Uncategorized
Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court
(JTA) — On Dec. 29, Israel swore in Benjamin Netanyahu’s sixth government. The Likud leader became Israel’s prime minister once more, and one week later, Israel’s long-anticipated judicial counterrevolution began.
In the Knesset Wednesday, newly minted Justice Minister and Netanyahu confidant Yariv Levin unveiled a package of proposed legislation that would alter the balance of power between Israel’s legislature and its Supreme Court.
At the core of this plan is a bill to allow the Knesset to override the Supreme Court. Levin’s proposals — which almost certainly have the immediate support of a Knesset majority, regardless of Levin’s assurances that they would be subject to “thorough debate” — would pave the way for Israel’s new government to pass legislation that curtails rights and undermines the rule of law, dealing a blow to Israeli democracy.
The dire implications of this proposed judicial reform are rooted in key characteristics of the Israeli political system that set it apart from other liberal democracies. Israel has no constitution to determine the balance of power between its various branches of government. In fact, there is no separation between Israel’s executive and legislative branches, given that the government automatically controls a majority in the parliament.
Instead, it has a series of basic laws enacted piecemeal over the course of the state’s history that have a quasi-constitutional status, with the initial intention that they would eventually constitute a de jure constitution.
Through the 1980s, the Knesset passed basic laws that primarily served to define state institutions, such as the country’s legislature and electoral system, capital and military. In the 1990s, there was a paradigm shift with the passage of two basic laws that for the first time concerned individuals’ rights rather than institutions, one on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) and the other on Freedom of Occupation (1994). These laws enshrined rights to freedom of movement, personal freedom, human dignity and others to all who reside in Israel.
Aharon Barak, the president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006, argued that these laws constituted a de facto bill of rights, empowering the court to review Knesset legislation and to strike down laws that violate civil liberties, a responsibility not explicitly bestowed upon the court in the basic law pertaining to the judiciary. In 1995, the Supreme Court officially ruled that it could indeed repeal legislation that violates the country’s basic laws, heralding an era of increased judicial activism in Israel in what became known as the “judicial revolution.” The court has struck down 20 laws since, a fairly modest number compared to other democracies.
The judicial revolution of the 1990s shifted the balance of power in Israel’s political system from one of parliamentary sovereignty, in which the Knesset enjoyed ultimate power, to one in which the legislature is restricted from violating the country’s (incomplete) constitution. Israel’s Supreme Court became a check on the legislative branch in a country that lacks other checks and balances and separations of power.
As a result of these characteristics, the Supreme Court currently serves as one of the only checks on the extraordinary power of Israel’s 120-member Knesset — which is why shifting that balance of power would have such a dramatic impact on Israel’s democracy.
Levin’s proposed judicial overhaul includes several elements that would weaken the power and independence of Israel’s Supreme Court. The plan includes forbidding the Supreme Court from deliberating on and striking down basic laws themselves. It would require an unspecified “special majority” of the court to strike down legislation, raising the threshold from where it currently stands.
Levin has also called for altering the composition of the selection committee that appoints top judges to give the government, rather than legal professionals, a majority on the panel. It would allow cabinet ministers to appoint legal advisors to act on their behalf, rather than that of the justice ministry, canceling these advisors’ role as safeguards against government overreach. Should a minister enact a decision that contravenes a basic law, the ministry’s legal advisor would no longer report the violation to the attorney general, and would instead merely offer non-binding legal advice to the minister.
The pièce de résistance is, of course, the override clause that would allow the Knesset to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court by 61 members of Knesset, a simple majority assuming all members are present. The sole restriction on this override would be a provision preventing the Knesset from re-legislating laws struck down unanimously, by all 15 judges, within the same Knesset term.
This plan’s obvious and most immediate result would be the effective annulment of the quasi-constitutional status of Israel’s basic laws. If the Knesset’s power to legislate is no longer bound by basic laws, these de facto constitutional amendments no longer have any teeth. There are no guardrails preventing any Knesset majority from doing as it wishes, including violating basic human rights. The Knesset could pass laws openly curtailing freedom of the press or gender equality, for example, should it choose to do so.
This counterrevolution, in effect, goes further than merely undoing what occurred in the 1990s.
Most crucially, the Knesset that would once again enjoy full parliamentary sovereignty in 2022 is not the Knesset of Israel’s first four decades. Shackling the Supreme Court is essential to the agendas of the new government’s various ultra-right and ultra-religious parties. For example, the haredi Orthodox parties are eager to re-legislate a blanket exemption to the military draft for their community, which the court struck down in 2017 on the grounds that it was discriminatory. They also have their sights on revoking recognition of non-Orthodox conversions for immigrants to Israel, undoing a court decision from 2021.
The far-right, Jewish supremacist parties of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, see an opportunity to deal a decisive blow to an institution that has long served as a check on the settlement movement. They hope to tie the court’s hands in the face of oncoming legislation to retroactively legalize settlements built on private Palestinian land, which are illegal under Israeli law. But this is only the beginning: Neutering the authority of the court could pave the way for legal discrimination against Israel’s Arab minority, such as Ben-Gvir’s proposal to deport minorities who show insufficient loyalty.
