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
Richmond mayor facing resignation calls over posts calling Sydney massacre ‘false flag’
Bay Area Jewish leaders are calling for the resignation of Richmond Mayor Eduardo Martinez after he re-shared multiple LinkedIn posts that called Sunday’s massacre of Jewish people in Sydney an Israeli “false flag attack.”
Martinez, who was elected by the city just north of Berkeley in 2023, also shared posts claiming that “the root cause of antisemitism is the behavior of Israel and Israelis.”
Martinez has since removed the posts from his account and apologized for sharing them “without thinking” — but he did not disavow the false flag conspiracy theory about the attack. He clarified only that “we know that antisemitism was here before the creation of the state of Israel.”
“As I’ve said many times before, we should not conflate Zionism with Judaism,” Martinez wrote on LinkedIn. “They are two separate beliefs.”
He later added, “I want to assure everyone that these postings are my opinions (or my mistakes) and mine only. They are not statements from my office or the city of Richmond. If I make a mistake, that mistake is mine only. Once again, I apologize for posting in haste without full understanding of the posting.”
He did not discuss the attack, which killed 15 people and injured dozens.
The Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area was outraged by Martinez’s online activity and left cold by his apology. It called for his resignation Thursday in a statement posted to JCRC social media.
“These actions reflect a consistent and deeply troubling disregard for the safety and dignity of Jewish people,” the organization wrote on Instagram. “They erode public trust and send a chilling message to Jewish residents that they are neither protected nor respected by their own mayor.”
The local chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, ADL Central Pacific, also condemned the post.
“There’s no excuse for an elected leader to be amplifying warped antisemitic conspiracy theories that seek to blame the victim,” ADL regional director Marc Levine wrote in a statement to J. The Jewish News of Northern California. “The Australian community has already faced enough tragedy over the last few days. We hope Mayor Martinez will reconsider his hurtful words, which have absolutely no place in public discourse.”
The Forward has reached out to Martinez for comment.
Martinez’s LinkedIn posts were the latest in what local leaders say is a slew of antisemitic incidents during the progressive’s tenure. In 2023, just weeks after the Oct. 7 attacks, Martinez
Martinez, a former schoolteacher, posts regularly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on LinkedIn, sometimes multiple times per day.
In August, speaking at the People’s Conference for Palestine in Detroit, Martinez likened the Oct. 7 attack to someone snapping after being bullied on the playground, J. reported, adding that whether he supported Hamas was “complicated.”
The post Richmond mayor facing resignation calls over posts calling Sydney massacre ‘false flag’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mamdani appointee resigns over past antisemitic online posts about ‘money hungry Jews’
(JTA) — New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s pick for a crucial City Hall position resigned on Thursday, shortly after her history of antisemitic posts on X came to light.
Mamdani had announced his appointment of Catherine Almonte Da Costa as director of appointments, responsible for staffing City Hall, on Wednesday. But on Thursday, several posts on X where she peddled age-old antisemitic stereotypes were published by the Judge Street Journal, a Substack about New York City politics.
“Money hungry Jews smh,” Da Costa posted on a now-deleted account on X in January 2011, when she 19 years old.
In another post from June 2012, she wrote, “Far Rockaway train is the Jew train,” appearing to reference the large Jewish communities off the line.
The Judge Street Journal also highlighted posts that suggested an antipathy to white men by Da Costa, who has worked in diversity, equity and inclusion roles in multiple companies.
As a firestorm grew, Da Costa said she would step down.
“I spoke with the mayor-elect this afternoon, apologized, and expressed my deep regret for my past statements,” she said in a statement shared by the Mamdani transition team. “These statements are not indicative of who I am. As the mother of Jewish children, I feel a profound sense of sadness and remorse at the harm these words have caused. As this has become a distraction from the work at hand, I have offered my resignation.”
Mamdani released a statement of his own. “Catherine expressed her deep remorse over her past statements and tendered her resignation, and I accepted,” he said.
The incident came as Mamdani’s election has roiled the city’s Jewish community, with many expressing fear and discomfort over the mayor-elect’s history of anti-Israel rhetoric and policies. He has emphasized that he aims to make the city safe and welcoming for all of its residents, including Jews, and has condemned antisemitic rhetoric and displays since his election.
Still, his transition period has been dotted with tensions, including While Mamdani has made inroads in the city’s Jewish community since election night last month, the appointment of an official with a visible history of antisemitic rhetoric could pose another hurdle for his incoming term.
The New York and New Jersey branch of the Anti-Defamation League, which launched what it is calling a “Mamdani Monitor” following November’s election, called Da Costa’s posts “indefensible” in a post on X.
“We appreciate Da Costa has relationships with members of the Jewish community,” the group tweeted. “But her posts require immediate explanation — not just from Ms. Da Costa, but also from the Mayor-Elect.”
Several Jewish leaders praised Da Costa’s resignation.
The CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Halie Soifer, welcomed the news of in a statement Thursday evening.
“Glad to see that Catherine Almonte Da Costa has resigned,” said Soifer in a statement. “The views she expressed are unacceptable and intolerable. Especially at a time of rising antisemitism, she had no place in the mayor’s office of the city with the largest Jewish population in the world.”
