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
Israel Helps Somaliland Tackle Water Crisis, Welcomes First Ambassador After Recognition
Israel’s special envoy for water issues, Ambassador Rony Yedidia Clein, center, stands with Somaliland’s director-general at the Ministry of Water Development, Aden Abdela Abdule, second from the right, and other officials at a waste treatment facility in Israel, Feb. 25, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Israel has initiated a multi-prong approach to aid Somaliland in overcoming a series of droughts which have plagued the Horn of Africa region for years, lending its support in water management and other areas as the two sides formally establish diplomatic relations.
On Monday, the first official delegation from Somaliland — 25 water sector workers — arrived in Israel following Jerusalem’s decision in December to become the first country to officially recognize the Republic of Somaliland as an independent and sovereign state
Israel’s agency for international development cooperation, MASHAV, is spearheading the collaboration effort.
“Honored to welcome this morning the participants of the 1st [MASHAV] tailor-made course for Somaliland’s National Water Authority (SNWA) ‘National Water Resources Planning and Management,’ building capabilities and bilateral cooperation,” the Israeli agency’s head, Eynat Shlein, posted on social media.
Israel’s envoy for water issues, Ambassador Rony Yedidia Clein, and the Somaliland visitors toured the National Center for Water Education and Innovation at the Shafdan wastewater treatment complex in Rishon LeZion.
Despite being largely arid and having limited natural freshwater supply, Israel has emerged as a global leader in water management, recycling nearly 90 percent of its wastewater, primarily for agricultural irrigation.
Aden Abdela Abdule, who serves as director general of Somaliland’s Ministry of Water Development, met with Eden Bar Tal, director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. According to Shlein, the two officials “stressed the importance of the bilateral relations and the joint partnership. During the meeting and a separate discussion with the MASHAV team, we discussed the vast potential to cooperation between the two states.”
The situation has become dire for Somaliland’s farmers struggling with thirsty crops.
“We are desperate,” Faysal Omar Salah, who operates a family farm near the village of Lallays, told AFP, describing how his children survive on milk from his cattle. “If the rain crisis continues, we will just leave this land and go to a town. We hope Israel will help us cultivate our dry land.”
Israeli experts will reportedly visit Somaliland soon to aid in installing technology to counter a variety of water challenges which have hit the African country’s 6.2 million inhabitants. Over the last five years, the rainy seasons in the region have arrived late and diminished, causing shortages, regular droughts, and a need to rely on groundwater. In addition, Somaliland has seen water losses in its city regions and lacks major monitoring technology.
“Inshallah, Israel is going to help us changing our practices. Because if you want to change practices, you need to have knowledge,” Agriculture Ministry official Mokhtar Dahir Ahmed told AFP.
Meanwhile, Israel and Somaliland have moved to formalize their diplomatic relations.
On Wednesday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced it had formally welcomed Dr. Mohamed Haji, recognizing him as the fully accredited Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Somaliland to Israel. Israel will reciprocate by naming its ambassador to Somaliland in the coming weeks.
Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi is scheduled to make his first official visit to Israel at the end of March, the Jerusalem Post reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. He had previously visited in December for discreet negotiations that led to the partnership with the Jewish state.
According to experts, the growing Israel-Somaliland partnership could be a “game changer” for Israel, boosting the Jewish state’s ability to counter the Yemen-based Houthi terrorist group while offering strategic and geographic advantages amid shifting regional power dynamics.
Unlike most other states in the region, Somaliland has relative security, regular elections, and a degree of political stability — qualities that make it a valuable partner for international allies and a key player in regional cooperation.
Somaliland, which has claimed independence for decades in East Africa but remains largely unrecognized, is situated on the southern coast of the Gulf of Aden and bordered by Djibouti to the northwest, Ethiopia to the south and west, and Somalia to the south and east. It has sought to break off from Somalia since 1991 and utilized its own passports, currency, military, and law enforcement. The region remains distinct from the rest of Somalia due to the dominance of the Isaaq clan.
However, several Arab, Islamic, and African countries, including regional powers, publicly rejected the move, as did other states such as China.
Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud warned Israel at the Al Jazeera Forum in Doha on Feb. 7 against establishing a military base in Somaliland.
“We will confront any Israeli forces that enter, because we oppose this and will never allow it,” he said.
That same day, the Somali president blasted Israel’s decision to recognize Somaliland in an interview with Iran’s PressTV propaganda network. Mohamud labeled Israel’s recognition as “reckless, fundamentally wrong, and illegal action under international law.”
