The Supreme Court determined that the state must move quickly to devise effective enforcement protocols for Ultra-Orthodox draft evaders. Although the new bill currently being deliberated at the Knesset aims to do that, the court has yet to weigh in on whether it meets that requirement. The plan must incorporate significant steps that involve criminal prosecution, as well as broad complementary actions in the economic and civil spheres.

"The state is not authorized to refrain from drafting yeshiva students, without a legislative arrangement that allows distinguishing between them and the rest of those obligated to draft," the ruling stated. The court stressed that the government must cease granting economic benefits to evaders, stating, "As a rule, the continued granting of benefits given in direct or indirect connection to evasion of the draft duty cannot be allowed, for example those granted to a yeshiva student as such, when his presence in the yeshiva implies evasion of the draft duty." They noted that the inequality between the general public's mandatory military sevice and the de facto blanket exemption ejoyed by Haredim, was discriminatory. "This is all the more painful since Oct. 7," they wrote.

A senior official in Agudat Yisrael responded to the court decision and said, "Pass a law regulating the status of yeshiva students immediately." Minister of Aliyah and Integration Ofir Sofer told Army Radio, "The State of Israel needs soldiers and fighters, we need deeds and not wasting time. We will not agree to any unworthy law. It is expected to see practical actions like filling the Hashmonayim Brigade before advancing a law."

The post Supreme Court to gov't: Take criminal action against Haredi draft-dodgers appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Regarding the first challenge, Netanyahu is eager to pass the conscription law. The Shas party would also greatly welcome the bill's passage. The faction emphasizes that it has never withdrawn from the coalition and that it supports Netanyahu's Government – yet, it currently seems difficult to formulate a version that will satisfy the needs of both the IDF and the ultra-Orthodox, and one that can also withstand judicial scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

On Friday, in a rarity for the Sukkot holiday, a meeting took place in the Knesset involving Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman MK Boaz Bismuth, the committee's legal counsel, and Shas representatives – former Minister Ariel Attias and MK Yinon Azoulay. A source present at the meeting informed Israel Hayom: "I am not a bearer of good tidings." The other participants in the meeting responded similarly. As for  Netanyahu, those in his inner circle say he wishes to pass the bill as quickly as possible, both to remove this major issue from Israeli society and because it is obvious that without this law, the government has no real chance of survival.

With regards to the state budget, the Knesset will be dissolved if the government fails to finalize a law that passes the Knesset by March. Netanyahu, according to those around him, is determined to pass a budget and has the capability to do so, but it appears that there are currently too many opposing elements that need to be satisfied. The ultra-Orthodox will undoubtedly want a budget that meets their needs, and the defense budget will also require exceptional focus, especially following a war.

Nevertheless, the prime minister's associates have been communicating very clear signals that Netanyahu will not head to elections before he completes his objectives, which are as follows: the return of the hostages; guaranteeing that Hamas does not return to rule; and placing Gaza on a path to demilitarization. His orbit has also been mentioning cementing the achievements against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran – and even the signing of several peace agreements.

And then there is the Netanyahu trial, where he is at the start of the cross-examination in Case 1000, the gifts case. As a reminder, Netanyahu had sought to postpone the testimony scheduled on Wednesday. Israel Hayom's legal correspondent, Elinor Shirkani Kofman, reported that the prosecution consented to the delay on the condition that Netanyahu would testify on Thursday. Ultimately, the testimony proceeded on Wednesday as scheduled. The trial and Netanyahu's testimony will also affect the political process – as the trial progresses or faces delays, the prime minister will possess more leverage.

The post After Gaza, what's next for Netanyahu? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The legal confrontation between Justice Minister Yariv Levin and the Supreme Court judges is a monumental story. If not for Israel's whirlwind of events – including war casualties, a historic preemptive strike, tensions on the northern border, hostage rescue operation, and ongoing negotiations – this legal clash would be dominating headlines and bringing legal experts back to the spotlight, reminiscent of the judicial reform debates pre-war. While much has been said about the legal aspect, there's an equally significant political dimension reshaping the power dynamics within the ruling Likud party.

Setting aside Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, it's rare to hear criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu within Likud. In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, when shock, grief, and the devastating impact of the attack caused tempers to flare, some believed Netanyahu's career was over. But as time passed, the intermingling of protest movements with issues like the prolonged war and hostage negotiations reunited Likud members around Netanyahu.

The factions within Likud have shifted. They no longer revolve around individuals but rather around stances. The party is split between Levin's hardline stance against the Supreme Court and those who either disagree or refrain from publicly backing his fight.

