Uncategorized
‘The gun is on the table’: Both sides of Israel’s debate say that a constitutional crisis is coming
(JTA) — In a country that is deeply divided, where attending anti-government protests has become a weekly ritual for many, at least one idea still unites the right and left: Israel appears to be hurtling toward a constitutional crisis.
The crisis — which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu termed a “governmental breakdown” during a recent visit to Germany — would flow from legislation Netanyahu is pushing that would overhaul Israel’s judiciary. The proposal — which critics say threatens Israel’s democratic character — would increase the coalition’s control over the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and would enable Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, to override court decisions with a simple majority.
A constitutional crisis occurs when a country faces an unsolvable dispute between competing branches of government. Countries have recovered from constitutional crises in the past — the United States has had several over the centuries, including multiple ones related to the leadup to the Civil War and its aftermath — but the process can be difficult, and mistrust long-lasting.
In Israel’s case, what happens if the Knesset passes the judicial legislation, the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the Knesset doesn’t abide by that decision? Does the court or Knesset hold final authority?
However that question is answered, just getting to that point would represent a dramatic breakdown in a 75-year-old democracy. “The very idea that the government might not comply, might ignore the Supreme Court’s decision, would be an unprecedented crisis,” said Michal Saliternik, a law professor at Netanya Academic College.
In that dangerous moment, some Israelis see opportunity. In a perhaps ironic twist, Israel is on the precipice of a constitutional crisis but doesn’t actually have a constitution. It’s a risky bet, but a battle between the court and the coalition, said international law scholar Tamar Megiddo, might just force Israel into the long and arduous process of writing a governing document and figuring out how to balance the country’s competing authorities.
“The entire constitutional system here is held together by duct tape,” said Megiddo, who teaches at the College of Law and Business outside Tel Aviv. “It’s ridiculous. We have no protection of our constitutional regime, no protection of our separation of powers, no protection of checks and balances and no protection of human rights. The only reason this functioned for the past 75 years is because there was good faith.”
She added, “I think a lot of people view the current constitutional moment, or the realistically likely constitutional crisis, as also an opportunity for fixing everything that’s broken in the system.”
When asked how a clash between the government and courts could come to a head, those scholars and others all individually sketched out versions of the same scenario: The government passes a law giving itself control over judicial appointments, the court strikes down the law — and the government appoints new judges anyway. When those judges arrive for their first day of work, should the security guards let them in? Who should the guards obey — the government that appointed the judges, or the courts that declared their appointment illegal?
While that question is being debated, the courts may not be able to hear cases at all.
“At the end of the day, the state needs to function,” Saliternik said. “The courts have work to do. If the judges can’t enter their chambers, it will definitely impact everyone. It’ll be like a third world country in which institutions don’t function.”
The law on judicial appointments may be passed next week, and for rank-and-file Israelis, both Saliternik and Megiddo said, this question would hardly be theoretical. If Israel’s system of government descends into crisis, it could lead to a downgrade in the country’s credit rating and an economic downturn that ordinary citizens feel in their pockets. And given how invested Israelis have become in the face of the judicial reform — protesting in the streets by the hundreds of thousands — it’s unlikely they’ll ignore what ensues if and when it passes. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who has a reputation for congeniality, gave a pained speech last week warning of the potential for civil war.
“If the court issues a ruling and the government does not comply, then the Israeli public will say, ‘This is the ultimate proof that this is not a democracy anymore,’” Saliternik said. “I say this with trepidation, but if there’s an open battle between the Supreme Court and the Knesset, it could result in street violence.”
Megiddo said that even the possibility of such a crisis has normalized tactics that were once on the fringe, such as refusal to perform military service, a duty seen as sacrosanct across much of Jewish Israeli society. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly warned that the possibility of mass refusal to serve could cause him to leave his post. On Tuesday, a group of military reservists said they plan to recruit tens of thousands more who will pledge to shirk reserve duty if the legislation goes through.
