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
The Palestinian Authority Condemns Iran’s Attacks on Arab States — But Not Israel
Emergency personnel work at the site of an Iranian strike, after Iran launched missile barrages following attacks by the US and Israel on Saturday, in Beit Shemesh, Israel, March 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Other than a few informative reports, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is almost silent about the Israeli-American war with Iran.
So far, the PA has limited itself to condemning Iran’s attacks on other Arab states and requesting “an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers and for a session of the UN Security Council.”
The PA has neither condemned the Israeli-American attack on Iran, nor has it said anything positive about the Iranian missiles launched against Israel:
The State of Palestine strongly condemned the Iranian attacks on several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq, stressing its full rejection of any violation of their sovereignty or aggression against them by any party.
It described the attacks as a blatant violation of the UN Charter and principles of international law…
It also reaffirmed its consistent position against resorting to violence and war, calling for dialogue as the means to resolve disputes … and for adherence to international law to strengthen regional and international peace and security.
President Mahmoud Abbas called for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers and for a session of the UN Security Council to address the serious challenges facing the region, its countries, and their sovereignty. [emphasis added]
[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, Feb. 28, 2026]
Vice President of the State of Palestine Hussein Al-Sheikh on Saturday reaffirmed Palestine’s rejection and condemnation of the Iranian attacks on several Arab sister states … and conveyed Palestine’s solidarity with the Arab states and support for any measures they deem appropriate in response.
Al-Sheikh stressed that the State of Palestine and its leadership firmly reject any violation of the sovereignty of Arab states or aggression against them by any party, describing the attacks as a blatant violation of the UN Charter and the principles of international law.
[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, Feb. 28, 2026]
Although the PA has not openly applauded the joint US and Israeli attack on Iran, there is reason to believe they silently appreciate the development.
Palestinian Media Watch has exposed that the PA blamed Iran for making Hamas launch the devastating Oct. 7 war to “serve its Iranian masters” and accused Iran of supporting Hamas to “destroy the Palestinian national project,” thereby enabling it to replace the PLO as “the sole representative of the Palestinian people”:
PLO National Council member Muwaffaq Matar: “There is no clearer proof [than Iranian leader Khamenei’s speech] of Hamas’ subordination to this Iranian regime. In this speech there is nothing new for us, because we have already understood how much this regime controls Hamas, has given it its blessing, supported it, and aided it to destroy the Palestinian national project completely, so that it [Hamas] and also its partners who follow Iran will be the artificial alternative to the PLO.”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, June 3, 2024]
This claim was reiterated recently by PLO Central Council member and regular columnist for the official PA daily, Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul:
[Hamas] began to move according to the direction of the wind, based on the Muslim Brotherhood’s principle of taqiyya. Nothing is constant for [Hamas] except to continue serving as a paid pawn in the hands of the enemies, in order to sabotage the national project, dissolve it, incite against the legitimate leadership. [emphasis added]
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 18, 2026]
Following the Israeli-American attack, former spokesman of the PA Security Forces Adnan Al-Damiri even mocked both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iran.
Al-Damiri prophesized that the Iranian people won’t reach for their freedom made possible by Netanyahu (and Trump) but will continue to “support the regime.” Iran’s attack on several neighboring Arab states, many of which host US military bases, was ridiculed by Al-Damiri as “stupidity and malice”:
Posted text: “The Iranian people are not a plaything to accede to [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu, even if it is against the regime. Netanyahu’s appeal to the Iranian people will fail, and the people will set out to support the regime. The war will last a long time to complete the mission of toppling the [Iranian] fundamentalist regime…
Iran, out of stupidity and malice, attacked its [Arab] neighbors who opposed the war. It weakened itself by directly involving its neighbors.
This will open the possibility of ground military activity from the territories of its neighbors and with their participation. The war will last weeks, perhaps months.”
[Former Official Spokesman of the PA Security Forces Adnan Al-Damiri, Facebook page, Feb. 28, 2026]
So far, only the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) has openly mourned the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with a poster and text calling the Israeli-American attack “a cowardly assassination operation committed by the Zionist and American treachery.”
Note: On June 3, 2024, then Iranian leader Khamenei gave a speech in which he praised Hamas’ terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7, stating that:
An army that claimed to be one of the strongest armies in the world has been defeated inside its own land. Who has defeated it? Was it a powerful government? No, it was defeated by Resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It was defeated by these [groups]. This is what Al-Aqsa Flood did.
He neither mentioned the PA nor the PLO at all but only the “Resistance” and the “Palestinian people.”
The author is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this story first appeared.
Uncategorized
Purim and Lion’s Roar: From Sinai to Shushan to Sovereignty
A woman holds a poster with the picture of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as people gather after Khamenei was killed in Israeli and U.S. strikes on Saturday, in Tehran, Iran, March 1, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
I am writing this from Israel. Since roughly 8:10 a.m. on Saturday morning, my family and I — including my grandchildren — have been moving in and out of our apartment’s mamad (safe room) as sirens sound and alerts flash across our phones.
