Uncategorized
Netanyahu announces pause to judiciary reform, in significant victory for protesters
(JTA) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would postpone a vote on far-reaching reforms to the judiciary and engage in dialogue with the opposition, yielding to calls from hundreds of thousands of protesters as well as senior members of his own party and international leaders.
In his televised address, Netanyahu cited fears of civil war, which Israeli President Isaac Herzog had also warned of weeks ago.
“I am not ready to tear the people into shreds,” Netanyahu said Monday in remarks broadcast just past 8 p.m. Israel time. “We are not facing enemies but brothers. I am saying now and here, there must not be a civil war.”
He added, “I have decided to delay the second and third readings of the legislation until the Knesset reconvenes” roughly a month from now, at the end of April. He said the break — which includes the Jewish and Israeli holidays of Passover, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Memorial Day and Independence Day — would be devoted to dialogue.
Netanyahu’s announcement marks a significant victory for opponents of the judicial reform, and heralds a new stage in the months-long debate over the legislation which, as written, would sap the Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. As it stands, the legislation substantially increases government control over Supreme Court appointments and essentially removes the court’s ability to review laws. That version of the legislation will almost certainly not pass now, and leaders of a strike called on Monday to protest the reforms called it off immediately after Netanyahu’s speech.
The legislation has been controversial ever since it was unveiled near the beginning of the year, just weeks after Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition took office. For months, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to oppose the proposals, and their calls were joined by a chorus of public figures, in Israel and abroad, who warned that the overhaul would remove a key component of Israel’s democratic system. Reservists in the Israel Defense Forces vowed to absent themselves from duty in protest.
Netanyahu and his allies said that the reform reflected the will of Israel’s right-wing majority. But facing the threats from reservists, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced on television Saturday night that he supported a pause in the legislation, as well as dialogue toward a compromise. He said internal conflict in the IDF surrounding the overhaul put Israel’s security at risk.
One day later, on Sunday night, Netanyahu fired Gallant — a decision that sparked massive, spontaneous protests across the country, starting late Sunday night and lasting until Monday’s early hours, and then reconvening Monday afternoon.
In his speech on Monday, Netanyahu railed against reservists refusing to report for duty, which he called a “terrible crime.”
“The state of Israel cannot exist without the IDF, and the IDF cannot exist with refusal,” he said. “Refusal from one side will lead to refusal from the other side. Refusal is the end of our country. So I demand — demand — of the commanders of the security forces, and the commanders of the IDF, to forcefully oppose the phenomenon of refusal.”
Opposition leaders, including Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, accepted Netanyahu’s call for dialogue. Lapid said the dialogue should lead to the writing of a constitution for Israel, which the country currently lacks, under the aegis of President Isaac Herzog. For weeks, Herzog has been calling for a pause in the legislative process and had previously unveiled a compromise on the judicial reform that Netanyahu’s coalition rejected. The Biden administration had also urged Netanyahu to find a compromise, including in a conversation last week between President Joe Biden and Netanyahu.
Bitter feelings were still evident in the prime minister’s speech: Netanyahu said pro-government protesters who turned out on Monday evening were “spontaneous,” “not paid for, not spurred by the media.” Netanyahu has at times depicted the massive protests as a conspiracy.
Gantz, in accepting the offer, said, “The prime minister is principally responsible for tearing the country apart.” He also called on Netanyahu to reinstall Gallant. Netanyahu did not mention Gallant in his address.
Netanyahu said his decision to pause the legislative process was backed by a majority of his coalition. In December, Netanyahu allied with the far-right Religious Zionist bloc as part of his governing coalition, and one of the bloc’s leaders, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, was pressing for quick passage of the reforms up until Netanyahu’s announcement.
Another leader of the far-right bloc, Itamar Ben Gvir, the national security minister, circulated an agreement signed by himself and Netanyahu to establish a “National Guard” alongside the decision to pause the court reform. It is not clear how such an entity would function alongside Israel’s already massive security infrastructure. Ben-Gvir has called for the loosening of open-fire rules in clashes between security forces and Palestinians. Netanyahu likewise did not mention the agreement with Ben-Gvir in his speech.
