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
Ben Shapiro denounces Tucker Carlson at Heritage, urges policing of conservative movement
(JTA) — Ben Shapiro walked onto a Heritage Foundation stage Wednesday and used it to draw a line against Tucker Carlson and a strain of conservatism Shapiro warned is drifting toward conspiracy theories and antisemitism.
For a talk that lasted about an hour, Shapiro, one of the most prominent Jewish voices on the American right, denounced Carlson by name, arguing that the former Fox News host no longer belongs inside the conservative movement and urging the institution hosting him to enforce what he called “ideological border control.”
“A conservatism that treats Tucker Carlson as a thought leader is no conservatism,” Shapiro said. “If conservatives do not stand up and draw lines, conservatism and the dream of America itself will cease to exist.”
The speech was as notable for its venue as for its content. It was hosted by Kevin Roberts, Heritage’s president, who has come under fire in recent months for publicly defending Carlson after Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and Holocaust revisionist. Roberts’ comments triggered resignations and criticism from Jewish leaders and former Heritage affiliates. Two more trustees of the foundation resigned this week over Roberts’ support for Carlson.
Despite the directness of Shapiro’s message, and his explicit call for Heritage to police the boundaries of the conservative movement, Roberts did not respond to the criticism or address antisemitism on the right during the event.
In his opening remarks, Roberts praised Shapiro as a “patriot,” a “man of faith” and a “trusted counselor,” and described Shapiro’s book as “a truly good book,” without mentioning Carlson, Fuentes or the controversy that has engulfed the organization. When Roberts moderated the discussion that followed, he pivoted to policy topics including immigration, housing affordability and elections, again avoiding any reference to Carlson or antisemitism.
Roberts also did not acknowledge the resignations or public criticism that followed his defense of Carlson, At the conclusion of the event, he broadly aligned Heritage with Shapiro’s message, telling the audience, “Count on Heritage to fight with you.”
In his speech, Shapiro accused Carlson of abandoning free-market principles, rejecting constitutional governance and advancing conspiracy theories that echo antisemitic tropes, particularly around Israel and Jewish influence. He cited Carlson’s repeated criticism of Israel, his suggestion of “nefarious Israeli influence in American government,” and his hostility toward Christian Zionists.
Shapiro also criticized Carlson for repeatedly platforming figures with extremist or antisemitic records, including Fuentes, whom he described as “America’s foremost Hitler apologist,” as well as Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin and revisionist historian Darryl Cooper. “None of this comports with traditional American values,” Shapiro said.
Shapiro framed the moment as a test of the conservative movement’s credibility. “Conservatism means something,” he said. “And if we refuse to stand for it and defend it, it will disappear.”
The post Ben Shapiro denounces Tucker Carlson at Heritage, urges policing of conservative movement appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Citing Sydney attack, police in London say they will now arrest those who chant ‘globalize the intifada’
(JTA) — Police in London and Manchester, England, say they will now arrest pro-Palestinian protesters who chant the phrase “globalize the intifada,” in a policy change responding to the deadly terror attack on Jews celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney.
Police in London also indicated that they will take more aggressive action to limit protests near synagogues where services are taking place.
The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London and the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police announced the new policies on Wednesday, saying in a statement that they had decided to act even though prosecutors had long advised that “the phrases causing fear in Jewish communities” were not criminal offenses.
“Now, in the escalating threat context, we will recalibrate to be more assertive,” they said, noting that the changes were “practical and immediate.”
The chant “globalize the intifada” is used widely used at pro-Palestinian protests and according to many of its proponents is meant to galvanize worldwide solidarity against Israel. Its critics, including many Jews, charge that it is a call for violence against Jews. “Intifada,” which means “uprising” or “shaking off” in Arabic, was the name of two violent Palestinian uprisings including one from 2000 to 2005 that killed an estimated 1,000 Israelis in terror attacks, including on buses, at cafes and at recreational centers.
The phrase has drawn renewed scrutiny in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney, which killed 15 people. Authorities said the alleged attackers, who are not accused of using the phrase, had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group. A man who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State staged an attack on a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur in October in which two people were killed.
Among those drawing a connection between the Sydney attack and the protest phrase was British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis.
“Why is it still allowed? What is the meaning of ‘globalize the intifada’? I’ll tell you the meaning — it’s what happened on Bondi Beach,” Mirvis told the BBC this week. He added, “We have to be far stricter with regard to what people are allowed to say.”
The British police crackdown on the phrase contrasts with the stance taken in New York City by Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a longtime advocate for the Palestinian cause. During the campaign, he declined to condemn the phrase and then, after hearing from Jewish New Yorkers, said he would “discourage” it. But Mamdani, who hires the police chief and sets department priorities, has said he is not comfortable “with the idea of banning the use of certain words.”
In London, police are already acting on their new policies. The Metropolitan Police relocated a planned demonstration on Wedneday away from areas of London where public Hanukkah celebrations were scheduled, igniting allegations from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign that its protest was being illegally banned.
The police department said that was not true. And the statement announcing the new policies emphasized that they are not intended to prevent legal protest.
