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
Israel Targets Hezbollah Fighters Disguised as Paramedics as Terror Group Continues to Exploit Civilian Sites
Israeli soldiers walk next to military vehicles on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, amid escalation between Hezbollah and Israel, and amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in northern Israel, March 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Avi Ohayon
Israel on Sunday night intercepted a Hezbollah operation in southern Lebanon, targeting a terrorist cell disguised as paramedics who tried to transport weapons in an ambulance toward Israeli forces.
The Israeli strike further exposed the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group’s use of civilians and even medical vehicles as cover for attacks.
According to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah has fired thousands of drones and rockets toward the Jewish state since joining the war in support of Iran earlier this month, brazenly using ambulances and medical facilities as cover and embedding their weapons and operation hubs in various civilian sites.
“This incident is another example of Hezbollah’s cynical and systematic use of medical infrastructure for military purposes,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.
Last week, Israel discovered a tunnel used by Hezbollah in a church in southern Lebanon, where the terrorist group has spent years building infrastructure to attack the Jewish state.
Hezbollah tunnel at a church in southern Lebanon https://t.co/5mTGP7uSvz
— Matthew Levitt (@Levitt_Matt) March 27, 2026
Under international law, deliberately using medical teams and ambulances to conceal military activity constitutes a serious violation, as battlefield protections for medical personnel apply only when they act strictly within their humanitarian role.
As the conflict in Lebanon continues to escalate, Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that once ambulances and medical teams become part of Hezbollah’s weapons transport network, they lose their protected status and become legitimate military targets.
On Monday, the IDF destroyed more than 100 high-rise towers in southern Lebanon serving as Hezbollah’s command, control, and attack-planning centers against Israeli citizens – in what officials described as the terrorist group’s “cynical exploitation of Lebanese citizens,” embedding military infrastructure amid civilian areas.
PHOTOS: Israeli soldiers discover Hezbollah weapons cache—including RPGs, mortars, hand grenades, launchers, land mines, explosive bricks, and rifles—in southern Lebanon school. (IDF) pic.twitter.com/2HIpFtPLTQ
— Avi Mayer אבי מאיר (@AviMayer) March 27, 2026
With a ground maneuver underway to expand a defensive zone in southern Lebanon, the IDF says it has eliminated over 850 Hezbollah terrorists so far, while continuing to dismantle the group’s command and weapons infrastructure.
Last week, Israeli forces ordered the evacuation of the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, after identifying Hezbollah operatives launching heavy rocket fire from residential neighborhoods, issuing the order ahead of airstrikes to safeguard civilians from the escalating attacks.
“Hezbollah, which has dragged you into this war in service of Iran’s agenda, is deliberately operating within your neighborhoods, putting your safety at grave risk and bringing destruction to your homes and communities,” the military’s Arabic spokesperson, Col. (res.) Avichay Adraee wrote in a post on X, appealing to Lebanese citizens.
For years, Hezbollah has embedded command posts, weapons depots, snipers, and troops within Shiite villages, situating them in the heart of civilian centers near schools, hospitals, mosques, and main roads to turn entire communities into battlefields.
“We found them hiding weapons in a children’s school. We found them building a tunnel in the complex of a church in al-Kiam,” IDF International Spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani said during a briefing to journalists.
In recent weeks, Israel has intensified strikes targeting Hezbollah, particularly south of the Litani River, where the group’s operatives have historically been most active against the Jewish state.
Israel has long demanded that Hezbollah be barred from carrying out activities south of the Litani, located roughly 15 miles from the Israeli border.
The IDF is now moving into Lebanon to establish what officials described as a “forward defensive line,” targeting Hezbollah infrastructure and destroying buildings that were being used as operational “terrorist outposts.”
As reports surfaced of potential ceasefire talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials, Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem warned Wednesday that negotiating under fire amounts to imposed surrender, adding that his fighters are prepared to continue operations “without limits.”
