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
British Jewish groups call for resignation of police chief who banned Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from soccer match
(JTA) — Two British Jewish groups are calling for the ouster of a local police chief over claims that the force allegedly mishandled the banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from a soccer game in November.
The decision to ban the fans from a match against Aston Villa Football Club on Nov. 6 was initially made after the West Midlands Police advised the group responsible for issuing safety certificates for the fame to ban the fans over “public safety concerns.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and a host of Jewish groups decried the decision at the time. Now, a parliamentary tribunal has increased scrutiny on the police department’s decision making.
While the police have claimed that hundreds of Maccabi fans had targeted Muslim communities the night before a 2024 game in Amsterdam, Amsterdam police have since disputed their characterization of the confrontation. The violence there was driven by people targeting the Maccabi fans, Amsterdam police have said.
At the tribunal on Tuesday, Chair Dame Karen Bradley accused the local police force of “scraping” to find a reason to justify the ban.
West Midlands Police’s chief constable, Craig Guildford, defended the decision, replying, “I’m really sorry if it comes across in that way. That was absolutely not the case.”
Mike O’Hara, the assistant chief constable, told the committee that “there was a lot of intelligence that people would actively seek out Maccabi fans and seek violence towards them,” according to The Times.
Kemi Badenoch, the British Conservative party leader, said on Tuesday that West Midlands police “knew extremists were planning to attack Jews for going to a football match” but their response was to “blame and remove Jewish people instead,” according to The Times.
“It seems that the police reached a decision first, and then searched for evidence to justify it, apparently influenced by the threat posed by local extremists,” said the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish Leadership Council in a joint statement. “It is also apparent that claims about the previous behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were unsubstantiated or erroneous.”
The Jewish groups wrote that “significant harm has been done to the confidence of the Jewish community in the Police,” adding that if Guildford does not resign, “responsibility lies with central government to intervene.”
The Israeli Foreign Ministry also wrote that the conduct of the West Midlands Police towards the Maccabi fans was “utterly disgraceful” in a post on X.
“There is a specific term for the phenomenon of scapegoating Israelis and Jews while exonerating the true perpetrators – jihadists seeking to harm Jews. it is called antisemitism,” the post read. “Regrettably, this is the reality of Britain today. There must be action and accountability for such actions.”
The calls for Guildford’s resignation come as Maccabi Tel Aviv is playing in Spain — again behind closed doors as well over security concerns.
On Tuesday, Maccabi Tel Aviv played against FC Barcelona without fans after the team announced the game had been designated as a “high risk.”
And about a game planned for Thursday, Real Madrid said in a statement, “Following a meeting of the State Commission against Violence, Racism, Xenophobia, and Intolerance in Sport, which declared the game high-risk, Real Madrid is complying with the recommendation made by the National Police.”
The post British Jewish groups call for resignation of police chief who banned Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from soccer match appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Venezuelan Jewish Leader Expresses Hope for Democratic Future After US Captures Maduro
A person holds up an image depicting Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, as people celebrate after the US struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Santiago, Chile. Jan. 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Pablo Sanhueza
A Venezuelan Jewish leader expressed renewed hope for a return to democracy after President Nicolás Maduro’s capture in a US operation, seeing it as a potential turning point following years of authoritarian rule and economic turmoil.
Miguel Truzman, president of the Confederation of Israelite Associations of Venezuela — the umbrella organization for Venezuelan Jews — described the moment as being met with “faith, hope, and optimism” for Venezuelan families and the nation’s future.
“The American military’s operations across different parts of the country caught us by surprise. It’s truly an extraordinary moment,” Truzman told Spain-based Radio Sefarad in an interview earlier this week.
“Thanks to the careful execution of the operation, the physical safety of most Venezuelans was not at risk,” he said.
“We are now closely following these remarkable events in Venezuela and hope for stability as the country enters a new year shaped by these changes. We face the future with faith, hope, and optimism — for both families and the nation,” Truzman continued.
On Saturday night, the US launched a major military operation in Venezuela that struck state infrastructure and captured long-serving President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores — in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
Shortly afterward, Vice President and Oil Minister Delcy Rodríguez, 56, was formally sworn in as the country’s interim president. She demanded the “immediate release” of Maduro and his wife, arguing that the arrests were made under false pretenses as part of a broader effort to impose regime change and seize the country’s natural resources
“The country is gradually returning to normal — synagogues, for example, have reopened their doors for daily services,” Truzman said during his interview.
