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
Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril
For much of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current term, Israelis have been told that they are on the verge of a historic military triumph. Netanyahu has been promising “total victory” since early 2024.
Yet the public mood inside Israel has darkened rather than lifted. After nearly three years of war, none of our enemies have actually been vanquished.
The war with Iran may resume at any moment, and the Iranian regime shows no sign of collapse, or of acquiescence to Israeli-American terms. Iran’s proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen — all soldier on, certainly bruised but strangely unbowed.
And in Israel, reservists continue to be called up, and soldiers continue to die. Israel has absorbed devastating reputational damage, and the sense that the country has no positive political horizon has hardened into exhaustion.
As that exhaustion translates into polling that should terrify the prime minister, Israel faces an unprecedented internal danger: that Netanyahu will use a state of permanent emergency he has worked to enshrine to cancel upcoming elections altogether.
Over the weekend, the combined party of former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid passed Netanyahu in many of the polls. Per one poll, the opposition together is now leading him by 71 to 49 seats — a 19-seat swing relative to the current Knesset. And because several small opposition-aligned parties are currently polling below the electoral threshold, the actual anti-government majority in a real election could be larger still.
The direction of travel is clear, the deficit in the polls for the right-religious bloc is huge, and the danger for Netanyahu is real. He faces a plausible future in which he not only loses power in the election that by law must be held by the end of October, but loses decisively.
That’s why many Israelis suspect the election may not occur.
In a recent Hebrew-language column, Haaretz writer Ravit Hecht wrote that when Netanyahu “ is vulnerable and lagging behind, he is at his most dangerous.”.
“Netanyahu will try to ignite an external front — preferably with Iran — in order to manufacture a state of emergency.,” Hecht added. “If he fails to maneuver Donald Trump into renewing the war with Iran, and if that leaves his hands tied in Lebanon or constrains his moves in Gaza, he will inflame the domestic front instead.”
Victory, or emergency
Netanyahu may see two possible lifelines.
The first: political redemption through the kind of overwhelming victory he’s been promising for years. If the Iranian regime were somehow destabilized or collapsed, Netanyahu could argue that history had vindicated him. Enough Israelis who currently view the wars as endless and inconclusive might reinterpret the sacrifices as the painful prelude to a transformative strategic success.
The trouble: years of promising such a victory, with no clear returns, make its likelihood at this late hour very dubious.
The second possibility is darker and more dangerous: capitalizing on a state of permanent emergency.
Israel adopted a siege mentality during the six weeks of war with Iran, weathering mass missile barrages, civilian deaths and profoundly disrupted routines. If those conditions re-emerged under a resumption of war, the government could attempt to argue that national elections are impossible during wartime.
Ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition have spent years preparing the ideological ground for precisely such a claim — and the confrontation it would spark with Israel’s democratic institutions.
Netanyahu’s allies have portrayed the Supreme Court as governed by an illegitimate elite conspiracy. They describe judges not as guardians of the constitutional order but as enemies of the popular will. The current chief justice, Yitzhak Amit, has faced relentless delegitimization campaigns. Senior ministers have openly suggested that court rulings need not be obeyed.
Any attempt to delay or suspend elections would almost certainly trigger intervention by the court. Israel lacks a formal written constitution, but it possesses a dense web of so-called Basic Laws, precedents, and institutional norms that collectively form its constitutional structure. If the government attempted to legislate an indefinite postponement of elections under emergency conditions, the Supreme Court would likely strike the move down.
At that point, Israel could face a constitutional crisis unprecedented in its history: a government claiming emergency authority against a judiciary insisting on democratic continuity.
The government’s position would be strong, because Israel’s institutions are deeply dependent on executive cooperation. If a determined government sought to sabotage the electoral process indirectly while claiming national necessity, the Central Electoral Commission would face immense practical obstacles. At the same time, the Supreme Court lacks any practical enforcement mechanisms
An uncomfortable bargain
None of this means Israeli democracy is doomed. Israeli institutions remain resilient, civil society remains energetic, and public resistance to authoritarian overreach would likely be massive. But it does mean that scenarios once dismissed as hysterical are now being discussed openly by serious observers.
There is, however, another path still faintly visible.
Increasingly, Israeli political circles are discussing the possibility of a negotiated Netanyahu exit from public life. Netanyahu has already sought ways to terminate or freeze his ongoing corruption trial. Under Israeli practice, a presidential pardon generally requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and some expression of remorse.
If Netanyahu were willing to plead to a reduced offense such as breach of trust rather than the more severe bribery charges, President Isaac Herzog could potentially justify a pardon framed as an act of national reconciliation. Such an arrangement would go against Netanyahu’s pugnacious grain. But he may fear the humiliation of resounding defeat — and the end of any plausible excuses for delaying his trial — even more. It is even conceivable, although far from likely, that he would not choose to cause debilitating harm to Israel.
