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 San Diego imam defended Oct. 7. His mosque still deserves our help
Jewish leaders and institutions like the ADL correctly expressed sympathy and support after Monday’s fatal shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego.
That really upset some people.
“Just remember the people who attend this mosque want us all to be killed,” Laura Loomer posted to X.
Loomer is an extremist, and it would be easy to dismiss her words as the fringe. But she does advise the president of the United States, and hundreds of social media posts echoed her opinion.
Many of them pointed out that 13 days after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Islamic Center Imam Taha Hassane gave a talk in which he told his congregation, “When people are occupied, then the resistance is justified — it becomes a human right.”
“We cannot accuse someone who is fighting for his life to be a terrorist,” he added. “The terrorist is the one who started the occupation, not the one who is defending himself.”
In the same sermon, Hassane said that American minds were poisoned by media influenced by “Zionist sources” to hate Islam, and that “the Zionist propaganda machine” bore some responsibility for the 2023 murder of an 8-year-old Muslim boy in Chicago at the hands of a mentally unstable, Islamophobic, non-Jewish man.
Some of them also noted that two months later, Hassane’s wife, Lallia Allali, was asked to resign from the community advisory board of The San Diego Union-Tribune and resigned from a teaching position at the University of San Diego after it came to light that she had posted an image on her Facebook account of a Star of David decapitating five babies, with the caption, “The devil is killing.”
All of this is bad. None of it justifies or excuses yesterday’s violence.
Too many of us, it seems, find it hard to understand that justifying acts of violence against those who disagree with you gives them ample reason to do the same to you.
‘We don’t need to agree’
“We do not need to agree on everything to stand firmly against violence,” Rabbi Jason Navarez of Congregation Beth Israel of San Diego posted to Instagram following Monday’s attack. “The Jewish community knows all too well the vulnerability that comes when sacred space is violated. That experience should not harden our hearts, but deepen our capacity to stand with others.”
The fact is that Jewish and Muslim Americans, despite our political differences, both face the threat of political violence and hate crimes.
Jewish and Muslim houses of worship are both disproportionately targeted for violence. Jewish congregations make up just 3.2% of all congregations nationwide, but account for 22% of the attacks against houses of worship, according to a 2023 A-Mark Foundation study. (I was CEO of the A-Mark Foundation at the time of this research.) Just 0.6% of religious congregations nationwide are Muslim, yet attacks against mosques and Islamic centers account for 17% of the attacks.
Inside the vehicles of the two teenagers believed to have opened fire on the Islamic Center, killing three people before taking their own lives, authorities found gasoline cans decorated with Nazi insignia and hate literature. Muslims and Jews in this country face a common menace in the kind of hate that appears to have influenced these teens — and there are far more useful ways of fighting it than, as Loomer would have it, blaming each other.
Work to do together
First and foremost: Stop justifying violence, period. Stop glorifying terror. Stop demonizing groups other than your own. Whether from the pulpit or on social media accounts, religious leaders need to set an example.
I get the anger, fear and distrust over the imam’s statements following Oct. 7 — that’s human. But the Jewish leaders that condemned the shooting and offered support were right to do so in spite of his words — that’s humanity.
Part of me hopes that the connections made because of that solidarity, following this tragedy, will create a new opening for mutual respect. Maybe, maybe not. What should certainly come out of it is an awareness that we have a common enemy, and a common struggle.
Here’s where to start:
•Help the victims. Attacks on houses of worship are now terrifyingly common. The A-Mark report counted 59 attacks between 2012 and 2022 — and things have gotten worse since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, and the subsequent war in Gaza. Inevitably, society moves on. But even if there are no dead or wounded, the scars linger. “The aftermath is just devastating,” Rabbi Jen Lader of Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Mich. — which recently weathered a ramming attack — told NPR. Muslims and Jews can work together to offer lasting support for victims of such violence: volunteering and donating to help rebuild damaged buildings and supporting congregants in their physical and emotional healing.
