Uncategorized
A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary
(JTA) — Israel’s new governing coalition has been called the “most right-wing” in the nation’s history. That’s heartening to supporters who want the country to get tough on crime and secure Jewish rights to live in the West Bank, and dismaying to critics who see a government bent on denying rights to Israel’s minorities and undermining any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the far-right politics of new government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have drawn much of the world’s attention, a series of proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system has also been raising hopes and alarms. On Wednesday, new Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced an overhaul that would limit the authority of the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court. It would put more politicians on the selection committee that picks judges, restrict the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and government decisions and enact an “override clause” enabling the Knesset to rewrite court decisions with a simple majority.
Levin and his supporters on the right justify these changes as a way to restore balance to a system that he says puts too much control in the hands of (lately) left-leaning judges: “We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard,” he asserted. “That is not democracy.”
Critics of the changes call them a power grab, one that will hand more leverage to the haredi Orthodox parties, remove checks on the settlement movement and limit civil society groups’ ability to litigate on behalf of Israeli minorities.
To help me make sense of the claims on both sides, I turned to Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, where he is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law and co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project, which gathers and analyzes the constitutions of all independent nation-states. He’s also a Jew who has transformed a former synagogue on the South Side of Chicago into a cutting-edge arts space, and says what’s happening with Israel’s new governing coalition “raises my complicated relationship with the country.”
We spoke on Friday. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You have written about law in Israel, which lacks a constitution but relies on a series of “basic laws” to define its fundamental institutions. You’ve written that the Israeli judiciary had become “extremely powerful” — maybe too powerful — in imbuing the basic laws with a constitutional character, but worry that the current reforms will politicize the court in ways that will undermine Israeli democracy.
Tom Ginsburg: The proposed reforms were a campaign promise of certain elements of this coalition who have had longstanding grievances against the Israeli judiciary. The Israeli judiciary over the last decades has indeed become extremely powerful and important in writing or rewriting a constitution for Israel, promoting human rights and serving as a check and balance in a unicameral parliamentary system where the legislature can do anything it wants as a formal matter. A lot of people have had problems with that at the level of theory and practice. So there have been some reforms, and the court has, in my view, cut back on its activism in recent decades and in some sense has been more responsive to the center of the country. But there’s longstanding grievances from the political right, and that’s the context of these proposals.
A lot of the concerns about the new government in Israel are coming from the American Jewish left. But in an American context, the American Jewish left also has a big problem with the United States Supreme Court, because they see it as being too activist on the right. So in some ways isn’t the new Israeli government looking to do what American Jewish liberals dream of doing in this country?
Isn’t that funny? But the context is really different. The basic point is that judicial independence is a really good thing. Judicial accountability is a really good thing. And if you study high courts around the world, as I do, you see that there’s kind of a calibration, a balancing of institutional factors which lead towards more independence or more accountability and sometimes things switch around over time.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Jan. 4, 2023. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)
You mean “accountability” in the sense that courts should be accountable to the public.
Right. The Israeli promoters of these plans are pointing to the United States, in particular, for the proposals for more political involvement in the appointment process. On the other hand, in the United States once you’re appointed politically, you’re serving for life. There’s literally no check on your power. And so maybe some people think we have too much independence. If these proposals go through in Israel, there will be a front-end politicization of the court [in terms of the selection commission], but also back-end checks on the court [with the override clause that would allow a simple majority to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court]. So in some sense, it moves the pendulum very far away from independence and very much towards accountability to the point of possible politicization.
And accountability in that case is too much of a good thing.
Again, you don’t want courts that can just make up rules. They should be responsive to society. On the other hand, you don’t want judges who are so responsive to society that there’s no protection for the basic rights of unpopular minorities.
What makes Israel either unique or different from some of the other countries you study, and certainly the United States? Part of it, I would guess, is the fact that it does not have a constitution. Is that a useful distinction?
