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
Iran Expected to Ramp Up Chemical, Biological Weapons Programs
Symbolic mock-ups of Iranian missiles are displayed on a street, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 22, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Amid sustained international scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear program, missile development, and regional proxy network, new assessments point to a quieter and more troubling front as allegations grow that Tehran may be expanding work related to chemical and biological weapons capabilities.
According to a new report from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, the Islamist regime in Iran may be advancing efforts to significantly develop its chemical and biological weapons programs — a move experts warn would pose serious risks not only to Israel but also to the wider region and the Iranian population itself.
Iran’s chemical and biological research programs allegedly focus on a range of toxic agents, including blister agents like mustard gas, nerve agents such as sarin and Novichok, and substances that attack the lungs or blood and can cause suffocation.
These reportedly also include biological threats such as anthrax, ricin, and botulinum toxins, as well as certain viruses, all of which can cause severe illness or death by disrupting the body’s nervous system, organs, or immune response.
Israeli officials have previously warned that the Iranian government has been developing dual-use chemicals, with both civilian and military applications, and may be channeling them to its regional proxy terrorist forces, raising fears they could be used to intensify proxy conflicts and destabilize the wider Middle East.
Tehran is also suspected of having used such agents to help suppress the nationwide anti-government protests earlier this year, which were violently crushed by security forces in a crackdown that left tens of thousands of demonstrators tortured, imprisoned, or killed.
Similar allegations have repeatedly emerged in the past, adding to a wider pattern of reported abuses against civilians and violations of human rights.
According to a report from Iran International, a medical staff member in Karaj said some detainees released during the January protests had reported body aches, lethargy, weakness, loss of appetite, nausea, and vomiting — all symptoms that may indicate possible drug-related poisoning.
Iran first began developing chemical weapons-related capabilities in the 1980s. In recent years, those efforts have reportedly evolved to include pharmaceutical-based agents and other compounds designed for incapacitation or riot control.
US government assessments have indicated for decades that Iran has been researching and developing chemical agents, including anesthetic compounds designed to incapacitate individuals by targeting the central nervous system.
These reports point to Iran’s academic sector playing a key role in this area, with Imam Hossein University and Malek Ashtar University of Technology — military-linked institutions associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Defense — reportedly conducting research since at least 2005 into chemical agents designed for incapacitation.
Since the start of the war earlier this year, the Israeli Air Force has carried out sustained strikes targeting sites linked to chemical weapons research, development, and production, aiming to disrupt facilities embedded within Iran’s broader military-industrial infrastructure and associated pharmaceutical-based programs.
Even though Tehran has long denied pursuing chemical or biological weapons and remains a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Western governments continue to accuse the regime of violating international norms.
Uncategorized
Germany Reports ‘New Normal’ of Antisemitism as Islamist and Left-Wing Extremist Networks Fuel Rising Threats
Graffiti reading “Kill all Jews” was discovered on a residential building in Berlin-Pankow on April 26, 2026, part of a wave of antisemitic vandalism reported across the German capital over the past week, including swastikas and other hate-filled slogans scrawled on multiple sites. Photo: Screenshot
Germany is confronting what Jewish leaders describe as a “new normal” of antisemitism, with nearly half of Jewish communities across the country reporting incidents and officials warning that Islamist and left-wing extremist networks are driving a surge in hostility amid ongoing Middle East tensions.
According to a new survey released on Friday by the Central Council of Jews in Germany, 46 of more than 100 Jewish communities nationwide have been targeted in antisemitic incidents, underscoring the growing scale and urgency of the crisis.
Among the most commonly reported incidents were verbal abuse, threatening phone calls, hate speech, property damage, and antisemitic graffiti, with 68 percent of respondents saying they feel “very unsafe.”
“Following the explosive rise in antisemitism after Oct. 7, a ‘new normal’ has emerged,” Central Council President Josef Schuster said in a statement, referring to the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel over two years ago.
“A situation in which Jewish communities require constant protection and antisemitism has become normalized as part of the public sphere,” he continued.
In the wake of the recent war with Iran, 62 percent of respondents said their sense of insecurity has further intensified.
“This finding clearly shows that the war in the Middle East was always just a pretext, never a reason for antisemitic attacks and hate speech in Germany,” Schuster said.
