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
Ex-Head of NYC Office to Combat Antisemitism Discusses Being Abruptly Fired by Mamdani, Replaced With Israel Critic
The Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, led by Moshe Davis, held its first meeting on July 17, 2025, at City Hall in New York City. Photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office
Moshe Davis was replaced this week as the executive director of the New York City Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism and spoke with The Free Press about his firing, which came without notice, while also sharing a message for his replacement, liberal Zionist Phylisa Wisdom.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s office announced on Wednesday that Davis was being replaced by Wisdom, 39, who recently served as the executive director of the New York Jewish Agenda. NYJA is made up of “liberal and progressive Zionists,” according to its website. The group has criticized Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip and opposes the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. “NYC deserves a mayor who will stand up for Palestinians in the face of state-sanctioned violence,” Wisdom previously posted on X.
The Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism was established in May of last year by Mamdani’s predecessor, Eric Adams.
Davis, 28, told The Free Press he was not told in advance that he was being replaced, and found out only after it was publicized online and in the news.
“I was reporting to work like I do every day … at some point, I get a text and then a tweet and then see an article that they have named a replacement for my position. Not something that was told to me in advance,” he explained. “At some point they came to my desk and said, ‘Let’s talk,’ and they were sorry for the way it was done. But they said they were looking to go in a new direction.”
“I’m a loud, proud Jewish person who walks with a kippah on my head,” he added. “A proud Zionist. Someone who takes their Judaism to heart and it means a lot to me and my family … And I think this administration maybe felt that was too much for them.”
Anti-Jewish hate crimes in New York City increased by 182 percent in January during Mamdani’s first month in office compared to the same month last year, according to newly released statistics from the New York City Police Department (NYPD). There were 31 anti-Jewish hate crimes in the first month of 2026, which was more than half of all the hate crime incidents reported in January.
Davis told The Free Press this week that in the last month, he has been trying to push forward efforts to combat antisemitism in New York and protect Jewish New Yorkers but hasn’t “found much traction” from Mamdani’s office.
“You’re gonna put a new director in? Get to work. Jewish New Yorkers are on edge, are fearful of the rise of antisemitic incidents,” Davis said. “That’s what Jewish New Yorkers want to see: they want to see someone who cares about their concerns. If you can’t correctly understand where this hatred is coming, where this propaganda and [activism] is coming from, and how it effects Jewish New Yorkers, it’s gonna be a hard job.”
“I’m afraid if you’re giving too much leeway to propaganda and activism, Jewish New Yorkers are going to be targeted,” he added. “They’re going to be unsafe … that’s something that scares me.”
Wisdom said in a released statement that she was “honored and humbled” to be the new executive director of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism.
“New York City has long been a beacon of hope for the Jewish community,” said the Jewish Brooklyn resident. “We will continue to ensure that Jewish safety and belonging remains at the core of this administration’s vision for a more livable city. In a time of rising hatred and fear, I look forward to embracing this solemn responsibility — both to represent the diverse array of Jewish voices to City Hall in this critical moment, and to demonstrate the power of pluralistic democracy in the greatest city in the world.”
Mamdani’s office said that as head of the New York Jewish Agenda, Wisdom “successfully advocated for legislation in Albany to combat antisemitism and other forms of hate and testified before the New York City Council in support of increased funding for hate crime prevention.” Wisdom also previously worked in advocacy through the Union for Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center. She supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state but, like Mamdani, opposes the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a reference tool for identifying antisemitic hate crimes that has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and governing institutions around the world.
Some Jewish leaders have expressed concern about Wisdom’s past work for Yaffed, an organization that pushes for more oversight of secular education in New York’s ultra-Orthodox yeshivas. Wisdom was Yaffed’s director of development and government affairs before joining NYJA in 2023.
“The leader of the Office of Antisemitism cannot have a contentious relationship with the Hassidic yeshiva community,” Yaacov Behrman, who heads public relations for the Chabad Lubavitch Headquarters in Brooklyn, wrote on X in early January.
“When the office was created, I was part of the early conversations about its purpose: ensuring that Jewish New Yorkers feel protected and free to live openly and proudly,” he added. “And in New York, a large share of antisemitic hate crimes target Hassidic and Yeshivish Jews. It is difficult to understand how someone who has spent years publicly antagonizing yeshivas could build the relationships or provide the reassurance needed for the community most often targeted by antisemitic attacks. This is not politics. It is common sense.”
Those who support Wisdom’s appointment as the new executive director of the Office to Combat Antisemitism include US Rep. Jerry Nadler; New York City Comptroller Mark Levine; State Sen. Liz Krueger; former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism; and Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Uncategorized
Father of Manchester Yom Kippur Attacker Sparks Outrage With Antisemitic Posts Praising Hitler, Hamas
People gather near the scene, after an attack in which a car was driven at pedestrians and stabbings were reported at a synagogue in north Manchester, Britain, on Yom Kippur, Oct. 2, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Phil Noble
The father of the terrorist who perpetrated last year’s deadly Yom Kippur attack in Manchester is again drawing outrage after posting an antisemitic message praising Adolf Hitler and asserting that Jews “got what they deserved.”
“Israel is a state that grew on the skulls of our people in Palestine,” Faraj al-Shamie wrote in a post on Facebook. “The state that was born has, since its establishment, insisted on killing, destroying, and uprooting people.”
