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
Billie Eilish and the Erasure of Antisemitism After Australia’s Terror Attack
Police officers stand guard following the attack on a Jewish holiday celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, in Sydney, Australia, Dec. 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Flavio Brancaleone
On Sunday, December 14, the Australian Jewish community was shattered by a horrific terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 15 people, including a Holocaust survivor, a rabbi, and a 10-year-old girl.
This was not random violence. The attackers did not open fire indiscriminately on beachgoers or people passing by, nor was this an abstract failure of gun control or public safety.
The shooters deliberately targeted Jews gathered for a Hanukkah event, firing toward a clearly identifiable Jewish celebration. The intent was unmistakable. This was a targeted, ideologically motivated antisemitic terror attack.
They didn’t shoot the surfers or swimmers, bathers running for their lives or the brave lifeguards at Bondi.
They just shot the Jews.
Only the Jews.That’s the issue. Everything else is spin and gaslighting
— Brian Carlton (@Spoonyman) December 15, 2025
Yet some public figures rushed to reframe it as something else.
Musician Billie Eilish, for example, described the attack as “devastating” while emphasizing the need for stricter gun control in the United States and Australia — a response that sidestepped both who was targeted and why.
That framing is difficult to separate from Eilish’s own record. She has publicly accused Israel of committing “genocide” and proudly worn the Artists4Ceasefire pin featuring a red hand, an image uncomfortably reminiscent of the blood-stained hands displayed by terrorists after the lynching of Israelis in Ramallah during the Second Intifada.
Australia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world; its last mass shooting occurred in 1996.
In the wake of last week’s attack, the Australian government again pledged to enforce even tighter restrictions. Whether Eilish was aware of this context is ultimately beside the point. What matters is her refusal to acknowledge the antisemitic motivation of the attack and the Jewish community it targeted.
A similar omission appeared in Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s initial statement following the attack, which made no mention of Jews as the intended victims, despite the well-known presence of a large Hanukkah event nearby. Although Albanese later corrected course, that first statement helped set the framework through which much of the public understood the attack, blurring its antisemitic nature at the outset.
This instinct to default to safe political talking points while avoiding uncomfortable truths about antisemitic violence is increasingly common among celebrities and politicians alike. But the terror attack in Australia did not occur in a vacuum. It followed more than two years of escalating antisemitic incidents across the country, during which Jews have been physically threatened, verbally abused, and spiritually targeted.
Synagogues have been firebombed. and Jewish-owned businesses vandalized. Crowds openly chanted calls to “gas the Jews.”
Notably, some public figures did acknowledge this context. Film star Ashton Kutcher warned that antisemitic rhetoric “carries a cost.” Actor Josh Gad observed that the tragedy occurred because antisemitism has become “acceptable and cheered.” Their responses recognized a reality others chose to obscure.
Those who removed antisemitism from their condemnation of the attack did not merely omit context; they distorted it. By refusing to name the motive, they minimize the danger facing Jewish communities and help sustain a climate in which hatred can continue unchecked.
Naming the problem is not divisive. Refusing to do so is.
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
‘Furious but Not Surprised’: UK Jewish Groups React After Bob Vylan Not Charged for ‘Death to the IDF’ Chant
Bob Vylan lead singer Bobby Vylan. Photo: BANG Showbiz via Reuters Connect
The Embassy of Israel in London as well as British Jewish groups have lambasted the decision by the UK’s Avon and Somerset Police on Tuesday to conclude its investigation into “death to the IDF” chants made during a Bob Vylan performance at the Glastonbury Festival and to take no further action against the British punk rap duo.
The police force decided not to bring charges against the London-based band after its lead singer Pascal Robinson-Foster, known by his stage name Bobby Vylan, led the audience in repeatedly chanting “death, death to the IDF” during their set at Glastonbury on June 28. The set was broadcast live on BBC.
“We have concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that it does not meet the criminal threshold outlined by the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] for any person to be prosecuted,” Avon and Somerset Police said in a statement. The force added that every potential criminal offense “was thoroughly considered,” police “sought all the advice [it] could to ensure we made an informed decision,” and “no further action will be taken on the basis there is insufficient evidential for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.”
In a statement posted to X, the Embassy of Israel in London said it was “deeply disappointing that vile calls for violence, repeated openly and without remorse, continue to fall on deaf ears.”
“Especially in the wake of the terror attacks in Manchester and Bondi, when will such calls finally be recognized for what they are: a real and dangerous instigator of bloodshed?” the embassy continued. “Pascal Robinson-Foster of Bob Vylan should have been held accountable for his bigotry and racism. Failing to act only emboldens those who seek to harm Jews.”
The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) also lamented the police’s decision in a statement, describing it as another blow to the Jewish community in the UK.
