Uncategorized
‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests
(JTA) — When Benjamin Netanyahu put his controversial calls for judicial reform on pause two weeks ago, many thought the protesters in Israel and abroad might declare victory and take a break. And yet a week ago Saturday some 200,000 people demonstrated in Tel Aviv, and pro-democracy protests continued among Diaspora Jews and Israeli expats, including those who gather each Sunday in New York’s Washington Square Park.
On its face, the weeks of protest have been about proposed legislation that critics said would sap power from the Israeli Supreme Court and give legislators — in this case, led by Netanyahu’s recently elected far-right coalition — unchecked and unprecedented power. Protesters said that, in the absence of an Israeli constitution establishing basic rights and norms, they were fighting for democracy. The government too says the changes are about democracy, claiming under the current system unelected judges too often overrule elected lawmakers and the will of Israel’s diverse electorate.
But the political dynamics in Israel are complex, and the proposals and the backlash are also about deeper cracks in Israeli society. Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, recently said in a podcast that the crisis in Israel represents “six linked but separate stories unfolding at the same time.” Beyond the judicial reform itself, these stories include the Palestinians and the occupation, a resurgent patriotism among the center and the left, chaos within Netanyahu’s camp, a Diaspora emboldened to weigh in on the future of Zionism and the rejection on the part of the public of a reform that failed the “reasonableness test.”
“If these protests are effective in the long run, it will be, I think, because they will have succeeded at reorganizing and mobilizing the Israeli electorate to think and behave differently than before,” said Kurtzer.
I recently asked observers, here and in Israel, what they feel is really mobilizing the electorate, and what kind of Israel will emerge as a result of the showdown. The respondents included organizers of the protests, supporters of their aims and those skeptical of the protesters’ motivations. They discussed a slew of issues just below the surface of the protest, including the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, divisions over the increasing strength of Israel’s haredi Orthodox sector, and a lingering divide between Ashkenazi Jews with roots in Europe and Mizrahi Jews whose ancestry is Middle Eastern and North African.
Conservatives, meanwhile, insist that Israeli “elites” — the highly educated, the tech sector, the military leadership, for starters — don’t respect the will of the majority who brought Netanyahu and his coalition partners to power.
Here are the emerging themes of weeks of protest:
Defending democracy
Whatever their long-term concerns about Israel’s future, the protests are being held under the banner of “democracy.”
For Alon-Lee Green, one of the organizers of the protests, the issues are equality and fairness. “People in Israel,” said Green, national co-director of Standing Together, a grassroots movement in Israel, “hundreds of thousands of them, are going out to the streets for months now not only because of the judicial reform, but also — and mainly — because of the fundamental question of what is the society we want to live in: Will we keep living in a society that is unequal, unfair and that is moving away from our basic needs and desires, or will it be an equal society for everyone who lives in our land?”
Shany Granot-Lubaton, who has been organizing pro-democracy rallies among Israelis living in New York City, says Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and the coalition’s haredi Orthodox parties “are waging a war against democracy and the freedoms of citizens.”
“They seek to exert control over the Knesset and the judicial system, appoint judges in their favor and legalize corruption,” she said. “If this legal coup is allowed to proceed, minorities will be in serious danger, and democracy itself will be threatened.”
Two researchers at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Herzliya’s Reichman University, psychology student Benjamin Amram and research associate Keren L.G. Snider, said Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reform “undermines the integrity of Israel’s democracy by consolidating power.”
“How can citizens trust a government that ultimately has no limitations set upon them?” they asked in a joint email. “At a time when political trust and political representation are at the lowest points, this legislation can only create instability and call into question the intentions of the current ruling party. When one coalition holds all the power, laws and policies can be swiftly overturned, causing instability and volatility.”
A struggle between two Israels
Other commentators said the protests revealed fractures within Israeli society that long predated the conflict over judicial reform. “The split is between those that believe Israel should be a more religious country, with less democracy, and see democracy as only a system of elections and not a set of values, and those who want Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state,” Tzipi Livni, who served in the cabinets of right-wing prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert before tacking to the center in recent years, recently told Haaretz.
