Latest news with #AmichaiChikli
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Explained: Why is Israel bombing Syria?
Conflict in Syria has escalated with Israel launching bombing raids against its northern neighbour. It follows months of fluctuating tensions in southern Syria between the Druze minority and forces aligned with the new government in Damascus. Clashes erupted in the last few days, prompting Israeli airstrikes in defence of the Druze by targeting government bases, tanks, and heavy weaponry. Israel Minister Amichai Chikli has called the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa "a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay." Despite the incendiary language, a ceasefire has been reached, halting the fighting – for now. Syrian forces have begun withdrawing heavy military equipment from the region, while Druze fighters have agreed to suspend armed resistance, allowing government troops to regain control of the main Druze city of Suwayda. What do the Druze want? The Druze are a small religious minority estimated at over one million people, primarily concentrated in the mountainous regions of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan. In Syria, their population is estimated at around 700,000 (of around 23 million total Syrian population), with the majority residing in the southern As-Suwayda Governorate – or province – which serves as their traditional stronghold. Since the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime, the Druze have maintained a degree of autonomy, successfully defending their territory from various threats, including ISIS and other jihadist groups. Following Assad's fall late last year, the Druze — along with other minority groups such as the Kurds in the east and Alawites in the west — have called for the country to be federalized. They advocate for a decentralised model that would grant greater autonomy to regional communities. However, the transitional government in Damascus is pushing for a centralised state and seeking to reassert full control over the entire Syrian territory. This fundamental disagreement has led to periodic clashes between Druze forces and government-aligned troops. Despite the temporary ceasefire, tensions remain high. Given the core political dispute remains unresolved, many expect renewed conflict to erupt in the near future.
The National
7 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Who is Amichai Chikli? The right-wing Israeli minister who called for Syria's Al Shara to be eliminated
Israel's Diaspora affairs minister has called for Syria 's President Ahmad Al Shara to be "eliminated", after a ceasefire failed to put an end to three days of violence in southern Syria against the country's Druze minority. Amichai Chikli has often stirred controversy, both outside and within Israel with his frequent attacks on media outlets he considers left-wing, anti-Palestinian comments, support for annexing the occupied West Bank and for his ties to European far-right politicians. Mr Chikli, 41, has held the position since 2022 and before entering politics he was a combat officer in the Israeli army. The son of a conservative Rabbi, he has deep ties to the progressive Jewish movement – although he does not publicly affiliate himself to it. He rose to prominence in the Israeli political sphere by voting against his former party Yamina in the previous Knesset and then joining the Likud party – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing party. He was the first lawmaker to break away from former prime minister Naftali Bennett over his decision to enter an alliance with left-wing and Arab parties. As the Diaspora affairs minister, one of his main tasks is to cultivate Israel's ties with Jews around the world, but Mr Chikli has often come at odds with American Jews, one of the largest diasporas. He has spoken out against Reform Judaism, the largest denomination in the US. He equates criticism of Israel and its actions against Palestinians or war in Gaza as anti-Semitism. Last month, he was part of a heated debate with British broadcaster Piers Morgan, calling him antisemitic for criticising Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip where it has been waging a devastating war for 21 months. He has described pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the US as a 'pandemic spreading on American campuses … not so different and not less dangerous than the fentanyl epidemic'. Mr Chikli has frequently attacked media outlets that he considers left-wing. He has often accuses the Hebrew daily Haaretz of incitement and causing damage to the country, and has called for the government to close down the public broadcaster Kan. He also stirred controversy in March when he opened the government's International Conference on Combating anti-Semitism with an apology to far-right European politicians for the controversy surrounding their participation in the event. The anti-Semitism event, organised by Mr Chikli's ministry, was boycotted by leading Jewish and Zionist groups due to the attendance of far-right foreign politicians, some of whose parties have origins in the Nazi era. The Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), a non-profit group based in Brussels, said in January that its president, Dyab Abou Jahjah, had filed a criminal complaint against Mr Chikli. He claimed that HRF, which is pursuing legal action against Israeli soldiers, is linked to Hezbollah and Hamas. He had been due to meet members of the Jewish community in Brussels that month, but pulled out due to security concerns, likely linked to the legal case initiated by the HRF. More than 40 relatives of families of Israeli hostages in Gaza and leaders and representatives of Jewish communities across Europe cosigned a letter asking them to cancel Mr Chikli's invitation. The letter expressed concern over Mr Chikli's opposition to a hostage rescue agreement, his support for far-right European politicians and his apparent backing for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon.
