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
Protesters stormed Mahmoud Khalil’s book release. His Israeli editor confronted them.
Minutes before activist Mahmoud Khalil was scheduled to speak Tuesday night about his new memoir at a bookstore near the Columbia University campus where he led pro-Palestinian demonstrations, protesters stormed inside with a megaphone, a sign and a large American–Israeli flag.
“Zionist Jews are here,” announced Ross Glick over the megaphone, as he entered Book Culture. “We are against intifada.”
Glick is the former CEO of Betar US, a pro-Israel organization labeled an “extremist group” by the Anti-Defamation League for its harassment tactics. Betar previously shared names of pro-Palestinian protesters, including Khalil, with federal immigration authorities. Khalil is suing Betar along with the Heritage Foundation and the Canary Mission. Betar reached a settlement with New York state over harassment allegations and wound down its operations.
Khalil was upstairs, along with most of the book event’s attendees, when the demonstrators entered the store downstairs. Employees ushered the protesters outside, but one came back inside minutes later waving the flag and singing “Am Yisrael Chai.”
A store employee tried to grab the flag from the protester. After a brief tug-of-war, the protester appeared to hit the employee’s arm as he pulled the flag from her.
Khalil’s editor Riva Hocherman, who is Israeli, confronted the protesters in Hebrew.
“I really wanted to get a sense of whether they knew Hebrew, and they didn’t,” Hocherman told the Forward. “They just enrage me.”
Hocherman specializes in publishing books on the Middle East and previously worked with Rashid Khalidi as his editor on The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. She said she was motivated to work with Khalid because, “His story was one that was really worth telling, and a great injustice was perpetrated.”
Khalil’s memoir, No Land to Stand on, focuses on his 2025 detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Khalil was held for more than 100 days and became the face of the debate over free speech on campus and when anti-Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism.
In his book, Khalil, who was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, says that pro-Palestinian protesters were peaceful, while “it was the pro-Israel students and Zionist groups that had provoked confrontations, harassed Palestinian students, and in some cases physically attacked them.”
Khalid mentions Hocherman in the acknowledgments section of his book: “Riva, my editor, is not only a champion of the book but of the cause.”
Hocherman addressed the protesters because she said they lie about Khalil, and because she wanted to show that not all Jews and Israelis think the same.
“Our opinion is not a monolith,” she said. “There is a range of opinion among Israelis and Jews. We don’t all think like they do.”
The event, only slightly delayed, carried on without further interruptions. Khalil spoke with environmental lawyer and activist Steven Donziger and answered a few questions from attendees before signing books. He received a standing ovation from the crowd of more than 85 people.
The post Protesters stormed Mahmoud Khalil’s book release. His Israeli editor confronted them. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
If Trump makes good on offering Canadian Jews refugee status, will they come?
(JTA) — TORONTO –- Sari Watson was too afraid to attend Yom Kippur services. Concerned by rising levels of antisemitism in Canada, she was safely at home 25 minutes away when a gunman charged at her childhood synagogue.
“My internal alarm has been going off, and you begin to think about escape routes or backup plans,” said Watson, 39, who lives in Quinte West, Ontario, about 15 miles west of Belleville, where the attack during Kol Nidre on Sept. 20 culminated in a shootout that left the gunman dead and one policeman hospitalized. “The only reason I wasn’t at synagogue was because I have been terrified of this exact situation, or worse, happening.”
Florida Sen. Rick Scott, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and President Donald Trump himself, all Republicans, have proposed extending refugee status to Canadian Jews who fear the spike in antisemitism in their country.
“’It’s so amazing to know that the Republicans understand the level of antisemitism we’re dealing with here,” she says. “President Trump gets the climate and the danger.”
Still, Watson has mixed emotions about the thought of leaving her home country. “I want to stay here and fight for our safety in Canada,” she said. “The option to come to the U.S. is really important, but we shouldn’t have to need it.”
The Trump administration has imposed stringent restrictions on immigration and is carrying out mass deportations, but is inviting South African whites – and now, potentially, Canadian Jews – refugee status. Critics accuse Trump of playing politics with refugee status, but some Canadian Jews see it as a lifeline.
