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
Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham secures GOP Senate nomination
(JTA) — South Carolina Sen. Darline Graham defeated U.S. House Rep. Ralph Norman in a special primary runoff on Tuesday, putting her in a dominant position to win the Senate seat left vacant with the death in July of her older brother, the pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham.
The Associated Press called the race two hours after polls closed at 9:01pm. By the time 99% of votes were tallied, Darline Graham had secured 52.3% of the votes to Norman’s 47.7%.
“Tonight is a great victory, but it’s not the finish line,” Graham told her supporters on Tuesday night. “In fact, it is the starting line for an even bigger fight, which lies ahead.”
If Darline Graham goes on to win November’s general election against Democrat Annie Andrews, she will have big shoes to fill. Her brother served 23 years in the Senate and eight in the U.S. House. He traveled to Israel about a dozen times between Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack on the Jewish state and his death at age 71.
Heading into the primaries, analysts expressed no doubt that Darline Graham would be pro-Israel. But matching Lindsey Graham’s level of foreign policy activity, they warned, would be a formidable task. Meanwhile, her campaign to date has largely avoided discussion of international affairs. Instead, she has focused on domestic concerns like reducing spending, securing borders and promoting Trump-backed policies.
During a debate aired on C-SPAN last week, Graham struggled to respond to a foreign policy question about Taiwan and the South China Sea, ultimately admitting that she’s “not that informed on national security.”
“I’m not a polished politician up here,” she said. “National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise.”
Later addressing issues of affordability, Graham linked the domestic economic situation to the war in Iran and said she trusts President Donald Trump “to get the Strait of Hormuz open.” She also voiced her preference for financial sanctions over putting troops on the ground.
Asked about the country’s relationship with Israel, Graham described the Jewish state as “one of our strongest allies.” Recognizing her brother’s close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she added that during a recent meeting with the Israeli premier, she vowed to “continue supporting Israel in any way” she can.
“We have to stand with Israel,” Graham said.
At their previous face-off, Graham had secured 33% of the vote, while Norman came in second place, at 25%, against eight fellow Republicans. But South Carolina requires primary winners to earn a majority of votes in order to avoid a two-candidate runoff. In the November general election, Graham will contend with Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who is unlikely to prevail in the solidly Republican state.
Tuesday’s runoff marked the third time in two months that South Carolina Republicans came to the polls to select a Senate candidate. Lindsey Graham, won the first primary in June but died suddenly the next month from an aortic dissection.
A few days later, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, appointed Darline Graham to finish her brother’s term. Though she only had minimal policy experience, including a leadership role at the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, she earned President Donald Trump’s endorsement and declared her candidacy in the full race.
Trump celebrated Graham’s nomination in a Tuesday night Truth Social post, writing that “Darline Graham rides Trump endorsement to win GOP nomination for brother’s South Carolina seat.”
Graham thanked Trump profusely during her Tuesday night acceptance speech, recognizing the president as one of her brother’s “closest friends” and crediting him for helping her secure a victory.
Norman, meanwhile, thanked his supporters on Tuesday night for their “prayer crusade of a campaign,” stressing that he “did not prepare a concession speech.” He accused “outside PACs” of spending $8 million opposing him and blamed the Democrats for this situation, adding that “they got what they wanted.”
He recognized Trump’s role in the race as a supporter of Graham, noting that he “never understood why he got involved” but that it is the president’s prerogative to do so. Nonetheless, Norman pledged that there “won’t be any tears” and that he planned to back Graham.
“I’m not supporting a Democrat, so I will support her, Darline, as best I can,” he added. “We’ll live to fight another day.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham secures GOP Senate nomination appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Progressive politics notches another deep-red win in Oklahoma race, bolstered by anti-AIPAC messaging
(JTA) — Oklahoma nurse and activist N’kiyla Jasmine Thomas, who ran a campaign with anti-AIPAC messaging, defeated centrist Jim Priest in a Democratic Senate primary runoff on Tuesday that marked the latest victory for a progressive politician in a solidly conservative state.
The Associated Press called Tuesday’s race, a sequel to the state’s June primary, less than an hour after polls closed. By the time 80% of votes were tallied, Thomas had accrued 59.9% of the votes to Priest’s 40.1%.
Like many progressives in the current election cycle, she repeatedly vowed during her campaign to reject funds from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobby.
Although AIPAC has not participated in this race, Thomas posted a social media reel in November that showed her pulling a giant red trash bin, labeled “AIPAC Funds” and “Corporate PAC Funds.” Adjacent to the reel is a caption that reads, “Just taking out the trash.”
“I am a sole grassroots candidate,” she said in the reel. “And we are not accepting AIPAC or corporate PAC funds. It’s garbage.”