• Secure our institutions. As the attack was unfolding, leaders of Jewish Federations of North America were in Washington. D.C. seeking $1 billion in security funding for houses of worship of all faiths. This is lobbying Jews and Muslims can do together, including standing together against the administration’s conditioning of security funding on cooperation with Immigration and Custom Enforcement activities.
• Advocate for stronger gun laws. This may be the most Pollyanna-ish of all suggestions, but safe storage and gun lock laws are common in many countries, all of which have far fewer mass shootings than the U.S. It’s a cause Muslim and Jewish clergy can join in on pushing for.
• Finally, hold tech companies responsible for hate. More than half of all Americans have experienced harassment on social media, according to the ADL. Meta and TikTok’s own whistleblowers have said the companies promote hate to increase profits. Their algorithm “maximizes profits at the expense of their audience’s wellbeing,” they told the BBC. A Muslim-Jewish campaign to crack down on tech platforms that profit off hate groups and set their algorithms to push conflict could help make us all safer.
The teenagers who opened fire on the Islamic Center of San Diego didn’t care what the imam said about Gaza. They saw Muslims, and they wanted them dead — the same way the Pittsburgh and Poway shooters saw Jews. Our enemies are not making the distinctions we make about each other. Maybe it’s time we stopped making them too.
The post The San Diego imam defended Oct. 7. His mosque still deserves our help appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
An op-ed compared an NBA team to Israel as underdog success stories. Then the threats poured in.
With the reigning champion Oklahoma City Thunder fighting to return to the NBA Finals, one bold writer dug deep for an analogy: The Thunder, he wrote, is like the state of Israel — a former underdog now despised for its success.
The Oklahoman, a daily newspaper, published the opinion column on its website Monday morning, hours before the Thunder began their semifinal series against the San Antonio Spurs. The story was accompanied by an image of a basketball with the Israeli flag painted on it.
It did not survive to the game’s opening tip; by then, The Oklahoman had taken the article down without comment, amid waves of online ridicule that came from well beyond Oklahoma, from readers who saw Israel as unworthy of the comparison.
Amid the uproar, The Oklahoman distanced itself from the piece. Its executive editor, Ray Rivera, said in a statement sent to the Forward that the column had been “mistakenly published because our approval policies were not followed.”
“After further review, our team determined the content did not align with our opinion standards,” the statement continued. “We’re strengthening our review process to prevent future errors and deeply regret any distress this may have caused.”
The writer, a freelance contributor named Eitan Reshef, had intended to flatter. Reshef wrote that he was both Jewish and Oklahoman, and couldn’t shake the similarities in his rooting interests.
When Israel was attacked on Oct. 7, 2023, the Thunder were coming off of a season in which the team had finished with a losing record. But they have grown into one of the league’s titans since then — during which time Israel has been at war virtually without pause.
Some fans have criticized Thunder players for their penchant for earning free throws, regarding the tactic as unsportsmanlike.
Reshef wrote that he was proud of both Israel and his favorite team for persisting over the din of their critics.
“The Thunder are not hated because they somehow gamed the system,” Reshef wrote. “They are hated because they mastered it. Israel is not obsessively scrutinized because it failed, but due to its success despite deeply-rooted envy and darker historical motives.”
Many were quick to point out other reasons Israel is hated, but they weren’t the ones Reshef had in mind. “My tally has Chet Holmgren guilty of zero baby murders,” wrote one critic on Bluesky. Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings piled on, joking on the same social media platform that Reshef had suggested that “it’s antisemitic to not root for the OKC Thunder.”
Reshef told the Forward he had expected to get some blowback for the piece. But he was not prepared for the deluge of personal attacks he received.
Reshef shared screenshots of messages he received on social media and via email, calling him various profanities. “I hope you feel shame,” one wrote in a direct message, adding that he should be institutionalized. An X user, tagging Reshef in a public post, wrote, “Don’t let me find you.” The same user previously posted that “now we know why Hitler killed Jews.”
