Uncategorized
‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests
(JTA) — When Benjamin Netanyahu put his controversial calls for judicial reform on pause two weeks ago, many thought the protesters in Israel and abroad might declare victory and take a break. And yet a week ago Saturday some 200,000 people demonstrated in Tel Aviv, and pro-democracy protests continued among Diaspora Jews and Israeli expats, including those who gather each Sunday in New York’s Washington Square Park.
On its face, the weeks of protest have been about proposed legislation that critics said would sap power from the Israeli Supreme Court and give legislators — in this case, led by Netanyahu’s recently elected far-right coalition — unchecked and unprecedented power. Protesters said that, in the absence of an Israeli constitution establishing basic rights and norms, they were fighting for democracy. The government too says the changes are about democracy, claiming under the current system unelected judges too often overrule elected lawmakers and the will of Israel’s diverse electorate.
But the political dynamics in Israel are complex, and the proposals and the backlash are also about deeper cracks in Israeli society. Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, recently said in a podcast that the crisis in Israel represents “six linked but separate stories unfolding at the same time.” Beyond the judicial reform itself, these stories include the Palestinians and the occupation, a resurgent patriotism among the center and the left, chaos within Netanyahu’s camp, a Diaspora emboldened to weigh in on the future of Zionism and the rejection on the part of the public of a reform that failed the “reasonableness test.”
“If these protests are effective in the long run, it will be, I think, because they will have succeeded at reorganizing and mobilizing the Israeli electorate to think and behave differently than before,” said Kurtzer.
I recently asked observers, here and in Israel, what they feel is really mobilizing the electorate, and what kind of Israel will emerge as a result of the showdown. The respondents included organizers of the protests, supporters of their aims and those skeptical of the protesters’ motivations. They discussed a slew of issues just below the surface of the protest, including the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, divisions over the increasing strength of Israel’s haredi Orthodox sector, and a lingering divide between Ashkenazi Jews with roots in Europe and Mizrahi Jews whose ancestry is Middle Eastern and North African.
Conservatives, meanwhile, insist that Israeli “elites” — the highly educated, the tech sector, the military leadership, for starters — don’t respect the will of the majority who brought Netanyahu and his coalition partners to power.
Here are the emerging themes of weeks of protest:
Defending democracy
Whatever their long-term concerns about Israel’s future, the protests are being held under the banner of “democracy.”
For Alon-Lee Green, one of the organizers of the protests, the issues are equality and fairness. “People in Israel,” said Green, national co-director of Standing Together, a grassroots movement in Israel, “hundreds of thousands of them, are going out to the streets for months now not only because of the judicial reform, but also — and mainly — because of the fundamental question of what is the society we want to live in: Will we keep living in a society that is unequal, unfair and that is moving away from our basic needs and desires, or will it be an equal society for everyone who lives in our land?”
Shany Granot-Lubaton, who has been organizing pro-democracy rallies among Israelis living in New York City, says Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and the coalition’s haredi Orthodox parties “are waging a war against democracy and the freedoms of citizens.”
“They seek to exert control over the Knesset and the judicial system, appoint judges in their favor and legalize corruption,” she said. “If this legal coup is allowed to proceed, minorities will be in serious danger, and democracy itself will be threatened.”
Two researchers at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Herzliya’s Reichman University, psychology student Benjamin Amram and research associate Keren L.G. Snider, said Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reform “undermines the integrity of Israel’s democracy by consolidating power.”
“How can citizens trust a government that ultimately has no limitations set upon them?” they asked in a joint email. “At a time when political trust and political representation are at the lowest points, this legislation can only create instability and call into question the intentions of the current ruling party. When one coalition holds all the power, laws and policies can be swiftly overturned, causing instability and volatility.”
A struggle between two Israels
Other commentators said the protests revealed fractures within Israeli society that long predated the conflict over judicial reform. “The split is between those that believe Israel should be a more religious country, with less democracy, and see democracy as only a system of elections and not a set of values, and those who want Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state,” Tzipi Livni, who served in the cabinets of right-wing prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert before tacking to the center in recent years, recently told Haaretz.
Author and translator David Hazony called this “a struggle between two Israels” — one that sees Israel’s founding vision as a European-style, rights-based democracy, and the other that sees that vision as the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland.
“Those on the first side believe that the judiciary has always been Israel’s protector of rights and therefore of democracy, against the rapaciousness and lawlessness of politicians in general and especially those on the right. Therefore an assault on its supremacy is an assault on democracy itself. They accuse the other side of being barbaric, antidemocratic and violent,” said Hazony, editor of the forthcoming anthology “Jewish Priorities.”