They couldn’t agree on a single written constitution at the outset of the country, but they have built one through what you might call a “common law method”: norms and practices over time as well as the system of “basic laws,” which are passed by an absolute majority of the Knesset, where a majority of 61 votes can change any of those. But while they’re not formally entrenched, they have a kind of political status because of that term: basic law.
By the way, the Germans are in the same boat. The German constitution is called the Basic Law. And it was always meant to be a provisional constitution until they got together and reunified.
If you don’t have a written constitution, what’s the source of the legitimacy of judicial power? What is to prevent a Knesset from just passing literally any law, including ones that violate all kinds of rights, or installing a dictator? It has been political norms. And because Israel has relied on political norms, that means that this current conflict is going to have extremely high stakes for Israeli governance for many decades to come.
Can you give me a couple of examples? What are the high stakes in terms of democratic governance?
First of all, let me just say in principle that I don’t oppose reforms to make the judiciary more independent or accountable in any particular country. But then you obviously have to look at the local context. What’s a little worrying about this particular example is that several members of this coalition are themselves about to be subject to judicial proceedings.
Including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Right. And for example, they need to change the rules so that [Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri can sit in the cabinet despite his prior convictions. That indicates to me that maybe this isn’t a good-faith argument about the proper structure of the Israeli, uncodified constitution, but instead a mechanism of expediency.
Any one of these reforms might look okay, and you can find other countries that have done them. The combination, however, renders the judiciary extremely weak. Right now, it’s a multi-stakeholder commission that nominates and appoints judges in Israel, and the new coalition wants to propose that the commission be made up of a majority of politicians. We know that when you change the appointments mechanism to put more politicians on those committees, the more politicized they become.
Think about the United States process of appointing our Supreme Court judges: It’s highly politicized, and obviously the legitimacy of the court has taken a big hit in recent years. In Israel, you’d have politicized appointments under these reforms, but then you also have the ability of the Knesset to override any particular ruling that it wanted. Again, you can find countries which have that. It’s called the “new commonwealth model” of constitutionalism, in which courts don’t have the final say on constitutional matters, and the legislature can overrule them on particular rulings. But I think the combination is very dangerous because you could have a situation where the Knesset — which currently has a role in protecting human rights — can pick out and override specific cases, which really to me goes against the idea of the rule of law.
You mentioned other countries. Are there other countries where these kinds of changes were enacted and we saw how the experiment turned out?
The two most prominent recently are Hungary and Poland, which are not necessarily countries that you want to compare yourself to.
Certainly not if you are Israel.
Right. There’s so much irony here. When the new Polish government came in in 2015, they immediately manipulated the appointment system for the Constitutional Court and appointed their own majority, which then allowed them to pass legislation which probably would have been ruled unconstitutional. They basically set up a system where they were going to replace lower judges and so they were going to grow themselves into a majority of the court. And that’s led to controversy and rulings outside the mainstream that have led to protests, while the European Union is withholding funds and such from Poland because of this manipulation of the court.
In Hungary, Victor Orban was a really radical leader, and when he had a bare majority to change the constitution he wiped out all the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. I don’t think the Israeli government would do that. But still there is this kind of worrying sense that they’re able to manipulate interpretation of law for their own particular political interest.
Another thing I want to raise is the potential for a constitutional crisis now. Suppose they pass these laws and the Israeli Supreme Court says, “Well, wait a minute, that interferes with our common law rules that we are bound by, going back to the British Mandate.” It conflicts with the basic law and they invoke what legal scholars call the “doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” which is basically saying that an amendment goes against the core of our democratic system and violates, for example, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic society. Israel has never done this, but it is a kind of tool that one sees deployed around the world in these crises. And if that happened, then I think you would have a full constitutional crisis on your hands in Israel.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak speaks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony in the Supreme Court marking 50 years of law, Sept. 15, 1998. (Avi Ohayon)
What does a constitutional crisis look like?
Suppose you have sitting justices in Israel who say, “You know, this Knesset law violates the basic law and therefore it’s invalid.” And then, would the Knesset try to impeach those judges? Would they cut the budget of the judiciary? Would they back down?