A bargain — Netanyahu steps back from politics in exchange for a pardon — would outrage many Israelis. Others would see it as a necessary escape hatch from national trauma. And Netanyahu himself would preserve a version of the story he has always wanted to tell: that of a historic statesman stepping aside after defending Israel through existential wars, not a defeated leader dragged from office in disgrace.
His supporters would accept the narrative. His opponents would accept the outcome. Israeli democracy, bruised and deeply damaged, would survive without crossing into outright institutional rupture.
It may be the least destructive option available. Democracies can survive flawed leaders. And Netanyahu, in his obsession with clinging to power, has made the need for this radical option existential.
The post Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Texas Sex Therapist in Congressional Race Calls for Castrating, Incarcerating ‘American Zionists’
Maureen Galindo, a sex therapist running for US Congress in Texas as a Democrat. Photo: Screenshot
The Democratic Party has rushed to condemn one of their own — Maureen Galindo, a candidate for US Congress in Texas’s 35th district — following an Instagram post last weekend in which she threatened Americans who support Israel with castration and internment.
“When Maureen gets into Congress, she’ll write legislation so that all Zionism and support of Zionism is undoubtedly Anti-Semitic, since it’s Zionists harming the Semites,” a post appearing on Galindo’s campaign account read. “She’ll turn Karnes ICE [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. (It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists).”
The post charged that Galindo’s Democratic primary opponent Johnny Garcia, the public information officer for Bexar County’s Sheriff Javier Salazar, “wants Jews and Mexicans in warehouses.” The campaign asserted that “the billionaire Zionists that control San Antonio and South Texas trafficking networks have coordinated a blitz campaign to propagate the conspiracy that anti-Zionist Maureen Galindo wants Jews in warehouses.”
The Instagram post added that “she would never blame ALL Jews for THE Jews (the Zionists) who have committed genocide on the indigenous Jews (the Semites) of the Middle East. Real Jews are VICTIMS of the Fake Jews (the Zionists).”
Galindo has also claimed that Jews control Hollywood and worship in a “synagogue of Satan,” perpetuating classic antisemitic ideas that have been promoted by both neo-Nazis and far-left extremists.
Democrats have started scrambling to ensure Galindo fails to advance to the general election. The Democratic primary runoff between Galindo, who finished first in the initial vote, and Garcia is scheduled for May 26.
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) released a statement blaming Republicans for spotlighting Galindo in an effort to damage Democrats politically.
“House Republican leadership must immediately cease propping up this antisemitic candidacy, pull spending in the race, and forcefully condemn these comments,” they said. “This vile language by her is disqualifying and has no place in American politics, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.”
According to Democrats, Republicans are the true backers of Galindo’s campaign, with almost the entirety of her funding coming from a mysterious group called Lead Left which emerged earlier this month. Researchers found metadata on the website which suggested alleged links to WinRed, a Republican fundraising platform.
On Wednesday, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) released a joint statement on X warning that “if for some reason, Maureen Galindo wins the congressional election in TX-35, as soon as she is sworn in, we will force a vote to expel her every single day we are here. Maureen’s insane, antisemitic views – including putting Americans in concentration camps – have no place in our party or country.”
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has announced that he will refuse to campaign with Galindo.
“This antisemitic rhetoric has no place in our politics,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “We need leadership in both parties willing to stand up and call out hate wherever it rears its ugly head.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), called Galindo’s statements “absolutely disgusting.”
“This bigoted garbage and antisemitism should be nowhere near our politics,” she posted on X. “If you’re in TX-35, vote for @johnnygarciatx. And the donors behind the Republican super PAC funding her should be exposed.”
Galindo defended herself in a text exchange with the Texas Tribune, claiming that reports of her Instagram post were “miswording my proposal to sound anti-Jew,” adding, “All politicians who have taken Israeli money should be tried for treason for aiding a foreign national with materials to harm Americans.”
In response to a question about how she felt about Democrats opposing her, she the candidate said that she did not care “what any Zionist-owned politician thinks. They’re exposing themselves as Zionists which will backfire on them.”
Galindo operates a business she has christened Exulted Sex Therapy, which offers to “increase safety, increase pleasure” at rates of $200 hourly for individuals or $250 for couples. She states on her site that “with my judgement-free [sic] and systemic approach to sex and wellness, you’ll learn to navigate various facets of your sexuality: anatomy & physiology, thoughts & emotions, and heart & spirit. Through this integration, you’ll discover the keys that unlock your most authentic pleasures.”