As for the other side, he said, they see an activist judiciary as an attempt by Ashkenazi elites to force their minority view on the majority. Supporters of the government think it is entirely unreasonable “for judges to think they can choose their successors, strike down constitutional legislation and rule according to ‘that which is reasonable in the eyes of the enlightened community in Israel,’” said Hazony, quoting Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and bane of Israel’s right.
(Naveh Dromi, a right-wing columnist for Yediot Achronot, puts this more bluntly: “The problem,” she writes, “lies in the fact that the left has no faith in its chance to win an election, so it relies on the high court to represent it.”)
Daniel Tauber, an attorney and Likud Central Committee member, agrees that those who voted for Netanyahu and his coalition have their own concerns about a democracy — one dominated by “elites,” which in the Israeli context means old-guard Ashkenazi Jews, powerful labor unions and highly educated secular Jews. “The more this process is subject to veto by non-democratic institutions, whether it be the Court chosen as it is, elite military units, the Histadrut [labor union], or others, the more people will lose faith in democracy,” said Tauber.
Green also said there is “a war waging now between two elites in Israel” — the “old and more established liberal elite, who consist of the financial, high-tech army and industry people,” and the “new emerging elite of the settlers and the political far-right parties.”
Israelis protest against the government’s planned judicial overhaul, outside the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, March 27, 2023. (Jamal Awad/Flash90)
And yet, he said, “I think we will lose if one of these elites wins. The real victory of this historic political moment in Israel will be if we achieve true equality, both to the people who are not represented by the Jewish supremacists, such as the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to the people who are not represented by the ‘old Israel,’ such as the haredi and Mizrahi people on the peripheries.”
The crises behind the crisis
Although the protests were ignited by Netanyahu’s calls for judicial reform, they also represented pushback against the most right-wing government in Israeli history — which means at some level the protests were also about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of religion in Israeli society. “The unspoken motivation driving the architects and supporters of the [judicial] ‘reform,’ as well as the protest leaders, is umbilically connected to the occupation,” writes Carolina Landsmann, a Haaretz columnist. If Netanyahu has his way, she writes, “There will be no more two-state solution, and there will be no territorial compromises. The new diplomatic horizon will be a single state, with the Palestinians as subjects deprived of citizenship.”
Nimrod Novik, the Israel Fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, said that “once awakened, the simmering resentment of those liberal Israelis about other issues was brought to the surface.” The Palestinian issue, for example, is at an “explosive moment,” said Novik: The Palestinian Authority is weakened and ineffective, Palestinian youth lack hope for a better future, and Israeli settlers feel emboldened by supporters in the ruling coalition. “The Israeli security establishment took this all into account when warning the government to change course before it is too late,” said Novik.
Kurtzer too noted that the Palestinians “also stand to be extremely victimized following the passage of judicial reform, both in Israel and in the West Bank.” And yet, he said, most Israelis aren’t ready to upend the current status quo between Israelis and Palestinians. “It can also be true that the Israeli public can only build the kind of coalition that it’s building right now because it is patently not a referendum on the issue of Palestinian rights,” he said.
Religion and state
Novik spoke about another barely subterranean theme of the protests: the growing power of the haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, parties. Secular Israelis especially resent that the haredim disproportionately seek exemption from military service and that non-haredi Israelis contribute some 90% of all taxes collected. One fear of those opposing the judicial reform legislation is that the religious parties will “forever secure state funding to the haredi Orthodox school system while exempting it from teaching the subjects required for ever joining the workforce. It is to secure for them an exemption from any military or other national service. And it is to expand the imposition of their lifestyle on non-Orthodox Israelis.”
What’s next
Predictions for the future range from warnings of a civil war (by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, among others) to an eventual compromise on Netanyahu’s part to the emergence of a new center electorate that will reject extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
David E. Bernstein, a law professor at the George Mason University School of Law who writes frequently about Israel, imagines a future without extremists. “One can definitely easily imagine the business, academic and legal elite using their newfound political voice to insist that future governments not align with extremists, that haredi authority over national life be limited, and, perhaps most important, that Israel create a formal constitution that protects certain basic rights,” he said. “Perhaps there will also be demand to counter such long-festering problems as corruption, disproportionate influence over export markets by a few influential families, burgeoning lawlessness in the Arab sector and a massive shortage of affordable housing.”
Elie Bennett, director of International Strategy at the Israel Democracy Institute, also sees an opportunity in the crisis.