When you compare Israel’s judicial system to other countries’ over the years, how does it stack up? Is it up there among the very strong systems or is it known for flaws that might have maybe hobbled its effectiveness?
It’s always been seen around the world as a very strong judiciary. Under the leadership of Aharon Barak [president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006] it became extremely activist. And this provoked backlash in Israeli politics. That led to a kind of recalibration of the court where it is still doing its traditional role of defending fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of the political process, but it’s not making up norms left and right, in the way that it used to. This is my perception. But it’s certainly seen as one of the leading courts around the world, its decisions are cited by others, and because of the quality of the judges and the complex issues that Israel faces it’s seen as a strong court and an effective court and to me a balanced court.
But, you know, I’m not in Israel, and ultimately, they’re going to figure out the question how balanced it is or where it’s going to go. I do worry that an unchecked majoritarian system, especially with a pure proportional representation model like Israel, has the potential for the capture of government by some minorities to wield power against other minorities. And that’s a problem for democracies — to some degree, that’s a problem we face in the United States.
How correctable are these reforms? I am thinking of someone who says, “These are democratically elected representatives who now want to change a system. If you want to change the system, elect your own majority.” Is the ship of state like this really hard to turn around once you go in a certain direction?
This is an area in which I think Israel and the United States have a lot of similarities. For several decades now, the judiciary has been a major issue for those on the political right. They thought the Warren Court was too left-leaning and they started the Federalist Society to create a whole cadre of people to staff the courts. They’ve done that and now the federal courts are certainly much more conservative than the country probably. But the left didn’t really have a theory of judicial power in the United States. And I think that’s kind of true in Israel: It’s a big issue for the political right, but the political left, besides just being not very cohesive at the moment, isn’t able to articulate what’s good about having an independent judiciary. It is correctable in theory, but that would require the rule of law to become a politically salient issue, which it generally isn’t in that many countries.
How do you relate to what is happening in Israel as a Jew, and not just a legal scholar?
That’s a great question, because it really raises my complicated relationship with the country. You know, I find it to be a very interesting democracy. I like going to Israel because it’s a society in which there’s a lot of argument, a lot of good court cases and a lot of good legal scholars. On one level, I connect with my colleagues and friends there who seem very demoralized about this current moment. And I honestly worry about whether this society will remain a Jewish and democratic one with the current coalition.
The rule of law is a part of democracy. You need the rule of law in order to have democracy function. And I know others would respond and say, “Oh, you’re just being hysterical.” And, “This isn’t Sweden, it’s the Middle East.” But the ethno-nationalist direction of the country bothers me as a Jew, and I hope that the court remains there to prevent it from deepening further.
—
The post A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
80 Years After the Holocaust, Did Antisemitism Disappear? Or Did Anti-Zionism Replace It?
A German and Israeli flag fly, on the day Chancellor Friedrich Merz meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog for talks, in Berlin, Germany, May 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Liesa Johannssen
There is a comforting narrative circulating in Western discourse. It insists that the surge of anti-Israel activism we see today is nothing more than political engagement. We are told it is about policy disagreements, about borders, about governments and human rights. We are assured it has nothing to do with Jews as Jews.
Yet over and over again, the façade cracks. Beneath the slogans and hashtags, something much older surfaces. What presents itself as principled opposition to a state too often reveals itself as hostility toward a people.
For centuries, Jews have been blamed for calamities that had nothing to do with them. During the Black Death in medieval Europe, Jewish communities were accused of poisoning wells and spreading plague. These lies triggered massacres. In times of disease and social instability, fear sought an outlet and found it in the Jewish minority.
The pattern did not end there. Blood libels claimed that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals. Jews were portrayed as shadowy financiers manipulating global markets, engineering wars, and controlling governments. These were not fringe ideas whispered in dark corners. They were preached from pulpits, embedded in political rhetoric, and woven into cultural narratives.