In a tweet posted shortly before Netanyahu’s speech, Ben-Gvir sounded defiant.
“The reform will pass. The national guard will be established. The budget I demanded for the Ministry of National Security will pass in its entirety,” he wrote. “No one will frighten us. No one will be able to change the decision of the people.”
Then, mimicking the central chant of the anti-government protesters, he added: “Repeat after me: De-mo-cra-cy!”
—
The post Netanyahu announces pause to judiciary reform, in significant victory for protesters appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel
Something significant is happening between Israel and Syria, and it deserves more attention than it is getting.
With the backing of the United States, Israeli and Syrian officials have agreed to create what they call a “joint fusion mechanism” — a permanent channel for coordination on intelligence, de-escalation, diplomacy and economic matters — during meetings in Paris. It appears to be the beginning of institutionalized contact between two countries that have formally been at war since 1948.
If this process continues, it will count as a genuine foreign-policy success for President Donald Trump’s administration.
To understand how profound that change would be, it is worth recalling the two countries’ shared history.
Israel and Syria — which the U.S. struck with a set of targeted attacks on the Islamic State on Saturday — have fought openly or by proxy for decades. Before 1967, Syrian artillery positions in the Golan Heights regularly shelled Israeli communities in the Hula Valley and around the Sea of Galilee. After Israel captured that region in 1967, the direct shelling stopped, but the conflict did not.
Syria remained formally committed to a state of war; Israel entrenched itself in the Golan Heights; both sides treated the frontier as a potential flashpoint to be managed carefully. After Egypt and Israel made peace in 1979, Syria became Israel’s most dangerous neighboring state.
A 1974 disengagement agreement created a United Nations-monitored buffer zone, which mostly ensured peace along the border, but did not resolve anything fundamental. In Lebanon, Israel and Syria backed opposing forces for years, and their air forces clashed briefly during the 1982 Lebanon War. Later, Iran’s growing role in Syria and Hezbollah’s military buildup added new threats. The Syrian civil war then destroyed basic state capacity and created precisely the kind of militia-rich environment Israel fears along its borders.
Now, with the dictator Bashar al-Assad gone and the former rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa in power, Syria is a broken country trying to stabilize. Sharaa’s past associations, disturbingly, include leadership of jihadist groups that were part of the wartime landscape in Syria. But today he governs a state facing economic collapse, infrastructure ruin and a population that needs jobs and basic services. His incentives are simple and powerful: ensure the survival of his regime, invite foreign investment, and secure relief from isolation and sanctions. Those goals point toward the U.S. and its partners, including Israel.
The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to see new Syrian cooperation with Israel, with the suggestion that progress with Israel will become a gateway to international investment, and to a degree of political acceptance that Syria has lacked for years. Al-Sharaa’s willingness to engage is therefore not a mystery.
Israel’s motivations are also straightforward. After the Gaza war, Israel is facing a severe reputational problem. It is widely viewed abroad as reckless and excessively militarized. The government is under pressure over not only the conduct of the war but also the perception that it has no political strategy and relies almost exclusively on force. A diplomatic track with Syria allows Israel to present a very different picture: that of a country capable of negotiations with ideologically opposed neighbors, de-escalation, and regional cooperation.
There are significant security incentives, too.
Israel wants to limit Iran and Hezbollah’s influence in Syria. It wants a predictable northern border. It wants assurances regarding the Druze population in southern Syria — brethren to the Israeli Druze who are extremely loyal to the state, and who were outraged after a massacre of Syrian Druze followed the installation of al-Sharaa’s regime. It wants to ensure that no armed Syrian groups will tread near the Golan. A coordinated mechanism supervised by the U.S. offers a strong diplomatic way to address these issues.