If there's one issue on which Netanyahu faces criticism within Likud, it's the judicial matter. Many in the party believe Netanyahu isn't engaging enough with the justice system and isn't expressing a strong "Levin-esque" stance against the judges. A prime example is the judge appointment process, which Levin is managing alone against the Supreme Court. Netanyahu is absent, both due to his conflict of interest regarding judicial appointments and his focus on the war.

Levin holds significant sway within Likud, as evidenced by receiving over 50,000 votes in the primaries out of 80,000 voters – an impressive showing. Ironically, the only one who can lead criticism against Netanyahu is Levin, his closest ally, most politically aligned, most loyal, and devoid of any desire or intention to threaten or replace him.

Levin is frustrated with some of his party colleagues. He's convinced that with 64 united votes on the judicial issue, he could prevail over the judges. His colleagues' failure to stand behind him leaves him without leverage in negotiations with the judges. His hand is forced. If he had 64 votes, he could tell the judges to compromise or face legislation. But Levin lacks those votes, and the judges know it and have no intention of compromising.

Levin's criticism infuriates his opponents within the party. "He's lost perspective," they say. "Should we blindly follow his whims? The first time, he unilaterally decided to face the cameras, hold a press conference, and announce the judicial reform. He didn't consult us, didn't talk to us, didn't prepare us, and it's doubtful the prime minister even knew. He caused tremendous damage and then got angry when we didn't stand by him. He's doing the same thing again. If he wants to advance something and wants our support, he should convene a meeting, present the issue, hear our input, and we'll decide together."

Levin is familiar with these arguments and dismisses them. In his view, public pressure must be applied, demanding that everyone elected by right-wing votes unite as one. Levin is willing to accept the position that legislation shouldn't move forward without consensus, though he disagrees with it. In recent months, he has discussed the matter with some of his party colleagues. He believes that when he proposed a compromise, he should have received his colleagues' backing, expecting them to say that if the court doesn't accept the compromise, they would stand firmly behind Levin. This, of course, didn't happen.

Who will win? It's a complex question, and the answer must be divided into two. Legally, Levin will likely lose. Those who don't stand by Levin's side won't change their stance, certainly not against the Supreme Court. Politically? Levin may come out on top. It's not far-fetched to bet that Levin will continue to climb high in the next primaries, while others will drop in their positions, and some might find themselves outside the next Knesset altogether.

The post Justice minister Supreme Court showdown exposes Likud's deepening rifts appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Israeli political system is abuzz following Tuesday morning's Supreme Court ruling on ultra-Orthodox military service. The consensus is that the ball is now in the court of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Ministry of Defense.

These institutions will be required to issue draft orders to yeshiva students eligible for conscription. In recent days before the ruling, sources within ultra-Orthodox parties stated, "It was never about money. We can live with three thousand who enlist who aren't studying."

The assumption is that the ultra-Orthodox parties won't topple the government over funding issues, as there are surplus funds and donations available. According to the IDF, draft orders will be sent to approximately 3,000 yeshiva students – a number that, based on estimates, the ultra-Orthodox community can tolerate. The Supreme Court also estimates this to be the number of yeshiva students ultimately expected to be drafted.

The assumption is that the ultra-Orthodox parties won't topple the government over funding issues, as there are surplus funds and donations available. According to the IDF, draft orders will be sent to approximately 3,000 yeshiva students – a number that, based on estimates, the ultra-Orthodox community can tolerate. The Supreme Court also estimates this to be the number of yeshiva students ultimately expected to be drafted.

Figures like Minister Ofir Sofer, who opposed the law, demanded the enlistment of about 3,000 yeshiva students annually. This means the coalition could potentially overcome opposition and pass a law around this number, allowing them to determine that the remaining yeshivas will receive funding.

The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that yeshiva students must be drafted. The court unanimously determined that there is currently no legal framework allowing for distinction between yeshiva students and other individuals eligible for military service. The state must act to draft ultra-Orthodox men and cease funding yeshivas. Political figures were quick to respond, with opinions divided.

Despite the order to proceed with ultra-Orthodox enlistment, the justices acknowledge that immediate full conscription is unfeasible and reluctantly allow the state to act gradually. The justices stipulate that this should be done according to administrative law principles, meaning ultra-Orthodox enlistment should proceed in accordance with objective conditions that allow for it within a short time frame.

