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
Hamas Uses Sydney Terror Attack to Reaffirm Its Doctrine of Killing Jews Worldwide
A Palestinian man points a weapon in the air after it was announced that Israel and Hamas agreed on the first phase of a Gaza ceasefire, in the central Gaza Strip, October 9. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
Following Sunday’s terror attack in Sydney where Muslim terrorists murdered at least 15 people and wounded 29 others, Hamas’ official television channel, Al-Aqsa TV, published a post seeking to legitimize the killing of one of the victims, Rabbi Eli Schlanger.
The post emphasized that Rabbi Schlanger had traveled to Israel in October 2023 and met with Israeli soldiers to show support following Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre. Al-Aqsa TV published photos of the rabbi with Israeli soldiers, portraying this act of solidarity as evidence that he had “assisted” Israel in what Hamas calls a “war of annihilation.”
Posted text:“Pictures published on the pages of settlers of Rabbi Eli Schlanger, an emissary of the Chabad Movement who was killed [on Dec. 14, 2025] in an attack on a Jewish [Hanukkah] celebration in Sydney at a time when he was meeting with soldiers from the occupation [i.e., Israeli] army in order to assist them in the war of annihilation.”
[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), Telegram channel, Dec. 14, 2025]
Under this framework, Hamas portrays a Jewish religious leader attending a holiday celebration in Australia as a legitimate target because he once expressed solidarity with Israelis after October 7.
Hamas, however, does not need a military connection, political activity, or personal responsibility to legitimize the killing of Jews by Muslims.
The claim that Rabbi Eli Schlanger met with Israeli soldiers is merely a post-hoc rationalization, designed to disguise Hamas’ core belief that Jews must be killed because they are guilty of the crime of being Jews.
In one of its music videos calling for Palestinians to murder Jews, Hamas published this poster with the words: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah:”
This principle is also enshrined explicitly in its charter — and it defines how Hamas views Jewish civilians and acts of terror against Jews everywhere.
Article 7 of the Hamas Charter presents this as a divine command, quoting an Islamic hadith:
The time (of Resurrection) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me—come and kill him!’
[Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985]
This is not a call to fight Israelis. It is not a reference to soldiers. The target is Jews as Jews, wherever they are.
What happened in Sydney was a direct application of Hamas’ ideology.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Australian authorities confirm that Bondi Beach attackers were affiliated with Islamic State terror group
(JTA) — The father-and-son duo who killed 15 people during an attack on a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney on Sunday were motivated by “Islamic State ideology,” Australian authorities have confirmed.
Australian media had reported on Monday that the country’s intelligence service had previously investigated Naveed Akram, the son, over his ties to members of an Islamic State cell in Sydney.
On Tuesday, officials confirmed the account and revealed that both Naveed Akram and his father Sajid spent most of November in a region of the Philippines where the Islamic State maintains a stronghold. Officials believe the pair received military training there, though they would not say whether the trip had alarmed security officials at the time.
“It would appear that there is evidence that this was inspired by a terrorist organization, by ISIS,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said at a press conference on Tuesday. He confirmed that Islamic State flags had been found in Naveed Akram’s car, abandoned at the scene of the shooting.
The revelations complicate the narrative that emerged immediately after the attack connecting it to Australia’s recent pro-Palestinian protest movement, which has at times featured antisemitic displays and attacks on Jewish sites.
But the Islamic State and Hamas, the leading Palestinian liberation organization whose attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, triggered the war in Gaza, have historically been at odds, with the Sunni Islamic State openly viewing Hamas as insufficiently Islamic and an avatar of Iran and Shia Islam.
The Islamic State is a decades-old terrorist group that for a time acted as al-Qaeda’s affiliate and promotes Islamic fundamentalism; its enemy, broadly speaking, is the West and its targets have ranged from Christian churches to concerts to public festivities. Last year, an Islamic State-inspired operative killed 14 people at a New Year’s street party in New Orleans, and the group claimed credit for an attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 140.
Hamas, on the other hand, sought to impose some strictures of Islamic law in Gaza, which it has controlled, but allows a far more permissive religious and cultural environment. Its express goal is the elimination of Israel, and attacks staged by its affiliates abroad, typically supported by Iranian cells, have tended to target Jewish and Israeli sites — as has been the case in Australia, which recently expelled the Iranian ambassador over his country’s alleged ties to a string of attacks on synagogues.
In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack, the Israeli government promoted an equivalency between the two groups, citing their similarly brutal tactics. But some experts in terror movements balked at the comparison.