“People who refuse service were considered, in the Israeli public, to be a very extreme minority, and now it’s mainstream to say that people won’t serve the military for a dictatorship,” Megiddo said. “It’s unbelievable how mainstream saying that at the moment is, and that has long-term impact.”
Both supporters and opponents of the legislation in the Knesset are treating a constitutional crisis as a real possibility. The only thing they disagree about is who will be to blame — and both sides appear to be raising the stakes, vowing either to disobey government decisions, or disregard the court.
“The security situation is troubling,” said former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, an opponent of Netanyahu, in a speech last week referencing escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians, and urging Netanyahu to pause the court legislation. “Don’t drag us into an irresponsible constitutional crisis during a security crisis.”
Netanyahu’s allies, unsurprisingly, say it is the opponents of the reform — and the justices of the court themselves — who would be responsible for a constitutional crisis, should the court strike down the law.
Striking down the reform legislation would be a “doomsday weapon,” wrote Dror Eydar, a columnist for the pro-Netanyahu tabloid Israel Hayom, in a piece titled “Inviting a constitutional crisis.” “This striking down would constitute a coup d’etat.”
(Another column four days later in the same publication, however, urged a compromise on the judicial reform in order to avert a constitutional crisis. That piece was written by Miriam Adelson, whose husband Sheldon — the late billionaire philanthropist — founded and funded the paper.)
Netanyahu’s coalition members are still worried enough about the prospect of a constitutional crisis that they’ve agreed to what they refer to as a “softening” of one piece of the legislation. Instead of giving the coalition total control over Supreme Court appointments, the new text of the bill would let the coalition control its first two judicial appointments.
“There’s no doubt that the change we made prevents any real claim that can create a constitutional crisis,” said Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who is spearheading the legislation, on an Israeli news show on Monday.
A view of the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem. (Eddie Gerald via Getty Images)
But then he threw down the gauntlet: If the court still overturns the law, Levin said, “That would cross every red line. We definitely wouldn’t accept it.”
Responding to that claim, Yair Lapid, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, said that if the government disobeys the court, citizens should disobey the government.
“That’s it, the masks are off. The gun is on the table,” Lapid tweeted. “The real prime minister, Yariv Levin, is drawing us into total chaos and a constitutional crisis we won’t be able to come back from. If the justice minister is calling on the government not to obey the law, why should the citizens of Israel obey the government?”
Another Likud lawmaker, Economy Minister Nir Barkat, said he would respect the court’s ruling if it struck the law down. But in any case, the Likud bill doesn’t appear to be a promising avenue toward compromise. “This isn’t softening and compromise, this is Hungary and Poland on steroids,” Labor Party Chair Merav Michaeli said on a radio program on Monday, referring to countries where the government has increased its control over the court system. “From the start, I said we can’t negotiate with them.”
A predecessor of Michaeli’s in the Labor Party has also taken a hard line and — unlike the many voices who worry about a clash of government authorities — has suggested that he would prefer a constitutional crisis to compromise. Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister, said that a constitutional crisis would force senior Israeli military commanders to take sides — and expressed confidence that they would choose to obey the courts.
“It would be a severe constitutional crisis,” Barak said in a speech last month. “That’s when the test of the gatekeepers and defenders of sovereignty would arrive: The head of the Shin Bet, the police commissioner, the chief of staff and the head of the Mossad. I’m convinced that they understand that in a democracy, the only choice is to recognize the supremacy of law and the Supreme Court.”
The mounting threats by military reservists, and comments by former military commanders opposing the court reform, may indicate that the military will opt to follow the court. But Saliternik hopes that’s a choice Israeli forces won’t have to confront.
“This is something that has never happened in Israel,” she said. “It’s so very hard to think about. I very much hope that that government will get a hold of itself and act responsibly.”