“Venezuela is entering a new chapter of governance. For our community, the most important focus is preserving our daily Jewish life, fostering connections with other religious communities, and safeguarding the well-being of our members,” he continued.
“The Jewish community of Venezuela is a Zionist community that strongly supports the State of Israel as a sovereign nation, with a legitimate right to exist, defend itself, and maintain its territorial integrity,” Truzman said.
On Monday, Maduro and his wife appeared in US federal court in New York City, pleaded not guilty to drug‑trafficking and other criminal charges, and were scheduled to return for their next hearing on March 17.
Accused of overseeing a cocaine‑trafficking network that worked with several violent groups across Latin America, Maduro faces criminal charges including narco‑terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
Simy Blomer Benchimol, a Venezuelan living in Spain, also expressed hope that the US intervention could open the door to democracy after years of authoritarian rule.
“I believe it’s a price worth paying if it means we can live in peace,” Benchimol told Radio Sefarad in an interview earlier this week.
“No one is scared — in fact, people are feeling hopeful,” she said. “After 26 years, even if progress is slow, I’m happy to see change beginning. No one went out to defend the regime.”
“This had to be done. We’ve fought for years in every possible way — even holding completely fair elections — and they stole everything from us,” Benchimol continued. “There was no other way to remove this government — this isn’t a kidnapping, but the arrest of someone who has caused immense harm to the country and the world.”
Many international observers and US allies have maintained that the Venezuelan opposition movement was cheated of victory in the 2024 election.
Venezuela’s Jewish community, once one of Latin America’s largest, has declined to roughly 3,000 – 5,000 people today, mostly in Caracas.
Maduro has a long history of antisemitic rhetoric, falsely claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t an “authentic Jew,” accusing Israel of seeking to dominate Central Asia and the Middle East and to control the US, and repeatedly praising Hamas and other terrorist groups as “freedom fighters.”
The Venezuelan leader has also previously claimed that “Zionists” were facilitating Venezuela’s takeover as the United States intensified its recent military campaign targeting drug trafficking and “narco-terrorist” networks near the country.
“There are those who want to hand this country over to the devils — you know who, right? The far-right Zionists want to hand this country over to the devils,” Maduro said during a televised speech in November.
In 2024, Maduro also blamed “international Zionism” for the large-scale anti-government protests that erupted across the country following the presidential elections, in which he claimed victory amid widespread claims of fraud.
Venezuela cut diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 under then-President Hugo Chávez, and the two countries have had no formal relations since then.
Meanwhile, under Maduro, Venezuela has strengthened its ties with Iran, becoming an increasingly important financial and operational base for the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, the Iranian regime’s chief proxy force in the Middle East.
Uncategorized
MPs Say Police Chief in UK Should Be Fired After Accused of ‘Covering Up’ Threat to Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans
WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford speaking before the Home Affairs Committee on Jan. 6, 2026. Photo: Screenshot
Jewish groups and several members of Parliament in the United Kingdom are calling for the chief constable of the West Midlands Police (WMP) to lose his job after the police force was accused on Tuesday of hiding evidence about anti-Israel locals who were threatening violence against fans of the Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv.
WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford appeared before the Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday for a second round of questioning regarding the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, whom police claimed were “uniquely violent,” from attending a Europa League soccer match against Aston Villa in Birmingham on Nov. 6 last year.
Documents revealed on Tuesday showed that the police’s initial public safety concerns surrounding the soccer match were not because of behavior displayed by Maccabi fans, but due to “high confidence intelligence” that police received on Sept. 5 about locals in the predominantly Muslim area of West Midlands who wanted to “arm” themselves” against Maccabi fans because they are from Israel. Birmingham City Council Leader John Cotton told the committee on Tuesday that police did not share with him the intelligence they received and their honest reasoning for banning Israeli fans.
Conservative MP Karen Bradley, who chaired the committee, accused the police force of “scraping” to justify their ban against Israeli soccer fans from attending the game on Nov. 6. She told WMP officials on Tuesday: “It feels to us like you felt you needed to justify banning these fans and that scraping was done to find a reason.”
In a post on X, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Guildford’s position was now “untenable.”
“West Midlands police capitulated to Islamists and then collaborated with them to cover it up,” she said. “They knew extremists were planning to attack Jews for going to a football match, and their response was to blame and remove Jewish people instead. They presented an inversion of reality and misled a parliamentary committee. We have had enough of this in Britain. The British police serve the British public, not local sectarian interests.”