Only 35 percent of respondents reported feeling a sense of solidarity and support from broader society, underscoring a widespread perception of isolation.
Even though religious and communal life continues largely with only minor restrictions in most communities, many Jews increasingly avoid displaying visible signs of their identity in public.
“Things that used to be taken for granted — openly wearing religious symbols, walking carefree to the synagogue — are now often accompanied by caution and more conscious consideration. At the same time, the emotional strain has increased significantly,” said one unnamed survey participant, according to the Central Council.
Amid a sharply deteriorating security climate in Germany, officials warn that surging antisemitism and hostility toward Israel are increasingly being driven by Islamist networks and left-wing extremist groups, with threats against Jewish and Israeli communities intensifying nationwide.
According to a study by the Hessian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Islamist and left-wing extremist actors are exploiting the Middle East conflict and rising regional tensions to spread antisemitic rhetoric, contributing to an increase in violence and harassment against Jews and Israelis.
The newly released report warns that such antisemitic narratives have become a central mobilizing force since the Oct. 7 atrocities, shaping public discourse and being used to justify acts of violence and intimidation.
“Antisemitism is no longer an isolated phenomenon, but a cross-cutting issue that connects various extremist groups,” the study notes.
After more than two years of escalation, German officials warn that the threat to Jewish life has risen dramatically, with antisemitic hate speech surging as extremist actors deliberately exploit the war in Gaza for propaganda.
The report points to extremist groups merging anti-imperialist ideology with entrenched antisemitic narratives in their propaganda around the Israel–Hamas war, including claims of a “genocide in Gaza,” depictions of the Jewish state as a “colonial power,” and labels such as “child murderer.”
These narratives are being used to justify violence against Israel and to exploit the humanitarian crisis to increase hostility and advance their agenda.
German Interior Minister Roman Poseck, who commissioned the report, warned of a deteriorating social climate, saying that “antisemitic sentiments are becoming increasingly intolerable, even in public spaces.”
“Antisemitism is one of the greatest threats to our social cohesion – especially from Islamism and the left-wing extremist spectrum,” the German official said in a statement.
“I am deeply ashamed of what Jews in Germany have to endure 80 years after the end of the Second World War,” he continued. “We Germans, in particular, bear a lasting responsibility never to forget what happened.”
According to Germany’s Radicalization Monitoring System and Transfer Platform, 45 percent of Muslims under the age of 40 in the country show an inclination toward Islamism — defined as support for Islamist ideas, preference for Sharia-based principles over the constitutional order, and the presence of antisemitic prejudices.
Among those surveyed, 23.8 percent view an Islamic theocracy as the most desirable form of government.
Even though right-wing extremism may be less normalized in mainstream discourse, the study warns it “remains a danger, as antisemitic prejudices and conspiracy myths continue to be deliberately spread there as well.”
The western German state of Hesse has seen a particularly visible surge in antisemitic expression, with chants such as “Child-murderer Israel,” “From the river to the sea,” and “Resistance is international law” heard at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, across social media, and on university campuses.
The study notes that these narratives act as a unifying thread, bringing together Islamist, left-wing, and right-wing extremists who adopt similar rhetoric to reinforce shared enemies and legitimize violence.
Notably, the German Left Party has repeatedly been at the center of controversy and public outrage over its continued use and promotion of anti-Israel rhetoric, reinforcing a recurring pattern of incidents within its ranks that have sparked allegations of antisemitism.
Last year, the party’s youth wing passed an anti-Israel resolution labeling the world’s lone Jewish state a “colonial and racist state project.”
More recently, Andreas Büttner, the commissioner for antisemitism in the state of Brandenburg in northeastern Germany, resigned from the Left Party, citing a rise in antisemitism within the ranks, relentless personal attacks, and a party climate that has become intolerable.
Beyond extremist circles, the report also points to antisemitism extending across segments of society, finding resonance in mainstream discourse where it is often disguised as legitimate criticism of Israel.
“This is shifting the boundaries of what society considers acceptable, normalizing antisemitic thinking while trivializing, legitimizing, and in some cases even glorifying violence against Jews,” the study says.
Earlier this month, the Hesse government introduced new legislation that would criminalize denying Israel’s right to exist, as authorities move to confront a surge in anti-Israel demonstrations and a growing tide of antisemitic rhetoric and attacks that have intensified pressure on Jewish communities across the country.
