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
Trump Plans to Announce Gaza Funding Plan, Troops at First Board of Peace Meeting, US Officials Say
US President Donald Trump speaks during a charter announcement for his Board of Peace initiative aimed at resolving global conflicts, alongside the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF), in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
US President Donald Trump will announce a multi-billion-dollar reconstruction plan for Gaza and detail plans for a UN-authorized stabilization force for the Palestinian enclave at the first formal meeting of his Board of Peace next week, two senior US officials said on Thursday.
Delegations from at least 20 countries, including many heads of state, are expected to attend the meeting in Washington, DC, which Trump will chair on Feb. 19, the officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The details on Trump‘s plans for the first meeting of his Board of Peace for Gaza have not been previously reported.
Trump signed documents in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 23 establishing the Board of Peace. The board‘s creation was endorsed by a United Nations Security Council resolution as part of Trump‘s Gaza plan.
While regional Middle East powers, including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, as well as major emerging nations such as Indonesia, have joined the board, global powers and traditional Western US allies have been more cautious.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday during his visit to Washington that Israel has joined the board.
Trump has stirred concerns that the Board of Peace might try to resolve other conflicts around the world and compete with the United Nations. The US officials said the meeting next week will focus solely on Gaza.
They said a central part of the meeting will be Trump‘s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar fund for Gaza, which will include monetary contributions from participating board members.
One official called the offers “generous” and said that the United States had not made any explicit requests for donations.
“People have come to us offering,” the official said. “The president will make announcements vis a vis the money raised.”
STABILIZATION FORCE
Deployment of the International Stabilization Force is a key part of the next phase of Trump‘s Gaza plan, announced in September. Under the first phase, a fragile ceasefire in the two-year-old war began on Oct. 10 and Hamas has released hostages while Israel has freed detained Palestinians.
Trump will announce that several countries plan to provide several thousand troops to the stabilization force that is expected to deploy in Gaza in the months ahead, the officials said.
A primary concern for now is disarming Hamas fighters who have refused to give up their weapons. Under Trump‘s Gaza plan, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries, under the plan.
The Board of Peace meetings will also include detailed reports on the work of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which was established to take over the day-to-day civil administration of Gaza Strip from Hamas. The committee announced its members and held its first meeting in January.
Other updates will cover humanitarian aid for Gaza as well as the Gaza police, the officials said.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Netanyahu Says Trump May Be Creating Conditions for Iran Deal
US President Donald Trump talks with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Knesset, Oct. 13, 2025, in Jerusalem. Photo: Evan Vucci/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said he hoped that US President Donald Trump was creating the conditions to reach a deal with Iran that would avoid military action.
Netanyahu, who met Trump for talks in Washington on Wednesday, said he had expressed “general skepticism” and said that if an agreement was reached, “it must include the elements that are vital to Israel.”
They include a halt to Iran‘s nuclear program, limits on its ballistic missiles, and Iran’s proxies, he added.
Wednesday’s meeting was the seventh between Trump and Netanyahu since Trump returned to office last year. Netanyahu – whose visit was more muted than usual and closed to the press – was looking to influence the next round of US discussions with Iran following nuclear negotiations held in Oman last Friday.
“I think that the conditions he is creating, combined with the fact that they surely understand they made a mistake last time by not reaching an agreement, may create the circumstances for achieving a good deal,” Netanyahu said.
The two leaders spoke behind closed doors for more than two-and-a-half hours in what Trump described as a “very good meeting.”
But the US president said no major decisions were made and stopped short of publicly accepting Netanyahu‘s entreaties.
“We share a very close, very genuine, and very candid connection,” Netanyahu said, noting the discussions focused on several issues, but primarily on the negotiations with Iran, and Trump wanted to “hear my opinion.”
“The president believes that the Iranians have already learned who they are dealing with,” he said, referring to Israel’s 12-day conflict with Iran that culminated with US air attacks on Iran‘s nuclear sites.