In the aftermath of the disastrous 1973 Yom Kippur war, he said, Israel “rebuilt its military and eventually laid the foundations for today’s ‘startup nation.’ In this current crisis, we do not need a call-up of our reserves forces, or a massive airlift of American weaponry to prevail. What we need is goodwill among fellow Israelis and a commitment to work together to strengthen our society and reach an agreed-upon constitutional framework. If we are able to achieve such an agreement, it will protect our rights, better define the relationships between the branches of government, and result in an Israel that is more stable and prosperous than ever as we celebrate 75 years of independence.”
—
The post ‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The biggest impediment to peace between Israelis and Palestinians has little to do with Gaza
The Gaza war may finally be over, and the idea of a Palestinian state has returned to the center of global discourse. But before it can become a reality, Palestinians will need to carry less suspicion and hatred toward Israel — which means Israel must give them fewer reasons to cultivate those reactions.
An investigation from last week by my former colleagues at The Associated Press helps show how distant we are from that outcome — not just in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.
The investigation found that, according to United Nations data that Israel does not dispute, live Israeli fire has killed at least 18 children under the age of 15 in the West Bank this year. It killed 29 children in 2023, and 23 in 2024.
Some were killed during Israeli military raids in crowded neighborhoods, others by sniper fire in calm areas. The army told AP that its open-fire regulations prohibit deliberate targeting and that it had launched some investigations. But it did not say whether anyone had been punished. The families of the deceased children report receiving little information from the army about the circumstances of their deaths, or any consequences meted out in reaction to them.
Israel’s security concerns about the West Bank are legitimate. The strategic ridge surrounds Jerusalem on three sides and overlooks Tel Aviv and the coastal plain. An attack from there could be catastrophic; if a group like Hamas were ever to take control there, the consequences are dire.
But the need for Israel’s security cannot justify the killing of children — not one, not 18, not 29. So long as the Palestinians of the West Bank live in fear of their own children joining those grim ranks, there cannot be a chance for a real, lasting peace.
Consider just some of the children killed this year, whose stories AP collected:
-
- Layla, age 2: Tayma Asous, a single mother in the Jenin refugee camp, said that on Jan. 25, while her daughter Layla sat on her lap, an Israeli sniper fired through their second-floor window. The bullet struck Laila in the skull. Her grandfather lifted her and ran downstairs shouting for help. Layla, who was breathing when the ambulance arrived, died en route to the hospital. The army said it is still investigating, and could not provide details.
-
- Rimas, age 13: On Feb. 21 — the 32nd day of an Israeli operation in Jenin — Rimas Amouri went to play outside, even though her mother, Rudaina, objected. Seconds after she left, Rudaina heard gunfire and screams. “They shot her in the back,” Rudaina said. “I screamed, ‘Please stop, stop!’ Then they started shooting at me.” About 10 soldiers surrounded the house and fired on her when she tried to reach her daughter, she said. Rimas’ father said the family required a special Israeli permit to bury her. The army said the case is under investigation, but shared no further details.
-
- Mahmoud, age 14: On Jan. 14, a group of men gathered outside the Garabiya family home in Jenin. when one missile hit, then another, then a third. Only Ashraf Garabiya survived. Six people, including his son, were killed. The army said the airstrike had targeted several militants and that it was “aware of claims” of a civilian casualty. No indication of an investigation was given.
It goes on and on.
In Tulkarem, 10-year-old Saddam Rajab was caught on security footage standing on the sidewalk, turning, then being caught in a burst of gunfire and falling. He cried for his mother and died 10 days later. In Turmus Ayya, 14-year-old Amer Rabee, a Palestinian-American born in New Jersey, was shot while picking almonds with two friends, who were injured. His father said soldiers fired dozens of rounds, stripped the boy’s body, and carried it off; the army later described the victims as “three terrorists” throwing stones. In Hebron, 12-year-old Ayman al-Haimouni told his mother, “Mama, they shot me,” before collapsing. Video shows soldiers approaching his body, recoiling, and walking away without offering aid. The military police opened an investigation that has yielded no result.
Although the situation has grown especially horrible under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, the phenomenon is not new. The Israeli philosopher and academic Yeshayahu Leibowitz warned in the early days of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, after the 1967 Six-Day War, that this new reality would corrupt Israeli society and devastate its moral standing.
He was not wrong. My own experience as a reporter working in and around the West Bank confronted me many times with this clear and painful fact.
