed and downplay the death toll among protesters.
“One reason for this practice is that the regime seeks to avoid international pressure for killing protesters,” Amiry-Moghaddam said. “Another motive is to prepare the ground for future executions of protesters.”
Iranian judicial officials have previously dismissed US President Donald Trump’s claims about halting execution sentences for protesters as “useless and baseless nonsense,” warning that the government’s response to the unrest will be “decisive, deterrent, and swift.”
With Iranian authorities now maintaining an internet blackout for nearly three weeks, the actual number of casualties remains difficult to verify. Activists fear the internet shutdown is being used to conceal the full extent of the crackdown on anti-regime protests.
Iranian officials told The New York Times that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered security forces to suppress protesters “by any means necessary,” with explicit instructions to “shoot to kill and show no mercy.”
The latest figures, double previous estimates, come as the United States and the broader international community face growing pressure to act against the regime’s ongoing violence. For its part, the Iranian government has warned that any attack will be treated “as an all-out war.”
As regional tensions mount over the regime’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protests, Washington has increased its military presence in the region, moving a range of assets into the area — including the USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group.
On Sunday, the US Air Force said it was set to begin a multi-day readiness exercise across the Middle East “to demonstrate the ability to deploy, disperse, and sustain combat airpower” in the region.
The UK Ministry of Defense announced last week it had also deployed Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar “in a defensive capacity.”
In the last few weeks, Trump has repeatedly warned that he may take “decisive” military action against Iran if the regime continues killing protesters.
“We’re watching Iran,” Trump said on his way back from the World Economic Forum in Davos. “I’d rather not see anything happen but we’re watching them very closely.”
With pressure mounting for Iran at home and abroad, experts say it remains unclear how Tehran will respond — whether by escalating militarily beyond its borders or by offering limited concessions to ease sanctions and mend ties with the West.
The nationwide protests, which began with a shopkeepers’ strike in Tehran on Dec. 28, initially reflected public anger over the soaring cost of living, a deepening economic crisis, and the rial — Iran’s currency — plummeting to record lows amid renewed economic sanctions, with annual inflation near 40 percent.
However, the demonstrations quickly swelled into a broader anti-government movement calling for the fall of Khamenei and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and even a broader collapse of the country’s Islamist, authoritarian system.