The timing of Levin’s announcement Wednesday could not be more germane. The Knesset recently amended the basic law to legalize the appointment of Aryeh Deri, the Shas party leader who is serving a suspended sentence for tax fraud, as a minister in the new government. The Supreme Court convened Thursday morning to hear petitions against his appointment from those arguing that it is “unreasonable” to rehabilitate Deri given his multiple criminal convictions, a view shared by Israel’s attorney general. Levin’s proposals would bar the court from using this “reasonability” standard.
The Israeli right has long chafed at the power of the Supreme Court, which it accuses of having a left-wing bias. But a judicial overhaul like this has never enjoyed the full support of the government, nor was Netanyahu previously in favor of it. Now, with a uniformly right-wing government and Netanyahu on trial for corruption, the prime minister’s foremost interest is appeasing his political partners and securing their support for future legislation to shield him from prosecution.
In a system where the majority rules, there need to be mechanisms in place to protect the rights of minorities — political, ethnic and religious. Liberal democracy requires respect for the rule of law and human rights. Yariv Levin’s proposals to fully subordinate the Supreme Court to the Knesset will concentrate virtually unchecked power in the hands of a few individuals — government ministers and party leaders within the coalition who effectively control what the Knesset does. That those individuals were elected in free and fair elections is no guarantee that the changes they make will be democratic.
—
The post Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Condemning Antisemitic Rhetoric by Candace Owens, Hasan Piker
Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
US Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan resolution on Wednesday that condemns “antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric and content” promoted by online streamer Hasan Piker and podcaster Candace Owens.
The resolution addresses the growing influence of online personalities around the world, as well as the global rise in antisemitism in recent years fueled partially by “online disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist rhetoric.” It calls on social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and take action against hatred.
“The rise of digital media platforms has enabled individuals with large audiences to disseminate disinformation, commentary, and political viewpoints to millions of viewers worldwide,” the resolution states. “Such influence carries a heightened responsibility to avoid rhetoric that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against any group, including Jewish individuals and communities.”
The resolution lists several hateful comments from both Piker and Owens.
Piker has repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and even said “it doesn’t matter” if sexual assault took place during the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Owens is notorious for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, tropes, and blood libels about Judaism, Jewish figures, and Israel. She has claimed, for example, that Israel controls the US government and has also downplayed and denied verified details about the Holocaust.
The resolution states that efforts to “downplay or excuse antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of political commentary should be rejected.”
“Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on Oct. 7, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers. With an audience of millions, they have a responsibility to confront hatred and bigotry in every form, not to amplify it to the masses. So, if they won’t call it out, I will.”
“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer added. “It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the far right or the far left. We cannot be selective in calling out antisemitism. When influential voices spread conspiracy theories, promote terrorism, or dehumanize Jewish people, it fuels real-world violence and intimidation. We must stand up and speak out.”
“I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path,” he noted. “That’s what principled leadership is all about.”
Owens has not publicly commented on the resolution, but Piker condemned it in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).
“They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”
Uncategorized
Peru’s President Under Fire Over Antisemitic Remarks Blaming Jews for ‘Pushing’ Germany Into World War II
José María Balcázar was elected as acting president of Peru on Feb. 18, 2026, and will serve until July 28, when the winner of the presidential elections takes office. Photo: ULAN/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect
Peru’s interim president, José María Balcázar, has sparked global outrage after claiming that Jews helped “push” Germany into World War II, drawing mounting calls from world leaders and advocacy groups to retract his remarks and issue a formal apology over what critics condemn as deeply antisemitic.
During a speech marking the 138th anniversary of the Chamber of Commerce of Lima, the Peruvian leader — who assumed power after Congress appointed him to replace ousted former president José Jerí amid corruption allegations — cited The Enemies of Commerce by Antonio Escohotado, invoking its arguments while amplifying long-discredited antisemitic tropes.
“It is a monument to the history of commerce: how bills of exchange were born, how international trade moved, what role Jews played in Germany’s national and international trade, how Germany was pushed into World War II, also partly because of the Jews, because they controlled all the banks, all the commerce, and practiced usury,” Balcázar said.
“All these historical details need to be remembered through Escohotado, so that we can better prepare ourselves and understand the history and hardships of those dedicated to commerce. It is truly interesting,” the left-leaning lawmaker and former judge continued.
Shortly after Balcázar’s remarks gained widespread media attention, leaders of Peru’s Jewish community, opposition figures, and officials from Israel and Germany, as well as other foreign diplomats, swiftly condemned his statements, demanding that he retract them and issue an unequivocal public apology.
In a joint statement, the embassies of Israel and Germany in Peru condemned Balcázar’s claims as “absurd, historically untenable, and a violation of the memory of millions of German Jewish citizens murdered by the Nazis.”
“It should be remembered that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime initiated World War II with the invasion of Poland in 1939. Nazi ideology, rooted in racism and antisemitism, not only discriminated against Jewish citizens but also led to the murder of six million Jews in concentration camps,” the statement read.
“The Holocaust must never be trivialized under any circumstances,” it continued.