The consequences were catastrophic. The expulsions from European kingdoms. The pogroms that swept across Eastern Europe and parts of the Middle East all the way up until the 1900s. The 1929 massacre in Hebron, where Jews were slaughtered in their homes. And ultimately the Holocaust, orchestrated by the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler, in which six million Jews were systematically murdered. Each era insisted it was responding to some new threat. Each era recycled ancient accusations.
Many antisemites now claim they only oppose Israel — but are we really supposed to believe that 80 years after 1/3 of every Jew on Earth was murdered, that antisemitism has disappeared and this is all about Israel?
Modern terrorism continued the pattern. At the 1972 Munich Olympics, members of the Israeli team were murdered in cold blood. In 1985, during the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, a Jewish passenger was singled out and killed. In 1976, Jewish hostages were separated from others in Entebbe before a dramatic rescue operation. And on October 7, 2023, Israeli civilians were massacred in their homes, children were abducted, and elderly people were dragged into Gaza by Hamas. Once again, Jews were targeted not for what they had done as individuals, but for who they were.
Each time, the world proclaims never again. Each time, hatred finds new language.
That’s why most “anti-Zionism” is just antisemitic logic repackaged for the digital age.
The intellectual dishonesty extends further. Marginal sects such as Neturei Karta are frequently showcased as the authentic voice of Judaism because they oppose the State of Israel. This tiny, fringe group does not represent mainstream Jewish communities in Israel or the Diaspora. Yet their images are amplified to suggest that “real Jews” reject Jewish self determination. It is not an honest engagement with Jewish diversity. It is a strategy to legitimize hostility.
In online spaces, the pattern is unmistakable. Comment sections filled with recycled tropes about Jewish control of media, finance, and politics are everywhere. Every geopolitical development is reframed as evidence of a hidden Jewish hand. Emotional accusations drown out factual context. In the age of algorithms, outrage spreads faster than correction. A sensational claim travels further than a careful explanation.
None of this means that Israel is beyond criticism. But there is a difference between criticism and much of what is happening now.
The State of Israel was established after centuries in which Jews lacked sovereignty and paid for that vulnerability with blood. It emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, when the absence of refuge proved fatal. To reduce its existence to colonial ambition is to erase Jewish history and the lived reality of exile, persecution, and statelessness.
Antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism is not diminishing. It is intensifying across university campuses, in activist movements, and in mainstream conversation. The vocabulary may sound modern, but the underlying message echoes the past. Jews are uniquely malevolent. Jews are collectively responsible. Jews are the problem.
The antidote is not censorship but clarity. Historical literacy matters. Facts matter. Calling out antisemitic tropes when they appear, even when wrapped in fashionable language, is not an attempt to silence dissent. It is a defense of truth and moral consistency.
The lesson of history is neither abstract nor distant. When antisemitism is trivialized or excused, it spreads. When it is confronted with moral seriousness and factual rigor, it loses legitimacy. If we are sincere in our commitment to a world where Jews are not scapegoats for every crisis, then we must recognize that anti-Zionism too often serves as the latest vessel for the oldest hatred.
The responsibility to say so belongs to all of us.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
Uncategorized
Israel, AIPAC Take Center Stage in Competitive US Congressional Primary
Aug. 12, 2025, Chicago, Illinois, US: Daniel Biss, mayor of Evanston, Illinois, attends a rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago after the announcement that the Trump administration has unilaterally ended the collective bargaining agreement with federal unions. Photo: Chicago Tribune via ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Leading candidates in a hotly contested open-seat Democratic primary for US Congress are dueling over support for Israel and the country’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, which have become key focal points of the race.
Tensions have been simmering for months but escalated after a super PAC known as Elect Chicago Women — which is reportedly supported by donors tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — began airing its first attack ad in Illinois’ 9th Congressional District last weekend. The ad accused progressive Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss of being “willing to say anything to get elected.”
Elect Chicago Women has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on broadcast television attacking Biss and more than $2 million boosting moderate state Sen. Laura Fine, according to federal filings.
