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
New Analysis Questions Legality of Campus BDS Efforts Against Israel
Cornell’s divestment protests continued during the university’s commencement ceremony, May 25, 2024, during which students interrupted a speech by President Martha Pollack with chanting and canvas signs. Photo: Reuters Connect
A newly released research paper is raising fresh legal questions about the wave of campus and institutional campaigns calling for divestment from Israel, arguing that such efforts may violate anti-discrimination laws in the United States.
The report, published by Northwestern Law School professor Max M. Schanzenbach and Harvard Law School professor Robert H. Sitkoff, examines the growing push by activists affiliated with the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS), which urges governments, universities, and companies to cut economic ties with Israel in the first step to the Jewish state’s eradication.
According to the paper, divestment campaigns that single out Israeli institutions or businesses could potentially run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.
BDS advocates argue that their campaign is a form of political protest designed to pressure Israel to change its policies. The movement, formally launched by anti-Israel activists in the mid-2000s, has called for boycotts of Israeli goods, divestment from companies linked to Israel, and government sanctions.
But the new analysis contends that when governments or public institutions adopt such policies, the underlying legality could be questionable. The authors argue that targeting Israel specifically for economic exclusion could conflict with existing anti-discrimination statutes or state laws aimed at preventing boycotts of Israel.
More than half of US states have enacted legislation limiting participation in BDS-related boycotts or requiring government contractors to certify that they are not boycotting Israel. In some states, including California, laws restrict the awarding of public contracts or funding to organizations that participate in boycotts targeting the country.
The paper also challenges the argument frequently made by BDS supporters that such boycotts are protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. While individuals may advocate for boycotts as political speech, the authors argue that institutional policies, particularly those adopted by government bodies or public universities, could still violate anti-discrimination or procurement laws depending on how they are implemented.
The paper raises potential anti-discrimination concerns surrounding divestment campaigns that target Israeli companies. The authors argue that some boycott or divestment proposals could expose universities or public institutions to legal vulnerability if investment decisions are based primarily on a company’s Israeli national origin rather than specific conduct. Under certain US civil rights laws and state policies governing public institutions, actions that single out individuals or entities because of national origin may trigger discrimination claims. The paper suggests that if divestment policies are framed broadly against Israeli businesses as a category, rather than tied to particular corporate activities, institutions implementing them could face legal challenges alleging unequal treatment.
The analysis argues that modern divestment campaigns targeting Israel differ significantly from the anti-apartheid divestment movement against South Africa. The paper contends that while many universities in the 1980s adopted selective restrictions on companies directly tied to South Africa’s apartheid system, often aligned with international sanctions and corporate conduct codes, the current iteration of the BDS campaign against Israel frequently calls for broader exclusions based on a company’s ties to Israel itself, potentially creating legal risks such as national-origin discrimination issues.
Divestment campaigns have become especially prominent in recent years on US college campuses, where student groups have pushed universities to withdraw endowment investments from companies tied to Israel or its military. Critics, however, argue the campaigns unfairly single out the world’s only Jewish state and risk creating discriminatory policies against Israeli businesses or academics.
In the two years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 people and kidnapping of 251 hostages throughout southern Israel, campus activists have intensified efforts to implement divestment policies on university campuses. While universities have mostly resisted these efforts, federal lawmakers have advanced legislation to truncate divestment initiatives before they gain traction. For instance, in 2024, Congress introduced “The Protect Economic Freedom Act,” which would render universities that participate in the BDS movement against Israel ineligible for federal funding under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, prohibiting them from receiving federal student aid. The bill would also mandate that colleges and universities submit evidence that they are not participating in commercial boycotts against the Jewish state.
Uncategorized
UK Holds Four Men on Suspicion of Iranian Spying on Jewish Sites
Director General of MI5 Ken McCallum delivers the annual Director General’s Speech at Thames House, the headquarters of the UK’s Security Service, in London, Britain, Oct. 16, 2025. Photo: Jonathan Brady/Pool via REUTERS
British police arrested four men on Friday on suspicion of helping Iran’s intelligence services carry out surveillance of people and locations linked to the Jewish community in London.
Detectives said one of the men was Iranian, while three had dual British-Iranian nationality. The arrests were part of a “long-running investigation,” police added, indicating the men‘s alleged activities pre-dated the US and Israeli bombardment of Iran, which started last Saturday.
British lawmakers and the domestic spy agency MI5 have long warned of threats posed to Britain by Iran. Three Iranians were charged with offenses under Britain’s National Security Act relating to assisting a foreign intelligence service last May.
In a separate investigation last year, police arrested five men, four of them Iranian, over a suspected plot to target specific premises, which British media said was the Israeli embassy. They were later released without charge.