And in the comments of the Oklahoman’s Facebook post, Reshef saw one person he knew from his childhood. “‘I grew up with the guy who wrote it. He’s a moron,’” Reshef said the comment read. “This is someone I haven’t spoken to in 25 years, and actually, I would have thought he was my friend. But I guess he’s not.”
Reshef, who works in marketing, had never written an article for publication before. But after coming up with the idea, he wrote the column and submitted it to the Oklahoman via email. He received a reply from an editor he declined to name, which said that the newspaper planned to run it online Monday and in print next week. Reshef was not paid for the piece.
The Oklahoman did not consult or inform him about taking down the piece, he said, and had not replied to his email seeking explanation. And he was not sure whether he was disappointed that the newspaper had removed it, considering that perhaps its editors had been looking out for his safety.
This isn’t the first time anti-Israel sentiment has resounded among basketball fans.
The league’s most prominent Israeli player, Deni Avdija, was frequently the target of anti-Israel and even antisemitic hate from basketball fans online amid his own recent playoff success. And the Thunder itself is known as an Israel-friendly team: star Chet Holmgren was once mockingly nicknamed “Chetanyahu” for practicing in a gym where an Israeli flag hung.
The Thunder are once again the underdog, having lost Monday’s game in double-overtime.
Whether on the team’s record or on Israel’s, Reshef he had no regrets about what he had written.
“We can disagree with each other — we should disagree with each other,” he said. “I treasure that value. I’m willing to step up to the plate, talk to anybody, just talk to me. But to make personal attacks on me, as if you know me, or make threats. It’s frightening that that’s the world that we live in right now.”
The post An op-ed compared an NBA team to Israel as underdog success stories. Then the threats poured in. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump national Shabbat divides America’s Jews ahead of National Mall prayer rally
(JTA) — As part of a 250th anniversary celebration of the United States, President Donald Trump is calling on Americans to pray together in a nine-hour marathon on the National Mall Sunday featuring a host of Christian speakers — and one rabbi.
But first, Trump is calling on Jews to mark Shabbat, the Jewish day of rest from sundown Friday to nightfall Saturday, and encouraging other Americans to consider embracing the ritual as well.
“In special honor of 250 glorious years of American independence and on the weekend of Rededicate 250 — a national jubilee of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving — Jewish Americans are encouraged to observe a national Sabbath,” Trump said in his Jewish American Heritage Month proclamation on May 4.
“From sundown on May 15 to nightfall on May 16, friends, families, and communities of all backgrounds may come together in gratitude for our great Nation,” he continued. “This day will recognize the sacred Jewish tradition of setting aside time for rest, reflection, and gratitude to the Almighty.”
The call marked the first time that an American president has formally urged the celebration of Shabbat. Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism before marrying Jared Kushner, now a prominent Trump advisor, reportedly observes Shabbat according to traditional interpretations of Jewish law.
Trump’s call echoes the legacy of conservative Christian activist Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot in September. Kirk’s book detailing his own observance of a “Jewish Sabbath” every week was published posthumously.
The exhortation has received mixed reviews from the American Jewish community. Some Jews have said they appreciate the gesture and recognition of a central tradition to Judaism, and even are promoting their own Shabbat services as part of “Shabbat 250.”
Others say Trump is appropriating Judaism to promote conservative political goals and Christian nationalism, a movement backed by a portion of Trump’s base that scholars say could push the country in a direction that is less hospitable to Jews.
Support for the initiative has been strongest among Orthodox Jews, who tend to be more politically conservative. Rabbi Josh Joseph, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, endorsed Trump’s call soon after it was made.
“This weekend, following President Trump’s encouragement, we will mark Shabbat 250,” he said in a statement earlier this week. “We will pause to acknowledge all the blessings that the Almighty has provided American Jews through the unique devotion to liberty embedded in this nation.”