The newborn baby of one Palestinian AP photographer, in the Nablus area, experienced a medical emergency; the baby died while the ambulance carrying it was delayed by Israeli troops at a checkpoint in 2002. A year later, a cameraman with whom I regularly worked, Nazeeh Darwazeh, was killed by a random bullet fired by an Israeli soldier. I remember visiting the family, and trying to console the widow and his children. They were heartbroken.
These kinds of things simply happen all the time.
Aren’t these stories, repeated so frequently after so many decades, enough to boil the blood of any normal person? How would any supporter of Israel react if this kind of indiscriminate, senseless violence happened in Israel, and the army responsible was Palestinian? If that army kept claiming that it would investigate these awful and useless slaughters, but it was obvious that any form of punishment was all but nonexistent?
Add to the mix that Netanyahu’s reckless government has normalized settler rampages, the perpetrators of which are almost never punished. Unforgivably, Israel has prosecuted few if any of the settlers who regularly rampage through Palestinian communities in what is a clear provocation aimed at creating mayhem. Settler violence, with the winks and nods of the government, is at a high — and when they are detained it is usually for assaults on Israeli soldiers, not Palestinians.
Many Israelis fear that these reckless settler provocations will unleash a third intifada. But to some far-right radicals, that would be a welcome development, as they hope for a massive war in which the Palestinians might be somehow expelled — the same outcome some far-right Israelis very plainly wished for in the Gaza war.
Israelis who have the courage to face the truth must ask themselves sincerely: How can we accept this state of affairs? How can we explain to the world — and to ourselves — that this is reasonable and moral? Is this “the fight against terror”? How can we expect our Palestinian neighbors to want to work with us toward peace?
Something is clearly sick to the core. The way out of this bloody cycle is through a true and clear separation between Israelis and Palestinians, with hope for a normal life on both sides. If this continues, more violence is likely, and the outcome may not be good for Israel — or anyone.
The post The biggest impediment to peace between Israelis and Palestinians has little to do with Gaza appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Pakistan-Afghanistan Clashes Highlight Limits of Saudi-Pakistani Defense Pact: Experts
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif embrace each other on the day they sign a defense agreement, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 17, 2025. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Amid rising tensions along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, experts say the newly signed Saudi-Pakistani mutual defense pact is largely symbolic and unlikely to alter the regional balance of power.
On Friday, Afghanistan accused Pakistan of carrying out airstrikes on its territory, shattering a temporary ceasefire after days of escalating clashes that marked the deadliest fighting along the border in years.
“The truce has been broken and Afghanistan will retaliate,” a spokesman for the Taliban-led Afghan government said in a statement, announcing that Pakistan had “broken the ceasefire and bombed three locations in Paktika,” a province in the country’s eastern region.
Earlier this week, the two nations had agreed to a 48-hour ceasefire after border clashes killed dozens of troops.
The conflict erupted after Pakistan accused its neighbor of harboring and supporting terrorist groups responsible for attacks on its territory, while Afghanistan accused Pakistan of violating its airspace and carrying out strikes in the country’s eastern regions.
The fragile ceasefire came after appeals from major regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, with which nuclear-armed Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact last month, further solidifying a decades-long security partnership.
According to experts, the recent regional escalation shows how the Saudi-Pakistan partnership is largely symbolic, offering diplomatic backing and condemnation but unlikely to be tested in practice.
“”The recent Pakistan-Afghanistan clashes are unlikely to lead to invocation of the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact,” Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based think tank, told The Algemeiner.
He explained that the threat from Afghanistan, while politically serious, is not strong enough to push Pakistan to seek support from a third party, since the country is far stronger than the hostile forces along the contentious border.
“The Saudis, as central players in the Islamic world, will also want to be seen as welcoming Afghanistan’s gradual rehabilitation,” Brown said, noting that even if the pact were invoked, it is unlikely they would want to intervene in the conflict.
More broadly, he argued that this recent escalation underscores the limits of the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, emphasizing that “most of the challenges that both countries face do not rise to the level of war between states.”
“”The possible war scenarios that do exist — Pakistan with India, Saudi Arabia with Iran — are not ones in which the other party to the pact would want to get involved, and it is inconceivable that Pakistan is offering a nuclear guarantee to the Saudis,” Brown told The Algemeiner.
Pakistan has repeatedly argued that its nuclear weapons are intended solely as a deterrent against India.
As the only nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority nation with the Islamic world’s largest army, Pakistan’s newly signed defense pact has raised questions about shifts in Middle East power and regional dynamics.
“”The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,” the Pakistani Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement following the signing of the pact.