The political action committee has not publicly disclosed its donors ahead of the primary, fueling complaints from Biss and other candidates about covert influence in the contest.
In a statement on Sunday, the Biss campaign stated that voters “won’t be fooled by these slimy dark money ads, and they won’t allow right-wing special interests to pick our next member of Congress.”
The next day, Biss released an attack ad targeting Fine for receiving money from supporters of AIPAC, which Biss’s campaign described as a “Trump-aligned, pro-Netanyahu” group, referring to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ad also said that AIPAC was aligned with “MAGA,” or Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.
AIPAC is a prominent lobbying group that seeks to foster bipartisan support for the US-Israel alliance. Despite making bipartisanship a key tenet of its work, AIPAC has in recent years become a favorite target of left-wing, Democratic activists and politicians.
Before the latest dueling ads, the clash in Illinois’ 9th District spilled into a candidate forum hosted by the Pink Poster Club last week in Evanston, where contenders were asked directly whether they accept contributions from AIPAC or longtime AIPAC supporters.
Fine was the only candidate on stage to say yes. She clarified that she has not received money directly from AIPAC itself but has accepted donations from individuals who support the group, as well as from some Republican donors. AIPAC has not formally endorsed any candidates in the race.
Nonetheless, Biss seized on Fine’s distinction, arguing that Democratic voters should question why right-leaning and pro-Israel special-interest donors are investing heavily in a Democratic primary. He has framed the super PAC spending as an attempt by outside forces to purchase the seat and shape the district’s representation on foreign policy.
Fine was also the sole candidate last week to respond “yes” to supporting continued military assistance for Israel.
Other rivals echoed concerns about transparency and influence, but it was Biss who most forcefully made policy toward Israel and AIPAC-aligned spending a centerpiece of his critique.
Fine has pushed back, saying the attacks mischaracterize both her record and her motivations. She points to her legislative work in Springfield on issues such as abortion rights, health-care access, and environmental protection, arguing that her support is grounded in her progressive credentials.
She has also emphasized her longstanding ties to the local Jewish community, a significant constituency in the district, and said backing from pro-Israel donors reflects shared values, not outside control. Supporters argue that strong US–Israel relations are a mainstream Democratic position and that accepting donations from pro-Israel individuals does not conflict with progressive priorities.
Fine and her campaign have denied any coordination with outside groups and contend that Biss is unfairly singling out Jewish and pro-Israel donors for political gain. Moreover, Fine has taken aim at Biss for his supposed connections with conservative donors.
“Daniel Biss has relied on Republican donors for years and voters are sick of politicians who say whatever it takes to win an election,” Fine’s campaign said in a statement.
At last week’s forum, Fine said she was “sick and tired of being Dan-splained,” noting that Biss met with AIPAC officials multiple times before rebuking their involvement in the race.
“When they said, ‘We don’t trust you,’ he changed his tune again. And that’s not a surprise, because he’ll tell one group one thing and another group another,” Fine said.
Another candidate in the race, Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old Palestinian-American social media personality who has repeatedly accused Israel of so-called “genocide” in Gaza, also slammed Biss for previously meeting with AIPAC officials.
Biss currently leads the primary with 24 percent support among voters, according to a new poll commissioned by the Evanston RoundTable and conducted by Public Policy Polling, a firm affiliated with the Democratic Party. He was followed by Abughazaleh at 17 percent and Fine at 16 percent, with nearly a quarter of voters still undecided.
In the open competition to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Fine has sought to establish herself as the most Israel-friendly candidate, stressing the importance of Israel’s self-defense and the importance of continuing the American alliance with the Jewish state.
Biss, who is Jewish, has taken a harsher stance against Israel, issuing sharpened criticisms of the Jewish state’s conduct in Gaza. Though Biss has stated that he supports Israel and has expressed desire for continuing the alliance between Washington and Jerusalem, he has condemned the Netanyahu government and called for increased restrictions on US military aid. However, the mayor also spent large stretches of his childhood in Israel and has expressed a generally positive sentiment toward the nation and its people.