The U.S. will benefit as well. The Trump team is eager to show that it can deliver lasting diplomatic achievements in the Middle East after the success of the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term. A meaningful shift in Israel–Syria relations would be a very welcome addition, especially as the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in the Gaza war faces an uncertain future.
The main questions now are practical. Can the “joint fusion mechanism” function under pressure? What will happen when there is, almost inevitably, an incident — a drone downed, a militia clash, a cross-border strike? Will the new system effectively lower the temperature, or will it collapse at the first crisis?
Will Iran — facing its own profound internal political crisis — accept a Syria that coordinates with Israel under U.S. supervision, or will it work to undermine al-Sharaa? How will Hezbollah react if Damascus appears to move away from the axis of “resistance” and toward a security understanding with Israel?
How would an Israel-Syria deal impact Lebanon’s moribund efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s military capacity? Al-Sharaa has already helped significantly by ending the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah from Iran through his territory. Might he also actively help with the disarming of the group?
No one should expect a full peace treaty soon. The question of possession of the Golan Heights probably remains a deal-breaker. Public opinion in Syria has been shaped by decades of official hostility to Israel, and Israeli politics is fragmented and volatile.
But diplomatic breakthroughs can confound expectations. They usually begin with mechanisms like this one, involving limited cooperation, routine contact and crisis management.
If this effort helps move the border from a zone of permanent tension to one of managed stability, that alone would be a major shift. It would also send a signal beyond the region: U.S. engagement still matters, and American pressure and incentives can still change behavior.
The post A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Netanyahu Hopes to ‘Taper’ Israel Off US Military Aid in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the press on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, July 8, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview published on Friday that he hopes to “taper off” Israeli dependence on US military aid in the next decade.
Netanyahu has said Israel should not be reliant on foreign military aid but has stopped short of declaring a firm timeline for when Israel would be fully independent from Washington.
“I want to taper off the military within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told The Economist. Asked if that meant a tapering “down to zero,” he said: “Yes.”
Netanyahu said he told President Donald Trump during a recent visit that Israel “very deeply” appreciates “the military aid that America has given us over the years, but here too we’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacities.”
In December, Netanyahu said Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
In 2016, the US and Israeli governments signed a memorandum of understanding for the 10 years through September 2028 that provides $38 billion in military aid, $33 billion in grants to buy military equipment and $5 billion for missile defense systems.
Israeli defense exports rose 13 percent last year, with major contracts signed for Israeli defense technology including its advanced multi-layered aerial defense systems.
US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Israel supporter and close ally of Trump, said on X that “we need not wait ten years” to begin scaling back military aid to Israel.
“The billions in taxpayer dollars that would be saved by expediting the termination of military aid to Israel will and should be plowed back into the US military,” Graham said. “I will be presenting a proposal to Israel and the Trump administration to dramatically expedite the timetable.”
Uncategorized
In Rare Messages from Iran, Protesters ask West for Help, Speak of ‘Very High’ Death Toll
Protests in Tehran. Photo: Iran Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law, via i24 News
i24 News – Speaking to Western media from beyond the nationwide internet blackout imposed by the Islamic regime, Iranian protesters said they needed support amid a brutal crackdown.
“We’re standing up for a revolution, but we need help. Snipers have been stationed behind the Tajrish Arg area [a neighborhood in Tehran],” said a protester in Tehran speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity. He added that “We saw hundreds of bodies.”
Another activist in Tehran spoke of witnessing security forces firing live ammunition at protesters resulting in a “very high” number killed.
On Friday, TIME magazine cited a Tehran doctor speaking on condition of anonymity that just six hospitals in the capital recorded at least 217 killed protesters, “most by live ammunition.”
Speaking to Reuters on Saturday, Setare Ghorbani, a French-Iranian national living in the suburbs of Paris, said that she became ill from worry for her friends inside Iran. She read out one of her friends’ last messages before losing contact: “I saw two government agents and they grabbed people, they fought so much, and I don’t know if they died or not.”