Talk of Jews feeling compelled to leave Canada gained momentum last week when a well-known Jewish journalist posted publicly on social media about getting a foreign passport. Neil Herland, a newsreader for the national broadcaster, the CBC, wrote on X about his encounter with pro-Palestinian protesters outside Toronto’s Meridian Arts Centre, where Yom Kippur services were being held. Herland said that, concerned about rising antisemitism in Canada, he recently acquired his Austrian passport as a safety precaution. (Independent Press Gallery, a press freedom advocacy group, condemned the CBCfor reportedly suspending Herland after pro-Palestinian advocates lodged a complaint about his post.)
Some Jews are past the precaution stage. Sheldon Shugal, 64, and his wife are currently researching how to move to the United States.
“If I were able to claim refugee status to come to the U.S., I’d do it without hesitation,” said Shugal, who lives in Calgary. “I used to love our country … but it’s just not a place that I want to continue to live in.”
Shugal, a property manager, said he has seen increased antisemitism in Canada in the wake of the deadly Hamas raid in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the war it launched. He said he and his wife have been struggling to overcome the complexity of acquiring an American visa.
“The Jew-hatred is no longer rising in Canada, it’s fully immersed here,” says Shugal. “It’s not the country I grew up in. I don’t feel affinity to Canada anymore.”
Shugal’s concerns are reflected in the findings of B’nai Brith Canada, which recently reported a 9.3% increase in antisemitic incidents from 2024-2025. According to this report, online harassment has surged dramatically, while Ontario saw the greatest total number of antisemitic incidents out of all the Canadian provinces and territories.
Antisemitic attacks have proliferated. In March of this year, Toronto synagogue Temple Emanu-El was shot at following Purim celebrations. The next week, two more Toronto synagogues were hit with gunfire over Shabbat, causing damage to the buildings, though no injuries were reported. In late April, assailants allegedly fired replica guns at “visually-identifiable” members of the city’s Jewish community, with one of the men sustaining minor injuries.
Shugal said reports of antisemitism have rattled him as well as the pro-Palestinian encampment his daughter encountered on her campus. “There hasn’t necessarily been anything I’ve personally experienced. It’s just what I’ve seen throughout the country,” Shugal said.
Lauren Cohen, an immigration lawyer based in Boca Raton, Florida, said that since the Oct. 7 attacks, about half of her Canadian clients cite antisemitism as a primary reason for wanting to leave Canada for the United States.
“In the past three months, I’ve noticed a very significant increase in the number of people between 55-70 who are contacting me,” said Cohen, who is originally from Toronto. “They have grown children or no children, and they have a little bit more money,” she said. “They want freedom.”
Antisemitism is not the only consideration for her clients, Cohen said. “The economy’s struggling. It’s not just antisemitism,” she said. “That might be the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it’s so many other factors as well.”
Cohen founded the Jewish Community Collective, an organization which helps Jewish Canadians and “displaced Jews” find connection in America. Another option for Jewish Canadians looking to make a new home in the States is Lech L’Tulsa, a program cosponsored by the Jewish Federation of Tulsa that helps settle Jewish newcomers, “designed to help Jewish Canadian citizens relocate to Tulsa.”
Some Canadian Jews do not see greener grass south of the 49th parallel, however. They point to Canada’s more expansive social safety net as one of the many reasons life in the Great White North” is better.. “Unquestionably, the answer to whether I’d consider moving to the States is emphatically ‘no,’” said Lawrence Stanleigh, a dentist in Calgary.
“I believe our country is a better place to live,” said Stanleigh, 67. “The U.S. doesn’t have a public healthcare system. Why would I want to leave our safety net for the U.S.?”
Stanleigh said the idea that the United States is a safe haven for Canadian Jews is misleading. “As bad as things are in Canada, I think they’re worse in the United States,” he said. “It’s not a better place for education or for healthcare. The whole idea of moving there for our safety is a fantasy that the Republicans believe in.”
Substituting the United States for Canada is shortsighted, Stanleigh said. “There are failures on behalf of Canadian leaders to stand firm in their support of the Jewish community,” he said. “But as bad as things are, I think they’re worse in the States. Our American cousins are blithely unaware of the problems they have at home.”
Anthony Housafather, a Jewish Canadian Member of Parliament representing a riding, or electoral district, in Montreal, is skeptical of the notion that the United States would offer Jews better protection.
