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
‘Creates More Enemies’: Iran’s War Spreads to Turkey as Analysts Warn Regional Assault Is Strategic Mistake
Debris of a NATO air defense system that intercepted a missile launched from Iran is seen in Dortyol, in southern Hatay province, Turkey, March 4, 2026, in this screengrab from video. Photo: Ihlas News Agency (IHA) via REUTERS
Turkey became the latest unexpected target in the widening war in the Middle East on Wednesday after it intercepted an Iranian missile, as Iran’s retaliation for joint US-Israeli strikes spreads across the region.
Tehran appears to be betting that hitting countries beyond Israel will ignite regional pressure on Washington to stop its military operation, but Arab and Israeli diplomats say the strategy is backfiring, with the Islamic Republic “creating more enemies.”
Turkey said NATO air defenses destroyed a ballistic missile fired from Iran that was detected over Iraq and Syria and heading toward Turkish airspace. Turkey, a majority Sunni country and a NATO member, shares a roughly 310-mile border with Iran. Two days earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called for “an end to the bloodbath,” describing the war, launched by joint US-Israeli strikes on Saturday, as “illegal.”
Since the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, the regime in Tehran has expanded its retaliatory missile and drone fire to hit a swath of American allies including Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
Iran’s interim national security chief, Ali Larijani, said on Sunday that Iran was “not seeking to attack” regional states and was acting only in self-defense against American bases. But in the days since, Iranian strikes have hit civilian infrastructure including power facilities and hotels across the Gulf.
New figures released Wednesday by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) show Iran has concentrated far more firepower on Gulf neighbors than on Israel in the war’s opening days. Over the first four days, INSS said Iran launched about 200 missiles and about 100 drones at Israel across 123 attack waves. Over the same period, it targeted the Gulf states with about 500 missiles and about 2,000 drones — 2.5 times more missiles and 20 times more drones than it fired at Israel.
According to Michael Eisenstadt, a military analyst and former US Army officer at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the attacks reflect Iran’s strategy of applying graduated pressure by “catalyzing opposition to the war” in the United States and other countries. Tehran hopes disruptions to oil infrastructure and higher energy prices will create pressure for a ceasefire.
But nearly every expert called Iran’s Gulf assault a blunder, saying the strikes have caused widespread anger in the Arab world. Six GCC states and Jordan condemned Iran’s attacks as “indiscriminate and reckless” and reaffirmed each country’s right to self-defense.
Jeremy Issacharoff, a former Israeli ambassador and arms expert, said the Iranian strategy was counterproductive, turning quasi-allies into adversaries.
“Attacking countries like Qatar that were pretty much positively inclined towards them was a huge mistake,” he told The Algemeiner. “They’ve created more enemies.”
Issacharoff said that Tehran’s leaders frame the conflict through hostility toward Zionism and the existence of a Jewish state in what they see as part of the Islamic world, adding that their driving strategic goal is hegemony. “In the end, they were looking to be much more in control of the region, and of the Arab world as a whole,” he said.
But the region was already moving in the opposite direction of what Iran wants, he said. Years of Iranian-backed missile attacks on Israel by proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon had already pushed several countries to develop what he described as a regional defense mechanism, with Arab states cooperating with Israel and the US under the radar.
“It’s discreet, but it’s happening,” Issacharoff said, adding that the latest attacks could prompt the emerging coalition to expand cooperation even further, beyond the military arena into a broader framework for regional stability.
Former US Central Command (CENTCOM) communications director Joe Buccino took it a step further, telling Fox News that Iran’s move was a “stunning strategic miscalculation” that could “set the Gulf states on [a] path toward normalization with Israel.”
Abbas Dahouk, a retired US Army colonel who served as a senior military adviser for Middle Eastern Affairs at the US State Department, echoed Issacharoff’s view that years of quiet cooperation had already strengthened a regional coalition against Iran, but he tied the acceleration to a specific turning point: Israel’s inclusion in CENTCOM in 2021, which he said was a “transformative” inflection point that forced regional militaries that once avoided overt ties to “quietly mature counter-Iran plans over years of joint exercises and coordination.”
That groundwork is now showing up in the scale of coordination, Dahouk told The Jerusalem Post in comments published Tuesday, with “hundreds of aircraft” able to operate at once, refuel, strike concealed targets, and counter Iran’s drone and missile networks. He added that Iran’s retaliation has left Gulf states little room to stay on the sidelines.
“The region must view the Iranian regime as a common threat alongside the United States and Israel,” he said. “At this moment, they have little alternative.”
Former US General Jack Keane also told Fox that the Islamic Republic’s strategy had “backfired.”
“The Gulf states are responding, they’re adequately defending themselves … they’re frustrated with the Iranians,” Keane said, adding that several GCC states were preparing for combat.