The proposed legislation would close what officials describe as a legal loophole by explicitly criminalizing the denial of Israel’s right to exist, with penalties of up to five years in prison or a fine, aligning it with existing provisions that punish Holocaust denial.
Uncategorized
Hasan Piker Campaigns With Pennsylvania Democrat as Star Rises Despite Antisemitism Controversies
Hasan Piker. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Tensions in Philadelphia intensified this week after Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb, a Democrat running for US Congress, appeared on a livestream hosted by far-left commentator Hasan Piker, drawing criticism from political opponents and some Jewish community leaders over Piker’s expressed hostility toward Israel and support for foreign terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Rabb, who is seeking the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District, joined Piker’s widely watched online broadcast as part of an effort to reach younger, digitally engaged voters. The district, a safely Democratic seat centered in Philadelphia, is expected to be decided in the primary, where Rabb faces a competitive field that includes state Sen. Sharif Street and physician Ala Stanford.
Piker arrived in Philadelphia from Los Angeles to help Rabb fundraise for the campaign and joined him for a rally. While talking with Piker on the livestream, Rabb addressed backlash over his decision to meet with the streamer, dismissing his critics as being motivated by racial animus.
“I’m going to be slammed for even talking to you,” Rabb told Piker. “But there’s a double standard, because as a Black progressive, I can’t do this. I’m part of the problem or whatever.”
During the livestream, Rabb discussed progressive policy priorities and his campaign message. But the appearance quickly became a flashpoint in the race, as critics pointed to Piker’s history of inflammatory comments.
“Hasan Piker has a documented record of statements that we find deeply troubling,” said Jason Holtzman, chief of the Jewish Community Relations Council at the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. “He dismissed the sexual violence of [Hamas’s attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023]. He called Orthodox Jews ‘inbred.’ He compared Zionists to Nazis. He characterized Hamas as preferable to the state of Israel.”
Holtzman added, “These are not edgy opinions. They are statements that minimize Jewish suffering, dehumanize Jewish people, and normalize violence against Jews and the Jewish state.”
Since entering the race, Rabb has attempted to establish the Israel-Hamas conflict as a central feature of the competition. He has lambasted his opponents for stopping short of accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza and has repeatedly pressed other Democrats on where they stand on the conflict.
Ala Stanford, an establishment Democrat who is widely considered the favorite in the race, has refused to accuse Israel of “genocide” and has stated that such accusations are harmful to the local Jewish community.
Piker, a prominent left-wing streamer with a large following on platforms like Twitch, has previously drawn backlash for rhetoric which critics say crosses into antisemitism. In addition to repeatedly praising Hamas, he has 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.
This week, US Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan resolution that condemns “antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric and content” promoted by Piker and podcaster Candace Owens.
Piker has denied accusations of antisemitism.
“They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) in response to this week’s resolution in Congress. “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.”
Most recently, Piker has come under fire for praising Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee for US Senate in Maine, for previous Reddit comments in which he complimented Hamas.
During Thursday’s rally in Philadelphia, Piker urged the crowd to help Rabb secure the congressional seat instead of a “do nothing Democrat” who would not accuse Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza.
The controversy underscores how the Israel-Hamas conflict has become a defining issue in Democratic primaries across the country, exposing deep divisions within the party. In Philadelphia, where there is a significant Jewish population, candidates have faced increasing scrutiny over their positions and associations. However, the district, which is disproportionately Black and lower income, is unlikely to be heavily swayed by the conflict in Gaza when considering their vote.
Rabb’s campaign defended Piker’s appearance, framing it as an effort to broaden political participation and engage younger voters who consume news and commentary online rather than through traditional media outlets.
Further, the episode highlights a broader shift in campaign strategy, as candidates increasingly turn to digital influencers to expand their reach. But it also illustrates the risks of entering highly polarized online spaces, where associations can quickly become liabilities.
Over the past few weeks, Piker has traversed across the country, appearing alongside a litany of rising progressive stars during fundraisers and rallies. Recently, he appeared at the University of Michigan alongside the controversial Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Similar to Rabb, El-Sayed has accused Israel of “genocide” in Gaza. The Senate candidate has also come under criticism for seemingly sympathizing with a Hezbollah-linked terrorist who attempted to attack a Michigan synagogue in March.