Despite the order to proceed with ultra-Orthodox enlistment, the justices acknowledge that immediate full conscription is unfeasible and reluctantly allow the state to act gradually. The justices stipulate that this should be done according to administrative law principles, meaning ultra-Orthodox enlistment should proceed in accordance with objective conditions that allow for it within a short time frame.

The Likud party responded to the decision: "It's puzzling that the Supreme Court, which for 76 years refrained from enforcing yeshiva student enlistment through a ruling, is doing so now, on the eve of completing the historic conscription law and when ultra-Orthodox enlistment was at an all-time high. The law was formulated by the defense establishment when Benny Gantz was defense minister and passed its first reading with the support of Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, and Avigdor Lieberman. Now suddenly Bennett, Lapid, Lieberman, and Gantz oppose the law because they're not interested in ultra-Orthodox enlistment but in toppling the government."

United Torah Judaism Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf said, "An expected and very sad and disappointing decision. The State of Israel was established to be a home for the Jewish people, whose Torah is the rock of its existence. The holy Torah will triumph."

Knesset member Moshe Gafni, from the same faction, attacked: "There has never been a Supreme Court ruling in favor of yeshiva students and the ultra-Orthodox public. There isn't a single judge there who understands the value of Torah study and its contribution to the Jewish people throughout the generations."

The State Part Chairman Benny Gantz, who left the government recently partly in response to this issue, said: "It's not too late to reach agreements that will serve the state and lead to Israeli service. Service is a security need and a moral duty, not instead of the world of Torah, but so we can continue to exist in a state for all of us – ultra-Orthodox, Arabs, secular, and all parts of society, together. It's time for an Israeli service outline with broad agreement."

Yisrael Beytenu Chairman, MK Avigdor Lieberman said, "There are judges in Jerusalem. After years of stalling and attempts to reach compromises and understandings, the Supreme Court has made a decision that does justice to the public bearing the burden. A significant step towards historic change."

Shas Chairman Aryeh Deri, said, "The Jewish people survived persecutions, pogroms, and wars only because of preserving its uniqueness - the Torah and commandments. This is our secret weapon against all enemies. We will continue to guard the society of Torah learners who maintain it out of hardship. They are the ones who preserve our special power and create miracles in the campaign. No arbitrary ruling will abolish the society of Torah learners in the land of Israel, which is the branch we all sit on."

Labor Party chairman, Major General (res.) Yair Golan, said, "The decision that was clear to every serving citizen in the State of Israel was also unanimously clear to all the judges. Where there is no government, there is justice."

The post Holy controversy: Court's ruling on ultra-Orthodox draft could scramble politics appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a scathing rebuke, a group of distinguished Israelis has condemned the US Congress's invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session on July 24. The critics, spanning various sectors of Israeli society, argue that this gesture rewards Netanyahu's "scandalous and destructive conduct" towards Israel, in The New York Times opinion piece on Tuesday.

The authors, who hail from various sectors of Israeli society, including science, technology, politics, defense, law, and culture, contend that Netanyahu's government is "driving Israel downhill at an alarming speed" and that the country may eventually be lost as a result. They contend that Netanyahu's government is rapidly driving Israel towards ruin, citing his failure to end the Gaza war and secure hostage releases as prime examples of his ineffectiveness.

"Inviting Netanyahu will reward his contempt for US efforts to establish a peace plan, allow more aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza, and do a better job of sparing civilians," the authors write in The New York Times. They argue that the invitation should have been contingent upon resolving these issues and calling for new elections in Israel.

The critics also accuse Netanyahu of repeatedly rejecting President Biden's plan to remove Hamas from power in Gaza through the establishment of a peacekeeping force, a move they believe could lead to a broader regional alliance and a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They assert that such an outcome is not only in Israel's interest but also in the interest of both political parties in the United States.

Furthermore, the authors contend that Netanyahu has failed to take responsibility for the blunders that allowed the Hamas assault, initially blaming security chiefs before quickly backtracking. They call for the establishment of a state commission of inquiry, headed by a Supreme Court judge, to investigate the fiasco.

The opinion piece also highlights the ongoing nationwide demonstrations in Israel, with participants demanding an immediate release of the hostages, an end to the war, and immediate elections. Polls cited by the authors indicate that a majority of Israelis support these demands, reflecting a growing loss of faith in Netanyahu's government.

"Giving Netanyahu the stage in Washington will all but dismiss the rage and pain of his people, as expressed in the demonstrations throughout the country," the authors write, urging American lawmakers to reconsider the invitation and ask the prime minister to stay home.