Emirati analyst Mohammad Al Ali wrote in Gulf News that Iran’s only success in this war so far was in “uniting the region and much of the world against them, constructing a vast wall of isolation between [the] regime and the international community.”
“If Iran’s leaders have succeeded in any respect during this war, it is only in uniting the region and much of the world against them, constructing a vast wall of isolation between their regime and the international community,” he wrote.
Beyond the Arab world, Iran’s strikes have triggered outrage in Europe and led France, Greece, and Britan to deploy defensive military assets to the Mediterranean.
“Iran’s strategy is to sow chaos and set the region on fire,” European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters on Wednesday, lambasting the Iranian regime for indiscriminately attacking its neighbors.
Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski expressed similar sentiments when asked about the Iranian ballistic missile headed into Turkish airspace.
Iran is broadening the war to countries that did not attack it … there is a well-known saying it’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake,” he said.
Uncategorized
Frontrunner for Iran’s Next Supreme Leader Emerges, US Sub Sinks Iranian Warship Off Sri Lanka
Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, visits Hezbollah’s office in Tehran, Iran, Oct. 1, 2024. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The powerful son of Iran’s slain supreme leader emerged on Wednesday as a frontrunner to succeed him as the US stepped up its military campaign against Tehran.
As new explosions rang out in Tehran, plans were in doubt for a funeral for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, killed by Israeli forces on Saturday in the first assassination of a nation’s top ruler by an airstrike.
The body had been expected to lie in state in a vast Tehran mosque from Wednesday evening, but state media reported a farewell ceremony had been postponed.
Two Iranian sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that Mojtaba Khamenei, son of Iran’s slain supreme leader, was not in Tehran when his father was killed in a strike that destroyed the leader‘s compound.
Iran said the Assembly of Experts that will select the new leader would announce its decision soon, only the second time it will have done so since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979.
Assembly member Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami told state TV the candidates had already been identified but did not name them.
Israel said it would hunt down whoever was chosen.
Other candidates for supreme leader include Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the Islamic Republic’s founder and a champion of the reformist faction sidelined in recent decades.
But the favorite appears to be Mojtaba Khamenei, who has amassed power as a senior figure in the security forces and the vast business empire they control, the Iranian sources said. Choosing him would send a signal that hardliners were still firmly in charge.
Some Iranians have openly celebrated the death of the supreme leader, whose security forces killed thousands of anti-government demonstrators only weeks ago in the biggest domestic unrest since the era of the revolution.
But Iranians angry with the government said there was unlikely to be much sign of protest while bombs are falling.
“We have nowhere to go to protect ourselves from strikes, how can we protest?” Farah, 45, said by phone from Tehran, adding that the security forces “are everywhere. They will kill us. I hate this regime, but first I have to think about the safety of my two children.”
Meanwhile, in a sign of the US military’s reach, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a US submarine had sunk an Iranian warship off the southern coast of Sri Lanka. At least 80 people were killed, Sri Lanka’s deputy foreign minister told local television.
The United States and Israel pressed on with their round-the-clock assaults on Iran that began on Saturday. The top US commander said the campaign was “ahead of the game plan” and Hegseth said the US was winning the conflict.
“This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down,” Hegseth told a briefing. “Our air defenses and that of our allies have plenty of runway. We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.”
A New York Times report said that Iranian intelligence had reached out to the CIA early in the war about a path toward ending the conflict.
The report said that officials in Washington were skeptical of an “off-ramp” for now, while Trump said on Tuesday that Iranians wanted talks but it was “too late.”
Uncategorized
Britain Launches Review Into School-Related Antisemitism
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump (not pictured) hold a bilateral meeting at Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain, July 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Britain‘s government on Wednesday launched an independent review into antisemitism in England’s schools and colleges, responding to data showing classroom-related incidents have doubled since before Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
Attacks on Jews have risen globally since Hamas’s assault on Israel, which triggered the Gaza war. Britain reported a 4% annual increase in cases of antisemitism in 2025 – the second-highest total on record – including a sharp spike after a deadly synagogue attack in northern England in October.
The Community Security Trust, which advises Jewish communities on security, recorded 204 school–related antisemitic incidents in 2025, twice pre-2023 levels.
“The figures are stark and clear,” education minister Bridget Phillipson said in a statement.
She added that “too many Jewish teachers who raised concerns felt that nothing was done. That is not acceptable.”
The government said the aim of the review was to assess how well education settings identify, prevent and respond to antisemitic behavior, and where further support was needed.
The review will examine schools’ policies, how incidents are handled when they occur, what preventive measures are in place, and how external factors – including protests outside schools and wider geopolitical tensions – influence behavior within education settings.