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
Volatility, Hit Frequency, and RTP: Why the Number Casinos Advertise Is the Least Useful One
The return to player percentage looks clean as a casino data point. It gives players a neat number, usually around 94% to 97% for many online slots, and that number feels easy to compare. A 96.5% game appears better than a 95.2% game. The problem starts when players treat RTP as a forecast for their next 50 spins or one evening.
You may find the RTP listed on slot pages on a leading online casino in Ontario, but the number only tells part of the story. Two games can share the same RTP and create different sessions: one may return small wins often, while the other may drain a balance before one bonus round changes everything.
The RTP Trap
Return to player (RTP) measures the theoretical share of total wagers a game returns across a very large number of rounds. In plain terms, a 96% RTP slot returns about $96 for every $100 wagered in the long run. That does not mean one player who deposits $100 should expect $96 back.
The trap sits in the word “theoretical.” RTP comes from the game’s math model. It works across huge samples, not personal sessions. A player can finish far above that percentage, far below it, or with nothing left after a short run of poor results.
Is it useless then? No, RTP can still help. It gives a baseline cost of play. Lower-RTP games cost more on average than higher-RTP games. Still, once a game passes a reasonable threshold, the next question matters more: how does it distribute that return?
Hit Frequency: The Number That Shapes Session Feel
Hit frequency tells you how often a game produces a winning outcome. This often misleads players because any win can count. A spin that returns $0.10 on a $1 bet may still count as a hit, even though the player lost $0.90 in real terms.
A game can feel active because symbols connect often, sounds play, and the screen keeps celebrating small returns. The balance may still fall. In many modern slots, “win” does not always mean profit on the spin.
Hit frequency answers one practical question: how much silence can you tolerate? Some players dislike long dry spells. Others accept quieter sessions because they chase bonus rounds or larger payouts.
The educational site Get Gambling Facts gives a useful distinction: RTP concerns the percentage of money returned over time, while hit frequency concerns how often a machine stops on a winning combination.
Volatility: The Risk Label Players Need More Often
Volatility, also called variance, describes how unevenly a game pays. Low-volatility games tend to return smaller amounts more often. High-volatility games hold more value in rare events: bonus rounds, premium symbols, multipliers, or jackpots.
Here is where RTP becomes less useful on its own:
- A 96% low-volatility slot may give modest returns and longer play from the same balance.
- A 96% high-volatility slot may burn through funds quickly unless the player hits a strong feature.
- A progressive jackpot game may look exciting, but it often places more value on rare top prizes.
The same RTP can hide very different risk profiles. Players who ignore volatility often blame the casino or the game when the session follows its math design.
Why the Same RTP Can Feel So Different
Picture two slots with 96% RTP. Slot A pays small wins on many spins, has a modest top prize, and rarely creates dramatic balance swings. Slot B pays less often but offers a large max win and volatile bonus rounds. The advertised return matches, but the experience does not.
Slot A may suit a player who wants a slower bankroll drop and more regular feedback. Slot B suits someone who accepts sharper losses in exchange for a shot at a heavier payout.
A Better Way to Read a Slot Page
Most slot pages give players more clues than they notice. The trick is to read the details together rather than chase the highest percentage.
Start with RTP. If two games look similar, the higher number has better long-term value. Then check volatility. If the game uses terms such as high, very high, or extreme variance, lower your bet size or expect shorter sessions. Next, look at the paytable. A huge max win usually means the game saves a lot of its value for rare outcomes.
A sensible pre-play check looks like this:
- RTP: What is the average long-term return?
- Volatility: How rough can the session become?
- Hit frequency: How often will the game show any wins?
- Paytable: Where does most value sit?
To Conclude
Casinos advertise RTP because it looks objective, tidy, and easy to rank. Players should read it, but they should not give it more authority than it deserves. For long sessions, volatility may matter more than a small RTP difference. For comfort, hit frequency may explain the feel better than the payback rate.
Uncategorized
Lahmeyer, pastor who says Antichrist will be Jewish, heads to Oklahoma GOP runoff
(JTA) — Jackson Lahmeyer, a pastor who supports Israel and believes the Antichrist will be Jewish, is headed to a runoff in his district’s Oklahoma congressional primary.
The Donald Trump-backed Lahmeyer will face off against Mark Tedford, a member of the state House of Representatives from Tulsa, in the August runoff to decide who will be the Republican candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District.
The runoff will pit candidates with two very different approaches to politics, and Israel, against each other at a time when the Republican Party is divided on multiple lines. Lahmeyer is part of Trump’s MAGA movement, while Tedford is a more traditional conservative. Both men promote a hard line on immigration, but Lahmeyer’s rhetoric has been peppered with incendiary claims about efforts by Muslims to establish “sharia law” in the United States.
While both competitors are also evangelical Christians with training in ministry, Lahmeyer works as a pastor and preaches an end-times theology that includes an Antichrist with Jewish heritage. Lahmeyer is also a vocal supporter of Israel, in keeping with his Christian Nationalist outlook, while Tedford has made few if any public comments about Israel or the war in Gaza.
The two candidates pulled far ahead of the pack in Tuesday’s crowded primary, which attracted 11 candidates to fill an open seat. Tedford received 32.1% of the votes, and Lahmeyer drew 25.9%, according to the Oklahoma State Election Board.
Lahmeyer had been seen as a favorite, but his star fell in the days before the election amid revelations that he had been unfaithful to his wife. (He said the episode, which he confirmed, was a private matter and in the past, and Trump reaffirmed his endorsement following the revelation.)