Author and translator David Hazony called this “a struggle between two Israels” — one that sees Israel’s founding vision as a European-style, rights-based democracy, and the other that sees that vision as the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland.
“Those on the first side believe that the judiciary has always been Israel’s protector of rights and therefore of democracy, against the rapaciousness and lawlessness of politicians in general and especially those on the right. Therefore an assault on its supremacy is an assault on democracy itself. They accuse the other side of being barbaric, antidemocratic and violent,” said Hazony, editor of the forthcoming anthology “Jewish Priorities.”
As for the other side, he said, they see an activist judiciary as an attempt by Ashkenazi elites to force their minority view on the majority. Supporters of the government think it is entirely unreasonable “for judges to think they can choose their successors, strike down constitutional legislation and rule according to ‘that which is reasonable in the eyes of the enlightened community in Israel,’” said Hazony, quoting Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and bane of Israel’s right.
(Naveh Dromi, a right-wing columnist for Yediot Achronot, puts this more bluntly: “The problem,” she writes, “lies in the fact that the left has no faith in its chance to win an election, so it relies on the high court to represent it.”)
Daniel Tauber, an attorney and Likud Central Committee member, agrees that those who voted for Netanyahu and his coalition have their own concerns about a democracy — one dominated by “elites,” which in the Israeli context means old-guard Ashkenazi Jews, powerful labor unions and highly educated secular Jews. “The more this process is subject to veto by non-democratic institutions, whether it be the Court chosen as it is, elite military units, the Histadrut [labor union], or others, the more people will lose faith in democracy,” said Tauber.
Green also said there is “a war waging now between two elites in Israel” — the “old and more established liberal elite, who consist of the financial, high-tech army and industry people,” and the “new emerging elite of the settlers and the political far-right parties.”
Israelis protest against the government’s planned judicial overhaul, outside the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, March 27, 2023. (Jamal Awad/Flash90)
And yet, he said, “I think we will lose if one of these elites wins. The real victory of this historic political moment in Israel will be if we achieve true equality, both to the people who are not represented by the Jewish supremacists, such as the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to the people who are not represented by the ‘old Israel,’ such as the haredi and Mizrahi people on the peripheries.”
The crises behind the crisis
Although the protests were ignited by Netanyahu’s calls for judicial reform, they also represented pushback against the most right-wing government in Israeli history — which means at some level the protests were also about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of religion in Israeli society. “The unspoken motivation driving the architects and supporters of the [judicial] ‘reform,’ as well as the protest leaders, is umbilically connected to the occupation,” writes Carolina Landsmann, a Haaretz columnist. If Netanyahu has his way, she writes, “There will be no more two-state solution, and there will be no territorial compromises. The new diplomatic horizon will be a single state, with the Palestinians as subjects deprived of citizenship.”
Nimrod Novik, the Israel Fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, said that “once awakened, the simmering resentment of those liberal Israelis about other issues was brought to the surface.” The Palestinian issue, for example, is at an “explosive moment,” said Novik: The Palestinian Authority is weakened and ineffective, Palestinian youth lack hope for a better future, and Israeli settlers feel emboldened by supporters in the ruling coalition. “The Israeli security establishment took this all into account when warning the government to change course before it is too late,” said Novik.
Kurtzer too noted that the Palestinians “also stand to be extremely victimized following the passage of judicial reform, both in Israel and in the West Bank.” And yet, he said, most Israelis aren’t ready to upend the current status quo between Israelis and Palestinians. “It can also be true that the Israeli public can only build the kind of coalition that it’s building right now because it is patently not a referendum on the issue of Palestinian rights,” he said.
Religion and state
Novik spoke about another barely subterranean theme of the protests: the growing power of the haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, parties. Secular Israelis especially resent that the haredim disproportionately seek exemption from military service and that non-haredi Israelis contribute some 90% of all taxes collected. One fear of those opposing the judicial reform legislation is that the religious parties will “forever secure state funding to the haredi Orthodox school system while exempting it from teaching the subjects required for ever joining the workforce. It is to secure for them an exemption from any military or other national service. And it is to expand the imposition of their lifestyle on non-Orthodox Israelis.”