“The Islamic State literally views Hamas as apostates and IS supporters have been pillaging Hamas online since Saturday bc they are tools of Shia Iran and also don’t actually implement sharia [Islamic law] according to IS’s interpretations,” Aaron Zelin, a senior fellow Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tweeted at the time.
But two years of war in Gaza that activated pro-Palestinian sentiment in many places around the world may have shifted the distinctions between the movements, according to terrorism experts, who also say the Islamic State has become more decentralized over time.
Rommel Banlaoi, a political scientist focused on terrorism in the Philippines, told the New York Times this week that a December 2023 attack on a Catholic mass there had marked a turning point for the group.
“Before, the focus was on creating an Islamic state,” Banlaoi said. “Now it has transformed to helping Muslims, Palestinians displaced by the Middle East violence.”
In part, the shift may reflect an opportunistic approach to the masses of people activated online in support of the Palestinian cause. A “Worldwide Threat Assessment” prepared by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency in May said the Islamic State and al-Qaeda were showing signs of trying to capitalize on a new audience.
“Both groups continue to reference Israeli operations in Gaza to galvanize their global networks, recruit new members, generate revenue, and enable or inspire attacks against U.S., Israeli, Jewish, and European interests worldwide,” the report said.
An unnamed “senior Arab security official” told the Washington Post in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack that online activism tied to the Islamic State had surged during the war in Gaza. “They are exploiting the emotional outrage of Muslims and use reports of [Muslim] women and children being killed or allegedly starved as tools of recruitment,” the security official said.
Counterterrorism experts also believe that an increased focus on threats related directly to the war in Gaza could have undercut those trying to monitor and stop the Islamic State. Brett Holmgren, then a top counterterrorism official in the Biden administration, for example, said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies last year that the Islamic State was regrouping “as governments shifted attention and resources to the conflict in Gaza.”
The Islamic State has not claimed responsibility for the Bondi Beach attack, which was immediately condemned by the governments of Arab states that are supportive of the Palestinian cause. Authorities have not said whether the attackers left any record of their intentions or motivation beyond the Islamic State flags found in their car.
The post Australian authorities confirm that Bondi Beach attackers were affiliated with Islamic State terror group appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
New footage emerges of Jewish man trying to disarm Bondi Beach shooters before massacre
(JTA) — An elderly Jewish man sought to stop the Bondi Beach Hanukkah attackers and was their first victim, according to dramatic dashcam footage that emerged on Tuesday.
Boris Gurman, 69, came upon the attackers as they exited their car and confronted them, according to the footage, which first appeared on Chinese social media after being posted by a Sydney resident and has been verified by Australian media as well as his family.
The grainy footage shows Gurman appearing to have been able to take hold of one gun before the attacker retrieves another weapon and shoots him. The footage shows Gurman, wearing a purple shirt, being thrown to the ground during the confrontation with the attackers, whom authorities have identified as Sajid and Naveed Akram.
Boris Gurman’s wife Sofia, 61, was also murdered at the outset of the attack, which ultimately killed 15 people who had gathered for a Chabad Hanukkah celebration on the beach.
The couple, immigrants to Australia, had been married for nearly 35 years and had retired from their jobs as a mechanic and postal worker.
“In the moments before their passing, Boris — with Sofia courageously beside him — attempted to intervene to protect others,” said a statement accompanying a crowdfunding campaign to benefit their family, including son Alex. “This act of bravery and selflessness reflects exactly who they were: people who instinctively chose to help, even at great personal risk. While nothing can lessen the pain of this loss, we feel immense pride in their courage and humanity.”
The footage adds new details to what is known about the massacre, which unfolded over more than 10 minutes on Sunday evening, the first night of Hanukkah.
A different man who tried and failed to stop the shooting by tackling and disarming one of the shooters, Ahmed al Ahmed, has been hailed for his heroism and had more than $1.3 million raised on his behalf, including from Jewish donors from around the world.
Meanwhile the daughter of Reuven Morrison, a Jewish man killed in the massacre, said he had been the one caught on camera throwing bricks at the shooter after al Ahmed’s intervention.
“If there was one way for him to go on this earth, it would be fighting a terrorist,” Sheina Gutnick told CBS News about her father. “There was no other way he would be taken from us. He went down fighting, protecting the people he loved most.”
The post New footage emerges of Jewish man trying to disarm Bondi Beach shooters before massacre appeared first on The Forward.