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
US and Iran Agree to Friday Talks in Oman but Still at Odds Over Agenda
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 1, 2026. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The US and Iran have agreed to hold talks in Oman on Friday, officials for both sides said, even as they remained at odds over Washington’s insistence that negotiations include Tehran’s missile arsenal and Iran’s vow to discuss only its nuclear program.
The delicate diplomatic effort comes amid heightened tensions as the US builds up forces in the Middle East and regional players seek to avoid a military confrontation that many fear could escalate into a wider war.
Differences in recent days over the scope and venue for the talks have raised doubts whether the meeting would take place, leaving open the possibility that US President Donald Trump could carry out his threat to strike Iran.
Asked on Wednesday whether Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should be worried, Trump told NBC News: “I would say he should be very worried. Yeah, he should be.” He added that “they’re negotiating with us” but did not elaborate.
After Trump spoke, US and Iranian officials said the two sides had agreed to shift the talks’ location to Muscat after initially accepting Istanbul.
But there was no indication they had found common ground on the agenda.
Iran has pushed to restrict the negotiations to discussing its long-running nuclear dispute with Western countries.
But US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented a different view on Wednesday. “If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready,” Rubio told reporters. But he added that talks would have to include the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, its support for armed proxy groups around the Middle East, and its treatment of its own people, besides nuclear issues.
A senior Iranian official said, however, that Iran’s missile program was “off the table.” A second senior Iranian official said Tehran would welcome negotiations over the nuclear dispute but that US insistence on dealing with non-nuclear issues could jeopardize the talks.
Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was due to take part in the talks, along with US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, officials said.
CHANGE OF VENUE
While the talks were originally slated for Turkey, Iran wanted the meeting to take place in Oman as a continuation of previous talks held in the Gulf Arab country that had focused strictly on Tehran’s nuclear program, a regional official said.
Iran says its nuclear activities are meant for peaceful, not military purposes, while the US and Israel have accused it of past efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
A Gulf official said the talks could be mediated by several countries, though Iran has indicated that it wants a two-way format limited to Washington and Tehran.
The diplomatic efforts follow Trump’s threats of military action against Iran during its bloody crackdown on protesters last month and the deployment of more naval power to the Gulf.
The US has sent thousands of troops to the Middle East since Trump threatened Iran last month – including an aircraft carrier, other warships, fighter jets, spy planes, and air refueling tankers.
After Israel and the United States bombed the Islamic Republic last summer, renewed friction has kindled fears among regional states of a major conflagration that could rebound on them or cause long-term chaos in Iran.
Trump has continued to weigh the option of strikes on Iran, sources say. Oil prices have risen on the tension.
NUCLEAR DISPUTE
Trump has warned that “bad things” would probably happen if a deal could not be reached, ratcheting up pressure on the Islamic Republic in a standoff that has led to mutual threats of airstrikes.
Iran’s leadership is increasingly worried a US strike could break its grip on power by driving an already enraged public back onto the streets, according to six current and former Iranian officials.
Trump, who stopped short of carrying out threats to intervene during last month’s crackdown, has since demanded nuclear concessions from Iran, sending a flotilla to its coast.
Iran also hopes for an agreement that could help lift Western sanctions over its nuclear program that have ravaged its economy – a major driver of last month’s unrest.
BALLISTIC MISSILE STOCKPILE
Iranian sources told Reuters last week that Trump had demanded three conditions for the resumption of talks: zero enrichment of uranium in Iran, limits on Tehran’s ballistic missile program, and an end to its support for regional proxies.
Iran has long said all three demands are unacceptable infringements of its sovereignty, but two Iranian officials told Reuters its clerical rulers saw the ballistic missile program, rather than uranium enrichment, as the bigger obstacle.
An Iranian official said there should not be preconditions for talks and that Iran was ready to show flexibility on uranium enrichment, which it says is for peaceful, not military purposes.
Since the US strikes in June, Tehran has said its uranium enrichment work has stopped.
In June, the United States struck Iranian nuclear targets, joining in at the close of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign and Iran struck back at Israel with missiles and drones.
Iran said it replenished its missile stockpile after the war with Israel last year, warning it would unleash its missiles if its security is under threat.
Adding to tensions, on Tuesday the US military shot down an Iranian drone that “aggressively” approached the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, the US military said, in an incident first reported by Reuters.
In another incident in the Strait of Hormuz, the US Central Command said Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had approached a US-flagged tanker at speed and threatened to board and seize it.
