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
Doctors Without Borders Admits Gaza Hospital Used by Militants, Halts Operations
People walk at the site of Israeli strikes on Nasser hospital in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip in this still image taken from video, Aug. 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The international humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has publicly acknowledged that armed individuals — many of them masked — were present inside the large compound of Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza, citing intimidation of patients, arbitrary arrests, and suspected weapons movement as reasons for halting some of its work there.
The admission, buried in a rarely referenced FAQ page on the group’s website published last month, lends factual support to claims long asserted by Israeli authorities about the use of medical facilities by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists during the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), which is French for Doctors Without Borders, said it has suspended all “non-critical medical operations” at Nasser Hospital as of Jan. 20, 2026, citing “concerns regarding the management of the structure, the safeguarding of its neutrality, and security breaches.”
MSF’s admission was first reported by independent analyst Salo Aizenberg.
In describing those “security breaches,” MSF stated that patients and its own personnel observed “armed men, some masked, in different areas of the large hospital compound … not in areas where MSF has activities.” It added that since the most recent ceasefire in Gaza, teams have reported a “pattern of unacceptable acts,” including the presence of armed men, intimidation, arbitrary arrests of patients, and “a recent situation of suspicion of movement of weapons.” The group said such conditions posed “serious security threats to our teams and patients.”
The hospital in Khan Younis — one of Gaza’s largest and, until recently, few functioning referral centers in the densely populated territory — has been a flashpoint in the Israel-Hamas war since early 2024. After intense battles and an Israeli military operation that searched for hostages inside the complex, the hospital was rendered non-functional and later reopened.
For months, the Israeli government and military have claimed that Hamas and other armed groups used hospitals — including Nasser — as shelter and operational bases, allegations that Palestinian authorities and many humanitarian organizations have rejected. In February 2024, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesman Daniel Hagari said the military had “credible intelligence” that Hamas held Israeli hostages at Nasser Hospital at one point and that there may have been bodies of hostages currently hidden there.
The Algemeiner has previously documented claims acknowledged by the Palestinian Authority that Hamas summoned Gazans to the Nasser compound for interrogations and that militants threatened hospital staff.
Terrorists from both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an allied group in Gaza, have confessed that they took over hospitals across the enclave, using the medical facilities to hide military activities, launch attacks, and hold hostages kidnapped during their Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
In the FAQ disclosure, MSF did not explicitly identify the armed men or link them to specific groups. But by reporting the presence of masked fighters, intimidation of civilians, and suspicion of weapons movement within the hospital compound, MSF’s account aligns with Israeli officials’ long-standing narrative that medical facilities have not been strictly neutral zones.
MSF said it formally expressed concern to “relevant authorities” and stressed that hospitals “must remain neutral, civilian spaces, free from military presence or activity” to ensure the safe delivery of care.
The new disclosure comes amid broader tensions between MSF and the Israeli government over registration and operations in Gaza, including Israel’s decision to bar dozens of aid groups, including MSF, from registering to operate in the territory after March 2026.
Uncategorized
Ireland Confirms It Will Face Israel in Nations League After Calling for Ban From UEFA
Soccer Football – UEFA Nations League Draw – Brussels Expo, Brussels, Belgium – Feb. 12, 2026, General view during the draw. Photo: REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
Ireland has agreed to play against Israel this fall in the UEFA Nations League mere months after pushing for the Jewish state to be banned from international soccer competitions because of its war against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
The UEFA announced on Thursday in Brussels all the matchups for the 2026-27 Nations League, and Ireland was drawn to go head-to-head against Israel, as well as Austria and Kosovo, in Group B3. Ireland is set to play its away game against the Jewish state on Sept. 27 and will then host Israel in Dublin on Oct. 4.
The Israel Football Association said it hopes to host the Sept. 27 match in Israel, but a formal decision will reportedly be made in June. Israel has not hosted UEFA matches since October 2023 because of the war in Gaza with Hamas.
After the fixtures were announced on Thursday, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) confirmed in a released statement that the Irish men’s national team will indeed compete against Israel in both matches because they risk “potential disqualification” if they do not. The statement also addressed the motion the FAI approved in November 2025 to have Israel banned from UEFA competitions because of the country’s war in Gaza. The motions were ultimately rejected.
“In 2025, a motion was proposed by members of the FAI General Assembly to vote on issuing a formal request to the UEFA executive committee for the immediate suspension of the Israel Football Association from UEFA competitions for a breach of UEFA statutes,” the FAI said. “Members then voted in favor to submit the motion to UEFA, which the association did in November 2025. While consultation has taken place with UEFA officials, the association does recognize that UEFA regulations outline that if an association refuses to play a match then that fixture will be forfeited and further disciplinary measures may follow — including potential disqualification from the competition.”
FIFA President Gianni Infantino previously announced that no action will be taken against Israel and that FIFA “should actually never ban any country” from playing soccer “because of the acts of their political leaders.”
