Uncategorized
Why a county in Utah could play a role in Israel’s judicial crisis
(JTA) — Aaron Davidson has never been to Israel. He isn’t Jewish. He began serving in his position, Utah County clerk, just two months ago.
But the policies he oversees in his office in Provo, Utah, could have an impact more than 7,000 miles away — in the halls of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem.
That’s because Davidson is the top local official in a county that has, improbably, caused a seismic shift in the way marriages are legally recognized in the Jewish state. An ensuing court battle over the issue — which the Israeli government just lost — could provide added motivation for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pass controversial judicial reform that has already thrown the country into crisis.
Let’s take a step back and break this down.
How does marriage work in Israel?
Although a large chunk of Israeli Jews are secular, legal marriage in the country is controlled by the Chief Rabbinate, which is haredi Orthodox. In other words, within Israel, the only way for a Jew to get legally married is through an Orthodox ceremony.
That means same-sex marriage, interfaith marriage and non-Orthodox weddings performed in Israel are not recognized by the Israeli government. Also left in limbo are hundreds of thousands of largely Russian-speaking Israelis, who are not Jewish according to traditional Jewish law and are therefore unable to get married in Israel.
But there’s a loophole of sorts: Marriages performed and recognized abroad also get recognized in Israel. So for decades, non-Orthodox Israelis have found a workaround to those restrictions by taking a short flight to Cyprus to tie the knot, or traveling farther afield for their weddings. They then bring their marriage certificate to Israel complete with a stamp of authentication (called an apostille), and voila: legally married.
What does that have to do with Utah?
Starting in 2020, Utah County, Utah, began recognizing marriages performed entirely via videoconference, as long as the officiant or one of the parties was in the county. The county encompasses the area surrounding Provo, which is home to Brigham Young University and has a tech scene. Officials saw the new remote marriage system as a way to make it easier to “execute a permission slip from the government for two consenting adults to get married,” as former County Clerk Amelia Powers Gardner told The New York Times,
The innovation coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and beginning later that year, Israelis realized they could now get legally married in Utah without having to leave Israel — in fact, without having to leave their living rooms. Since 2020, Davidson estimates that more than 1,000 Israelis have taken advantage of the remote weddings. The fees for the remote wedding total a maximum of $155.
“The technology now opens a window of opportunity for thousands of Israeli couples every year to quickly, simply, cheaply gain civil marriage without leaving their homes,” said Rabbi Uri Regev, CEO of Hiddush, an Israeli organization that advocates for religious pluralism. “That in and of itself is a real breakthrough.”
(Israelis aren’t the only foreign nationals to use the county’s remote wedding option. It has also been a boon for gay couples from China.)
How have Israeli officials responded?
They are not happy about it. The acting Israeli interior minister, Michael Malchieli, is a member of the haredi Orthodox Shas party, and had refused to recognize the Utah marriage certificates, as did a predecessor of his, arguing that the marriages took place in Israel. A predecessor of his had also refused to recognize the certificates, but last year, a court ruled that the government must recognize the Utah marriages.
That decision made its way to Israel’s Supreme Court which, on Tuesday, ruled unanimously in favor of the married couples. Henceforth, their marriages will officially be seen as valid in Israel. The court made a similar decision in 2006 that compelled the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad.
“It is the duty of the [Israeli] registrar to refrain from making decisions regarding the validity or invalidity of the marriages themselves,” the court wrote in a summary of its decision on Tuesday. “When the registrar is presented with a proper public document, he must, as a rule, register it accordingly and refrain from making decisions regarding complicated legal matters.”
How is this related to Israel’s current crisis?
Israel is currently in the throes of a raucous national debate over legislation being pushed by Netanyahu’s government that would effectively sap the Supreme Court of much of its power. One bill would allow a simple majority of Israeli lawmakers to override court decisions, meaning they could negate decisions like the one handed down this week.
Proponents of the court reform say the legislation will allow Israeli law to more effectively represent the will of the country’s right-wing majority. Another Shas lawmaker, Moshe Arbel, cited Tuesday’s decision as a reason why the court reform is urgent.
“The high court, in another political step, proved once again how necessary the judicial reform is,” Arbel said, according to the Israeli publication Ynet. The decision, he said, works to “erase the Jewish identity of the state.”
How do officials in Utah feel?
Initially, it seemed Davidson, the county clerk, might do away with the virtual marriages. His campaign website said that “This online option devalues the union of a marriage and Utah County should not be the entity that facilitates the marginalization of marriage.”
But since taking office, he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, he has changed his mind. His concern, he said, was that abusers could take advantage of the virtual weddings to facilitate underage marriage and human trafficking. Now he realizes that that has not been an issue, and he is working on upgrading the county’s facial recognition software to forestall that possibility.