What’s next
Predictions for the future range from warnings of a civil war (by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, among others) to an eventual compromise on Netanyahu’s part to the emergence of a new center electorate that will reject extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
David E. Bernstein, a law professor at the George Mason University School of Law who writes frequently about Israel, imagines a future without extremists. “One can definitely easily imagine the business, academic and legal elite using their newfound political voice to insist that future governments not align with extremists, that haredi authority over national life be limited, and, perhaps most important, that Israel create a formal constitution that protects certain basic rights,” he said. “Perhaps there will also be demand to counter such long-festering problems as corruption, disproportionate influence over export markets by a few influential families, burgeoning lawlessness in the Arab sector and a massive shortage of affordable housing.”
Elie Bennett, director of International Strategy at the Israel Democracy Institute, also sees an opportunity in the crisis.
In the aftermath of the disastrous 1973 Yom Kippur war, he said, Israel “rebuilt its military and eventually laid the foundations for today’s ‘startup nation.’ In this current crisis, we do not need a call-up of our reserves forces, or a massive airlift of American weaponry to prevail. What we need is goodwill among fellow Israelis and a commitment to work together to strengthen our society and reach an agreed-upon constitutional framework. If we are able to achieve such an agreement, it will protect our rights, better define the relationships between the branches of government, and result in an Israel that is more stable and prosperous than ever as we celebrate 75 years of independence.”
—
The post ‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel Votes in Favor of Iran Joining International Cheer Union: ‘The Iranian People Are Not Enemies’
Ludmila Yasinska, far right, posing with members of the Israeli Cheer Union competing at the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships in Orlando, Florida. Photo: Provided
Israel’s representative at the International Cheer Union (ICU) General Meeting in Orlando, Florida, this week voted in favor of Iran becoming a member nation of the organization.
Ludmila Yasinska, president of the Israeli Cheer Union, attended the annual meeting in-person and voted for Iran joining the ICU, the official world governing body for cheerleading.
The decision was approved, and a total of five applicant countries have newly joined the organization: Iran, Sint Maarten, Iceland, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. The ICU now has 126 national federation members across all continents, and each receives one vote for all General Meeting voting processes.
“The vote in favor of Iran’s participation in international competitions expresses a clear distinction between the Iranian people and the terrorist regime,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “It is a values-based position that sees the Iranian people not as enemies, but as human beings who seek to take part in the international arena, to compete, and to be partners in an open and fair world. It is also a statement of hope — that despite the complex reality, there is room to distinguish between citizens and leadership, and to extend a hand toward a different future.”
“May the day come when we can stand side by side and cheer together,” she added.
According to experts, the vast majority of the Iranian people oppose the authoritarian, Islamist regime that has ruled the country since 1979. In January, the regime’s security forces killed and imprisoned tens of thousands of civilians to crush anti-government protests that erupted across Iran.
The ICU General Meeting took place before the start of the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships. This year, Israel competed in the international competition for the first time ever. The championships started on Wednesday and concluded on Friday.
“It was an amazing feeling and a great source of pride to represent Israel on the world stage,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “Despite all the difficult times and the situation in Israel before the championship, we never stopped believing or working toward this moment.”
The competition occurred amid a ceasefire pausing the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, whose leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction. Before the temporary truce went into effect, Israelis spent weeks running to bomb shelters as the Iranian regime launched barrages of ballistic missiles at the Jewish state. Iran’s chief terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, also fired rockets at northern Israel from Lebanon.
“There were times when we had to train on Zoom because we could not leave our homes. We also had one intensive week where some of our girls from the north stayed in our homes, just so we could have the opportunity to train together as one team,” Yasinska explained. “After all of this hard preparation, sacrifice, and determination, to finally represent our country was incredibly emotional and meaningful. It is a huge honor for us, and it was very important to show the world that Israel is on the international map of this sport — standing strong, competing proudly, and doing the very best we can.”