Asked about her rhetoric on AIPAC, Thomas told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a written statement that her “concerns [with AIPAC] have NEVER been about Jewish people, Judaism, or Israel’s existence,” adding that she instead prioritizes human rights, civilian lives and the accountability of all governments.
“When I discuss political influence or organizations, my focus is on the broader role of money, lobbying, and special interests in our political system, not on any one religion or community,” she added.
In their previous matchup, a five-candidate race, neither candidate had earned the majority required to secure a win. Thomas earned 45% of votes in June, while Priest, a lawyer and ordained minister, accrued 24%.
Heading into Tuesday’s runoff, it was already clear that both Thomas and Priest would be longshots this November in a state that hasn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate in more than three decades. The Republican opponent, Rep. Kevin Hern, swept his primary and has the endorsement of President Donald Trump.
But Thomas’s win served as yet another litmus test on the potency of progressivism in a deep-red state, just a week after democratic socialist Angie Nixon knocked trounced a moderate candidate in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary.
Thomas, unlike Nixon, is not a member of Democratic Socialists of America, but she has openly identified with socialist policies. The 31-year-old is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation who says she represents “the next generation of leaders.” Among her priorities are women’s health and safety, civil rights and LGBTQIA+ protections.
During a debate this past Saturday, both Thomas and Priest described a “genocide” in Gaza. Priest linked the word to Israel, while Thomas connected it to the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She emphasized that “we can be for our Jewish brothers and sisters, and we can be against Netanyahu and what he is doing.”
“He is committing genocide. He is absolutely murdering children,” Thomas said at the debate. “We have to stop providing funding for these wars.”
In her statement to JTA, Thomas expressed her commitment to a two-state solution, adding that “both Israelis and Palestinians deserve the opportunity to live in peace, security and self-determination.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Progressive politics notches another deep-red win in Oklahoma race, bolstered by anti-AIPAC messaging appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Montreal passes Palestinian solidarity motion after removing text on cutting ties with Israel
(JTA) — Montreal has passed a motion of solidarity with Palestinians after stripping a clause that called for severing institutional and diplomatic ties with Israel.
Montreal’s city council late Monday adopted the measure, which also removed earlier references to Israeli “apartheid” and “genocide,” after a contentious debate about the role of local government in denouncing conflicts abroad. The amended motion passed with 54 councillors voting in favor and six against.
The motion was introduced by Projet Montréal, a progressive, environmentalist municipal party that forms the opposition in the city council. An original version demanded the city “immediately suspend its institutional ties with the current government of Israel, its institutions, and its municipalities.” Major Canadian Jewish organizations pushed to discard that clause.
Montreal Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada clashed with progressive councillors during Monday’s debate. She argued that it was not the role of a city government to make determinations about international crises, saying that “recognizing the limits of our institution is not turning a blind eye to Gaza.” Changes to the final motion from Martinez Ferrada’s administration focused on diversity and inclusion in Montreal.
According to the original proposal by Projet Montréal, Israeli government representatives would no longer have been invited to Montreal City Hall until Israel “returns to its internationally recognized borders, ceases its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people and ends its violations of international law.”
The initial motion also stipulated that Montreal “recognizes and denounces the apartheid regime imposed in Palestine and the genocide perpetrated there,” citing definitions of “apartheid” and “genocide” that international human rights groups and scholars have used to describe Israel. Another clause condemned rising antisemitism and said “the Jewish communities of Montreal and elsewhere, as well as people of Israeli origin, cannot be held responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.”
The measure’s dilution comes after national Jewish organizations raised strong opposition to the initial language. B’nai Brith Canada said in an open letter to the city council earlier this month that it would be “inappropriate and exacerbate tensions between communities” if Montreal weighed in on the Middle East.
“It is deceitful and inflammatory to conflate Israel with Apartheid South Africa, and Canada has rejected the view that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid,” the group said. “No court of competent jurisdiction has found that a genocide has occurred.” B’nai Brith also linked the proposed policy with antisemitism, saying it would “further normalize the targeting of our Jewish community.”
After Monday’s vote, B’nai Brith Canada celebrated the motion’s transformation.
“We are pleased that the city council did not adopt the deceitful and distorted language contained in the original motion,” Paola Samuel, the regional director for Quebec and Atlantic Canada, said in a statement.
Rabbi Yehoshua Ellis, a member of the clergy at the Montreal-area synagogue Shaar Hashomayim, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the final motion resulted from Jews “mobilizing” in support of Israel.
Projet Montréal called the solidarity motion a “historic breakthrough,” but lamented the changes that “significantly weakened the scope of the original motion.”
“Palestine deserves the same solidarity as Montréal has expressed towards so many other peoples,” the party said in a social media statement. “Thousands of Montréalers have loved ones directly affected and we have the responsibility to stand by their side.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Montreal passes Palestinian solidarity motion after removing text on cutting ties with Israel appeared first on The Forward.