Galindo also encourages her potential clients to “inquire about including an astrology report.” She previously operated Cosmic Kinks Tarot in Bexar County, where she offered “kinky birth chart readings” and “live Tarot therapy” with her goal of empowering individuals “through the exploration of their sexuality, spirituality, and the stars,” according to a report from the Daily Mail.
Uncategorized
Trump Says Negotiations With Iran in Final Stages, Warns of Attacks if Deal Fails
A man holds a flag with a picture of late leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, late Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, during a rally in Tehran, Iran, April 29, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that negotiations with Iran were “in the final stages,” while warning of further attacks unless Tehran agrees to a peace deal.
Six weeks since Trump paused Operation Epic Fury for a ceasefire, talks to end the war have shown little progress. Trump said this week he came close to ordering more attacks but held off to allow time for negotiations.
“We’re in the final stages of Iran. We’ll see what happens. Either have a deal or we’re going to do some things that are a little bit nasty, but hopefully that won’t happen,” he told reporters.
“Ideally I’d like to see few people killed, as opposed to a lot. We can do it either way.”
Speaking later at the US Coast Guard Academy, Trump reprised his either/or rhetoric – “We may have to hit them very hard … but maybe not” – and reiterated his determination not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Tehran, for its part, accused Trump of plotting to restart the war, and threatened to retaliate for any strikes with attacks beyond the Middle East.
“If aggression against Iran is repeated, the promised regional war will extend beyond the region this time,” the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Iran‘s top peace negotiator, said in an audio message on social media that “obvious and hidden moves by the enemy” showed the Americans were preparing new attacks.
‘SUSPICION OVER AMERICA’S PERFORMANCE’
Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei later said the US had to end its “piracy” against Iranian ships – a reference to the US blockade of Iranian ports.
“Despite the negative record of the other side over the past year and a half, Iran is pursuing the path of negotiations with seriousness and good faith, but it has strong and reasonable suspicion over America’s performance,” Baghaei said.
In the latest diplomatic push, the interior minister of Pakistan – which hosted the only round of peace talks so far and has since been the conduit for messages between the sides – was in Tehran on Wednesday.
Baghaei said Washington and Tehran continued to exchange messages through the Pakistani minister’s mediation.
Iran submitted a new offer to the United States this week. Tehran’s descriptions suggest it largely repeats terms previously rejected by Trump, including demands for control of the Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damage, lifting of sanctions, release of frozen assets, and the withdrawal of US troops from the area.
Trump has said he called off attacks this week at the last minute in response to requests from several of Iran‘s Gulf neighbors. On Tuesday he said he had been an hour away from ordering strikes.
CHINESE TANKERS CROSS STRAIT
Iran has largely shut the Strait of Hormuz to all ships apart from its own since the US-Israeli campaign began in February, causing a massive disruption to global energy supplies. The US responded last month with its own blockade of Iran‘s ports.
Iran says it aims to reopen the strait to friendly countries that abide by its terms. That could potentially include fees for access, which Washington says would be unacceptable.
Baghaei said late on Wednesday that Iran was ready to establish with Oman a mechanism to ensure sustainable security in the Strait of Hormuz.
Two giant Chinese tankers laden with a total of around 4 million barrels of oil exited the strait on Wednesday. Iran had announced last week, while Trump was in Beijing for a summit, that it had agreed to ease rules for Chinese ships.
South Korea’s foreign minister said on Wednesday a Korean tanker was crossing the strait in cooperation with Iran.
Shipping monitor Lloyd’s List said at least 54 ships had transited the strait last week, about double the previous week. Iran said 26 ships had crossed in the past 24 hours, still only a fraction of the 140 per day before the war.
PRESSURE TO END WAR
Trump is under pressure to end the war, with soaring energy prices hurting his Republican Party ahead of congressional elections in November. Since the ceasefire, his public comments have veered from threats to restart bombing and claims that a deal is close.
The fluctuating US stance has sent oil prices swinging. Benchmark one-month Brent crude futures dropped to $105.76 per barrel late on Wednesday, down 4.95% on the day on revived hopes of a deal.
“Investors are keen to gauge whether Washington and Tehran can actually find common ground and reach a peace agreement, with the US stance shifting daily,” said Toshitaka Tazawa, an analyst at Fujitomi Securities.
The US-Israeli bombing devastated Iran’s military capabilities, including its defense industrial base, before it was suspended in a ceasefire in early April.
Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when they launched the war that their aims were to curb Iran‘s support for regional militias, dismantle its nuclear program, destroy its missile capabilities, and make it easier for Iranians to topple their rulers.
But Iran has so far retained its stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, and its ability to threaten neighbors with missiles, drones, and proxy militias, though toa lesser degree. Its clerical rulers, who put down a mass uprising at the start of the year, have faced no sign of organized opposition since the war began.