Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is waging a war on many fronts. He has ended the tense ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza in spectacularly bloody fashion and resumed bombing of Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon. Missiles fired at Israel from the Houthi rebels in Yemen also risk seeing a further widening of hostilities.
Domestically, he has been conducting a bruising, even thuggish campaign against Israeli institutions and their representatives, an effort that is impossible to divorce from his ongoing trial for corruption. He has, for instance, busied himself with removing the attorney journal, Gali Baharav-Miara, a process that will be lengthy considering the necessary role of a special appointments committee. On May 23, the cabinet passed a no-confidence motion against her, prompting a sharp letter from the attorney general that the Netanyahu government had ventured to place itself “above the law, to act without checks and balances, and even at the most sensitive of times.”
High up on the Netanyahu hit list is the intelligence official Ronen Bar, the Shin Bet chief he explicitly accuses of having foreknowledge of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. “This is a fact and not a conspiracy,” a statement from the prime minister’s office bluntly asserted. At 4.30am that morning “it was already clear to the outgoing Shin Bet head that an invasion of the State of Israel was likely.”
The PMO failed to mention Netanyahu’s self-interest in targeting Bar, given that Shin Bet is investigating the office for connections with the Qatari government allegedly involving cash disbursements to promote Doha’s interests.
While Bar has been formally sacked, a measure never undertaken by any government of the Israeli state, the Israeli High Court has extended a freeze on his removal while permitting Netanyahu to consider replacement candidates.
It is the judiciary, however, that has commanded much attention, pre-dating the October 7 attacks. Much of 2023 was given over to attempting to compromise the Supreme Court of its influence and independence. Some legislation to seek that process had been passed in July 2023 but the Supreme Court subsequently struck down that law in January 2024 in an 8-7 decision. The relevant law removed the Court’s means to check executive power through invalidating government decisions deemed “unreasonable”. In the view of former Chief Justice Esther Hayut, the law was “extreme and irregular”, marking a departure “from the foundational authorities of the Knesset, and therefore it must be struck down.”
Even in wartime, the Netanyahu government’s appetite to clip the wings of an active judiciary remained strong. In January 2025, it made a second attempt, with a new, modified proposal jointly authored by Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar. The law, passed by the Knesset in its third and final reading on March 27, alters the committee responsible for appointing judges. The previous nine-member judicial selection committee had been composed of three judges, two independent lawyers and four politicians, equally divided between government and opposition. Now, the relevant lawyers will be government and opposition appointees, intended to take effect after the next elections.
The convulsions in Israeli politics have been evident from various efforts to stall, if not abandon the legislation altogether. The law changing the judicial appointments committee had received 71,023 filed objections. While it passed 67-1, it only did so with the opposition boycotting the vote. Benny Gantz, the chair of National Unity, wrote to Netanyahu ahead of the readings pleading for its abandonment. “I’m appealing to you as someone who bears responsibility for acting on behalf of all citizens of this country.” He reminded the PM that Israeli society was “wounded and bleeding, divided in a way we have not seen since October 6 [2023]. Fifty-nine of our brothers and sisters are still captive in Gaza, and our soldiers, from all political factions, are fighting on multiple fronts.”
The warning eventually came. To operate in such a manner, permitting a parliamentary majority to “unilaterally approve legislation opposed by the people, will harm the ability to create broad reform that appeals to the whole, will lead to polarization and will increase distrust in both the legislative and executive branches.”
Before lawmakers in a final effort to convince, Gantz, citing former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, issued a reminder that “democracies fall or die slowly when they suffer from a malignant disease called the disease of the majority.” Such a disease advanced gradually till “the curtain of darkness slowly [descended] on society.”
Gantz also tried to press Levin to abandon the legislation ahead of the two Knesset plenum readings. In a report from Channel 12, he called it a “mistake” to bring the legislation forward. The response from Levin was that the legislation was a suitable compromise that both he and Sa’ar had introduced as a dilution on the previous proposal that would have vested total control in the government over judicial appointments. The revision was “intended to heal the rift of the nation.”
