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
‘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.