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
US House Passes State Department Funding Bill With $3.3 Billion in Security Assistance to Israel
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the media on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US, Nov. 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The US House of Representatives in a decisive bipartisan vote passed on Wednesday a sweeping government funding package that includes $3.3 billion in annual security assistance to Israel, underscoring continued congressional support for Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East amid heightened political scrutiny.
The legislation — which combines funding for the State Department and certain national security programs for the Treasury Department and other parts of the government — passed easily by a margin of 341 to 79, reflecting a durable consensus on Capitol Hill that Israel’s security remains a key US strategic interest.
Washington has committed to provide Jerusalem with $3.8 billion in military aid each fiscal year until 2028, according to an agreement signed by the two nations in 2016. The $3.3 billion in aid passed by the House, along with the $500 million given to Israel as part of the US defense budget for anti-missile programs, will meet that total.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, issued a statement praising lawmakers for passing the legislation, arguing that it bolsters the longstanding relationship between the US and its closest Middle Eastern ally.
“The pro-Israel provisions in this bill further reinforce the bipartisan and ironclad support for the US-Israel partnership in Congress,” AIPAC said. “These resources help ensure that our ally can confront shared strategic threats and that America has a strong and capable ally in the heart of the Middle East.”
The funding for Israel is provided through the Foreign Military Financing program and aligns with the 10-year memorandum of understanding between Washington and Jerusalem. Supporters say the assistance is critical to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge, funding advanced missile defense systems, and ensuring the country can defend itself against evolving security challenges.
The House package also includes provisions tightening oversight of US funds directed to the Palestinians and restricting assistance to international bodies viewed by supporters of the bill as hostile to Israel. It further bans funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the controversial UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The Israeli government and research organizations have publicized findings showing numerous UNRWA-employed staff, including teachers and school principals, are active Hamas members, some of whom were directly involved in the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, while many others openly celebrated it.
The legislation additionally blocks all funding to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was founded in 2002 under a treaty giving it jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that were either committed by a citizen of a member state or had taken place on a member state’s territory.
Last November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict.
Israel has adamantly denied war crimes in Gaza, where it has waged a military campaign to eliminate Hamas following the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
The Trump administration has imposed sanctions on ICC judges and those who assist with International Criminal Court (ICC) investigations of American citizens or allies such as Israel in February 2025.
The legislation also allocates $37.5 million for the Nita Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, a 2020 US law issuing a maximum of $250 million over five years for initiatives promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace-building efforts and a two-state solution.
The funding package is making its way through Congress as the future dynamics of the Israel-American military aid relationship remain in flux. Recently, Netanyahu told US reporters that he plans on weaning Israel off US support over the next decade. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a stalwart supporter of Israel, responded by announcing he plans on introducing legislation to accelerate the timeline to end US aid to Israel.
The measure now moves to the Senate, where leaders are expected to take it up in the coming weeks. If approved and signed into law, the funding would ensure uninterrupted security assistance to Israel for another year.
Uncategorized
Argentine Doctor Suspended After Threatening to Cut Jewish Throats
Dr. Miqueas Martinez Secchi. Photo: Screenshot
A doctor in Argentina has been suspended from his job at a hospital in Buenos Aires after posting antisemitic messages on social media that included explicit calls for violence against Jews.
The suspension of Miqueas Martinez Secchi, a resident physician specializing in intensive care at José de San Martín Hospital in La Plata, marks yet another example of rising antisemitism in health-care settings across the West.
“Instead of performing circumcision, their carotid artery and main artery should be cut from side to side,” Secchi wrote in one post.
The medical professional’s antisemitic online activity was exposed by journalist and commentator Dani Lerer, who posted the graphic messages on the social media platform X.
El @miqveas_ que llama a cortar la yugular de los judíos, y que borró su cuenta, es residente de terapia intensiva del Hospital General José de San Martín de La Plata.
Imagino que ya mismo tomarán cartas en el asunto las autoridades, pero que las redes hagan lo suyo. pic.twitter.com/luCjZbedar
— Dani Lerer (@danilerer) January 12, 2026
The posts prompted widespread outrage, leading Secchi to delete his social media account — but not before other users were able to save screenshots.
Buenos Aires Province Health Minister Nicolás Kreplak released a statement responding to the incident.
“Any aggressive message or one showing a lack of respect for human life is incompatible with health care practice and particularly with medicine. They are fundamental values of training as a health professional,” he posted on X. “Health is one of the essential assets of society, and it is indispensable to be firm against any act of discrimination and racism. As is public knowledge.”