Healing for Netanyahu is a hard concept to envisage. His authoritarian politics is that of the supreme survivalist with lashings of expedient populism. Sundering the social compact with damaging attacks on various sacred cows, from intelligence officials to judges, is the sacrifice he is willing to make. That this will result in a distrust in Israeli institutions seems to worry him less than any sparing from accountability and posterity’s questionable rewards.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Descended frm a Lithujanian superstition scholar, Netanyahu is an intrusive foreign souced zionist invader of the legal Israel of May 1948, but which was betrayed by Britain, USA stupidity and a world that wished to eliminate and expel and concentrate Jews anyway, at the expense of all rightful Palestinians, mamy of them Jews. Zionism was a “plan” for murder, agony, theft, occupation, the only way to steal a “new” land.
The UN has been neutered by the ability of the US to vetoe every resolution on Israel and Gaza.
The U.S. has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel more than any other council member – 45 times as at December 18, 2023. The U.S. has vetoed 89 Security Council resolutions in total since 1945, meaning slightly over half of its vetoes have been used on resolutions critical of Israel. Of the vetoed resolutions, 33 pertained to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or the country’s treatment of the Palestinian people.
Unless the vetoe power available to the five permanent members of the UNSC is removed the United Nations will become totally irrelevant to humanity.
We are witnessing a semantic argument of definitions of Anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination. Why is there even an argument?
Why should ant-semitism be distinguished as a special category of discrimination when we see Islamophobia all around us, we see racism all around us, we see misogyny on a daily basis. Why do we need a special definition when the claimants to the term semite demonstrate their disrespect, no worse than that, utter contempt for people who dare to be other than Jewish, Zionist.
By drawing such distinctions we are favouring one form of hatred over others, allowing the genocide which is occurring in Gaza and on the West Bank to continue. It makes us complicit.
The most corrupt have the most to protect, in the case of Israel, the Prime Minister is in self protection mode, the zealots claiming the West Bank and Golan Heights claim their right to possession through the mythology of promises maybe made thousands of years ago, and defend their actions through the claim of semitism.
There is no need to have special definitions for discrimination. We need to uphold a common standard, that discrimination is just wrong. We should not be defending the indefensible, whether it is a terrorist atack by an oppressed group or whether it is the elimination of a people because they are to be feared because of the treatment they have been subjected to for generation after generations.
Bibi the the Jewish Hitler’s toxic reach is global. He has our very own Labor government cowering in fear of Israel’s Fifth Column, the Zionist lobby.
Indeed, it does appear that way Max. The Jewish lobby is very influential in Australian politics. Even when the antisemitic stuff is concocted, as with the caravan full of explosives.
If, as the Labor policy states, that all people are equal, why does it appear that Muslims are less equal than Jewish people?
The antisemitic stuff we have gone through, separate definitions on how to deal with antisemitism seems to favour one marginalised group over others, and there is no way that can be in line with Labor policy.
I haven’t checked the Lib policy on this, but it SHOULD be the same, that all people are EQUAL, no matter their faith, country of origin, colour of skin and gender preferences
The treatment of Palestinians in our political context implies that to be Palestinian is to be Hamas, and hence a terrorist.
And that is bullshit!!
All quiet on the caravan story.
Does that mean that the sponsors of the story were the Jewish lobby, and the storm of antisemitic events all were financed by Israel hoping to (and succeeding) get laws changed to favour the jewish minority over here?
The AFP may find these were all organized from an external party, and they are not obliged to tell us who that is if our government is gagged!
Don’t disagree with themes, but apparently Gazans are not happy with Hamas either.
There are several issues which writer etc. miss by framing October 7 as a reference point or start of Israel vs Hamas, but misses much complexity preceding and in the background; not to forget this new found tendency for Orwellian RW MSM headlines.
Recall Trump I regime & Kushner’s relationships with Netanyahu, MBS (Abraham Accords), MBZ etc. and also a Red Sea grouping including MBS Saudi, MBZ UAE, El Sisi Egypt and Bahrain with US consultants acting with Israel and Russia (vs. Iran, Qatar & Turkey); both Netanyahu and Hamas leadership had good relations with Putin (Abramson).