This is not symbolic. For more than two and a half years, it has been part of our routine, largely because an Islamist tyranny that controls modern Persia has made clear its intention to destroy the world’s only Jewish state and confront what it calls the “decadent West.”
Purim begins this Monday night. It is one of the most joyful holidays on the Jewish calendar. We commemorate events roughly 2,300 years ago, when the Jews of the Persian Empire thwarted the genocidal plan of Haman, a Persian vizier who sought to eliminate every Jew under ancient Persian rule.
The connection between then and now is not only rhetorical. It is theological.
The Jewish sages distinguish between two moments of covenant in Jewish history. At Mount Sinai, the Jewish people accepted the Torah amid overwhelming miracles and revelation. The Midrash (the rabbinic interpretive tradition) describes G-d holding the mountain over them “like a barrel.” The Talmud asks whether a covenant accepted under such circumstances can truly be considered voluntary.
Centuries later, in Shushan (the royal capital of the Persian Empire), the Jewish people accepted the covenant again — this time by choice. Megillat Esther (the Book of Esther) states, “The Jews upheld and accepted.” The Talmud understands this as a reaffirmation of Sinai, but now without thunder, seas splitting, plagues, or other spectacular and clearly divine miracles.
A royal Persian decree had set a date for annihilation. The Jews organized, fasted, lobbied the king, and prepared to defend themselves. According to our sages, it was at that moment that the covenant became fully embraced.
Sinai represents a covenant formed through revelation. Purim represents a covenant embraced through responsibility. That distinction matters.
The Book of Esther never mentions G-d explicitly. Unlike the Exodus narrative in the Passover Haggadah, which foregrounds Divine intervention, the Book of Esther reads like statecraft. A Persian official secures authority to eliminate a minority population. The decree circulates through an imperial bureaucracy. The Jewish community must decide how to respond.
“Gather the Jews,” Mordechai tells Esther. This is strategic, not mythical, language.
The Jews of Shushan survived because they took responsibility for their fate and they acted.
That pattern has a modern parallel.
For decades, the Iranian regime has funded, armed, and directed groups that target Israelis and Americans — whom it labels the “little Satan” and the “big Satan.” From Beirut to Buenos Aires, from sustained support for Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah, Tehran has made proxy warfare against America and Israel a central instrument of state policy.
At the same time, Iran has advanced uranium enrichment and ballistic missile programs while engaging in negotiations designed to preserve those capabilities.
Days before Purim this year, Israel and the United States launched Operation Lion’s Roar, referred to in Washington as Epic Fury.
Iranian leadership assumed hesitation would prevail — that Western debate would slow or negate response, that deterrence would erode, and that proxy pressure, escalating threats, and negotiations designed to buy time would delay decisive action. They were wrong. Once again, Israel directly responded to threats against it.
History offers important perspective.
In 1948, roughly 650,000 Jews declared independence, while five Arab armies responded by trying to destroy it, including the British-trained and armed Arab Legion. The new state lacked air power, heavy artillery, and strategic depth. Many predicted its total annihilation. But Israel fought, won the war, and secured its independence.
In 1967, Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran, expelled UN forces from Sinai, and massed Soviet-armed Egyptian divisions along Israel’s border. Syrian artillery shelled the north. Jordanian forces controlled the high ground overlooking central Israel. At its narrowest point, the country measured nine miles across, with a population of barely 2.5 million facing neighboring states with a combined population of roughly 40 million.
Israelis feared catastrophe; thousands of graves were prepared. Six days later, Israel won the war and dramatically altered the map of the Middle East.
In October 1973, on Yom Kippur, fewer than 200 Israeli tanks faced roughly 1,400 Syrian tanks on the Golan Heights. Reinforcements were hours away. A breakthrough would have exposed the Galilee and major civilian centers. The line held. Syrian armored forces suffered heavy losses.
In Sinai during that same war, Egypt’s surprise assault initially overwhelmed Israeli positions. Weeks later, Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal, encircled Egypt’s Third Army, and advanced to within roughly sixty miles of Cairo.
In 2024, Israeli intelligence penetrated Hezbollah’s communications networks, disrupted command structures, and eliminated most of its senior leadership. Analysts who insisted Hezbollah was effectively unbeatable without catastrophic Israeli losses were forced to watch its capabilities steadily collapse.
None of these episodes suspended natural law. They reflected decisions made under tremendous pressure. And this is where the story of Purim becomes essential: when open miracles are absent, G-d works through human agency.
For centuries in exile, Jewish communities survived, often barely, without sovereignty. Waiting was frequently the only option. But Purim established a different principle: divine providence does not remove human agency; it operates through it.
