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
University of Michigan in Row Over Professor’s Endorsement of ‘Pro-Palestinian Student Activists’
The University of Michigan Union. Photo: Dominick Sokotoff/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is a house divided after a professor used his commencement speech to praise pro-Hamas activists, dozens of whom participated in a destructive wave of protests that scarred Jewish students and prompted the intervention of the federal government.
“Sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists who have over these past two years opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza,” university faculty Senate chair Derek Peterson, whose governance position makes him one of the powerful people on campus, said on Saturday.
Hours later, university president Domenico Grasso denounced the remarks for having “deviated” from what Peterson had submitted for review before taking the stage. Expressing regret that Peterson had caused “pain … on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment,” he stated that the Senate chair’s expressed views do not represent the institution’s, and, moreover, violated its commitment to neutrality on divisive political issues.
“Commencement is a time of celebration, recognition, and unity,” Grasso continued. “The chair’s remarks were expected to be congratulatory, not a platform for personal political expression. Introducing such commentary in this setting was inappropriate and did not align with the purpose of the occasion. In the coming weeks, I will work with university leadership to review and refine future commencement programming.”
The matter did not end there. Grasso’s statement rankled the school’s anti-Israel element, and within just over a day some 1,000 professors signed a petition demanding that Grasso retract his commentary and apologize not to any Jewish students who were outraged by the speech but rather to Peterson, whom they thanked “for his care and insight.” Firing off a litany of anti-Israel accusations confected by the Jewish state’s enemies, the petition concluded by turning the table: Grasso, it charged, had violated the university’s commitment to institutional neutrality.
“We can only conclude that there is nothing neutral about the institution’s supposed commitment to institutional neutrality,” the petition stated. “The institution’s supposed principles on diversity of thought and freedom of expression cease to operate when a faculty member expresses a ‘forbidden’ view.”
Peterson responded to this outpouring of support on campus by doubling down.
“It should not be controversial to have one’s ‘heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel’s war in Gaza,’ which is what I credited activists with doing,” Peterson told The Michigan Daily. “Having an open heart to other people’s suffering is a fundamental human virtue, and it is a quality that I hope we teach our students, whatever their political posture might be.”
For several years, spanning before and after Hamas’s Oct.7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, The Algemeiner has reported daily on campus antisemitism incidents which involved identity-based physical assaults, verbal abuse, and others acts of discrimination.
Committed by the “pro-Palestinian student activists” whom Peterson extolled, they included spitting on Jewish students at the University of California, Berkeley while calling them “Jew”; gang assaults at Columbia University’s Butler Library; swastika graffiti; the desecration of Jewish religious symbols; and the expulsion of a sexual assault survivor from a victim support group over her support for Zionism. In another incident, a Cornell University student threatened to murder Jewish men, whom he called pigs, and to rape Jewish women, and perpetrate a mass shooting at the campus’ kosher dining hall.
Professors, while operating largely behind the curtain, assumed roles as purveyors of anti-Jewish content too. At Harvard University, a “Faculty for Palestine” group shared an antisemitic political cartoon which named Jews and Israel as enemies Black and Brown people. At Cornell, a professor said Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre, in which the group murdered children and pets while raping both women and men, as “exhilarating.”
On Tuesday, Alyza Lewin president of US affairs at the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), told The Algemeiner that “the activists Derek Peterson endorsed are the same students responsible for normalizing a campus climate that equates with evil those who recognize Jewish peoplehood and the Jews’ ancestral connection to the Land of Israel.”
Lewin represents most of the Jewish community and its allies, many of whom have said in recent days that Peterson’s choosing commencement to proclaim solidarity with such a controversial and extremist political movement is indicative of a deeper problem in higher education.
“Protests on campus have repeatedly crossed the line: encampments, disrupted ceremonies, demonstrations at officials’ homes, clashes with police,” Nikki Haley, who previously served as governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the United Nations, said in a statement on Tuesday. “The First Amendment must be protected, but it doesn’t absolve any one of consequences. Universities have deep culture problems they must address. If they don’t, they should face repercussions.”
Meanwhile, Ted Deutch, chief executive officer of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), said the “graduation is about more than commencement; it’s about campus culture.”
He continued, “Ensuring that moments like this and the broader campus environment reflect the university’s highest values require clear, consistent leadership from the university’s president and the Board of Regents, and I urge them to lead.”
Commencement speeches are a coveted theater for anti-Zionist activists searching for notoriety ahead of their transition to the real world. More often than not, the performances make them infamous, not least because pulling off the act requires deceiving the professors and administrators who approved their being conferred the high honor of addressing the graduating class.
Last year, New York University withheld the diploma of a Gallatin School of Individualized Study student who “lied” to the administration about the content of his commencement speech to conceal its claim that Israel is committing a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, a falsehood parroted by both jihadist terrorist organizations and neo-Nazis. New York University promptly denounced the student.
Days later at George Washington University, one of its students, Cecilia Culver, not only uttered the same claim but added that her school’s hands are stained with “blood.”
George Washington University noted that Culver had been “dishonest” too and banned her from campus. The university also stripped Culver of her status as a “distinguished scholar.” Culver, whose misstep cost her a job Ernest & Young, is now suing the university for “defamation” and “retaliatory suppression of her protected expression.” The suit adds that her “professional reputation in the economics and policy community in Washington, D.C. and beyond … cannot be remedied.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson Praises JD Vance, Signals Increasingly Distant Relationship: ‘No One’s Seeking My Counsel’
Tucker Carlson speaks on first day of AmericaFest 2025 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo: Charles-McClintock Wilson/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Far-right commentator Tucker Carlson is signaling continued personal support for US Vice President JD Vance even as their differences over Israel and Iran come into sharper focus and questions arise about the current status of their relationship, a divide with implications for US national security policy and the future of Republican leadership.