Late ’23 Putin’s Russia was in trouble with their Ukraine special operation, invasion and in need of a ‘ceasfire’ to replenish itself; October 7 was manna from heaven to deflect media and keep resources from Ukraine (heelped by Trump & Koch’s Freedom Caucus in Congress).
While the infamously secular Netanyahu blew back big time and even threw hostages under the bus, surprising all, especially Hamas and Putin?
It not only put pressure on Netanyahu & Hamas, but helped the RW MSM and Trump’s GOP to blame Biden, Harris and the Dems for being weak (ditto UK on Starmer & Oz on Albanese), and on campus pro-Palestinians were ‘anti-semitic’ (even though many Jewish) as a form of voter suppression on the Democrats, for Trump to prevail.
Meanwhile we are supposed to believe that MAGA, alt right, white Christian nationalists, neo-Nazis and promoters of the ‘great replacement’ or the Soros conspiracy are not ‘anti-semitic’, as Dutton says ‘the left is anti-semitic’?
Finally, like has occurred elsewhere (France, Israel, US etc.) anti-semitic graffiti and an arson attack on a Synagogue; perps have been caught, but weird suggestions of foreign influence, whom?
One influencer Murdoch, along with activist in chief Andrew Bolt, with an historial whiff of anti-semitism and white Christian nationalism, hypocritically turning up to the Synagogue; lucky Murdoch’s wife is Jewish?
Not suggesting it’s too cute fitting into electoral narratives 🙂
Glad to see the advent of the Jewish Council of Australia. It’s apolitical, wise and properly interrogative and self-critiqing. And definitely does not support Netanyahu’s govt.
Here’s the Jewish Council of Oz first public event Dr Gabor Maté on Healing, Justice and Liberation for All. It’s long and grueling, but well worth a listen.
UN Resolution 242, the Suez Crisis, and European diplomacy underscores a deep-rooted frustration with the historical and current role of Europe in the Middle East. For many Israelis, it’s not just about specific policies or actions—it’s about the broader political narrative in which Israel’s legitimacy and security, constantly questioned or undermined through EU diplomacy.
Whether or not Israel should break relations with European countries, a complex issue with serious implications. Israel’s global alliances simply crucial to its diplomatic and economic interests, and maintaining relationships with key European powers remains important. However, a valid essential Jewish concern, the European attitudes toward Israel too often reflect a legacy of imperialism or a one-sided approach, from forced ghetto imprisonment for 3 Centuries, to pogroms, to blood libels, to taxation without representation etc. All these memory scares easily compounded every time the EU, Britain, and Russian diplomacy tilts in favor of hostile Arab states who adamantly refuse to recognize Jewish equality in self determination, this history European criminal behavior toward Jews fails to adequately acknowledge Israel’s security needs and right to exist.
The struggle for Israel’s sovereignty in a region full of external influences—including European powers, Arab states, and global organizations—remains one of the defining elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically the strategic Arab policies to internationalize war in the Middle East. Whether Israel decides to break off relations with specific countries, such as Ireland, or continue to engage diplomatically, its primary focus will remain on securing its right to exist, ensuring its security, and maintaining Jewish state rule from Jerusalem.
Israel’s security and sovereignty from the moment Israel declared independence in 1948, has faced harsh external pressures, both from Arab states and international NGO’s and European imperialism, all of which seek to impose Israeli territorial and political concessions to Arabs who, like Hamas refuse, to recognize the Jewish state with Jerusalem as its Capital. The idea of a divided Jerusalem as repugnant as a divided Berlin. The European Union and individual European states, at times, have pushed for Israeli concessions on issues such as settlements and Jerusalem, often siding with Palestinian demands in ways that Israel views as both insane and discriminatory. Post Shoah the sanity of Europeans, always a concern of deep suspicion.