“British Jews will be furious but not in the least surprised,” a CAA spokesperson said.
“Over the last two years, trust in the authorities has collapsed,” the spokesperson added. “With most British Jews now considering whether they have a future in the UK at all, over and over again it falls to us to explore all legal avenues to take action because the authorities will not.”
The Community Security Trust (CST), which aims to provide safety for Jewish communities in the UK, said the decision is “incredibly disappointing” and “sends completely the wrong message at the worst possible time,” as reported by The Guardian.
Avon and Somerset Police said that as part of their investigation into the anti-IDF chants, they conducted “a voluntary police interview under caution” with a man in his mid-30s in November. Officers also spoke to “approximately 200” members of the public to see if they “may be a victim of a criminal offense.” In an effort to gain “an understanding of any legal precedents,” police additionally contacted other police forces in the UK who have investigated similar incidents and sought advice from the National Police Chiefs’ Council hate crime leads, the CPS, and an “independent barrister” before concluding its investigation.
“We sought specific consideration around the words stated, in terms of the intent behind them, the wider context of how people heard what was said, case law, and anything else potentially relevant, including freedom of speech,” the statement continued. “Every case must be treated on its own merits. Consistently the advice we have received has highlighted fundamental evidential difficulties that cannot be ignored,” police said.
“We believe it is right this matter was comprehensively investigated, every potential criminal offense was thoroughly considered, and we sought all the advice we could to ensure we made an informed decision,” authorities added. “We are committed to working positively with all our communities across Avon and Somerset in relation any matters that may arise in the future, because there is no place in society for hate of any kind.”
Bob Vylan commented on the police decision in a lengthy Instagram post on Tuesday. The band claimed the investigation was “never warranted in the first place” because the anti-IDF chant during their Glastonbury set was “evidently not hateful,” but rather “a display of solidarity with the Palestinian people.” They also falsely accused the IDF of wantonly murdering Palestinians.
“Over the past six months, the media and politicians have consistently attacked us for using our art and platform to take a stand against the actions of Israel and its illegal occupying military force,” they wrote. “We hope that this news inspires others in the UK and around the world to speak up, and continue speaking up, in support of the Palestinian people, without fear. We have had our shows cancelled, visas revoked, our names tarnished and our lives upended, but what we have lost in peace and security, we have gained tenfold in spirit and camaraderie. And that is unbreakable.”
The band concluded in part by declaring “Free Palestine” and saying that they hope “all oppressed people the world over, resist the boot of tyranny on the neck of freedom.”
Uncategorized
Netanyahu: Israel to Spend $110 Billion to Develop Independent Arms Industry in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a joint press conference with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (not pictured) after a trilateral meeting at the Citadel of David Hotel, in Jerusalem, Dec. 22, 2025. Photo: ABIR SULTAN/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
“We will continue to acquire essential supplies while independently arming ourselves,” Netanyahu said at a ceremony for new pilots.
“I don’t know if a country can be completely independent, but we will strive … to ensure our arms are produced as much as possible in Israel,” he said. “Our goal is to build an independent arms industry for the State of Israel and reduce the dependency on any party, including allies.”
Netanyahu’s comments came about a month after he denied reports that his country was seeking a new 20-year military aid deal with the US, insisting that Israel was working to wean itself off American assistance.
“I don’t know what they’re talking about. My direction is the exact opposite,” Netanyahu said on “The Erin Molan Show” last month when asked by the Australian journalist about a new Axios report saying Israel was pursuing the security agreement.
According to Axios, the deal under discussion would include “America First” provisions to win the Trump administration’s support. The current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries — the third such agreement signed — expires in 2028. It includes around $3.8 billion of annual military aid to Israel, which spends nearly all the assistance in the US to purchase American-made weapons and equipment.
Netanyahu’s latest comments come amid growing criticism in the US among progressives and, increasingly, some conservatives over American military support for Israel, especially among younger Americans.
“Now, I want to make our arms industry independent, totally as independent as possible,” Netanyahu said last month. “I think that it is time to ensure that Israel is independent.”
Netanyahu added that US defense aid to Israel is a “tiny fraction” of what Washington spends in the Middle East.
“We have a very strong economy, a very strong arms industry, and even though we get what we get, which we appreciate, 80 percent of that is spent in the US and produces jobs in the US,” he continued, saying he wants to see “an even more independent Israeli defense industry.”
The Israeli premier went on to stress that his country has never asked a single American solider to fight for Israel.
“Israel does not ask others to fight for us,” he said. “Israel is the one American ally in the world that says, ‘We don’t need boots on the ground, we don’t need American servicemen fighting on the ground for Israel or around Israel. We’re fine.’ We fight our own battles, but in doing so, we serve important American interests, like preventing countries that chant ‘Death to America’ from having nuclear bombs to throw at America.”