Uncategorized
New York City Teen Arrested on Terrorism Charges Following Alleged Threat to ‘Rise Up and Kill All the Jews’
Illustrative: Police control the scene after a car repeatedly slammed into Chabad World Headquarters in Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. The driver was taken into custody. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Police in New York City arrested an unnamed 17-year-old boy at Renaissance Charter School in Jackson Heights, Queens, following a 911 call warning of a violent threat targeting Jews sent via email to more than 300 students.
Administrators informed law enforcement that the student had allegedly sent an email at 12:30 pm which read, “At 2pm we will rise up and kill all the Jews in this school and the city. F**k the Jews.” The suspect was taken into custody at approximately 3:30 pm. The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating the incident.
The student faces charges of making a terroristic threat and aggravated harassment as a hate crime. The date of his initial arraignment remains pending.
“A violent, antisemitic threat made today at Renaissance Charter School is deeply disturbing and unacceptable,” New York State Sen. Jessica Ramos wrote Tuesday on X. “Hate and threats of violence have no place in our schools or our community.”
Ramos stated that she was “relieved that no one was harmed and that the student is in custody. This must be fully investigated by the Hate Crimes Task Force. Our Jewish neighbors, students, and families deserve safety, dignity, and protection. We will continue working with school leaders and law enforcement to keep our community safe.”
Moshe Spern, president of United Jewish Teachers, thanked Ramos for highlighting the crime.
“Unfortunately Jew hatred doesn’t just live in NYC public schools, it lives in Charter schools as well,” Spern posted on X. “This is scary for all Jewish New Yorkers and I’m calling on Renaissance Charter Schools to invest time and money to root out Jew hatred!”
The StopAntisemitism advocacy group commented that “this is yet another example of what ‘globalize the intifada’ looks like. Yet NYC has a mayor that won’t condemn this call to violence against Jews.”
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist and avowed anti-Zionist who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career, was sworn into office on Jan. 1.
According to newly released figures from the New York City Police Department (NYPD), anti-Jewish hate crimes in the city spiked by 182 percent in January during Mamdani’s first month in office compared to the same period last year.
New York City hate crime investigators reviewed 58 incidents in January 2026, compared to 23 in January 2025, an increase of 152 percent. Of that total, there were 31 anti-Jewish hate crimes last month, which accounted for more than half of all the hate crime incidents, compared to only 11 anti-Jewish hate crimes in January 2025. Last month’s hate crimes targeted Jews more than any other group — Muslims were victimized the second most times with seven incidents.
Despite the increase in antisemitism, the NYPD reported an overall decrease in violent crime.
“The January data underscores a clear reality. Even as overall crime continues to fall, antisemitism remains the most prevalent form of hate crime in New York City, surging sharply at the outset of a new mayoral administration,” the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) said of the data.
CAM highlighted multiple examples of antisemitism in the city last month, including a description of how “in one incident, two teenagers were charged after scrawling 73 swastikas on a playground used by Jewish children. In another, a rabbi was assaulted in Queens on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Separately, a driver rammed a vehicle into an entrance of the Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn.”
Ramos wrote on Wednesday morning of another antisemitic threat at the school in Queens: “An adult caller made a violent, antisemitic threat against Renaissance Charter School this morning. This is unacceptable and will be taken seriously.”
Explaining an increase in security at the school, Ramos added that “the 115th Precinct will maintain a police presence today while the incident is investigated. Our Jewish students and families deserve safety, dignity, and peace of mind, and we will continue working with school leaders and community partners to ensure their protection.”
New York City Council Member Shekar Krishnan — who represents District 25, which includes Jackson Heights — commented on the situation.
“Antisemitism and hate have no place in New York City, especially in our schools,” Krishnan wrote Wednesday on X. “There have been two antisemitic incidents at a school in Jackson Heights this week. We are deeply concerned and are working closely with the school and the NYPD to investigate these matters.”
The incidents come amid a broader surge in antisemitic hate crimes across New York City over the last two years, following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
Jews were targeted in the majority (54 percent) of all hate crimes perpetrated in New York City in 2024, according to data issued by the NYPD. A recent report released in December by the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism noted that figure rose to a staggering 62 percent in the first quarter of 2025, despite Jewish New Yorkers comprising a small minority of the city’s population.
Uncategorized
New Coalition Forms to Protect Israeli Businesses in New York From the Mamdani Administration
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
Business groups in New York have announced a new coalition to protect Israeli and Jewish businesses amid concerns that the administration of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani will unfairly target them.