Kreplak then referenced Secchi and noted he is under investigation.
“Due to this message, consistent with other previous behaviors that now acquire relevance, the resident doctor at Hospital San Martín de La Plata who made those public statements is suspended and in an administrative and judicial investigation process, in order to conduct an evaluation under an ethical, technical, and professional committee that will determine whether it is appropriate or not for them to resume their training process,” the minister said.
The incident in Argentina continues an alarming pattern of rampant antisemitism in health care across the Western world which has left Jewish communities feeling unsafe and marginalized.
In November, for example, a Jewish columnist from Amsterdam said she was denied medical care by a nurse who refused to remove a pro-Palestinian pin shaped like a fist.
Elsewhere in the Netherlands, local police opened an investigation into Batisma Chayat Sa’id, a nurse who allegedly stated she would administer lethal injections to Israeli patients.
In Italy, two medical workers filmed themselves at their workplace discarding medicine produced by the Israeli company Teva Pharmaceuticals in protest of the Jewish state and the war in Gaza.
In Belgium, a local hospital suspended a physician after discovering antisemitic content on his social media, including a cartoon showing babies being decapitated by the tip of a Star of David and an AI-generated image depicting Hasidic Jews as vampires poised to devour a sleeping baby.
The same doctor came under fire after he recently diagnosed a nine-year-old patient by listing “Jewish (Israeli)” as one of her medical problems on his report.
Several such incidents have occurred in the United Kingdom, where British Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled a new plan in October to address what he described as “just too many examples, clear examples, of antisemitism that have not been dealt with adequately or effectively” in the country’s National Health Service (NHS).
One notable case drawing attention involved Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, a trainee trauma and orthopedic surgeon, who police arrested on Oct. 21, charging her with four offenses related to malicious communications and inciting racial hatred. In November, she was suspended from practicing medicine in the UK over social media posts denigrating Jews and celebrating Hamas’s terrorism.
That same month, UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting called it “chilling” that some members of the Jewish community fear discrimination within the NHS, amid reports of widespread antisemitism in Britain’s health-care system.
Incidents in the UK included a Jewish family fearing their London doctor’s antisemitism influenced their disabled son’s treatment. The North London hospital suspended the physician who was under investigation for publicly claiming that all Jews have “feelings of supremacy” and downplaying antisemitism.
In Australia, two nurses filmed themselves bragging online about refusing to treat Israelis, making throat-slitting gestures, and boasting of killing Jews. Both lost their licenses and now face criminal charges.
A US-born Jewish woman who moved from Israel to Australia six years ago told The Algemeiner last year that she no longer feels safe in hospitals given the atmosphere of heightened antisemitism.
“In the past year alone, my little boy has witnessed many hostile protests where ‘anti-Zionists’ have actually come into the Jewish community without permits to intimidate us. Time and time again, instead of [authorities] dispersing and arresting anyone in the crowd for screaming racial slurs and threats, Jews are asked to evacuate and told if they don’t run away, they are inciting violence,” the woman said.
“Now they actually brag online about killing Israeli patients,” she continued, referring to the case in Australia. “I don’t know how safe I would feel giving birth at that hospital.”
Uncategorized
US Appeals Court Says Decision to Free Mahmoud Khalil Lacked Jurisdiction, Opens Door to Rearrest
Anti-Israel activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil marching with followers in New York City on June 22, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
A US federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a lower court judge lacked the authority to order the release of a prominent anti-Israel activist who helped stage riotous demonstrations on New York City college campuses.
Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, was detained by the Trump administration in March after federal agents arrested him at his Manhattan apartment for what the Department of Homeland Security described as “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.” The State Department also alleged that Khalil was supporting Hamas and argued his residing in the US posed “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
Immigration officials moved Khalil to New Jersey, leading his case to be transferred there to US District Judge Michael Farbiarz.
Khalil was held without charge for more than 100 days at a facility in Louisiana administered by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, until Farbiarz ordered his release in June, ruling that the government failed to prove he posed a threat and suggesting the detention may have violated his First Amendment rights.
On Thursday, however, a three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the lower court lacked “subject-matter jurisdiction” under federal immigration law to halt the Trump administration’s effort to deport Khalil.
According to the appeals court, the district court that considered his lawsuit was not the proper forum to address Khalil’s claims, which should have been heard through an appeal of a removal order from an immigration judge in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The ruling stressed that Khalil lacks legal standing to challenge the government’s decision to deport him before his case has been adjudicated in immigration court, adding that the INA does not allow for a petition to review (PFR) the case at the federal level at this time.