The post Israeli critics tell US Congress to disinvite Netanyahu appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a move that has sparked controversy and legal challenges, every public school classroom in Louisiana, from elementary to university level, has been ordered to display a poster featuring the Ten Commandments, as reported by BBC. This Republican-backed measure, signed into law by Governor Jeff Landry on Wednesday, is the first of its kind in the United States.

The new law mandates that the sacred text be displayed in "large, easily readable font" on an 11-by-14-inch poster, with the commandments being "the central focus" of the display. The posters must include a four-paragraph "context statement" describing how the directives "were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries."

The law's author, Republican state lawmaker Dodie Horton, has spoken of the importance of returning a "moral code" to classrooms. "It's like hope is in the air everywhere," Horton was quoted as saying when the bill received the governor's approval.

BREAKING NEWS: Louisiana just became the 1st U.S. state to require the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms. pic.twitter.com/aGtfEehxsj

— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) June 19, 2024

 While Christians regard the Ten Commandments as fundamental rules from God on how to live, opponents argue that the law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. "The law was 'blatantly unconstitutional,'" read a joint statement from the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

BREAKING: We're suing Louisiana for requiring all public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

Public schools are not Sunday schools.

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 19, 2024

Similar laws have recently been proposed by other Republican-led states, including Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah. The US Supreme Court has previously ruled against a similar law in Kentucky, striking it down in 1980 on the grounds that requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature."

The post Louisiana mandates Ten Commandments poster in all classrooms appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has resigned from the panel of judges at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, citing "personal family" reasons, according to reports on Wednesday. In his resignation, Barak expressed gratitude to the court for the cooperation he received from the staff and fellow judges.

Barak was selected to serve as an Ad Hoc Judge on the court by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a right that a country can exercise if no judge of its nationality is present on the bench. Judges do not necessarily have to be of the same nationality as the government that selects them.

Former Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak has resigned from the International Court of Justice in The Hague "for personal reasons." pic.twitter.com/AsFnuOlijX

— Noga Tarnopolsky נגה טרנופולסקי نوغا ترنوبولسكي (@NTarnopolsky) June 5, 2024

 The Israeli government now faces the decision of whether to appoint a new judge to replace Barak on the ICJ. Legal sources speculated to Ynet that if a replacement is chosen, the top contenders would likely be former Supreme Court Presidents, such as Esther Hayut or Dorit Beinisch.

Israeli officials have stated their willingness to appoint a future judge, as long as the court remains "fact-based." The officials told Ynet that so far, the court's orders have not "harmed the IDF's ability to advance the achievement of the war goals."

President Isaac Herzog thanked Barak for his service, saying, "[Barak's] special contribution and influence on the legal world in Israel and in the world was of great importance in the legal campaign against those who seek our harm. We will continue to stand firm against the evil, the hypocrisy, and the false plots against the State of Israel and the IDF."

Barak's resignation comes at a time of ongoing tension between Israel and the ICJ over the court's investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israeli forces during the recent conflict.

The post Aharon Barak resigns from ICJ citing family reasons appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Supreme Court heard fiery oral arguments on Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal charges for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The hearing saw Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, double down on the explosive claim that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office – even if those acts include assassinating political rivals.

Sauer argued before the nation's highest court that "there can be no presidency as we know it" if former presidents aren't granted broad immunity from criminal charges stemming from official conduct during their tenure. When pressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on whether this purported immunity would extend to ordering the military to assassinate a political opponent – a scenario Sauer previously affirmed to a federal appeals court – the attorney stood firm, suggesting such an act could be eligible for immunity "depending on the" circumstances.

The line of questioning took an even more ominous turn when Sauer was presented with the hypothetical of a president ordering a coup. Rather than condemn such an action, the attorney stated it "could well be" considered an official act subject to immunity, depending on the specifics of the situation.

The justices met Sauer's extraordinary claims with visible skepticism. Even the traditionally conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Trump's "very robust" definition of immunity is truly "necessary," while the liberal Justice Elena Kagan lambasted Sauer's coup argument as essentially saying, "Under my test, it's an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn't it."

Kagan further reminded the court that the Founding Fathers "were reacting to a monarch who claims to be above the law," challenging Sauer's assertions that presidents should be shielded from criminal liability. "Wasn't the whole point that the president is not supposed to be above the law?" she pointedly asked.

It remains unclear when the justices will issue their ruling on Trump's contested immunity claims. However, the timing of their decision could prove pivotal in determining whether the former president's federal election case proceeds to trial before or after the November elections. A swift ruling by late May could potentially allow the trial to commence ahead of the pivotal vote, while a judgment closer to the court's late June deadline would likely postpone proceedings until the fall.