Nonetheless, Biss has promised not to accept any funding or support from AIPAC, accusing the prominent lobbying group of having “MAGA-aligned donors” and arguing that accepting its support would force him to “compromise” his progressive values.
Last month, US Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, penned a letter demanding answers from Biss, accusing him of failing to protect Jewish students during a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel encampment at Northwestern University that, lawmakers say, devolved into widespread antisemitic harassment and violence. Northwestern’s campus is located in Evanston.
Illinois’ 9th District, long represented by progressive stalwarts, is heavily Democratic and includes Evanston and Chicago’s North Side. In such a deep-blue seat, the winner of the March primary will be the overwhelming favorite to win the general election.
Uncategorized
IDF Base Sports Center Destroyed in Oct. 7 Attack Reopens as Part of Multi-Million Dollar Rebuilding Project
Inside the reconstructed sports complex at the Israel Defense Forces’ Re’im Base during its reopening ceremony on Feb. 24, 2026. Photo: FIDF
A sports center and gym at the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) base in Re’im, Israel, reopened on Tuesday after being infiltrated on Oct. 7, 2023, by Hamas-led terrorists, who used the facility to plan further attacks against Israelis before it was ultimately destroyed.
The sports center at the IDF base in Re’im, which serves as the military’s Gaza Division headquarters, was reconstructed and reopened as part of a NIS 23 million ($7.44 million) project to restore facilities destroyed during the deadly massacre across southern Israel. The facility was rebuilt from the ground up and now includes a state-of-the-art fitness gym and indoor basketball arena. A mezuzah was placed on the doorpost of the center during its reopening ceremony on Tuesday and a commemorative plaque was unveiled.
A project to make the base fully operational again was led by Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF) and the Association for Israel’s Soldiers (AFIS). The sports center’s original construction was funded by donors from FIDF’s New York Tristate Area Real Estate Affinity Group, who united after the Oct. 7 attack to launch its rebuilding. Marty Berger, co-chair of the group, spoke at the center’s reopening on Tuesday.
“I remember when we first built this gym and facility and coming back over the years to see how much they meant to you,” he told IDF solders and FIDF supporters in attendance. “When we returned in December 2023, just two months after Oct. 7, we saw the damage and the bullet holes throughout the gym and fitness center. It was heartbreaking, but we also saw how the Gaza Division re-emerged ready to defend Israel with strength and determination and we vowed to rebuild it. To see this place rebuilt and to have played a small part in restoring it is deeply humbling.”
Hamas-led terrorists infiltrated the IDF base on Oct. 7, 2023, and used the sports center as their own center for operations, where they planned further attacks on IDF soldiers and their families on base. When IDF special forces closed in and tried to regain control of the base, the terrorists used the gym as the site for their final stand-off. The IDF ultimately ordered an airstrike against the terrorists, which completely destroyed the building. Many of the military base’s structures were also damaged in the Oct. 7 attack and considered unusable.
“Rehabilitating [the] Re’im base is a true mission, stemming from the inseparable bond between the Jewish community in the United States and IDF soldiers,” said FIDF CEO Maj. Gen. (Res.) Nadav Padan. “The reconstruction of the sports center and other welfare facilities symbolizes the determination to restore routine, stability, and a place that enables soldiers to continue their mission with a sense of security and pride. We stand alongside the soldiers of the Gaza Division today and in the future, with full and ongoing commitment.”
“The completion of this rehabilitation project is not only the rebuilding of structures but also symbolizes the end of a complex period and the beginning of a new path for the soldiers and commanders at Re’im base,” added AFIS CEO Col. (Res.) Shari Nechmias-Carmel. “It is an expression of life, spirit, and hope returning to the base, and of our commitment to providing those who serve there with a dignified environment that is strengthening and secure.”
The NIS 23 million reconstruction project also includes the restoration of the military base’s synagogue, library, health clinic, and other structures damaged during the Oct. 7 attack.