Uncategorized
Netanyahu announces pause to judiciary reform, in significant victory for protesters
(JTA) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would postpone a vote on far-reaching reforms to the judiciary and engage in dialogue with the opposition, yielding to calls from hundreds of thousands of protesters as well as senior members of his own party and international leaders.
In his televised address, Netanyahu cited fears of civil war, which Israeli President Isaac Herzog had also warned of weeks ago.
“I am not ready to tear the people into shreds,” Netanyahu said Monday in remarks broadcast just past 8 p.m. Israel time. “We are not facing enemies but brothers. I am saying now and here, there must not be a civil war.”
He added, “I have decided to delay the second and third readings of the legislation until the Knesset reconvenes” roughly a month from now, at the end of April. He said the break — which includes the Jewish and Israeli holidays of Passover, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Memorial Day and Independence Day — would be devoted to dialogue.
Netanyahu’s announcement marks a significant victory for opponents of the judicial reform, and heralds a new stage in the months-long debate over the legislation which, as written, would sap the Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. As it stands, the legislation substantially increases government control over Supreme Court appointments and essentially removes the court’s ability to review laws. That version of the legislation will almost certainly not pass now, and leaders of a strike called on Monday to protest the reforms called it off immediately after Netanyahu’s speech.
The legislation has been controversial ever since it was unveiled near the beginning of the year, just weeks after Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition took office. For months, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to oppose the proposals, and their calls were joined by a chorus of public figures, in Israel and abroad, who warned that the overhaul would remove a key component of Israel’s democratic system. Reservists in the Israel Defense Forces vowed to absent themselves from duty in protest.
Netanyahu and his allies said that the reform reflected the will of Israel’s right-wing majority. But facing the threats from reservists, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced on television Saturday night that he supported a pause in the legislation, as well as dialogue toward a compromise. He said internal conflict in the IDF surrounding the overhaul put Israel’s security at risk.
One day later, on Sunday night, Netanyahu fired Gallant — a decision that sparked massive, spontaneous protests across the country, starting late Sunday night and lasting until Monday’s early hours, and then reconvening Monday afternoon.
In his speech on Monday, Netanyahu railed against reservists refusing to report for duty, which he called a “terrible crime.”
“The state of Israel cannot exist without the IDF, and the IDF cannot exist with refusal,” he said. “Refusal from one side will lead to refusal from the other side. Refusal is the end of our country. So I demand — demand — of the commanders of the security forces, and the commanders of the IDF, to forcefully oppose the phenomenon of refusal.”
Opposition leaders, including Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, accepted Netanyahu’s call for dialogue. Lapid said the dialogue should lead to the writing of a constitution for Israel, which the country currently lacks, under the aegis of President Isaac Herzog. For weeks, Herzog has been calling for a pause in the legislative process and had previously unveiled a compromise on the judicial reform that Netanyahu’s coalition rejected. The Biden administration had also urged Netanyahu to find a compromise, including in a conversation last week between President Joe Biden and Netanyahu.
Bitter feelings were still evident in the prime minister’s speech: Netanyahu said pro-government protesters who turned out on Monday evening were “spontaneous,” “not paid for, not spurred by the media.” Netanyahu has at times depicted the massive protests as a conspiracy.
Gantz, in accepting the offer, said, “The prime minister is principally responsible for tearing the country apart.” He also called on Netanyahu to reinstall Gallant. Netanyahu did not mention Gallant in his address.
Netanyahu said his decision to pause the legislative process was backed by a majority of his coalition. In December, Netanyahu allied with the far-right Religious Zionist bloc as part of his governing coalition, and one of the bloc’s leaders, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, was pressing for quick passage of the reforms up until Netanyahu’s announcement.
Another leader of the far-right bloc, Itamar Ben Gvir, the national security minister, circulated an agreement signed by himself and Netanyahu to establish a “National Guard” alongside the decision to pause the court reform. It is not clear how such an entity would function alongside Israel’s already massive security infrastructure. Ben-Gvir has called for the loosening of open-fire rules in clashes between security forces and Palestinians. Netanyahu likewise did not mention the agreement with Ben-Gvir in his speech.
In a tweet posted shortly before Netanyahu’s speech, Ben-Gvir sounded defiant.
“The reform will pass. The national guard will be established. The budget I demanded for the Ministry of National Security will pass in its entirety,” he wrote. “No one will frighten us. No one will be able to change the decision of the people.”
Then, mimicking the central chant of the anti-government protesters, he added: “Repeat after me: De-mo-cra-cy!”
—
The post Netanyahu announces pause to judiciary reform, in significant victory for protesters appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.