The New York-Israel Chamber of Commerce (NYICC) Coalition, announced on Monday, is a nonprofit partnership designed to protect Israeli-associated and Jewish-owned companies operating across New York State amid concerns of what organizers describe as discriminatory policies and a deteriorating security climate.
“Israeli companies bring innovation that improves the quality of life for New Yorkers and facilitates secure commerce for thousands of companies in almost every vertical industry,” Al Kinel, president of the NYICC Coalition, said in a statement. “The free enterprise system that made New York City strong and encouraged many Israeli founders to select New York City for US operations is at risk.”
Coalition leaders argue that recent municipal policy shifts, combined with an increase in antisemitic incidents, have created an environment that discourages investment and places employees and customers at risk. While Mamdani denies harboring any anti-Jewish bias, coalition members fear that Israeli-linked businesses could be disproportionately affected as his administration settles in.
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career, has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and refused to recognize its right to exist as a Jewish state.
He has also been an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the BDS movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
Such positions have raised alarm bells among not only New York’s Jewish community but also Israeli business owners and investors, who fear a hostile climate under Mamdani’s leadership.
On his first day in office, Mamdani revoked a series of executive orders enacted by his predecessor to combat antisemitism. Among the measures he nullified was an order that opposed the campaign to boycott Israel.
The NYICC Coalition’s formation comes as Israeli-founded firms play an increasingly central role in New York’s economy, particularly in the technology and innovation sectors.
A study released by the United States-Israel Business Alliance in October revealed that, based on 2024 data, 590 Israeli-founded companies directly created 27,471 jobs in New York City that year and indirectly created over 50,000 jobs when accounting for related factors, such as buying and shipping local products.
These firms generated $8.1 billion in total earnings, adding an estimated $12.4 billion in value to the city’s economy and $17.9 billion in total gross economic output.
As for the State of New York overall, the report, titled the “2025 New York – Israel Economic Impact Report,” found that 648 Israeli-founded companies generated $8.6 billion in total earnings and $19.5 billion in gross economic output, contributing a striking $13.3 billion in added value to the economy. These businesses also directly created 28,524 jobs and a total of 57,145 when accounting for related factors.
From financial tech leaders like Fireblocks to cybersecurity powerhouse Wiz, Israeli entrepreneurs have become indispensable to the city’s innovation ecosystem. The number of Israeli-founded “unicorns,” privately held companies with a valuation of at least $1 billion, operating in New York City has quadrupled since 2019, increasing from five to 20.
The NYICC Coalition includes major business such as the New York Israel Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council of New York State, the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, and the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce, along with more than a dozen other partners.
Business leaders backing the initiative framed the effort as both economic and moral. Heather Mulligan, president and CEO of the Business Council of New York State, emphasized that New York’s prosperity depends on openness and equal treatment.
“New York City’s strength and growth have always come from its diversity and welcoming of entrepreneurs from around the world,” she said in a statement. “Like all employers, Israeli-founded businesses are an equally important part of our economy, creating jobs, leading innovation, and contributing to the economy of the communities where they operate. Prosperity and growth should be for everyone — regardless of race, gender, or creed — and there should be no place in the city or elsewhere for discrimination against any business or entrepreneur based on who they are or where they come from.”
The coalition outlined a three-part agenda focused on restoring fairness and competitiveness: advocating immediate policy corrections to protect business safety and security; promoting clear, predictable regulations that allow Israeli-founded firms to invest and grow; and providing coordinated support for Israeli tech and startup companies navigating regulatory challenges.
Mark Jaffe, president and CEO of the Greater New York Chamber and a coalition board member, warned that economic discrimination could carry long-term consequences.
“Israel is a strong friend and ally of the United States. Against all odds, Israel maintains a dynamic and capitalistic economy that provides billions of dollars and thousands of jobs here in NY,” Jaffe said.
Coalition members stressed that the initiative is not about special treatment, but about preserving New York’s reputation as a global hub for entrepreneurship. Galit Meyran, CEO of the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce and a board member, said coordinated action is necessary when political pressures translate into real-world threats.
“When political agendas lead to an economic environment where antisemitic threats and actions become the norm, immediate collective action is required,” she said.
The NYICC Coalition is inviting business owners, civic organizations, and concerned New Yorkers to join what it describes as a broader effort to restore safety to the city’s economic climate, arguing that protecting Israeli-founded businesses ultimately protects New York’s competitiveness itself.