Few if any of the nine candidates who did not make the runoff are part of the MAGA movement, suggesting that Tedford could see more of their supporters turn to him in November.
“We need everyone who came out today to keep fighting until we succeed,” Lahmeyer said in a statement to local media. “Let’s send a Trump-endorsed warrior to fight for Oklahoma values in Congress.”
The district is solidly red, virtually assuring the primary winner of victory in November. The Democratic candidate, John Croisant, is a Tulsa school board member who has not spoken publicly about Israel or Gaza, issues that are occupying some Democrats.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Lahmeyer, pastor who says Antichrist will be Jewish, heads to Oklahoma GOP runoff appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialist whose Israel criticism ignited Jewish leaders’ concern leads D.C. mayoral primary vote
(JTA) — A democratic socialist who has sharply criticized Israel and pledged to defend Jews from antisemitism is in the lead in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for mayor in Washington, D.C., poising the nation’s capital to elect a progressive leader.
Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. Council member, had received just over half of the 65% of votes that had been counted by Wednesday morning. Kenyan McDuffie, a moderate and former City Council member, was in a distant second place.
The election is D.C.’s first using ranked-choice voting, so it could take some time to reach a final tabulation and the results could change. Still, the early results have ignited optimism among Lewis George’s supporters — and concern among her critics, who include Jewish leaders in the city and beyond.
Some Jewish leaders have criticized Lewis George, who has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, for vowing if elected not to attend “events focused on obfuscating the realities of occupation or promoting Zionism and apartheid” or join “political junkets to Israel.” She made those promises in responses to a questionnaire from the Metro D.C. Democratic Socialists of America, which subsequently endorsed her.
The race set up a fight over the future of Washington, D.C., where the vast majority of voters are Democrats and the threat of President Donald Trump’s interference in city affairs loomed large over the ballot box. The winner is heavily favored to win the general election in November and succeed Democratic Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, who is retiring after 12 years in office.
It also has fueled a national discourse about the growing viability of far-left, anti-Israel politicians in local politics. Some have likened Lewis George to Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist elected mayor in New York City last year. A left-wing candidate is also poised to potentially become mayor of Los Angeles, while Chicago has had a progressive Democrat who is sharply critical of Israel since 2023.
The Wall Street Journal said ahead of the D.C. primary that the city was facing “a Mamdani moment” — a sharp critique from the paper’s conservative editorial board.
The leader of Our Revolution, a progressive group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, also embraced the comparison, telling USA Today that the success of left-wing candidates including Lewis George and Mamdani showed that voters want change.
Lewis George’s platform focuses largely on making D.C. more affordable. But controversy dogged her after her DSA questionnaire was published.
Ron Halber, head of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, told The Washington Post that the questionnaire raised “a lot of concern about whether an administration of hers would be sensitive to the Jewish community or not.”
Lewis George said in the DSA questionnaire that she would continue to meet with people and organizations that do not share all her values and opinions. She referenced a meeting she attended that was hosted by the JCRC, saying she disagreed with the group’s “opposition to using the word ‘genocide’ to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza” as well as “their definition of anti-semitism that criminalizes dissent, and their attacks on activists” but could also see areas of shared interest.
“I went to the event to advocate for an end to ICE collaboration, seek allies in that effort, and build on our shared goal of ending the inhumane treatment of our neighbors who are being taken by ICE,” she said.
Lewis George was endorsed by the Jews United for Justice Campaign Fund, which says it promotes economic, social and racial justice. The group said in its endorsement announcement that Lewis George would “fight for our communities and our Jewish values.”
After blowback to the DSA questionnaire, Lewis George privately met with local rabbis and Jewish community leaders in March to hear their concerns, according to Jewish Insider. Shortly after, she said in a statement on her campaign website that her “support for Palestinian human rights” and her “commitment against antisemitism” were not in conflict.
She added, “To the Jewish community in DC: I will not be a mayor who includes or excludes you based on your opinions or feelings on matters here and across the world. I will always protect your freedom, safety, and sense of belonging.”
Lewis George also said she had visited synagogues since she was in middle school and frequently worked with Jewish organizations as a council member, including to obtain security grants for synagogues and schools.
She went on to list her credentials as a supporter of Palestinians, saying that she was among the first Council members to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and meet with George Washington University students advocating for a ceasefire.
The DSA strongly opposes the Israeli government and requires candidates to share their views on Israel to secure an endorsement. While the party remains controversial in the Democratic establishment, Democrats nationwide have shifted their sympathies away from Israel since 2023, with 65% saying their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians in a February Gallup poll.
McDuffie criticized Lewis George’s answers to the DSA questionnaire and said there was “no place in this city for shutting out any community,” according to Washington Jewish Week. But he has largely avoided weighing in on questions about Israel, telling Jewish Insider that it was not the mayor’s role to craft foreign policy.
The Middle East receded to the background in the closing days of the mayoral race, which focused heavily on high costs of living in the district and fighting the Trump administration. Lewis George and McDuffie both argued they were better equipped to block interference from the federal government, as National Guard troops continue to patrol the streets amid Trump’s crackdown on immigration and tens of thousands of residents have lost their government jobs.
Meanwhile, Trump threatened at the Oval Office on Thursday to “take back” Washington and “run it on the federal basis” if Lewis George won.
The Tuesday primary used ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank up to five candidates. If no candidate reaches 50%, the last-place finisher is removed and voters for that candidate have their votes distributed among their second choice candidates. The process continues until one candidate has a majority. This voting method means that a final tally of results can take days after polls close.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democratic socialist whose Israel criticism ignited Jewish leaders’ concern leads D.C. mayoral primary vote appeared first on The Forward.