—
The post ‘The gun is on the table’: Both sides of Israel’s debate say that a constitutional crisis is coming appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Jewish exodus underway from Heritage Foundation’s antisemitism initiative over Tucker Carlson
The Heritage Foundation’s marquee effort to combat antisemitism, a coalition known as Project Esther, is rapidly losing members following the conservative think tank’s public defense of Tucker Carlson after he gave a friendly interview to the white nationalist and antisemitic provocateur Nick Fuentes.
At least seven individuals and organizations affiliated with Heritage’s National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, launched last year under the Project Esther banner, have resigned or threatened to do so, citing Heritage president Kevin Roberts’s decision to stand by Carlson and his description of the television personality’s critics as a “venomous coalition.”
The defections suggest that Project Esther — unveiled on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack as a conservative “national strategy to counter antisemitism”— could be imploding.
Neither the co-chairs of the initiative nor the Heritage Foundation immediately responded to a request for comment about the resignations.
Conceived as a counterweight to the Biden administration’s 2023 antisemitism strategy, Heritage’s plan focused almost entirely on left-wing and pro-Palestinian activism, portraying what it called a “Hamas Support Network” as the chief driver of antisemitism in America.
From the outset, the project drew skepticism for not including most mainstream Jewish organizations and for downplaying antisemitism on the political right. That tension has now widened into a rupture.
The first public resignation from the task force came Sunday with an announcement from Mark Goldfeder, an Orthodox rabbi and the CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, that he was quitting in protest of Roberts’ defense of Carlson.
“Elevating him and then attacking those who object as somehow un-American or disloyal in a video replete with antisemitic tropes and dog whistles, no less, is not the protection of free speech. It is a moral collapse disguised as courage,” Goldfeder wrote in a letter posted to X.
On Monday, the New York Post reported on the resignation of David Bernstein, author of “Woke Antisemitism” and founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values, who had served on the Heritage task force. Bernstein said Roberts’ language felt like “a real attack against Jewish political agency on the American scene.”
“The phrase ‘venomous coalition aligned against him [Carlson]’—that’s me and any Jewish person who cares about condemning antisemitism,” Bernstein said. “It allows you to justify almost anything said in the name of political conservatism, and that empties it of all meaning.”
There’s no public list of all Project Esther members, but several groups that are named on the initiative’s website told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that they had disaffiliated or were prepared to do so.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a lawyer with the Deborah Project, a legal group that fights antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, said she had resigned from all Heritage affiliations.
“The Heritage folks I’ve encountered on the Task Force have been uniformly terrific and sincere about fighting antisemitism,” she wrote. “But the edifice of Heritage is no longer one which I can trust. … I cannot be questioning the commitment of those who claim to be at my side.”
The Jewish Leadership Project, a conservative network co-founded by Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, said it is “evaluating our involvement” and will withdraw absent “a vigorous explanation that Judaism and Jews are inherently allies of Christians” and “a disconnect from Carlson immediately.”
The Coalition for Jewish Values, led by Rabbi Yaakov Menken, said it has already communicated its intent to resign if Roberts does not retract his remarks and sever ties with Carlson. “Today Heritage has chosen to vocally stand with an antisemite, call his Jewish critics a ‘venomous coalition,’ and slander organizations like CJV,” the group said. “Whether we continue is a ball that is at present in their court.”
Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, echoed that warning: “If [Roberts] doesn’t retract, apologize, and condemn Tucker Carlson… we at the ZOA will no longer be part of the Esther Project.”
And in a statement, Young Jewish Conservatives, another member group, said it was withdrawing its membership entirely. The group accused Carlson of “spewing antisemitism,” ridiculing Christian Zionists, and spreading propaganda for “enemies of the United States.” Roberts’s defense of him, YJC said, was “100% inconsistent with conservative values. … Anyone who aligns with Adolf Hitler must be unequivocally disavowed.”
The World Jewish Congress, an international federation representing Jewish communities and organizations in over 100 countries, remains listed as a participating organization on Project Esther’s website, despite its assertion that it has never been involved.