The European Union also opposed the decision, saying it “reaffirms the importance of respecting the unity, the sovereignty, and the territorial integrity” of Somalia.
US President Donald Trump has said he opposes recognition of Somaliland, but his administration defended Israel’s decision, saying Jerusalem “has the same right to conduct diplomatic relations as any other sovereign state.”
Somaliland’s minister of the presidency, Khadar Hussein Abdi, told AFP on Saturday that the government is prepared to offer mineral rights and military infrastructure in exchange for recognition from the United States. The region includes significant lithium deposits, putting it in potential competition with China which currently dominates the market, controlling roughly 65-70 percent of the world’s lithium refining capacities and 60 percent of rare earthing mining.
“Situated along the Gulf of Aden near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait – a chokepoint linking the Red Sea to the Suez Canal and carrying roughly 10 percent of global seaborne trade – the territory [Somaliland] offers not only resource potential but strategic logistics leverage,” Anne-Laure Klein, managing director in the portfolio operations group for Rothschild and Company, wrote on Thursday in Energy Capital & Power, a publication which encourages energy investments in Africa.
“For Washington, combining mineral access with positioning along a key maritime corridor could strengthen both supply chain security and transatlantic export routes at a time of intensifying geopolitical competition,” she added. “The question now is whether diplomatic recognition will follow – and if strategic geography and untapped minerals together are enough to tip the balance.”
Uncategorized
Young Republicans Flock to Anti-Israel Candidate in Florida Governor’s Race
Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback. Photo: Screenshot
A radically anti-Israel candidate in Florida’s Republican primary for governor is by far the most popular choice for young voters, despite being accused of antisemitism, a new poll has found.
The University of North Florida poll, released on Tuesday, showed 31-year-old James Fishback, the founder and chief executive of the investment firm Azoria, leading comfortably among Republican voters aged 18–34.
While Fishback remains a long-shot contender overall, the results found he captured 32 percent support among younger Republicans surveyed, compared to just 8 percent for US Rep. Byron Donalds, who continues to lead the broader primary field. Another 46 percent said they were not sure.
Overall, Donalds leads the field with 31 percent support, followed by Fishback far behind at 6 percent. More than half of those polled, 51 percent, said they were not sure who to support.
Fishback has drawn criticism for relentlessly attacking Israel and, according to some critics, veering into antisemitic discourse.
While addressing students at the University of Central Florida earlier this month, Fishback said he “will not visit the country of Israel under any circumstances.” The candidate went on to mock the Western Wall, calling it a “stupid wall.”
“This is how antisemitism rebrands itself in 2026,” Rabbi Steven Burg, the CEO of Aish, a global Jewish educational organization, wrote of Fishback’s comments in a recent op-ed for the Sun Sentinel.
Fishback has also criticized Donalds for arranging a forum at a south Florida synagogue, accusing the congressman of expressing favoritism toward Jewish people. The insurgent candidate also came under fire for praising supporters of antisemitic social media personality Nick Fuentes as “patriots” and “civil.”
“We had a great conversation, and they have a real pulse for what is going on in the country,” Fishback said of Fuentes’s supporters.
In December, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) released a report analyzing online support for Fuentes, suggesting he has received a major boost from inauthentic amplification by anonymous actors in foreign countries such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
If elected, Fishback has vowed to direct all state government entities to “divest” from bonds issued by the Israeli government on his first day in office. He has also accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza and stated that the supposed “genocide” should be taught in Florida public schools.
Donalds, a stalwart conservative and strident ally of US President Donald Trump, has established himself as a firm supporter of Israel. The lawmaker expressed support for Israel’s right to self-defense in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. As skepticism about Israel has surged within the Republican Party in recent months, Donalds has maintained strong vocal support for the Jewish state.
During an interview with Fox Business in December, Donalds lamented rising antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment within the country and around the world.
“This level of antisemitism, this hatred against Jewish people and against Israel, it’s out of control. It’s insane,” Donalds said.
The latest University of North Florida poll, conducted among likely Republican voters in Florida, included a small sample of 39 respondents in the 18–34 age bracket. Though limited in scope, the findings reflect a broader trend seen in some national surveys, indicating a generational shift among parts of the Republican Party, with younger voters expressing more skepticism toward both Israel and American Jews than their older counterparts.
For example, the Manhattan Institute, a prominent US-based think tank, released a major poll in December examining the evolving makeup of the Republican Party (GOP) and its current attitudes toward Israel and Jewish Americans.