In 2021, the ICU was granted full recognition by the International Olympic Committee.
Uncategorized
London Gallery Cancels Antisemitic Art Exhibit After Pro-Israel Lawyers Intervene
Demonstrators attend the “Lift The Ban” rally organised by Defend Our Juries, challenging the British government’s proscription of “Palestine Action” under anti-terrorism laws, in Parliament Square, in London, Britain, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
A gallery in southwest London has canceled a traveling art exhibition that it was set to host next month after a group of pro-Israel lawyers expressed concern about the show’s artwork promoting antisemitic content, including conspiracy theories about Jews and images that demonize Israeli and Jewish individuals.
“Drawings Against Genocide” by British artist Matthew Collings was set to be open at the Delta House Gallery in Wandsworth from May 16-24. The gallery is owned by Pineapple Corporation and Delta House Studios Ltd. After UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), an association of British lawyers who support the Jewish state, wrote a letter to the gallery’s owners about the exhibit’s antisemitic content, they canceled the event.
“We were unaware of this intention for an exhibition as it was arranged without any consultation with the owners of the artist studios at Riverside Road,” Pineapple Corporation Chairman Tom Berglund wrote in a letter to UKLFI on Friday that confirmed the exhibit has been called off. “We all hope the issues on the ground in the Middle East can eventually be resolved,” he added.
Last month, “Drawings Against Genocide” was displayed at a gallery in Margate, a seaside town in England, and garnered widespread criticism for promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives and imagery.
A spokesperson for UKLFI said freedom of expression “does not extend to the promotion of material that relies on antisemitic tropes, dehumanizing imagery, and conspiracy narratives about Jews.”
“There is a real danger in normalizing antisemitic imagery and narratives in cultural spaces,” the spokesperson added. “When material that demonizes Jews or recycles classic antisemitic tropes is presented as legitimate artistic expression, it risks lowering the threshold for what is considered acceptable in public discourse. At a time when Jewish communities in London and across the UK are already facing a significant rise in antisemitic incidents and attacks, it is particularly important that institutions act responsibly. The wider environment in which hatred is trivialized or excused can contribute to a climate in which such attacks become more likely.”
Collings’ drawings feature swastikas, often alongside the flag of Israel, show Jews surrounded by skulls, depict ancient Israelites with horns, and compare Israel to Nazi Germany. One drawing shows Sotheby’s French-Israeli owner Patrick Drahi as a “fanatic Zionist” who eats babies alive. Others demonized in Collings’ work include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pro-Israel writer and journalist David Collier, and film director Quentin Tarantino, who resides in Israel with his family.
Some drawings also address the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel. One artwork denies that sexual violence took place during the massacre while another falsely claims there is “no reliable evidence whatsoever” about some of the violence orchestrated by the Hamas terrorist organization.
UKLFI told the gallery’s owners that Collings’ artwork could “potentially engage provisions under the Public Order Act 1986 and expose both the artist and the gallery to legal risks.”
Collings insists that his artwork is criticism of Israel and Zionism, but not antisemitic. He wrote in an Instagram post that his drawings “are a window into the Zionist lobby’s connection to our government, mainstream media, and the art world. The images depict individuals implicated in the genocide in Gaza as well as challenge the notion that being against Zionism is antisemitic.” He said in a separate post that his art exhibit “fights against the atrocities Israel is committing” and will “go on touring until Palestine is free.”
“Venues around the world are lined up to host it. Sold works are replaced by new ones,” he added. “Ongoing realities are pictured. A real bloody genocide is the subject. And be damned to unreal absurdities uttered by Zionist defenders of the indefensible.”
Uncategorized
Shabbos Kestenbaum: Administrators Have a Duty to Protect Jewish Students and Continue to Fail
The campus of Smith College in April 2024. Photo: Instagram/Screenshot
Across the country, we’re watching the same play staged, with the same script. Earlier this month, students at Ohio University passed a BDS referendum. Last week, a different BDS referendum passed at UC Berkeley. At Smith College, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility considered a BDS proposal on April 16 and then went silent on its timeline. On April 22, at San Diego State, the student government held its final vote and passed a BDS resolution.