In just the first month of the conflict, Israeli officials report that Hezbollah has carried out more than 900 coordinated attacks, marking a sharp increase in cross-border activity and a broader expansion of its operations across the region.
So far, Israel has demolished five bridges in the Litani River area and taken effective control of three others, aiming to dominate the area from the air and prevent residents from returning south of the river until the threat of Hezbollah is removed.
Uncategorized
DNC to Consider Resolution Condemning AIPAC
Crews prepare the stage at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Brian Snyder
A newly introduced resolution within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is putting the party’s relationship with pro-Israel lobbying money under renewed scrutiny, exposing a deepening divide between its progressive base and establishment leadership.
The measure, which is nonbinding, calls on Democrats across the US to reject or distance themselves from funding tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobbying group, and its affiliated political entities. While largely symbolic, the resolution would compel party officials and candidates to publicly take a position on whether to accept such financial support.
Allison Minnerly, a DNC member from Florida who sponsored the resolution, argues that the committee needs to take a more aggressive stance in fighting on behalf of Palestinians.
“At a time when Democratic voters might really not have felt represented or seen when it came to Gaza or seeing their party support Palestinian rights or stand against military conflict, this could be one step toward bringing those voters back into the party,” she told The Intercept.
Minnerly also presented a resolution last August which called for an arms embargo against Israel. That measure failed.
The new resolution comes as AIPAC and allied super PACs have become increasingly influential in Democratic primaries, spending millions to back candidates aligned with their positions. Critics within the party argue that this influx of money, including donations from Republican-aligned contributors, risks distorting Democratic contests and elevating outside influence.
The resolution condemns AIPAC for its purported attempts to influence Democratic politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and undermining efforts to fortify “Palestinian rights” in Israel. The resolution accuses AIPAC of pouring over $100 million into Democratic competitions in an attempt to shift overall results.
The resolution raises general concerns about the role of nonprofit and political groups that can obscure the origins of campaign funding, intensifying calls for greater transparency.
Progressive Democrats and grassroots activists are driving the push for the resolution, framing it as part of a broader effort to limit the influence of big money in politics. Many argue that AIPAC’s policy positions, particularly in the context of the Gaza conflict, are increasingly out of step with Democratic voters. The resolution specifically accuses AIPAC of influencing Democratic candidates to adopt positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict that are not adequately reflective of “the views of their constituents.”
Supporters say the resolution is less about enforcement and more about signaling, drawing a clear line on the type of financial backing the party should accept.
Party leaders and more moderate Democrats have approached discourse regarding the Israel-Hamas war cautiously. Centrist Democrats and those in heavily Jewish districts have balanced their support for Israel’s right to self-defense with concern over the humanitarian toll in Gaza. In progressive districts, however, anti-Israel positions have emerged as a litmus test in primaries, with candidates being grilled on whether they will vote to cease arms transfers to the Jewish state or whether they consider the military conflict in Gaza a “genocide.”
Despite the pressure campaign to dislodge the Democratic party from Israel, many moderate liberals point to AIPAC’s long-standing support for Democratic candidates and warn that rejecting its backing could put candidates at a disadvantage in competitive races. Others emphasize the importance of maintaining relationships with pro-Israel constituencies, suggesting that a sweeping break could carry political risks. However, others have accused AIPAC of bankrolling Republican and pro-Trump candidates to the expense of Democrats.
AIPAC contends that it supports pro-Israel candidates regardless of political affiliation, arguing the American-Israeli relationship is bipartisan and advances US interests. Further, other lobbying groups which support foreign countries, such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), donate funds and support to American candidates with little controversy.
The fight over the resolution reflects a larger transformation within the Democratic Party, as shifting voter attitudes and growing skepticism of large-scale political spending reshape internal dynamics. Polling suggests that the Democratic party has largely shifted against Israel, especially among younger voters. Ambitious Democratic hopefuls are reassessing their messaging and position on Israel, with progressive liberals aggressively condemning the country for committing a so-called “genocide” in Gaza.