The hearing was designed to determine whether former presidents could be prosecuted for acts carried out during their time in power. charges at the heart of this case are grave, with Trump facing four felony counts including conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction, and conspiracy against rights – all stemming from his relentless efforts to cling to power after his 2020 electoral defeat. Throughout the mounting legal battles, the former president has staunchly maintained his innocence, denouncing the criminal cases as politically motivated "witch hunts" designed to undermine his renewed presidential ambitions.

The post Trump team gives Supreme Court shocking answer over presidents' scope of immunity appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The High Court of Justice heard arguments on Thursday against a law passed by the ruling Coalition limiting conditions for any removal of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office, in the latest showdown among branches of government to grip the nation.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Political watchdog groups and an opposition party have challenged the March 23 amendment to a quasi-constitutional basic law, which Netanyahu's own attorney general described as designed to preserve his tenure amid a long-running graft trial.

Netanyahu's governing Coalition passed a law in March that limits removing a prime minister from office to cases of medical and mental incapacitation. It would protect Netanyahu from being deemed unfit for office because of his ongoing corruption trial and claims of a conflict of interest. Critics say the law is tailor-made for Netanyahu and encourages corruption. The law's proponents say it is meant to safeguard any democratically elected leader from a wrongful ouster.

Eleven of the Supreme Court's 15 judges convened for the televised hearing, presided over by Chief Justice Esther Hayut, who retires next month. She has openly criticized a judicial overhaul sought by Netanyahu's religious-nationalist coalition.

In a statement, Justice Minister Yariv Levin condemned the hearing as "a de facto discussion of rescinding the results of the election" that returned Netanyahu to power in December. The premier denies wrongdoing in three criminal cases against him.

The full court bench is separately preparing a ruling on challenges to a July amendment voiding its power to overrule some cabinet-level decisions on the basis of "reasonableness".

Critics say that law removed one of the last checks on the executive and a Coalition-controlled parliament, in a country that has no written constitution. Netanyahu argued for redress of what he calls overreach by an unrepresentative judiciary.

Next month, the court is due to hear appeals relating to the convening of a committee for appointing judges, delayed due to a dispute over a government bid to shake up its membership.

A ruling on the "incapacity clause", defining terms for deeming a premier unfit to serve, was not expected on Thursday. The court options include upholding the legislation as is, quashing it, or ruling that it must not come into effect before the next Knesset is sworn in. Attorney-General Gali Baharav Miara has recommended the latter.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post High Court hears arguments over when PM can be deemed unfit to serve appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Israeli government has complained to Germany after the German ambassador attended a high-profile Supreme Court hearing last week looking at the legality of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judicial overhaul, an Israeli diplomatic official said Monday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The complaint, sent at the order of Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, sparked a rare diplomatic spat between the two allies, with German leaders defending their ambassador against the criticism.

The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes diplomacy, said that Israel had relayed its "dismay" through diplomatic channels, including the Israeli Embassy in Berlin. The ambassador has recently given an interview to Israel Hayom where he discussed a range of issues.

"This was a decision taken by the highest figure in the ministry," he added. Cohen is a close ally of Netanyahu.

Last Tuesday's hearing was the first challenge to Netanyahu's contentious judicial overhaul, which has bitterly divided the Israeli public and put the country on the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Video: Anti-reform protesters demonstrate outside the home of Economy Minister Nir Barkat. Credit: Israel Hayom

Ahead of the hearing, German Ambassador Steffen Seibert posted a video of himself on X, formerly known as Twitter, inside the courtroom under the heading: "The place to be this morning." It included the Hebrew hashtag for Israel's Supreme Court.

"I think something important is happening here for Israeli democracy," he said, speaking in Hebrew. "We, as friends of Israel, are watching the Supreme Court with great interest and I wanted to see for myself." Seibert did not express an opinion on the case in the video.

In New York, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz defended his government's envoy against the Israeli criticism.

The place to be this morning #בגץ pic.twitter.com/x7oVMPgsPg

— Steffen Seibert (@GerAmbTLV) September 12, 2023

"The German ambassador is a very committed man with very clear principles. And I believe that everyone knows that – including in Israel," Scholz told journalists.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock added that it is the "everyday business of diplomats" to monitor developments in foreign countries. "It's also normal to go to public hearings or public court cases – it's part of his job," she said.

Scholz and Netanyahu are scheduled to meet Tuesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post German envoy's tweet at Supreme Court hearing sparks diplomatic spat appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.