According to the results, newer entrants to the GOP are more likely to be antisemitic
“Anti-Jewish Republicans are typically younger, disproportionately male, more likely to be college-educated, and significantly more likely to be New Entrant Republicans,” the survey found. “They are also more racially diverse. Consistent church attendance is one of the strongest predictors of rejecting these attitudes; infrequent church attendance is, all else equal, one of the strongest predictors of falling into this segment.”
This group is also in general more politically liberal, according to the survey: “Given that many of these voters are younger and former Democrats, more progressive policy tendencies are unsurprising.”
The data also showed that older GOP voters are much more supportive of Israel and less likely to express antisemitic views than their younger cohorts.
According to the data, 25 percent of GOP voters under 50 openly express antisemitic views as opposed to just 4 percent over the age of 50.
Startlingly, a substantial amount, 37 percent, of GOP voters indicate belief in Holocaust denialism. These figures are more pronounced among young men under 50, with a majority, 54 percent, agreeing that the Holocaust “was greatly exaggerated or did not happen as historians describe.” Among men over 50, 41 percent agree with the sentiment.
Uncategorized
Fetterman Hosts AIPAC, Bondi Survivor in DC Office, Voices Support for ‘Jewish Community and Our Special Ally’
US Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) gives an interview in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, Jan. 18, 2024. Photo: Rod Lamkey / CNP/Sipa USA for NY Post via Reuters Connect
US Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) welcomed representatives from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and a survivor of the Bondi Beach massacre to his Washington, DC office on Tuesday, expressing support for the “global Jewish community” and the longstanding strategic partnership between the US and Israel.
“Proudly welcomed AIPAC and a survivor of the Bondi Beach massacre — a living reminder of the global scourge of antisemitism. My voice and vote will always stand with and support the global Jewish community and our special ally,” Fetterman posted on the social media platform X.
Proudly welcomed @AIPAC and a survivor of the Bondi Beach massacre—a living reminder of the global scourge of antisemitism.
My voice and vote will always stand with and support the global Jewish community and our special ally. pic.twitter.com/mz5damSvV9
— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) February 24, 2026
Fetterman, who has emerged as a prominent pro-Israel voice among Democrats on Capitol Hill, has signaled unwavering support for the Jewish state as its standing among liberal voters and progressive lawmakers has cratered.
The Pennsylvania lawmaker has repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself from the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza and has defended the Jewish state from unsubstantiated claims of “genocide.” He also displayed the photos of the hostages captured by Hamas-led terrorists during their Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel in his office, drawing praise from pro-Israel Americans.
Despite his party’s increasing opposition to US military support for Israel, Fetterman has repeatedly vowed to vote in favor of such support for the Jewish state, rankling the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
“I’m a really strong, unapologetic supporter of Israel and it’s really not going to change for me when [Donald] Trump becomes [president]. My vote and voice is going to follow Israel,” Fetterman said during an interview in December 2024.
One year later, Fetterman lamented the deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach in December that killed 15 people who attended the Jewish gathering and wounded at least 40 others, expressing alarm about the global rise in antisemitism.
“After years of anti-Israel protests in Australia, at least 11 Jews were just gunned down at a Hanukkah event. Tree of Life to 10/07 to Bondi Beach: antisemitism is a rising and deadly global scourge. I stand and grieve with Israel and the Jewish global community,” he posted shortly after the shooting, using a figure based on an early death toll.
Though American lawmakers from both major political parties roundly condemned the Bondi Beach massacre, Fetterman’s decision this week to publicly meet with AIPAC, the premier pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, will likely raise eyebrows among his liberal supporters.
In the two years following the breakout of the Israel-Hamas war, AIPAC’s standing among the Democratic party has plummeted dramatically. In primary races across the country, Democratic hopefuls are being pressed on their connections to AIPAC and facing demands to pledge not to accept funding from the group, which seeks to foster bipartisan support for the US-Israel relationship. The emergence of AIPAC support as a kind of litmus test has raised concerns among Jewish Democrats that the party is becoming increasingly inhospitable to Jews and Zionists.
According to polls, Fetterman is unpopular among Democratic primary voters, making him vulnerable in a primary competition. Numerous progressives in the Keystone State have signaled they are gearing up to challenge Fetterman for the party nomination in 2028.
However, Fetterman maintains shockingly high approval ratings among Republicans and strong approval ratings among independents, potentially injecting a significant degree of uncertainty into the Pennsylvania Senate race if he were to run as an independent in the general election.