Tory MP Nick Timothy, who is an Aston Villa fan and former Home Office special adviser, also called for Guildford to be fired on Tuesday. “What was left of the credibility of West Midlands police has been destroyed” following the evidence presented to the committee, he wrote on X.
“We learned earlier that their initial reason for banning Israelis from Villa Park was the danger *to* away fans *from* ‘armed’ locals. But to justify the ban they portrayed the Israelis as ‘uniquely violent’ and military-trained,” he explained. “And when the Home Affairs Select Committee asked why the vital information about the danger *to* Israelis was kept secret, the chief constable ludicrously said it was because he had not been asked for it. “
“He is too arrogant to resign,” the MP added about Guilford. “The home secretary has the power to remove him under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996. She should use it.”
Timothy further criticized the police force, saying, “We basically had the mob saying we’re not prepared to have Israelis come to the city we live in and the police decided to appease the mob — and we all know where appeasement ends.” He also accused WMP of “lying” repeatedly in an effort to explain their ban against Maccabi fans and failing to take on “extreme elements in the communities they are supposed to police.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Tuesday’s committee hearing was “yet another disgraceful performance from West Midlands police.” He added that the meeting clearly showed “the threat of armed Islamist thugs was a key consideration in the force’s decision to ban Israeli fans from attending the match, but this crucial detail was held back.”
“The chief constable’s pathetic excuse that he wasn’t asked is just the latest attempt to cover up a farce of his own making,” the MP added. “His position is untenable. If he doesn’t resign, then the home secretary must use her powers to sack him, and even more importantly explain exactly what she knew and when.”
Reform leader Nigel Farage told reporters that Guildford “needs to go today” during a press conference on Wednesday to announce the party’s 2028 mayoral candidate for London.
“It was monstrous that the impression was given that the Jewish-Israeli fans would be violent, when the truth is there were serious threats of violence against them, and huge degrees of misinformation, fed in by local elected politicians in the West Midlands with the assistance of one or two mosques, who do not have good reputations,” Farage said. “I thought the performance yesterday in front of the Commons committee was absolutely abject, so he needs to go first.”
The Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews also called for Guildford to lose his job in a joint statement issued on Tuesday.
“It seems that the police reached a decision first, and then searched for evidence to justify it, apparently influenced by the threat posed by local extremists,” they said. “The police excluded (having initially included) any assessment of the significant risk to the Jewish community, and claimed to have consulted the local community in advance of the decision, which they had not.”
“In light of these events,” the Jewish groups continued, “significant harm has been done to the confidence of the Jewish community in the police. Action must be taken to ensure that these failures do not recur and to restore trust. Accountability matters. Considering the chief constable’s role in these events, a change of leadership is essential. If the chief constable does not step aside, responsibility lies with central government to intervene.”
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) also called on Guildford to step down.
“We believe Chief Constable Craig Guildford has failed to uphold the standards of neutrality and responsibility required of his office,” CAM Director of European Affairs Shannon Seban wrote in a letter to UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. “We therefore respectfully call for his resignation. Should he refuse, decisive action by the home secretary is warranted.”
Guildford insisted there “wasn’t any political interference” in the decision to ban Maccabi fans from the soccer match in November. He said he was “very much sorry,” adding, “I do regret the focus that this has placed on our local Jewish community.”
Mike O’Hara, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police, also insisted there was “no conspiracy” behind the ban when speaking to the parliamentary committee on Tuesday. “There was a lot of intelligence that people would actively seek out Maccabi fans and seek violence towards them. There was a bubbling situation locally,” he said.
The police told the committee they were informed by senior Dutch officers that Maccabi fans were responsible for violence during a match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024, but Dutch authorities have denied those claims.
The Embassy of Israel in the United Kingdom said on Wednesday that the police force’s initial portrayal of Israeli soccer fans as violent “was a gross mischaracterization that served the needs of those actively inciting against an Israeli team.”
“This framing diverted attention away from credible intelligence warnings regarding extremist elements preparing to target Israeli and Jewish Maccabi supporters, and instead placed blame on the very community that was facing the threat,” the embassy added in a statement shared on X. “The decision to obscure these assessments, and to allow a misleading narrative to take hold, raises serious questions. These acts by law enforcement institutions undermine real security risks, and even encourages a climate in which hostility towards Israeli and Jewish communities can be normalized under the rule of law. These matters require full accountability.”