“All members of society have a responsibility to consider their impact on others – it is possible to protest in support of Palestinian people without intimidating Jewish communities or breaking the law,” the statement said.
The rally on Wednesday night attracted about 1,000 people, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said on social media, including former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The post Citing Sydney attack, police in London say they will now arrest those who chant ‘globalize the intifada’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
After MIT professor’s killing, Jewish influencers spread unverified antisemitism claim
There is no evidence that Nuno F.G. Loureiro, an M.I.T.-affiliated scientist who was shot Monday at his home in Brookline, Mass., was killed in an antisemitic attack. It’s not even clear that he was Jewish.
But in the hours after his death Tuesday morning, a rumor spread that Loureiro was Jewish — and targeted for his pro-Israel politics. In the wake of a mass killing at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney, Australia, prominent Jewish social media influencers pointed to Loureiro’s death as proof that Jews all over the world were under attack.
The claim appeared to originate from Ira Stoll, the author of a conservative-leaning Substack newsletter called The Editors. In the newsletter and on X, Stoll reported Tuesday that Loureiro was Jewish. On Substack, Stoll attached a screenshot of a Threads post in which a user with that name defended Israel and criticized Hamas.
There was just one problem: The Threads account did not belong to the slain M.I.T. professor. But in an online information ecosystem that rewards virality, paranoia and hot takes — and whose most influential voices are rarely beholden to journalistic ethics — the unverified assertion took hold.
“Loureiro has been reported to be Jewish with strong pro-Israel views,” the pro-Israel account StopAntisemites shared with more than 350,000 followers. Quoting that post, pro-Israel activist Eyal Yakoby wrote to his 250,000 followers on X, “Every Jew must arm themselves.”
Influencers who repeated Stoll’s claim stated it as fact, usually without stating their source of information. If they had, other uses might have seen that Stoll deleted the X post, and edited his Substack article to include a clarification that MIT had clarified the Threads account belonged to a different person.
Instead, the unverified claim spread to other platforms.
“It’s Jew-hunting season,” the pro-Israel food influencer Gabriel Boxer, who goes by Kosher Guru, and the Jewish account Community News told nearly 400,000 Instagram followers in a joint post. Marnie Perlstein, an Australian Jewish influencer, asked in a Reel why the media wasn’t talking about Loureiro’s Jewish heritage.
There was a good reason legacy media that covered Loureiro’s death, among them the Associated Press and The New York Times, did not report that Loureiro was Jewish: It’s not yet clear whether he was. Indeed, some evidence suggests he wasn’t.
At around the same time as Yakoby’s post, a man named Joah Santos tried to shoot down the rumor, saying Loureiro, a friend of his, was not Jewish and would have never spoken about Israel or Gaza. (The Forward has reached out to Santos.)
StopAntisemites’ post had been reposted nearly 2,500 times and received nearly 600,000 views as of this Wednesday evening, and remains visible on X. Santos’ opposing claim, meanwhile, has been seen only 150,000 times.
The idea that Loureiro was Jewish eventually found its way into Yeshiva World News and the Jerusalem Post, which called Loureiro “a Jewish and vocal pro-Israel nuclear scientist.”
Authorities have opened a homicide investigation into Loureiro’s death; no suspects or possible motives have been disclosed. Funeral details have not been announced.
It’s possible that Loureiro was Jewish — neither the university that employed him nor his family has stated otherwise. But no one has been able to say definitively that he was.
The MIT media relations team told the Forward it could not comment on a staff member’s ethnicity or religion. MIT Hillel did not respond to a voicemail left Wednesday evening.
Bruno Cappi, who described himself as a close friend of Loureiro’s in the MIT physics department, said in an interview that he had worked with the professor since 2016 and that his friend had never mentioned being Jewish during that time. Many of their colleagues in the department were Jewish, Cappi said, with last names typical for Jewish ancestry like Friedman and Rosen; if someone were attacking Jews, why would they go after someone whose Jewish identity was not widely known? “It’s all absurd,” he said.
More than 24 hours after Santos and others tried to correct the record, the articles from the Jerusalem Post and Yeshiva World News remained online. The posts by Yakoby, KosherGuru and Perlstein — none of whom responded to requests for comment prior to publication — also remain up as of this publication. (Some X posts have pending crowd-sourced Community Notes underneath stating he is not Jewish and linking to Santos’ post, but those notes are not currently being shown to all users.)
Additional evidence that Loureiro was pro-Israel was also thin: An X user claimed that a Google Street view image of the professor’s home showed a “Stand With Israel” sign. If the image did depict his building, it had been taken three years earlier; it also showed a multifamily building, and Loureiro — if he did live in the building at the time — did not necessarily live in the unit with that window.
Nevertheless, the claim continued to spread. Around 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday — several hours after the posts from Stoll and StopAntisemites — a Wikipedia article was created about Loureiro, which claimed he was born “to a Sephardic Jewish family.” That claim remained on the article for four hours before a different editor removed it.
The post After MIT professor’s killing, Jewish influencers spread unverified antisemitism claim appeared first on The Forward.