“I think this idea is inspired by some right-wing Jews who have decided that their mission is to attack the Canadian government, and to make it look like somehow, Donald Trump and the Republicans are the savior of the Jewish people,” Housefather said in an interview.
Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney are at a low point in their relationship, with tensions over trade intensifying – and Trump seeks opportunities to take potshots at Carney.
Housefather also does not believe that leaving for the United States is gaining traction among Canadian Jews. “There are some people who have decided that Florida or Israel is a greener pasture,” he said. “But that does not represent a significant or a predominant view, and the idea that everybody’s leaving Canada is actually not true.”
The increase in antisemitism is universal – and should be treated holistically, he said. “What I do agree with is everywhere there’s a very serious problem with antisemitism,” he said. “Everywhere Jewish communities don’t feel safe, and all levels of government need to keep doing more.”
Housefather encourages his Jewish countrymen to remain proud Canadians. “Antisemitism has grown to an unacceptable level in this country,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that you should have less pride in being Canadian because there’s a loud, angry, small group of Canadians trying to make us scared.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post If Trump makes good on offering Canadian Jews refugee status, will they come? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK foreign secretary: The threats to Israel don’t justify its treatment of Palestinians
(JTA) — British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband called Palestinian suffering in Gaza and the West Bank a “stain on the conscience of the world” at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool, his most blistering attack on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government yet.
His attack comes a number of weeks after he told the British Parliament that his country planned to reset its relationship with Israel and ban trade with its West Bank settlements.
In an initial nod of support to the Jewish state, Miliband, who is Jewish, described how three years ago “Hamas’ murderous attack on Oct. 7th united the vast majority of the world in rightful condemnation.”
The Labour Party, he said, will battle antisemitism and “will always recognise the threats Israel faces and stand emphatically against those who seek its destruction. But this cannot justify the suffering the Netanyahu government has inflicted in Gaza and the West Bank.”
He had a message, Miliband said, for the millions of people who had been moved and outraged by the plight of the Palestinian people: “We hear you. You were right.”
He said the government would call out “ethnic cleansing by the settler terrorists in the West Bank,” the “evidence of war crimes in Gaza” and Israel’s “illegal occupation of Palestine.”
Britain remains committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, and to helping prevent the destruction of that option.
Miliband repeated his government’s pledge to ban West Bank settlement products and prevent his country’s financial institutions, construction companies and service industry from operating in Israeli-controlled areas beyond the pre-1967 lines.
Laying out the global challenges, he spoke of Iran, Russia, climate change and AI, but he focused on Israel more than on any other issue.
He recalled his Jewish parents’ experiences fleeing and surviving Nazi persecution and finding sanctuary in Britain, “a country that was a beacon of light against the darkness.”
Now, as then, Miliband said, Britain has to confront global challenges by fighting for its values, “the values my parents saw in Britain, values which today are more important than ever.”
His parents did not think it was enough to simply live in a country with values: “They taught me that I have a responsibility to fight for them too,” Miliband said as he spoke of the idea of survivor’s guilt.
“I think my parents had something else. Survivor’s responsibility,” he said, adding that it’s a message passed to the next generation to leave the “world a better place than we found it” by never being “bystanders to oppression and injustice.”
The Palestinian ambassador to Britain, Husam Zomlot, responded to Miliband’s speech on X: “Thank you to the millions of people in Britain and around the world who stood firmly on the side of justice, on the side of Palestine.”
Israel currently has no ambassador posted in the U.K. Tzahi Braverman, Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, was appointed to the post but has been unable to take it up while under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice, fraud and breach of trust and is barred from leaving the country.
Tensions have been rising between London and Jerusalem. Until the Gaza war, Britain had been one of Israel’s staunchest allies. Ties frayed under the former Labour government of Keir Starmer, which last year recognized Palestinian statehood. Relations have been even more strained since Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s new government was sworn into office in July.
In the aftermath of the U.K.’s decision to ban imports of Jewish West Bank settlement products, with France and Canada joining that move, Israel took a number of retaliatory measures. These included closing the British consulate in Jerusalem and removing its representatives from the International Gaza Support Center.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post UK foreign secretary: The threats to Israel don’t justify its treatment of Palestinians appeared first on The Forward.