“WJC was not involved in the creation and is not involved in the implementation of Project Esther,” a spokesperson said.
Asked to respond, a Heritage spokesperson said in a statement, “The WJC was among those present at the launch stage of the task force, which informed the initial list of participants and is reflected on our website. We appreciate the engagement of those who contributed at all stages of this critical mission.”
When Project Esther debuted in 2024, Heritage hailed it as proof that the conservative movement takes antisemitism seriously. The 33-page blueprint called for purging “Hamas propaganda” from school curricula, firing “Hamas-aligned faculty” from U.S. universities, and pressuring social-media platforms to restrict antisemitic content. The goal, it said, was to make “Hamas Supporters” as socially toxic as the Ku Klux Klan or al-Qaida.
Yet the rollout was chaotic. Multiple groups Heritage named as participants — among them Christians United for Israel, the Hudson Institute, the Atlantic Council, and the Republican Jewish Coalition — denied any involvement.
Heritage officials responded by saying they had “invited” numerous Jewish organizations but purposely limited their inclusion. “More of my concern was really with the non-Jewish groups,” James Carafano, Heritage’s senior counselor and a leader of the antisemitism task force, told Jewish Insider. “Quite honestly, if [Jewish groups] were being effective, we wouldn’t have the problem that we have.”
Carafano told Jewish Insider he did not believe antisemitism was a problem on the American right. “White supremacists are not my problem,” he said. “They are not part of being conservative.”
Carafano declined to comment for this story.
Those comments, along with remarks from Luke Moon, executive director of the Christian-Zionist Philos Project, reveal how Heritage’s internal debates foreshadowed today’s crisis. Moon last year disclosed that task force members had discussed whether to call out Carlson and conservative commentator Candace Owens, who has also trafficked in antisemitic tropes, but decided against it.
“We had a long conversation several times about whether or not to, or how much energy do we spend going after, like, Tucker and Candace Owens, or do we really focus on where the majority are right now, at least, which is these folks on campus, [Students for Justice in Palestine] and stuff,” Moon told Jewish Insider last year.
He did not respond to a request for comment about recent events.
That decision now looms large as critics accuse Heritage of adopting a “no enemies to the right” ethos.
Robert’s statement drew swift rebukes from Republican senators Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, as well as from Ben Shapiro, Mike Huckabee, and others who denounced Carlson’s platforming of Fuentes.
“I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer, either,” Roberts said.
Roberts later issued a follow-up post condemning Fuentes’s antisemitism but stopped short of retracting his praise for Carlson.
Shapiro pushed back on Roberts’ characterization. “It is not cancellation to draw moral lines between viewpoints,” Shapiro said in an episode of his podcast Monday. “In fact, we used to call that one of the key aspects of conservatism.”
—
The post Jewish exodus underway from Heritage Foundation’s antisemitism initiative over Tucker Carlson appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Mamdani Remains Favorite on Eve of New York City Mayoral Election Despite Struggling With Jewish Voters
Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, delivers remarks while campaigning at the Hanson Place Seventh-Day Adventist Church in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, US, Nov. 1, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ryan Murphy
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani remains the favorite heading into Election Day on Tuesday, polling indicates, despite the Democratic nominee facing huge vulnerabilities among Jewish voters amid concerns over antisemitism and far-left policies outside the mainstream.
Most polling over the past month of the race has shown Mamdani ahead of his chief rival — former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary earlier this year — by 10 to 18 percentage points, with Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa trailing in third place. One outlier was an Emerson College poll released last week showing Mamdani in the lead by 25 points.
However, a new bombshell survey from AtlasIntel published on Monday showed Cuomo within striking distance, trailing Mamdani by just five points, 44 percent to 39 percent. The survey — which came a day after the same polling outfit had Cuomo trailing Mamdani by six points, indicating an upward trend for the former governor — also found that Cuomo would beat Mamdani 50 percent to 44 percent in a hypothetical two-way race.