In October 2025, Republic of Ireland manager Heimir Hallgrimsson called on Israel to be banned from international competition just like Russia was after its invasion of Ukraine. “I don’t see a difference between FIFA and UEFA banning Russia and not Israel. I don’t see the difference,” Hallgrimssson said at the time. “I am not speaking on behalf of the FAI – I just don’t see the difference.”
He said on Thursday he stands by those comments and will respect any player’s decision not to compete against Israel in the Nations League.
“It’s obviously every player’s decision to play for the national team or not. So, it’s going to be whatever reason that is. It’s every player’s decision if they want to play for the national team or not,” he said, as quoted by the Irish Mirror. “But it’s not my decision if you play or not against them or what decision is taken on a higher level. I am the head coach. I need to focus on the football thing. I hope when we play them, the supporters will support Ireland and support us to do good when we play against them.”
Joanna Byrne, chairperson of Ireland’s soccer club Drogheda United, criticized the FAI for agreeing to play against Israel in the Nations League.
“In November, the FAI voted to submit a motion to UEFA to ban Israel from its European club and international competitions. That was the correct moral and principled position to take,” she said, as reported by the Irish Mirror. “Therefore, I am extremely angry and dismayed that the FAI have confirmed they will play against Israel.”
Uncategorized
Trump Tells Soldiers ‘Fear’ Is Powerful Motivator in Iran Talks as US Moves Second Carrier to Middle East
US President Donald Trump speaks during a visit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, US, Feb. 13, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
President Donald Trump told US troops on Friday that Iran has been “difficult” in nuclear negotiations and suggested that instilling fear in Tehran may be necessary to resolve the standoff peacefully.
“They’ve been difficult to make a deal,” Trump said of the Iranians before an audience of active-duty soldiers at Fort Bragg Army base in North Carolina after US officials said they were sending a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East.
“Sometimes you have to have fear. That’s the only thing that really will get the situation taken care of.”
During his address Trump also referenced the US bombing of Iran‘s nuclear sites last June.
Earlier, he said the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, the United States’ newest and the world’s largest, was being made so “we’ll have it ready” should negotiations with Iran fail.
Oman facilitated talks between Iran and the US last week, which a spokesperson for Iran‘s foreign ministry said had allowed Tehran to gauge Washington’s seriousness and showed enough consensus for diplomacy to continue. The date and venue of the next round of US-Iran talks have yet to be announced.
The president traveled to Fort Bragg to meet special forces troops involved in the audacious Jan. 3 operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Maduro, who faces narco-terrorism and drug trafficking charges in US court, denies wrongdoing and maintains he is the rightful leader of Venezuela. In the weeks since the Venezuelan leader’s capture, Trump has worked with Maduro’s interim successor Delcy Rodriguez and sought broad control over the country’s oil industry.
Fort Bragg is home to some 50,000 active-duty soldiers. It also sits in one of the country’s more competitive political states.
Trump’s comments came as the Pentagon moved to send an aircraft carrier from the Caribbean to the Middle East, US officials said on Friday, a move that will put two carriers in the region as tensions soar between the United States and Iran.
The Gerald R. Ford carrier has been operating in the Caribbean with its escort ships and took part in the operations in Venezuela earlier this year.
Asked why a second aircraft carrier was headed to the Middle East, Trump said: “In case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it … if we need it, we’ll have it ready.”
One of the officials, who was speaking on condition of anonymity, said the carrier would take at least a week to reach the Middle East.
The Gerald R. Ford will join the Abraham Lincoln carrier, several guided-missile destroyers, fighter jets, and surveillance aircraft that have been moved to the Middle East in recent weeks.
The United States most recently had two aircraft carriers in the area last year, when it carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear sites in June.
With only 11 aircraft carriers in the US military’s arsenal, they are a scarce resource and their schedules are usually set well in advance.
In a statement, US Southern Command, which oversees US military operations in Latin America, said it would continue to stay focused on countering “illicit activities and malign actors in the Western Hemisphere.”
Trump had said this week he was considering sending a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East if a deal is not reached with Iran.
On Friday he told reporters he thought that talks with Iran would be successful but warned that “if they’re not, it’s going to be a bad day for Iran.”
The Ford has essentially been at sea since June 2025. It was supposed to be operating in Europe before it was abruptly moved to the Caribbean in November.
While deployments for carriers usually last nine months, it is not uncommon for them to be extended during periods of increased US military activity.
Navy officials have long warned that long deployments at sea can damage morale on ships.
Officials said the administration had looked at sending a separate carrier, the Bush, to the Middle East, but it was undergoing certification and would take over a month to reach the Middle East.
The Ford, which has a nuclear reactor on board, can hold more than 75 military aircraft, including fighter aircraft like the F-18 Super Hornet jets and the E-2 Hawkeye, which can act as an early warning system.
The Ford also includes sophisticated radar that can help control air traffic and navigation.
The supporting ships, such as the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser Normandy, Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers Thomas Hudner, Ramage, Carney, and Roosevelt, include surface-to-air, surface-to-surface and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.