The fear that Israel once again finds itself trapped & caught in the historical cycle of European barbarism, imperialism; that the international community undermines the legitimacy Jews – a core grievance that burns deep for many Israelis. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) basically determined the borders and political structure of the Middle East States. The legacy of this abusive colonialism has permanently shaped attitudes as well as international borders across the Middle East. Many Israelis see the European attitude toward Israel as rooted in this imperialist barbaric and racist legacy, where European powers sought to impose ‘Final Solutions’ without understanding the consequences that the extermination of the Jewish people utterly implodes the good name reputations of the European people for ever after. This abstract idea – known as ‘Fear of Heaven’. Remains to this day an idea totally alien to both Europeans and Arabs.
Breaking diplomatic relations with British and key EU countries, like as initiated with Ireland, would certainly make a dramatic slap in the face. Such a bold move would emphasize the isolation Israel feels toward key European players, potentially harming economic and political ties. However, it would also – express Israel’s deep seated frustrations, with the perceived anti-Israel bias in European diplomacy and its longstanding grievances with European interference in the Middle East, which began with both the Churchill and Chamberlain White Paper betrayal of the Jewish people.
Relations with Britain, France, and Rome, historically complex. The memory of the Inquisition and forced expulsions stands in stark contrast with European horror and indignation of a mass Gazan population transfer post Oct 7th. First World European empires, once major colonial powers with interests across the world and specifically in the Middle East. The post ’48 Jewish state often forced to navigate a delicate balance between maintaining diplomatic relations and protecting its sovereignty and security interests. Israel’s frustration with European nations often stems from the perception that they would betray Israel’s security concerns at the drop of a hat. Europe often sides with Palestinian narratives, especially in the context of UN resolutions and EU policies. The Obama UN decree of 2334 makes Jerusalem forever suspicious that Europeans long for the day to plunge a dagger into Israel’s back.
Ireland’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly its support for resolutions that criticize Israel’s actions, seen by many Israelis as beyond simply biased and unfair. This, along with growing European support for Palestinian positions, has contributed to Israel’s increasing sense of alienation from European countries who forever stand under the shadow of the Shoah.
The Suez Crisis serves as a powerful example. The 8 year old nation, treated as a political pawn by England and France. Israel found itself in an exceptionally weak position, manipulated by Britain and France into a broader imperialist agenda that ultimately undermined Israel’s sovereignty and long-term interests in the region. The ’56 war introduced “Land for Peace”. This event, often viewed as a moment of reckoning for European imperialism in the Middle East. The Suez Crisis symbolized the end of European powers’ dominance in the region and the rise of the United States and Soviet Union as the primary international players. Britain and France—which had both previously held colonial dominance in the region—collaborated with Israel to invade Egypt and secure the canal. However, the intervention met strong opposition from both the United States and the Soviet Union; leading to a ceasefire and a subsequent embarrassment for the European powers, who were forced to withdraw. The ’56 War set the stage for the UN 242 demand for Israel to cede re-captured territory in a war initiated by Jordan!
The Suez Crisis (also known as the Second Arab-Israeli War), a clear example of European imperial powers, and their repeated attempts to assert their dominance & control over the Suez Canal and other regional matters, with a military intervention designed to bring down Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had nationalized the canal. The aftermath of the Suez Crisis also marked a turning point for Israel. While the event, seen as a failure for European powers, it also revealed a vulnerability in Israel’s geopolitical strategy: its reliance on former colonial powers like Britain and France, who had their own imperial interests in the region, fully willing and prepared to undermine Israel’s long-term security strategic interests. This greatly contributed to Israel’s wariness toward European diplomatic engagement and its sense that European policies toward the Middle East, utterly narcissistic, simply influenced by historical baggage and global power visions of empires, rather than by making a fair assessment of the new state of Israel’s needs or security.
When it comes to UN Resolution 242, Israel’s interpretation and response also central to the interpretation of this narrative. Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Six-Day War, calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, in exchange for peace with neighboring Arab states. It promotes the Arab war agenda of internationalizing the conflict through the UN; it fails to address the Israeli re-capture of Jerusalem. Israel’s frustration with this resolution also emphasizes the hostile fact that the Security Council – great powers – failed to demand that Arab states of the Middle East recognize the Israeli basic requirement – to recognize Israeli self-determination and united Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital.