Israel claramente rechaza en conjunto con Alemania, toda forma de Antisemitismo.@Agencia_Andina @PresidenciaPE @CancilleriaPeru pic.twitter.com/gnzZ3d1PTt
— Israel En Peru (@IsraelinPeru) April 29, 2026
The Jewish Association of Peru (AJP) also denounced the remarks, describing them as a dangerous revival of “outdated antisemitic theories,” and warning against the spread of such narratives.
“It is shocking that, in the 21st century, arguments reminiscent of the darkest medieval eras are still being used to blame victims of the Holocaust for their own persecution,” AJP said in a statement.
Amid growing domestic and international pressure, the government issued a statement expressing regret that the comments had “created a mistaken perception regarding the Jewish people in the context of the outbreak of World War II.”
“The Peruvian state has consistently maintained that Nazi fanaticism was the driving force behind the war and the perpetrator of the unforgivable genocide against the Jewish people. This longstanding position, which also led Peru to firmly support the creation of Israel, remains unchanged,” the statement read.
“President José María Balcázar strongly condemns the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people during World War II, reaffirms his rejection of antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and expresses his solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust,” it continued.
Balcázar will serve as interim president until July 28, when the winner of this year’s presidential election takes office.
Uncategorized
Lebanon’s Internal Splits Over Talks With Israel Trip Up Saudi Mediation Efforts
An Israeli military vehicle drives past destroyed buildings in Lebanon, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Shir Torem
A growing rift between top Lebanese officials has thrown a wrench into Saudi efforts to help Lebanon’s leaders forge a united position over historic negotiations with Israel, Lebanese sources and foreign officials told Reuters on Thursday.
Saudi Arabia, which sponsored the 1990 agreement that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, has deepened its engagement in recent days with Lebanon, where a shaky US-brokered ceasefire has failed to fully halt the nearly two-month war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Ties between Riyadh and Beirut had been strained for years due to Hezbollah’s power over Lebanese politics and security, but the Sunni kingdom sees an opening after the group was severely weakened by war with Israel in 2024.
The US intended for the April 16 truce between Israel and Lebanon to allow for direct talks on a peace deal, potentially shaking up Lebanon’s internal dynamics and its role in the region. But Lebanese leaders remain at odds over the negotiation format and ultimate goal.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has defended face-to-face talks with Israel in Washington, and has said the ceasefire should be transformed into “permanent agreements.” Although he has stopped short of explicitly calling for a peace deal, two sources familiar with Aoun’s position told Reuters he had privately expressed his readiness to normalize ties with Israel to stop the war.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, is opposed to direct talks, reflecting the Shi’ite terrorist group‘s position. Berri believes Lebanon should seek a non-aggression pact with Israel but not a full peace deal, two Lebanese sources familiar with his position told Reuters.
PLANS DERAILED
Last week, Saudi envoy to Lebanon Prince Yazid bin Farhan visited Beirut to encourage Aoun, Berri, and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to set out a single position on the talks and to signal their unity through a tripartite meeting, according to two senior Lebanese political sources who met with bin Farhan and a Western official briefed on the talks.
But plans to hold such a meeting this week were derailed by rising tensions, all three sources said, after Berri publicly accused Aoun of making statements about negotiations that were “inaccurate, to say the least.”
There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Aoun’s office or from the Saudi government media office. Aoun met Salam on Thursday, the presidency said in a statement, without mentioning Berri.
The splits between Aoun and Berri, who hold their positions according to a power-sharing system that divides Lebanon’s top posts by religion, reflect broader divisions within Lebanese society over the negotiations with Israel.
Some Lebanese see direct talks and a swift peace deal as the only way to end a long history of Israeli invasions into Lebanon.
But Hezbollah and much of its broader Shi’ite Muslim constituency, who have borne the brunt of Israel‘s attacks, are firmly opposed to face-to-face talks and to normalizing ties. Some people protesting against talks earlier this month called for the government to be toppled.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention with Lebanese leaders was driven by the risk of such instability – as well as its concern that Lebanon was moving towards peace with Israel too swiftly, according to a Gulf source with knowledge of the matter, the two senior Lebanese political sources and the Western official.
Bin Farhan sought and received reassurances that Hezbollah would not seek to topple the Lebanese government, and cautioned Lebanese leaders last week that Beirut’s progress towards peace with Israel should not outpace Saudi Arabia’s, the four sources said.
Riyadh’s longstanding position has been that it will only sign up to the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel if there is agreement on a roadmap to Palestinian statehood.
SAUDI KEEN FOR ‘DETENTE’ BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL
US President Donald Trump, keen to expand the accords, said this month he would invite Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks.
Bin Farhan advised Lebanese authorities against Aoun meeting Netanyahu soon, the two senior Lebanese political sources said.
However, Saudi Arabia does want Lebanon to work towards a “detente” with Israel that would halt instability, the Gulf source and one of the Lebanese sources said.
Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,500 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1.2 million since the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2, according to Lebanese authorities. Israel says the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists, who started the conflict by firing drones and rockets at the Jewish state.
The April 16 truce, which facilitated separate negotiations over the Iran war, stopped strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs but not on other parts of Lebanon.