Some Orthodox synagogues, including many affiliated with the Chabad Hasidic movement, have announced “Shabbat 250” programming, such as dinners and special speakers. The group Young Jewish Conservatives, meanwhile, doled out $180 grants to conservative Jews under 35 who committed to hosting at least five people for a Shabbat dinner in their homes.
More than 7,500 people have declared on a new website, Shabbat250.org, their intention to observe Shabbat. Some Orthodox commentators tied Trump’s proclamation to the week’s Torah portion, which describes how the Israelites, having been freed from Egypt, took a census of themselves in the desert as their new nation came into focus.
“Today we celebrate the numbers, the 250th anniversary, but like a census, this milestone must also be a springboard from which to consider where America is going,” wrote Jonathan Feldstein, president of the Genesis 123 Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to build ties between Jews and Christians, on his Substack.
On the other side, Rabbi Jonah Pesner of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism is among the faith leaders scheduled to participate in a virtual event Friday morning that organizers say will “explain why so many religious Americans of diverse faiths are alarmed and alienated by attempts to use America’s 250th birthday as an opportunity to frame the US as a ‘Christian nation’ and to misrepresent the approach to religious tolerance and freedom adopted by our founders and Constitution.”
The perspective is shared widely on the Jewish left, where many leaders say it is inappropriate and harmful for Trump to involve himself in Shabbat.
“When the state meddles in our sacred affairs, blurring the already fuzzy lines between church and state, it doesn’t elevate the Sabbath; it diminishes the democracy that 250 years of history were supposed to protect,” Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavie of the progressive Lab/Shul wrote in a blog post Wednesday. “I suggest we each adapt this ‘National Shabbat’ in our own unique way – not because a leader commanded it, but because our humanity demands it.”
The debate comes ahead of the prayer rally planned for the National Mall on Sunday. The event, called Rededicate 250, is organized by a nonprofit called Freedom 250, which is advertising an event lineup featuring Christian music as well as “Freedom Trucks” that provide educational material provided by the conservative advocacy group PragerU and the Christian classical school Hillsdale College.
Organizers are also promoting performances by U.S. military bands as well as participation from several Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump himself is set to appear by video, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, will also take the stage.
Of the 33 prayer leaders set to appear, about half are of evangelical or non-denominational evangelical Christian practice. Baptist, Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist speakers will also speak.
The only non-Christian speaker on the lineup is Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, an Orthodox rabbi and senior scholar at the Tikvah Fund, a politically conservative Jewish think tank, who also sits on the Religious Liberty Commission that Trump created last year.
Rachel Laser, the Jewish CEO of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, denounced the rally as part of a rising tide of Christian nationalism.
“If President Trump and his allies truly cared about America’s legacy of religious freedom, they would be celebrating church-state separation as the unique American invention that has allowed religious diversity to flourish in our country,” she said in a statement. “Instead, they continue to threaten this foundational principle by advancing a Christian Nationalist crusade to impose one narrow version of Christianity on all Americans.”
The rally comes as Americans are growing more appreciative of religion, even if they do not necessarily practice any themselves. A new Pew Research Center report out this week shows that an increasing minority of American adults say religion is “gaining influence in American life” and more than half of Americans say religion plays a positive role in society.
The proportion of Americans who believe Christianity should be declared the official religion of the United States has grown slightly in recent years and now stands at 17%, according to the survey. A much larger proportion of Americans, 43%, said they believe Christianity should not be an official religion but that the government should promote Christian moral values.
The White House will host a reception to mark the start of Shabbat 250 late Friday afternoon.
The attention to Shabbat jolted by Trump’s proclamation has spurred a wave of non-political attention to Shabbat, too. The writer Daniella Greenbaum Davis, for example, explained rabbinic teachings in a column in the Washington Post urging non-Jews to consider adopting Shabbat as a mindfulness practice.
“Shabbat is a Jewish tradition,” Davis wrote. “But the case for a weekly day of rest, taking a formal break from worldly concerns, is universal.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump national Shabbat divides America’s Jews ahead of National Mall prayer rally appeared first on The Forward.