Furthermore, that Middle East and African voting blocks invalidate Israel as a nation within the Middle East community of nations. UN 242 does not adequately guarantee Israeli security, recognition of its right to exist as a sovereign state, or Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.. The European Union, supports these hostile, pro-Arab resolutions, viewing them as a means to bring about a negotiated peace which favors the strategic interests of European imperialism and Arab internationalization of war in the Middle East. Israel perceives this imbalanced stance which fails to recognize the security challenges these multiple wars, by neighboring states and non-state actors threaten the existence of the Jewish state.
Many Israelis view European diplomacy through the lens of colonial history, especially the Sykes-Picot Agreement that carved up the Middle East and laid the groundwork for many of the region’s modern political challenges and border wars – like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The EU refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, coupled with the demands to dismantle post ’67 Israel, burns within the hearts of Israelis. There’s a persistent feeling that European powers, their repeated attempts to “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, smells a lot like the Nazi ‘Final Solution’. This permanent scar tissue within the Jewish soul, totally overlooked in the deep-rooted complexities of the region, including Israel’s right to security and to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian claim of Right to Return totally undermines. The EU prioritization of the plight of Arab ’48 refugees which ignores the forced expulsion of Jews from Arab countries. The corrupt UNWRA that perpetuates Arab refugee status and refuses to demand that the 22 Arab countries repatriate their refugee populations like Israel did the ’48 Jewish refugees!
Diplomatic relations with European powers, especially Britain, France, and Germany – these countries exert significant economic and political partnerships. Israeli navy, for example, has bought multiple German submarines. Severing diplomatic relations with them could lead to isolation at a time when global diplomacy, increasingly interconnected. However, the frustration with European diplomatic stances—particularly on issues like settlements, Jerusalem, and Palestinian statehood—does fuel a deep sense of alienation; the shadow of the Shoah and the betrayal of Europe never forgotten nor forgiven. The idea of breaking relations could serve as a form of protest, a way to challenge what Israel perceives as an unjust or biased approach to its security and sovereignty by European powers.
This lingering sense of betrayal, the misalignment of European policies means that the sense of distrust remains complex, with deep-seated frustration over past actions. The apple doesn’t fall far from the Tree. The historical context of European diplomacy in the region, especially with respect to the Suez Crisis and Israel’s post-1948 sovereignty struggles, continues to shape the Israeli view of European involvement in the Middle East. The shifting dynamics of global power—where the U.S. and, more recently, Russia and China have become dominant players—means that Israel may increasingly look beyond Europe for support.
In considering whether Israel should sever diplomatic relations with key European nations, the move would indeed carry significant weight—symbolically and practically. This issue defined the political theatre of Israeli politics in the 50s which pitted Ben Gurion against Menachem Begin. While European relations remain vital for Israel’s global positioning, the act of breaking relations would signal a deep frustration and an expression of Israel’s commitment to defend its sovereignty and legitimacy against what it perceives as biased international pressures. Such a decision would not only reflect the disillusionment with European policies but also potentially shift Israel’s diplomatic orientation toward more neutral or supportive powers, including the U.S., Russia, and China.
Ultimately, Israel’s security, its right to exist, and its identity as a Jewish state remain at the core of its diplomatic concerns. The complexities of its relationship with European powers reflect the broader challenges of navigating a region rife with historical grievances, imperial legacies, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this context, Israel will likely continue to weigh its strategic interests carefully, balancing the necessity of maintaining global alliances with the imperative of safeguarding its sovereignty and security.
The historical weight of Europe’s involvement in the Middle East—particularly its legacy of colonialism, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the aftermath of the Holocaust—remains deeply embedded in Israel’s diplomatic psyche. This ongoing tension between Israel’s historical experiences and the current European stance quite unlikely to dissipate without significant changes in how European diplomacy engages with Israel, the Middle East and Israel’s unique fundamental requirement that the UN recognize Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations.
These comments by mosckerr have an inhuman, detached air about them.
AI perhaps?
Steve,
I agree that it less human and more, shall we say, algorithm driven.