“The scheme Congress enacted governing immigration proceedings provides Khalil a meaningful forum in which to raise his claims later on — in a petition for review of a final order of removal,” an opinion issued by the majority says. “That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero, or two. But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government or conduct.”
It added, “Because Khalil raises legal questions that a PFR court can meaningfully review later on, the INA bars him from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition.”
In a statement, Khalil was defiant even as he faces the possibility of being again detained.
“The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability,” he said. “I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”
Additionally, his lawyers, provided by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), vowed to exhaust “every available avenue,” which may include a petition for his case to be decided by the US Supreme Court.
Speaking to Fox News, the Trump administration commended the decision, saying, “Mahmoud Khalil was given the privilege of coming to America to study on a student visa he obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. As we have always maintained, the executive branch has the lawful authority to take actions that will protect the public and to ensure the integrity of our immigration system.”
Beyond Khalil’s alleged pro-Hamas activities, the US government has maintained that its action was warranted by his lying to obtain a green card. In court documents it charged that Khalil did not disclose that he had interned for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a group that was found multiple times to have been breached by Hamas members, and also concealed key details about another position he held at the British embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Khalil, the government added, also did not inform immigration officials about his leadership role in the notorious “Columbia University Apartheid Divest” (CUAD) group.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, CUAD perpetrated illegal building occupations and severe infrastructure sabotage while Khalil participated in a graduate program at Columbia University in the months after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. The acts stunned Columbia’s campus, prompting fears of imminent revolutionary-style violence on campus even as Jewish students and faculty received antisemitic hate mail and death threats.
The Department of Homeland Security initially arrested Khalil while acting on an executive order issued by President Donald Trump which called for the deportation of foreign nationals who cause antisemitic hate incidents. A major provision of the order calls for the deportation of extremist “alien” student activists, whose alleged support for terrorist organizations, intellectual and material, such as Hamas supposedly contributed to fostering antisemitism, violence, and property destruction on college campuses.
Khalil has refused to condemn Hamas and even once denied that antisemitism at Columbia University required a policy response from school officials.
“I would say there is manufactured hysteria about antisemitism at Columbia because of the protests,” Khalil told Ezra Klein in an interview with The New York Times last year. “There are incidents here and there. But it’s not like antisemitism is happening at Columbia because of the Palestine movement … This is why I always push back. I have a strong belief that antisemitism and anti-Palestinian racism rise together because the same groups are perpetrating that in different ways.”
Khalil then went on to assert some of the very claims prompting accusations of antisemitism in the anti-Israel movement, accusing the Jewish state of “genocide” while arguing that the accusation is aimed at making pro-Israel supporters “uncomfortable” and defending the terrorist-led Palestinian intifadas.
“I don’t want to sanitize history,” Khalil continued. “Like I told you, the second intifada involved violent acts, but overwhelmingly, they were peaceful.”
Over 1,000 Israelis were killed in the early 2000s during the second intifada, when Palestinian terrorists ramped up violence targeting Israelis that included suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, pro-Hamas activists at Columbia produced several indelible examples of campus antisemitism, including a student who proclaimed that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself, brutal gang-assaults on Jewish students, and administrative officials who, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, participated in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes that described Jews as privileged and grafting.
CUAD was among the most strident pro-Hamas organizations on campus and once promoted itself by distributing literature which called on students to join Hamas’s movement to destroy Israel and America.
“This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly,” said a pamphlet distributed by CUAD, a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) spinoff, to incoming freshmen. “This material aims to build popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”
Other sections of the pamphlet were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose is to build an army of Muslims worldwide.
“We call upon the masses of our Arab and Islamic nations, its scholars, men, institutions, and active forces to come out in roaring crowds tomorrow,” it added, referring to a then-upcoming event. “We also renew our invitation to the free people and those with living consciences around the world to continue and escalate their global public movement, rejecting the occupation’s crimes, in solidarity with our people and their just cause and legitimate struggle.”
Columbia University denounced the group in 2025 as a part of a rollout of policies to combat antisemitism and unauthorized demonstrations which disrupted academic life.
In a statement issued in July, university president Claire Shipman said the institution will hire new coordinators to oversee complaints alleging civil rights violations; facilitate “deeper education on antisemitism” by creating new training programs for students, faculty, and staff; and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — a tool that advocates say is necessary for identifying what constitutes antisemitic conduct and speech.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.