Four campuses, four tests, and the question for every administrator is the same: Will you stand up now, or will you do what Harvard did and let the crisis metastasize? I know the answer when administrators fail.
As a former Harvard student, I watched an institution ignore more than 40 written appeals to its antisemitism task force. I filed a federal Title VI lawsuit as a last resort. A federal judge rejected Harvard’s motion to dismiss. Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in January 2025 as part of a related settlement, and my case settled four months later. But none of that had to happen. If Harvard had rejected the ideological premises of the BDS movement clearly and early, rather than treating them as legitimate academic discourse, the crisis that engulfed its campus might have been contained.
The four campuses now facing BDS votes should learn from Harvard’s failure, not repeat it.
Ohio University represents the worst kind of response: the response that isn’t. When a BDS referendum passed on campus, the university’s only pushback came through Senior Director of Communications Dan Pittman, who told Jewish outlets that the university “will neither consider, nor act upon, any resolution or referendum that proposes illegal actions.” The statement was never posted on the university’s official channels. The president’s office has said nothing publicly. A quiet quote buried in the Jewish press is not a condemnation. It is a hope that the story will disappear. American Jewish students at Ohio University deserve a public, forceful, unambiguous rejection from President Lori Stewart Gonzalez, delivered on university letterhead and posted to the university’s own website.
UC Berkeley now faces the same test. On April 18, the student government’s referendum passed, yet Chancellor Rich Lyons has not publicly rejected the result. Berkeley has already lived through the consequences of administrative hesitation. In March 2026, Berkeley Law paid $1 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit after its “Jewish-free zones” and harassment of American Jewish students became national news. The university has been sued once for antisemitism. It should not need to be sued twice before its chancellor states plainly that the endowment will not be conscripted as a political weapon.
Smith College has an easier task and has somehow found a way to fail at it. In March 2024, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility rejected an earlier BDS proposal, finding Smith’s exposure to the targeted companies “negligible and entirely indirect.” On April 16, the committee considered a second, nearly identical proposal. Smith spokesperson Deb McDaniel stated that she “was not aware” of any formal timeline for the board to vote on the matter. That is the institutional equivalent of closing the blinds. Smith does not need a new study, a new committee, or a summer recess before delivering the same answer it delivered last year. The trustees should reaffirm the 2024 decision on the merits, in public, before the next academic year begins. Every week of silence is a week in which American Jewish students at Smith spend wondering whether their college has quietly switched sides.
This week, San Diego State University passed its BDS resolution, and the administration must clearly demonstrate that no divestment demand will be acted upon. President Adela de la Torre should not wait for the student government to humiliate itself on camera before defending the university’s fiduciary duty. American Jewish students at SDSU are entitled to know where their president stands, and they are entitled to know it in public, in writing, and this week.
These four cases share a single feature: Administrators who know the right answer and are hoping someone else will deliver it for them. Brown’s Corporation rejected divestment in October 2024. Bowdoin rejected it in March 2025. Dartmouth’s committee rejected it nine to zero. Columbia’s president said the university “will not divest from Israel.” Every institution that has engaged the question seriously has reached the same conclusion. The problem is not that the case against BDS is weak. The problem is that too many administrators would rather be quietly correct than publicly brave.
Quiet is not an option anymore. A 2026 study found that 42 percent of American Jewish students have experienced antisemitism on campus, and 34 percent hide their Jewish identity out of fear. These numbers are not abstractions. They are the direct product of administrative timidity in the face of a movement whose explicit goal is the delegitimization of the Jewish state and the isolation of American Jewish students on American campuses.
On Oct. 7, 2023, young American Jews woke up. We are not going back to sleep. We are watching Ohio University, UC Berkeley, Smith College, and San Diego State. We expect administrators who were hired to protect students to do their job.
Shabbos Kestenbaum is a political commentator at PragerU and a former lead plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against Harvard University.