While no further details have been disclosed, the partnership reportedly “encompasses all military means,” ranging from armed forces and nuclear cooperation to intelligence sharing.
Pakistan has even openly declared that it “”will make available” its nuclear program to Saudi Arabia if needed.
However, experts maintain that Pakistan’s ability to provide a nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia is dubious, as its longest-range missile cannot reach most potential threats to the country.
“The deal’s military value appears negligible beyond its symbolic photo-op,” Brown told The Algemeiner. “Pakistan lacks the capability to project power over 2,600 miles to Saudi Arabia.”
The pact is also designed to strengthen Saudi Arabia’s long-term defense autonomy, with defense industry collaboration, technology transfer, and military co-production and training, among other key initiatives.
Although the Saudi-Pakistani relationship has long been close, Brown explained that mutual support between the two nations has faced significant limitations.
“This new mutual defense pact is likely to remain a symbolic agreement, with its main applicability in nonbelligerent arenas, such as training and procurement,” he told The Algemiener.
Experts have also noted that the new pact could heighten regional tensions, strengthening Saudi Arabia’s defenses against Iran and its allies while also signaling its strategic posture toward Israel.
Yet, Brown argued that it makes little sense to suggest the pact is directed at Israel, given there is no realistic prospect of conflict between the Jewish state and either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, whereas Iran remains far more active against both countries.
Uncategorized
An attack on Israeli soccer fans last year was dubbed a ‘pogrom.’ Could it happen again?
When fans of the soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv were assaulted in the streets of Amsterdam after a game last November, the violence drew comparisons to pogroms. It even prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dispatch rescue planes to evacuate Israeli citizens.
Now, once again there are fears of a repeat outbreak of violence, this time over a match in Birmingham, England.
Local police reportedly requested supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv be kept away from the match against the English team Aston Villa, classifying the sporting event as a “high risk” threat to public safety. On Thursday, authorities told Israeli fans they would be banned from attending.
But after that move sparked accusations of antisemitism, the British government said it is doing “everything in its power” to reverse the decision and let Israeli fans buy tickets.
“This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer posted to X. “The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”
What happened at the game in Amsterdam?
The day before a November 2024 game against the Dutch team AFC Ajax, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans vandalized a taxi and burned a Palestinian flag, police said.
After the game, groups of men on scooters roamed the streets looking for Israeli fans, beating and kicking them and throwing fireworks, police said. At least five Israelis were hospitalized, and more than 60 people were arrested. Authorities uncovered WhatsApp and Telegram messages prior to the attacks urging a “Jew hunt.”
Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema called the attacks “antisemitic hit-and-run squads.” Others drew Holocaust comparisons, with Netanyahu noting the assaults took place near the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
“We failed the Jewish community of the Netherlands during World War II, and last night we failed again,” King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands said the morning after the attacks.
Days later, protesters set fire to a tram car in Amsterdam while shouting “Free Palestine” and “Kanker Joden,” or “cancer Jews.”
Israel’s growing isolation
Fallout over Gaza in the world of international sports suggests just how perilous Israel’s international standing has become.
Earlier this week, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that Israel would be barred from competing at the gymnastics world championship in Indonesia this weekend. The court said it had no control over Indonesia’s decision to deny Israeli athletes visas, which was made amid outcry over Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
At a September cycling race in Spain, the presence of an Israeli team drew thousands of protesters, forcing the race to end 31 miles short of the finish line.
Meanwhile, the International Federation of Muaythai Associations in August banned the display of the Israeli flag and the playing of Israel’s national anthem at all its martial arts competitions.
In the United Kingdom, some argued that banning Maccabi Tel Aviv fans wasn’t enough, calling for the team itself to be barred from competition.
In the leadup to the ban on supporters of the Israeli team, British MP Ayoub Khan and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn launched a petition to cancel the game entirely, citing both the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and the “track record of violence by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.” The petition, which launched in September prior to the ceasefire, drew nearly 4,000 signatures.
The tensions have also impacted major international tournaments. Last month, the European soccer federation UEFA was reportedly set to vote on banning Israel from international competition over the war in Gaza — a move that would have prevented the country from qualifying for the 2026 World Cup. The vote was paused, however, following the announcement last week of the Gaza ceasefire.
On Friday, local officials called a meeting for an “immediate review” of the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, with sources telling The Athletic they expect the policy to be reversed.
The post An attack on Israeli soccer fans last year was dubbed a ‘pogrom.’ Could it happen again? appeared first on The Forward.