Trump has threatened strikes on Iran if no agreement is reached, while Tehran has vowed to retaliate, stoking fears of a wider war as the US amasses forces in the Middle East. He has repeatedly voiced support for a secure Israel.
Trump earlier this week said he believed Iran wants a deal.
Iran has said it is prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions but has ruled out linking the issue to missiles.
Netanyahu also said the talks with Trump also touched on Gaza, where there is a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the entire region, and other general matters.
“It was another conversation with a great friend of the State of Israel, the likes of whom we have never had,” Netanyahu said.
Uncategorized
US Pulls Out of Strategic Syria Base and Hands It Over to Damascus
A satellite image shows the al-Tanf Base, in Syria, in this image taken July 20, 2025. Photo: 2026 PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via REUTERS
The US military said it completed a withdrawal from a strategic base in Syria on Thursday, handing it over to Syrian forces, in the latest sign of strengthening US-Syrian ties that could enable an even larger American drawdown.
The al-Tanf garrison is positioned at the tri-border confluence of Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.
Established during Syria‘s civil war in 2014, the United States initially relied on it as a hub for operations by the US-led coalition against Islamic State terrorists who once controlled a vast swathe of territory in Iraq and Syria before being defeated in 2019.
But the base became a key foothold in a battle against Iranian influence due to its strategic position along roadways linking Damascus to Tehran. Although Washington long saw keeping the base as worthwhile, the Trump administration recalculated when relations fundamentally shifted after longtime Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was overthrown in December 2024.
Syria joined the coalition battling the remnants of Islamic State last November when President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al Qaeda commander, visited the White House for talks with President Donald Trump.
David Adesnik at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank in Washington questioned Syrian forces’ ability to pick up the slack following the US departure.
“And the Syrian army has incorporated thousands of ex-jihadists,” Adesnik said.
“The mission at Tanf also served as an obstacle to the operations of Iran and its proxies, who ship weapons across Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is an own goal.”
US RESOLVED TO PREVENT ISLAMIC STATE REVIVAL
Syria‘s Defense Ministry said on Thursday that government forces had taken control of al-Tanf following coordination between Syrian and US authorities.
The US military’s Central Command confirmed al-Tanf’s handover in a statement and noted that the Pentagon announced plans to consolidate basing locations in Syria last year.
“US forces remain poised to respond to any ISIS threats that arise in the region as we support partner-led efforts to prevent the terrorist network’s resurgence,” said Admiral Brad Cooper, who leads Central Command, using an acronym for Islamic State.
Reuters, citing two sources, reported on Wednesday that US troops from al-Tanf were relocating to Jordan.
The US pullout from al-Tanf follows a Washington-brokered deal to integrate the Syrian Democratic Forces – a Kurdish-led autonomy-minded group backed by the US for a decade in the fight against IS – into central Syrian institutions.
Trump has long expressed a desire to withdraw US troops from Syria, going back to 2019 during his first term in office. Prior to the US pullout from al-Tanf, US officials had estimated there were about 1,000 troops in Syria.
One person familiar with the matter said the withdrawal from Tanf could be a milestone toward a bigger pullout. The US is also winding down one of its biggest commitments on the ground in Syria – helping ensure US-backed forces guard prisons holding Islamic State prisoners captured during the conflict.
The roughly one dozen prisons had been guarded by the SDF, but U.S. forces since last month have been transferring high-level Islamic State detainees out of Syria to Iraq as control of the facilities shifts to government forces.
Daniel Shapiro, a former senior Pentagon official for Middle East issues, said it appeared Trump’s goal was to end the role of US forces in Syria and the withdrawal from al-Tanf was a bet on the Syrian government’s ability to counter ISIS.
“It’s probably the right gamble … [but] it’s still somewhat unknown if they actually live up to that responsibility,” Shapiro, now with the Atlantic Council, said.