Sara Forman, executive director of the New York Solidarity Network, which backed Mamdani’s leading opponent in the election, praised “cutting ties” with Da Costa as” the right thing to do.” But Forman speculated that “had she said ‘Zionist’ instead of ‘Jew’ the response from the incoming Mamdani administration and the outcome we just witnessed would likely have been quite different.”
Da Costa’s husband, Ricky Da Costa, is a deputy in the office of Comptroller Brad Lander, Mamdani’s most prominent Jewish backer during the campaign. He is Jewish and posted on X for the first time in more than a year in a half on Thursday afternoon, in response to the criticism of his wife.
“I don’t come back to this awful place much these days but as the Jew who married Cat, I can guarantee she has grown so much since some dumb tweets when she was 19,” he wrote. “Her remorse, like everything else about her, is deeply genuine & she works so hard for a NYC where everyone is safe.”
The post Mamdani appointee resigns over past antisemitic online posts about ‘money hungry Jews’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Belgium Reverses Decision to Cut Federal Security in Antwerp’s Jewish District Amid Community Outcry
Police officers on patrol in the Belgian city of Antwerp. Photo: Reuters / Nicolas Maeterlink
After facing strong opposition from public officials and the local Jewish community over plans to withdraw federal security in Antwerp’s Jewish district, the Belgian government announced it will maintain current security measures, keeping federal police deployed for the time being.
Belgian Interior Minister Bernard Quintin announced on Thursday that federal officers will remain deployed in the district, reversing an earlier government plan to cut the police presence there by roughly half. The reversal followed Quintin’s meeting with representatives of Antwerp’s Jewish community
Avec des représentants de la communauté juive d’#Anvers.
Leur sécurité est une priorité absolue: les dispositifs actuellement en place sont maintenus.
Je souhaite les renforcer par la présence de #militaires et espère que cette mesure pourra aboutir dans les heures à venir. pic.twitter.com/ODKh8sjMZ6
— Bernard Quintin (@BernardQuintin_) December 18, 2025
This latest decision comes just days after a deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach that left 15 dead and at least 40 injured, amid ongoing concerns about threats to Jewish communities worldwide.
On Monday, the Antwerp branch of the far-right political party Vlaams Belang had called for increased protection for Jewish schools and institutions during a city council meeting, Belgian media reported.
The government had originally rejected calls to bolster security, planning instead to withdraw the federal deployment, a move that sparked outrage from city leaders and renewed concern within the Jewish community amid ongoing threats.
Addressing these concerns, Quintin stressed that protecting Jewish sites is a top priority for the government, but emphasized that the federal police presence in Antwerp is not intended as a permanent solution, with local police responsible for maintaining security on the ground.
Antwerp Mayor Els van Doesburg had condemned the government’s earlier decision as “incomprehensible,” warning that the city cannot risk a security gap, especially in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack on Sunday.
“There must be no vacuum in the safety of Antwerp’s Jewish quarter,” Doesburg told Belgian media. “This is something we have to do together. It goes beyond the Antwerp police.”
Since the deadly attack at Brussels’ Jewish Museum in 2014, security measures have been strengthened, with Belgian intelligence consistently warning of elevated threats to Jewish sites.
In response, Antwerp has long maintained a mixed model in which local and federal police share responsibility for their protection.
The federal government has now proposed an alternative plan to deploy military personnel at Jewish community sites in Antwerp to support local police and increase capacity, though a government-wide consensus has yet to be reached.
Jewish community leaders had previously sharply criticized proposals to reduce security, dismissing Quintin’s explanation and denouncing it as a “political decision.”
Ralph Pais, deputy chair of the Jewish Information and Documentation Center (JID), a Belgian nonprofit that combats antisemitism, noted that the planned withdrawal, both in its timing and execution, had heightened concern within the community.
Despite the community’s expectation that authorities would address the issue, Pais had warned that inadequate security could lead to serious problems.
Dus geen 48 uur na de verschrikkelijke aanslag op joden in Australië zet nota bene onze minister van Binnenlandse Zaken @BernardQuintin_ de federale politiebeveiliging in @Stad_Antwerpen stop!
Burgemeester @elsvandoesburg vindt het uiteraard…
— JID (@s_antisemitisme) December 16, 2025
Van Doesburg had called for federal officers to remain in place until a suitable replacement could be established, whether through increased local police staffing or the deployment of military personnel — a request now addressed by the government’s decision to maintain current measures.
The European Jewish Association (EJA) said in a statement that it “welcomed” the move to maintain current federal police levels in Antwerp, noting that the initial plan “caused deep concern within the Jewish community and beyond.”
“This decision follows direct engagement with elected officials and Jewish representatives and sends an important message: the safety of Jewish life is a core responsibility of the state and cannot be subject to uncertainty or gradual erosion,” the EJA said. “The EJA wishes to express its sincere appreciation to [Quintin] for listening carefully to these concerns and for acting decisively to prevent any security vacuum. We also commend MP Michael Freilich, who raised the issue forcefully in Parliament.”