Political Zionism functioned in that mode. No prophet guaranteed success. No spectacular miracle cleared its path. Zionist leaders organized congresses, negotiated with empires, purchased land, built institutions, and formed defense forces. They acted.
Sovereignty eliminates the option of passivity. It requires decisions, risk, and accountability.
As I write this, the sirens keep sounding. As usual, Israelis will gather our children and move into reinforced spaces. We will follow Home Front Command instructions. When the all-clear comes, we will return to our lives as citizens of a sovereign Jewish state.
Some clearly prefer the image of Jews as permanent victims — admired or to some degree tolerated because they are powerless. Purim rejects that model. When we gather, mobilize, defend, and take responsibility — whether on the Golan in 1973, in intelligence and military operations against Hezbollah, or in confronting nuclear and missile threats from Tehran — we act in the spirit clarified in Shushan.
Jewish survival in the modern age rests on agency — on the willingness to participate in history rather than endure it. May this be the last Purim in which a tyrannical regime in Persia threatens the Jewish people and the free world. Next year (and hopefully much sooner), we hope Iran will be free of its oppressors — and at peace with Israel.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
If the Ayatollahs Are Overthrown, What Is Next for Israel and Iran?
Israel and Iran flags are seen in this illustration taken June 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
If the Iranian regime does fall — what happens next? Will Iran return to the peaceful history of its past, or will more chaos ensue?
History offers both warning and hope.
In ancient Persia under King Ahasuerus, a decree was issued by Haman to annihilate the Jewish people. Haman’s hatred was not casual prejudice. It was genocidal policy. Yet through courage, strategy, and unity, Queen Esther exposed the plot. The Jews were granted the right to defend themselves and survived what was meant to be their destruction. Purim became a celebration not only of survival, but of clarity in the face of existential threat.
Israel’s modern reality is not ancient Persia, but the echoes are unmistakable. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has built its regional strategy around encircling Israel with armed proxies. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen have all received Iranian funding, training, and weaponry. Tehran’s leaders have repeatedly called for Israel’s elimination while advancing a nuclear program that has alarmed the international community for decades.
A regime change in Iran would therefore reverberate far beyond Tehran. But we must be realistic. Regimes can fall quickly. Narratives do not.
Decades of indoctrination inside Iran have portrayed Israel as a cosmic enemy. Beyond Iran, global discourse has increasingly cast Israel as uniquely malevolent, often divorced from context. Social media accelerates outrage while compressing history into slogans. Complex security dilemmas are flattened into caricature. Millions form hardened opinions about a country they have never visited, about a conflict they have never studied in depth.
A post revolutionary Iran would not automatically translate into pro-Israel sentiment. Prejudice rarely evaporates with a leadership change. If peace between the two countries is to be more than a pause between conflicts, it must be built deliberately.
So what are the realistic pathways?
First, intellectual honesty about history. The Jewish connection to the land of Israel is ancient and continuous. Archaeology, historical texts, and liturgy testify to a people whose national and spiritual identity is rooted in Jerusalem and the broader land. Recognizing Jewish indigeneity reframes the debate from colonial accusation to national self determination. Education systems across the region would need to replace erasure with acknowledgment. That is not a concession. It is a prerequisite for coexistence.
Second, regional integration based on shared interests. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that longstanding hostility is not immutable. Economic cooperation, technological exchange, and security coordination between Israel and several Arab states have already produced tangible benefits. Trade has expanded. Tourism has grown. Joint ventures in renewable energy, water technology, and cyber defense are underway. A future Iran that abandons revolutionary maximalism could, in theory, plug into the same architecture of mutual benefit.
Third, economic normalization as a stabilizing force. Iran possesses immense human capital, natural resources, and strategic geography. Israel is a global leader in innovation, from agricultural technology to medical research and cybersecurity. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict. When prosperity is tied to stability, the incentive structure shifts away from confrontation.
Fourth, people to people engagement. Hatred thrives in abstraction. It weakens in proximity. Academic exchanges, cultural dialogue, and civil society partnerships can humanize what propaganda has dehumanized. The Iranian people have repeatedly demonstrated courage in protesting repression. Many distinguish between political opposition to their rulers and personal animosity toward Jews. Those spaces of nuance must be widened.
And yet, realism demands humility. Human nature contains rivalry as well as compassion. The 20th century, despite unprecedented technological progress, produced unparalleled destruction. The hope that humanity will transcend conflict entirely has so far proven elusive. Peace may not be an eternal state. It may be episodic and fragile.
That does not render it meaningless.
Israel does not aspire to endless war. It aspires to secure sovereignty in its ancestral homeland. It aspires to raise children without air raid sirens and to innovate without existential distraction.
If change comes in Tehran, it will open a door. Whether that door leads to durable coexistence depends on choices made not only by leaders, but by societies willing to confront myths and abandon absolutism.
Peace may never be permanent. But it can be extended. It can be strengthened. And in a region too accustomed to despair, even incremental light after darkness is worth striving for.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.