“Jews and their Muslim cousins lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years, and Islam granted them security and good treatment — until Hitler came and did what they deserved,” he continued.
According to his social media profiles, al-Shamie is a surgeon who has worked with multiple nongovernmental organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, operating in conflict zones including South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Mali.
“Look at history — no people or group has survived after building its life on murder, racism, destruction and displacement. No oppressor remains. The oppressed will inevitably prevail,” al-Shamie wrote in a post on Facebook.
“Israel will not be an exception to this history, and no matter how strong it becomes, it will not be able to change the laws,” he continued.
Last year, his son — identified by police as Jihad al-Shami, 35 — carried out a deadly attack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, driving a car onto the grounds of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Manchester, northern England, before launching a stabbing spree that killed two Jewish men and left at least three others critically injured.
The attack occurred as the congregation gathered to observe Yom Kippur and ended seven minutes later, when police shot the assailant dead.
Shortly after the assault, al-Shamie attempted to distance his family from his son’s actions, publicly expressing solidarity with the victims and their families.
“We fully distance ourselves from this attack and express our deep shock and sorrow over what has happened. Our hearts and thoughts are with the victims and their families, and we pray for their strength and comfort,” he wrote in a post on Facebook at the time.
However, al-Shamie has a long history of promoting violence and antisemitic hatred, actively participating in pro-Hamas demonstrations and praising the Palestinian terrorist group’s actions online.
He even praised the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, calling the terrorists “heroic.”
“The scenes broadcast by Hamas prove that Israel will ultimately be destroyed. Such men prove that they are men of God. Guard your weapons well and aim them precisely. May God protect Palestine and the heroic people,” al-Shamie wrote in a post on Facebook in the wake of the atrocities.
“Release the elderly and children. What you have done so far is a miracle by all standards. Do not harm them in a moment of anger. They have no place in war,” he continued.
He further added, “May God grant you victory, support you, and guide you to the right path in a battle that history will record as the beginning of the liberation of Al-Aqsa, God willing.”
Uncategorized
German Authorities Identify Neo-Nazi Suspect in 1970 Munich Jewish Center Arson Attack That Killed 7
An installation in downtown Munich commemorating the Feb. 13, 1970, arson attack on a Jewish community center in which seven elderly people died. Photo: @springermunich/X
After reopening the long-dormant investigation into the 1970 arson attack on a Munich Jewish community center that killed seven elderly residents, German authorities have identified a new suspect with ties to neo-Nazi ideology and a history of serious criminal activity.
Fifty-five years later, the long-forgotten Feb. 13, 1970, attack, which took place during a wave of terrorism against Israeli and Jewish targets, remains unsolved.
Last year, senior German prosecutor Andreas Franck was appointed to lead the new probe after a witness came forward with new and “credible” information about possible perpetrators, prompting authorities to reopen the investigation.
According to the German news outlets Bild and Der Spiegel, law enforcement has named Bernd V. as a possible suspect, describing him as a man with a “Hitlerian obsession” and a decades-long criminal record in the 1960s and 1970s marked by violent offenses and overt antisemitism.
Even though he died in 2020 at age 76 and can no longer be held responsible for the horrific crime, investigators remain convinced he was the likely perpetrator.
Authorities uncovered his trail in early 2025 when a witness reached out to the Munich prosecutor’s office, explaining that a close relative had once been part of Bernd V.’s gang and had disclosed its secrets.
According to the witness testimony, on the night of the fire, his relative was with Bernd V. and another accomplice in a failed attempt to rob a jewelry store in Munich’s Gärtnerplatz.
Following the botched robbery, 26-year-old Bernd V. grew increasingly enraged, hurling antisemitic insults and singling out the Jewish community center, threatening to set it ablaze.
Even though investigators cannot corroborate the witness testimony directly, since all involved are deceased, Munich authorities continued their investigation, uncovering old court files and eyewitness accounts that matched Bernd V., including a cellmate’s statement in which he allegedly confessed to the crime.
Bernd V. was born and raised in southern Munich, and police described him as prone to violence. In his own court testimony, he said he had been taught to hold a strong admiration for Hitler.
In February 1972, Bernd V. was sentenced to six and a half years in prison for multiple crimes, including arson attacks and robberies. At the time, however, the court was unaware that he might also have been responsible for the fire at the Jewish senior residence.
On the night of the arson attack, a group of individuals set fire to a four-story building that housed a community center, a retirement home, and a synagogue, with 50 people inside, leaving 13 injured. Police later ruled the attack as arson after finding a gasoline can in the stairwell.
Five men and two women were killed in the attack: Regina Rivka Becher (59), David Jakubowicz (59), Rosa Drucker (59), Georg Eljakim Pfau (63), Leopold Arie Leib Gimpel (69), Siegfried Offenbacher (71), and Meir Max Blum (71). Among the victims, Jakubowicz and Pfau were survivors of Nazi concentration camps.
In 2012, fresh evidence suggested that the attack may have been carried out by an anti-Zionist anarchist group. However, Munich prosecutors later determined that the information was “inaccurate.”
In 2013, an anonymous source claimed in an article for the German magazine Focus that a member of the far-left extremist group Tupamaros West-Berlin (TW) was responsible for the attack. The investigation was closed in November 2017.