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
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.