Mamdani is currently struggling to win over Jewish New Yorkers, according to several polls, including one from Quinnipiac last week showing only 16 percent of the Jewish vote going to the Democratic nominee compared to 60 percent for Cuomo. A striking 75 percent of Jewish voters said they hold an “unfavorable” opinion of Mamdani, echoing similar findings from other surveys in recent months, such as a Sienna College poll from August.
New York City has the highest Jewish population of any area outside of Israel, giving the Jewish vote in the largest US city significant weight. The lack of support for Mamdani is especially telling given the Jewish community’s typical overwhelming support for Democrats in New York.
Despite his apparent failure to galvanize the Jewish vote ahead of the election, Mamdani has signaled that he will fight on behalf of the city’s Jews if elected mayor.
In a new Jewish Telegraphic Agency interview, Mamdani struck a conciliatory tone, acknowledging Jewish concerns about his candidacy. “I don’t begrudge folks who are skeptical of me,” he said. “I hope to prove that I am someone to build a relationship with, not one to fear.”
The statement marked a notable shift in tone for the outspoken progressive, who has faced criticism for past comments describing Israel as an “apartheid state” and for his refusal to affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist aligned with the left flank of the party, has long been an anti-Israel activist who has supported boycott campaigns targeting Israeli-linked institutions and frequently joined rallies condemning Israeli military actions targeting Hamas terrorists in Gaza. While he insists that his positions are aimed at achieving what he calls “equal rights” in Israel, many Jewish groups have accused Mamdani of engaging in antisemitic tropes.
Mamdani sparked outrage over the summer after he repeatedly refused to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada,” a phrase widely interpreted as a call to harm Jews and Israelis worldwide.
“I fear living in a city, and a nation, where anti-Zionist rhetoric is normalized and contagious,” Rabbi Angela Buchdahl, a prominent Jewish voice at Manhattan’s Central Synagogue, said during Shabbat services on Friday night. “Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has contributed to a mainstreaming of some of the most abhorrent antisemitism.”
She cited Mamdani’s reluctance to label Hamas, which calls for the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel, a terrorist group and his 2023 remark, which surfaced this past week, erroneously saying the New York City Police Department (NYPD) had learned aggressive policing tactics from the Israeli military.
“We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF [Israel Defense Forces],” Mamdani said.
A CNN analysis of his electoral strategy noted that Mamdani’s relationship with Jewish voters “remains fraught.” Polling data suggests that while he performs reasonably well among younger progressive Jews, support among Orthodox and traditional Jewish blocs, particularly in Brooklyn and Queens, remains minimal.
Jewish voters will likely only harden their opposition amid reports that Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the UK Labour Party who has long been accused of antisemitism, was working the phones on Sunday for Mamdani at a Democratic Socialists of America fundraiser.
Cuomo quickly seized on the development, accusing Mamdani of promoting extremism into New York’s politics.
“Having Jeremy Corbyn — someone whose party was found to have committed unlawful acts of discrimination against Jewish people under his leadership – phone-banking for @ZohranKMamdani says everything you need to know,” Cuomo posted on social media. “NY doesn’t need politics of moral compromise. We need leadership that rejects antisemitism, extremism, and division in every form and in every corner.”
Mamdani, for his part, has repeatedly tried to reassure voters that he would advocate for Jewish New Yorkers, reiterating that “antisemitism has no place in this city” and vowing to expand funding for the protection of houses of worship if elected. Yet, for many Jewish voters, his reassurances have not been enough.
Uncategorized
Iran’s Influence in France Surges Amid Gaza War, Targeting Institutions and Public Discourse, Report Finds
“From Gaza to Paris, Resistance!” A sign on display at a pro-Hamas demonstration in France. Photo: Reuters/Fiora Garenzi
The Iranian regime has long worked to infiltrate French society, leveraging political networks, media, and social platforms to expand its influence and stoke unrest, with its operations intensifying since the start of the war in Gaza, according to a new report.