“It doesn’t seem like there’s any controversial marriages that want to happen in Israel, so I’m totally open in keeping that open and alive,” he said. “We’re trying to avoid any hint of child marriages or forced marriages or trafficking. We want to make sure that we know who it is that’s getting married before we perform the marriage online.”
Alex Shapiro, the executive director of the United Jewish Federation of Utah, is likewise happy about the Supreme Court decision. “[I] fully stand behind the decision to make civil marriage available to all citizens,” Shapiro told JTA. “I’m further pleased that the state of Utah can play a role in these unions without the challenge of couples needing to travel out of the county to be married.”
Davidson’s county, however, has few Jews and a politically conservative population. It is the home of the flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which opposes same-sex marriage.
Davidson, who is a member of the LDS church, said that he has heard a few objections from residents about facilitating same-sex marriages abroad. But he told JTA that he feels the virtual marriages uphold another core conservative tenet: limited government.
“Government restricts who can live where, in what country, and I kind of feel the same thing about marriage,” he said. “Why do I feel like I have the power to prevent a couple — whether same-sex or traditional — [from] being able to be happy with their life, and do what they want? That’s kind of been a guiding principle: Why should I have the power to control the happiness of somebody else?”
—
The post Why a county in Utah could play a role in Israel’s judicial crisis appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Demolishing Gaza’: How the New York Times Rewrites the Story on Instagram
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Since Hamas’ brutal takeover of the Gaza Strip, the terrorist organization has made it part of its modus operandi to embed itself in any civilian infrastructure.
In the aftermath of the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel has taken considerable steps to remove existing terrorist infrastructure in areas that fall under IDF control, all within the realms of the agreed terms.
Despite this, The New York Times would like to have its audience believe that Israel is systematically destroying the Gaza Strip, even after the signing of a ceasefire.
In “Israel Is Still Demolishing Gaza, Building by Building,” the Times highlights satellite imagery showing that thousands of structures have been demolished since the October 2025 ceasefire, presenting this as ongoing destruction despite the truce. The framing casts Israel as the all-encompassing villain, while Hamas is effectively granted a free pass.
Perhaps worse, when the New York Times transferred the article to its Instagram feed of nearly 20 million followers, the misleading narrative was blasted with even larger gaps in the story.
The Instagram version omits even the limited factual caveats included in the full article, leaving audiences with a one-sided story that excludes Hamas’ role, its terrorist infrastructure, and the realities driving Israeli operations. What remains is not comprehensive reporting, but a carefully curated narrative designed for maximum emotional impact and minimal accountability.
While the Times portrays the ceasefire as “respite” solely for Palestinian civilians after a “punishing” two-year war, nowhere do the journalists acknowledge that ceasefires are intended to apply to both sides.
More importantly, it was Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel — which was accompanied by rockets and the slaughter of innocent civilians — that began this war. In presenting the war as one against Gazan civilians rather than a campaign against a terrorist organization embedded within civilian areas, the New York Times empties the ceasefire of its reciprocal meaning.
Following Israel’s offensive in Gaza, it became increasingly clear the extent to which Hamas has embedded itself and its military infrastructure within civilian locations.
In fact, the very end of the article quotes a Gazan that blames Hamas for having “militarized civilian spaces.” Naturally, a quote blaming Hamas was omitted from the Instagram carousel and hid until the bottom of the article, ensuring the fewest eyes so as not to sway too far from the narrative of absolving Hamas of wrongdoing.
The New York Times is also acutely aware of the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, having visited tunnels on a tour with the IDF during the war.
Still, when the IDF showed the Times classified maps displaying Hamas’ tunnel system — particularly in Shejaiya, within the Israeli-controlled area beyond the yellow line — the newspaper claimed it could not “independently verify” their accuracy. The context of Hamas’ vast tunnel network is missing from the Instagram post entirely.
What Instagram users are left with are two satellite images taken in two different locations in the Gaza Strip, both of which show IDF-controlled areas beyond the yellow line. While the photos are described ever so slightly more in depth in the article, the Instagram post hopes to use them as the concluding evidence that Israel is acting against the ceasefire to continue its ruthless destruction of civilian infrastructure. However, because they are beyond the yellow line, not only are there no civilians there, but Israel is within its full right under the ceasefire to remove any existing terrorist infrastructure.
The New York Times‘ Instagram post presents itself as a case study in media literacy — or, more accurately, its absence. Designed for audiences with short attention spans who are unlikely to click through to the full article, the post strips away essential context, leaving users without any meaningful understanding of why or how the IDF has continued military action against Hamas in the wake of the October 2025 ceasefire.