In a new interview with The New York Times, Carlson reaffirmed his support for Vance, reinforcing a longstanding alignment and personal friendship between the two figures. But he also acknowledged that Vance is in a “tough spot” as part of an administration led by President Donald Trump that has taken decisive action, including military strikes, against Iran.
While praising Vance’s character, Carlson suggested that the vice president has been constrained by the limitations of his position. Nonetheless, the podcaster, former Fox News host, and outspoken anti-Israel voice speculated that Vance has tried to redirect the foreign policy objectives of the Trump administration in what he perceives as a more productive direction.
“I know him well and think so much of him as a person. And it is my guess that, based on his past behavior, that he’s doing everything he can to mitigate what he sees as the ill effects of [the Iran war]. But it’s kind of hard to call the shots when you’re vice president, because that’s not in the Constitution,” Carlson said.
Carlson, notably, did not indicate the last time he and the vice president spoke when asked, stoking speculation that the relationship between the two political power brokers has deteriorated.
“Oh, I don’t know. But I wouldn’t want to add to his problems at all,” said the online provocateur, who reportedly played a role in persuading Trump to name Vance as his running mate. “I would just say what’s obvious, which is that I’m hardly an adviser to this administration. And I think it’s also clear that Donald Trump makes these decisions.”
When Carlson was pressed to say the last time he spoke to Vance, he continued to avoid giving a direct answer.
“I don’t know. I mean, I would never characterize that,” he said. “I don’t want to cause him more problems. I would just say I’m not advising. No one’s seeking my counsel. I’m not trying to influence anything. I gave it my best shot. Didn’t work.”
While polling has shown Republicans overwhelmingly supportive of Trump’s military campaign against Iran, the tension between the Trump administration’s approach to Middle East and the Republican base is becoming increasingly central to inter-party discourse.
In the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many younger voters have, according to recent polling, expressed deep skepticism of US military operations abroad and support for certain traditional allies, especially Israel.
Vance rose politically in part on a more restrained foreign policy outlook, skeptical of overseas military engagement. Now, as vice president, he is tied to policies that emphasize confronting Iran’s regional aggression, including support for US actions aimed at degrading Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and support for terrorist groups.
Carlson, by contrast, has intensified his criticism of such efforts, reflecting an isolationist strand of “America First” thinking that questions US involvement abroad. His rhetoric has raised alarm bells among many Republicans, including pro-Israel advocates, who argue that reducing pressure on Iran risks emboldening a regime that routinely chants “death to America, death to Israel” and has been, according to the US intelligence community, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism for several years.
Carlson has gone further, however, to increase his criticisms of Israel in the two-and-a-half years following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. He has alarmed and mystified establishment conservatives by condemning Israel’s military operations in Gaza, accusing the Jewish state of committing “genocide,” and seemingly defending Hamas and Qatar, the terrorist group’s long-time backer. The podcaster has even suggested that Israel oppresses and murders Christians, despite the fact that they enjoy full equal rights and high levels of education in the Jewish state. At the same time, he has noticeably not criticized many Islamic countries for persecuting Christians, failing to acknowledge the oppression of Christians throughout much of Africa and the Middle East.
During the Times interview, Carlson chided US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, accusing the official of engaging in “nonstop treachery” against the vice president in service of advancing his own goals.
“There are people in the White House who want to hurt JD Vance and have wanted that since the very first day. They were bitter. They wanted Marco Rubio to be the choice as vice president,” Carlson said.
Republican leaders including Rubio have pushed back forcefully on the view that the US should take an isolationist approach to foreign policy, maintaining that a strong US posture is indispensable.
Against the backdrop of a shifting ideological landscape within the Republican Party, the Carlson-Vance relationship is becoming a defining lens on the party’s internal debate. Carlson’s personal backing offers Vance credibility with a key segment of the Republican base, but their policy divergence, particularly on Israel, places Vance at the center of a contentious debate regarding the GOP’s future posture toward the closest US ally in the Middle East.
Vance has refused to outright condemn Carlson and, on several occasions, has dismissed concerns about rising antisemitism on the political right, where many young voters have increasingly embraced unfounded conspiracy theories regarding the Jewish state.
Uncategorized
Boulder hostage-march firebombing suspect to plead guilty to state charges
(JTA) — The man charged with firebombing a Boulder, Colorado, march for Israeli hostages in 2025 will plead guilty to killing one person and attempting to kill others in the incident, according to documents filed in the case over the weekend.
Mohamed Sabry Soliman, who was arrested at the scene of the June 1, 2025, attack, is asking for his ex-wife and children to be able to remain in the United States as a condition of his guilty plea, according to the documents.
His ex-wife and five children, like him all Egyptian nationals who came to the United States in 2022 via Kuwait, were arrested by immigration authorities shortly after the attack. They were detained until Thursday, when they were released from a detention center in Texas, then briefly detained again on Saturday in Boulder and, their attorneys say, put onto a plane bound for Egypt before being freed once again. His ex-wife, whom he divorced in April, has not been charged with a crime and said she did not know about Soliman’s planned attack.
Soliman is reportedly pleading guilty to all state charges but still faces federal charges in relation to the attack, which he allegedly said he staged to “wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead,” according to an earlier court filing. He has previously pleaded not guilty to the federal charges, for which prosecutors could seek the death penalty.
Thirteen people were physically injured in the attack, which took place on a pedestrian mall in downtown Boulder where supporters of the Israelis then held hostage in Gaza marched weekly. One, 82-year-old Karen Diamond, died weeks later of her injuries.
The post Boulder hostage-march firebombing suspect to plead guilty to state charges appeared first on The Forward.