“The Jewish community and the wider public will understandably be concerned by today’s arrests. We continue to monitor the situation closely,” interior minister Shabana Mahmood said on X.
Police said the four detained men were aged between 22 and 55. Six others were also arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender, and police said searches were ongoing.
Speaking about the current Iranian conflict on Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that people would use it to divide the country.
“The government is reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom – Jewish and Muslim alike – making sure communities and places of worship have appropriate, protective security in place,” he told a press conference.
Illustrating the threat from Iran, Britain’s MI5 spy boss said that over two years from 2022-2024, his service and British police had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill British nationals or individuals based in Britain who were regarded by Tehran as a threat.
Britain also recorded a 4% rise in antisemitic incidents in 2025, making it the second-worst year on record, a charity said. Two men were killed last October during an attack on a synagogue in the northern English city of Manchester.
Uncategorized
Turkey Asks Britain’s MI6 to Step Up Protection of Syria’s Sharaa, Sources Say; Ankara Denies Report
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa attends the Ministry of Awqaf conference titled “Unity of Islamic Discourse” at the Conference Palace in Damascus, Syria, Feb. 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Turkey’s intelligence agency asked its British counterpart MI6 last month to take a larger role in protecting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa after recent assassination plots, according to five people familiar with the matter.
After this story was published, Turkey denied that its intelligence agency MIT had made any such request to MI6.
The request highlights efforts by foreign allies to shore up a country still shaken by sporadic violence 15 months after the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, with the US-Israeli war on Iran now rattling the wider region.
Those allies see Sharaa as crucial to preventing a relapse into sectarian fighting or civil war, after 14 years of civil conflict drove millions of refugees abroad and allowed Islamic State to control swathes of Syria.
The militants last month stepped up attacks on military and security personnel across Syria and declared Sharaa, a former rebel, their “number one foe.”
It was unclear what specifically Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, or MIT, had asked of MI6, or what new role, if any, MI6 had taken up.
The Turkish presidency said in a statement issued by its communications directorate that MIT maintains effective cooperation in the fight against terrorism with the international intelligence community and security units in Syria, but that this story did not reflect the truth.
“Contrary to what is claimed in the report in question, it is not true that MIT has made any request to MI6 regarding the protection of the Syrian President or sought to assume such a role,” it said.
ANXIETY RISES IN SYRIA OVER ISLAMIC STATE
Turkey, Britain, and the US last year threw their backing behind Sharaa to try to reunite and rebuild his country of 26 million. London and Washington have scrapped most sanctions on Syria and on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Islamist group he once led.
The sources who spoke to Reuters requested anonymity owing to the sensitivity of the matter.
MIT, the Turkish foreign ministry, Britain’s foreign office and Syria’s defense and interior ministries did not comment when contacted ahead of publication.
The sources, including Syrian and foreign officials, all cited rising anxiety over a series of reported Islamic State plots to kill Sharaa.
A Turkish source said that MIT, which has played a key role in helping the new government to establish itself, appealed to MI6 for more support after one such incident last month. A senior Syrian security source said the request came after a “high-risk assassination plot,” adding that MIT, MI6, and Syrian authorities were constantly sharing intelligence.
Details of the plot were unclear.
A separate Western intelligence source briefed on the matter believed Turkey wanted to introduce a Western presence in Damascus to provide something of a buffer between the agencies of Turkey and Israel, currently at loggerheads.
REPORTED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS AGAINST SHARAA
Last year, Sharaa and two senior cabinet ministers were targeted by Islamic State in five foiled assassination attempts, according to the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism. In November, Reuters reported that Syrian authorities had foiled two of the attempts.
Describing Sharaa as a “watchdog” of the global anti-Islamic State coalition, the group mounted six attacks on Syrian authorities last month in what it called a “new phase.”
On Thursday, Damascus openly acknowledged for the first time that it coordinates with MIT, saying they had cooperated to foil an Islamic State attack in the capital.
Turkish security sources said MIT had identified a team of three preparing remote bomb attacks, enabling Syrian counterparts to prevent an “imminent assault.”
A US diplomat briefed on the matter said MIT’s request to MI6 had been prompted by the Islamic State resurgence.
The Western intelligence source said the two agencies could intensify joint planning and technical operations, but that no decision had been made on whether to send British personnel to Damascus.
A Syrian security source said a physical British presence would be “highly risky.” They said MI6 had been discussed at a meeting in Damascus on Feb. 26 between a delegation headed by Britain’s special envoy for Syria, Ann Snow, and Syria’s deputy interior minister, Major General Abdulqader Tahan.
Sharaa was a commander of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria before cutting ties with the group in 2016, then led a coalition of Islamist rebel factions in late 2024 to topple Assad.