While the article itself omits critical facts, the Instagram post goes even further. By removing what little context remains, it actively misleads its audience, inviting millions of followers to fill in the gaps with assumptions rather than facts. This is not journalism adapted for social media. It is narrative curation that sacrifices accuracy for maximum impact.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Fatah Spokesman: Gaza Was ‘Paradise’ Before Oct. 7, and Massacre Wasn’t a Problem — Only Its Scale
Rockets are launched by Palestinian into Israel, amid Israeli-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, August 7, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem
While the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas may argue among themselves over tactics, timing, and optics, they are united on the core issue — the legitimacy of terror.
In a single radio interview, the Fatah spokesman in the Gaza Strip — representing the ruling party of the PA, which is now positioning itself as a future governing authority in Gaza — revealed three truths that Palestinian leaders usually avoid stating so openly: that Gaza was not an unlivable hell before October 7, that the mass murder of Israelis is not rejected in principle, and that the internal Palestinian debate is about how much terror is useful, not whether terror is acceptable at all.
Fatah Spokesman in the Gaza Strip Mundhir Al-Hayek: ” … The Gaza Strip before Oct. 7 was a paradise. The situation was very good.
But Hamas exploited this and took over all the economic areas and collected taxes, and unfortunately, the result was moving towards the uncalculated October 7. We needed 10% of Oct. 7 to convey a message to the world that the Palestinian people is persecuted and oppressed, and it needs self-determination. But the political leadership [Hamas] failed.” [emphasis added]
[Radio Mawtini (Fatah radio station), Facebook page, Jan. 6, 2026]
Al-Hayek’s admission that “the Gaza Strip before October 7 was a paradise” and that “the situation was very good” directly contradicts two years of Palestinian claims that October 7 was launched in response to unbearable humanitarian conditions or Israeli “siege.”
According to a senior Fatah official speaking from Gaza itself, life there was not only tolerable, but “very good” until Hamas chose war.
Equally revealing is what Al-Hayek did not condemn.
“I’m not talking about the operation itself,” he emphasized, meaning the atrocities of October 7, but only about what followed. The massacre itself is not rejected. It is treated as a given.
As Palestinian Media Watch has documented consistently, the Palestinian Authority does not morally condemn terror overall, nor October 7 in particular.
Instead, it criticizes October 7 for being politically or tactically mishandled. For Al-Hayek, the failure was not the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, the kidnappings, or the mass atrocities, but that Hamas did not “rescue our people” afterward and failed to manage the consequences of the violence it initiated.
Perhaps the most instructive statement came when Al-Hayek argued that the massacre itself was excessive, not unjustified: “We needed 10% of October 7 to convey a message to the world.”
So, what does “10% of October 7” mean? Does it mean kidnapping 25 people instead of 251? Does it mean murdering 120 people instead of over 1,200? Does it mean raping fewer women or burning fewer families alive?
The answer exposes the PA/Fatah’s true ideology, which does not see terror as a moral question but a quantitative one. Indeed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described October 7 as an attempt to achieve “important goals,” while his senior advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash called it “a legitimate thing.”
Al-Hayek’s remarks underscore the PA/Fatah view that terror is acceptable and is constrained only by political utility and cost.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Iran Summons Italian Ambassador Over Push for EU Clampdown on Revolutionary Guards, State Media Says
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The Iranian foreign ministry summoned Italy’s ambassador over efforts by Rome to place Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the European Union’s terrorist register, state media reported on Tuesday.
Iran‘s foreign ministry warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the Revolutionary Guards and called upon the Italian foreign minister to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran,” the media report said
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Monday that Italy will ask European Union partners this week to label the IRGC as a terrorist group.
Until now, Rome had been among the governments resisting efforts to brand the IRGC as a terrorist group, but Tajani said a bloody Iranian crackdown on street protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X, adding he would raise the issue on Thursday at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
“I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
Being branded a terrorist group would trigger a set of legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would significantly constrain the IRGC’s ability to operate in Europe.
Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC holds great sway in the country, controlling swathes of the economy and armed forces, and is also in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
While some EU member states have previously pushed for the IRGC to be listed, others have been more cautious, fearing that it could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, harming any chance of reviving nuclear talks and jeopardizing any hope of getting EU nationals released from Iranian jails.
However, Iran’s violent crackdown on protests has revived the debate and added momentum to discussions about adding the IRGC, which is already included in the bloc’s human rights sanctions regime, to the EU terrorist list.
Italian, French, and Spanish diplomats raised qualms during a meeting in Brussels earlier this month about adding the IRGC to the list, EU diplomats told Reuters at the time.
If France continues to object, then the move to sanction the IRGC will fail, diplomats have said.