The French think tank France2050 has released a new study revealing how Iran has spent years working to undermine the stability of France, using influence operations and other means to shape politics and the media in a bid to sow chaos and destabilize the government.
Presented to the French Parliament and Ministry of the Interior, the report details the networks the Islamist regime in Tehran has established since 1979, urging lawmakers to create a formal commission of inquiry with full investigative powers to fully expose the scope of the infiltration.
According to Gilles Platret, mayor of Chalon-sur-Saône in eastern France and lead author of the study, Tehran has successfully extended its ideological and political influence not only across the Middle East through its proxies (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and pro-Bashar al-Assad forces in Syria), but also into Western societies.
“[Iranian] infiltration has acted as a poison, slowly seeping into French society for nearly 50 years; drop by drop, it spreads, exerts influence, and corrodes,” Platret writes in the report, noting that Iran’s operations in France are now more powerful than ever.
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, French institutions, media outlets, far-left political parties, major universities, intellectuals, and student bodies have all become targets of Iranian interference, the newly released study found.
“Is it not legitimate to question the explosion of Palestinian flags in public spaces, now seen at most demonstrations, waved even during riots and attacks against French institutions and law enforcement — when Iran has long made the Palestinian cause the spearhead of its effort to win over the Western far left and ultra-left?” Platret says.
“Indeed, since the war last June, the Palestinian flag is increasingly seen alongside the Iranian flag itself,” he continues, referring to the war in Gaza.
Palestinian flags fly over French town halls as municipalities defy a government ban ahead of President Emmanuel Macron’s planned recognition of a Palestinian state. Photo: Screenshot
According to the 85-page report, Tehran relies on its Paris embassy, European Union lobbyists, and operatives funded by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iranian intelligence to operate deep within French territory, pursuing its objectives through covert operations.
“How much longer will France, in the name of supposedly higher diplomatic interests, continue to close its eyes to what is being plotted on its soil — something that threatens its sovereignty and security more each day?” Platret says.
The study also explains that Iran’s growing influence in France serves a dual purpose: to pressure the country on the Iranian nuclear issue, pushing it to influence Israel, and to sow “chaos without war” within French democratic institutions, in line with the “global jihad” strategy enshrined in its constitution.
One of the report’s key findings is that Iran’s extensive political connections and diplomatic network are among the regime’s most important tools, allowing it to expand its influence and shape public discourse within France.
For example, the relationships of certain French political leaders or movements with the Iranian Embassy in Paris, so-called “reformists” in Iran, or Middle Eastern figures linked to Tehran “create clear risks of directing public debate in ways that favor Iranian interests,” the study says.
Beyond its diplomatic network, the report highlights that Iranian intelligence services are actively operating in France, increasingly using social networks as a tool for manipulation.
According to Middle East expert Frédéric Encel, Iran’s strategy is driven by a form of Shiite expansionism that remains central to the regime, with its inherent violence an inseparable aspect of its nature.
In pursuit of these objectives, Encel explains that the regime relies on propaganda, infiltration, and physical elimination.
“Everything must submit to the imperative of global jihad, even the very text of the Qur’an, whose interpretation is constantly twisted … to merge the religious with the political, in service of an ideological project for which France has become a stage,” the study says.
For years, Iran has orchestrated terrorist attacks across the globe, engaged in hostage-taking, and even political assassinations, with its efforts intensifying since the start of the war in Gaza, using the conflict to provoke civil unrest and mask ongoing terrorist operations.
In July, France, Britain, the US, and 11 other allies issued a joint statement condemning a rise in Iranian assassination and kidnapping plots in the West
Inside Iran, the regime is responsible for severe human rights violations, routinely repressing dissent and using extreme violence against opponents, peaceful protesters, and independent voices.