As the DNC considers the measure, the outcome could serve as a signal of where the party stands in an evolving political landscape.
Uncategorized
Catholic University of America Under Fire for Requiring ‘Opposing Viewpoint’ for Combating Antisemitism Event
A general view of the Catholic University of America (CUA) campus in Washington, DC. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The Catholic University of America (CUA) is being criticized for denying the Students Supporting Israel campus organization approval to host events on combating antisemitism and defending Israeli security unless it agrees to feature “opposing viewpoints.”
The episode began earlier this month when Students Supporting Israel (SSI), a national organization that has faced opposition from CUA before, publicly complained that the university refused to sanction both an event in which US Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) would discuss “ending campus antisemitism” and another featuring an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier with experience in resisting jihadist terrorism along Israel’s security fence with the West Bank.
According to university policy, civil dialogue on the contemporary issues can’t be held unless it includes “speakers representing both sides.” While the policy purports to promote intellectual exchange, critics say it has the effect of compelling speech or censoring it altogether by imposing conditions on free speech to which no group could agree without undermining its mission.
In SSI’s case, the group has said that CUA’s policy demands the participation of anti-Israel, even antisemitic voices who would leverage a speaking engagement to utter dehumanizing opinions about Jews or propaganda confected by the Hamas terrorist organization and other groups which seek to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
The case has now become the cause of the Foundation for Individual Right and Expression (FIRE), a group which has at times disagreed with the pro-Israel community’s outlook on free speech issues.
“While CUA is a private university and therefore not bound by the First Amendment, it is legally and morally bound to adhere to the institutional commitments it has voluntarily made to protect students’ freedom of speech,” FIRE said on March 18 in a blistering demand letter to the university. “Forcing student organizations ‘to host or accommodate another speaker’s message,’ even in the service of providing a greater range of views, inevitable ‘alters the expressive content’ of the event. Having made these free speech commitments, it is no more appropriate for CUA to require Students Supporting Israel to host speakers who oppose Israel than it would be for the federal or state government to force CUA to couple its institutional pro-Catholic messages with anti-Catholic viewpoints.”
This is not the first time that the Catholic University of America has allegedly trampled on the rights of pro-Israel advocates.
In October, it allegedly used bureaucratic obstruction to suppress Jewish grieving and commemoration of the children, women, and men whom Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered during the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel by canceling a memorial display that was approved in August.
According to the school’s SSI chapter, university officials cited an arcane policy which proscribes flying the flag of any foreign nation, except for that of the Vatican, on campus. However, SSI maintains that it was selectively applied to it with malice, citing that anti-Israel organizations have flown the Palestinian flag on campus numerous times, with and without official permission, as have many other organizations.
At the time, The Algemeiner requested photographic evidence of SSI’s claims of selective enforcement, to which the group responded by sending several pictures showing dozens of foreign flags flying on the campus, including those representing the nations of Brazil, France, and Ukraine. The group added that after canceling SSI’s memorial for the second anniversary of the Oct. 7 atrocities, university staff marched toward the event spaces and dismantled everything SSI had set up and topped off the act by stuffing Israeli flags into a plastic bag, which was left on a random office chair as an afterthought.
On Monday, SSI president Felipe Avila told The Algemeiner that CUA has a pattern of squelching pro-Israel speech.
“These event details are not isolated incidents; they represent a systemic pattern of discrimination we have faced since our founding,” Avila said. “From the dismantling of our Oct. 7 memorial to the unequal enforcement of event guidelines today, administrators consistently place insurmountable hurdles in front of our students. We should not be forced to platform competing viewpoints as a condition of discussing our own community’s safety and security.”
Citing the Second Vatican Council’s rejection of antisemitism in the Catholic Church, he added, “Students Supporting Israel will continue to vigorously defend our right to speak out against antisemitism, in the very spirit of the Church’s own teaching in Nostra Aetate.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.