Yahoo
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A-G: Turning my firing process political is illegal, opens door to political deals
The government's decision to change the hiring and firing process is 'fundamental, tectonic,' and will affect the entire future of the position. The government's push to hasten the firing Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara means the upending of the process that has been in place for her position for decades is against the law and will serve as a slippery slope for political deals, the A-G said on Monday, as her office issued an advisory opinion against the government's decision. The decision in question was passed on June 8 and stipulated changes to the traditional firing process of the attorney-general. A ministerial committee on the matter is scheduled for Monday, led by Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud). To hire or fire the A-G, an external public-professional committee must convene and provide an expert opinion before any government decision comes to light. The committee includes a retired Supreme Court justice as chair, appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice and by approval of the justice minister; a former justice minister or attorney-general, chosen by the government; an MK, chosen by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee; a lawyer, chosen by the Israel Bar Association (IBA); and a legal academic, selected by the deans of Israel's law faculties. The term of an attorney-general is six years. If the government wishes to end the term early, it has to meet specific conditions – such as if there are consistent and severe disagreements between theA-G and the government, rendering their working relationship obsolete. If this is the case, the justice minister must submit a request to the committee. It then holds a meeting, during which the A-G can present their side. The committee then submits its recommendations. It's not just politics the A-G's Office is worried about; it is what led to the creation of the public professional committee in the first place: The Bar-On-Hebron Affair. In January 1997, lawyer Roni Bar-On was appointed attorney-general. He was not qualified for the position and resigned two days later after public and political outrage. About a week later, it came out that his appointment was part of a deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Shas head Arye Deri, who was then internal security minister, to advance a plea bargain in Deri's corruption case. Deri pushed for the appointment in exchange for his party's support of the controversial Hebron Agreement. Deri was later indicted after a police investigation concluded that charges be brought, and, due to that, he was out of politics for a decade. The committee was created to avoid such a scenario. What the government outlined in its June 8 decision is 'laden with political-governmental factors,' read the Monday advisory opinion by the Attorney-General's Office. Under its framework, all that is required is for the justice minister to present the request to fire the A-G to a committee made up of government ministers only, and then to bring it to a parliamentary vote. This effectively 'circumvents the necessity to appear before the public-professional committee,' explained the opinion. The existing procedure came into effect after an attempted political appointment of the attorney-general and has been in effect since 2000, thanks to the Shamgar Commission. 'The requirement to seek counsel with the public professional committee was instituted specifically so that political factors don't influence the decision,' said the A-G's Office, which is also why specific conditions must be met for the firing process to even begin, to make sure it's not a political hit and to prevent complete governmental control over the process. The advisory opinion adds that the government decision didn't come in a vacuum; it came after Justice Minister Yariv Levin had already set out to have her fired under the current framework. However, he couldn't successfully call the committee in. He then pivoted, reads the decision, to change the whole process altogether, 'without professional, serious investment, without proper legal support, and without explaining why the fundamentals of the process actually need to be changed.' As soon as the decision was announced, several NGOs immediately petitioned the High Court of Justice to issue an injunction on the decision and force the government to explain its actions. The petitioners argued that the decision has no legal basis and breaks with the traditions of previous governments, that it is clouded with foreign influences, and that what Levin did here was trying to change the rules of the game while already in it, when he realized he wouldn't succeed in calling up the committee. 'The government showed, with its actions, that if the existing frameworks don't find its favor or serve its immediate needs, it will simply change them,' reads the opinion, as it called on the court to order the injunctions against the decision. After the petitions were filed, Justice Noam Sohlberg gave several extensions on the deadline for the government's response. The deadline is now July 15. However, on July 2, the government announced that the ministerial committee will convene on Monday, July 14 – before the deadline runs out. It also summoned Baharav-Miara for a hearing on the matter, which was later canceled and replaced by the committee meeting announcement. Levin said on Monday, 'The attorney-general is wasting state resources to avoid her firing, with a clear conflict of interest. The government decision I led is not only legal but necessary.' The office pointed out that it informed the government in a timely manner that it would allow separate legal representation on the matter before the court. It added, 'The decision has fundamental, far-reaching consequences, ones that touch the roots of the A-G's position to protect the rule of law.' It further warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, calling it 'fundamental and tectonic' in nature. 'This decision fundamentally changes the character, independence, statesmanship, and ability of any future attorney-general to carry out their duties and protect the rule of law,' as it will trickle down to legal advisers present in the ministries. Eliav Breuer and Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Yahoo
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Absurdity' of A-G's opposition must be terminated, Israeli gov't tells High Court
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said that the government's response 'clearly reveals the serious flaws' in its dismissal attempts. After receiving an extension for its response to the High Court of Justice on the attempts to fire Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, the government on Sunday doubled down on its position in its response, explaining that it is unreasonable to force the government to work with a legal adviser 'that is actively working against its policies.' The position, authored by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli, pointed to what it described as 'absurd,' that the government can't be legally represented by its own lawyer -the attorney-general - in the rising list of cases where they clash. 'We expect the court to acknowledge this absurdity. The Attorney-General worked systematically to cut the cord between her office and the government, we now expect the court to finish it off,' reads the position. Part of the issue, which has been long-present in legal debate, is that the attorney-general wears two hats: it heads the prosecution, meaning it represents the government's position in significant cases, and it also is the chief legal adviser to the government and considered the weightiest interpreter of the law. When her interpretation of the law differs from the government, her office can't represent it, leading to the sticky situation the two authorities are in today. A ministerial committee is scheduled to convene tomorrow to discuss her dismissal, the hastened solution Levin has been pushing, after he failed to fill the positions needed for the public-professional committee that would oversee the process, hand in hand with the government. Petitions to freeze the hearing have been submitted, which the government insisted in its decision should be wholly rejected. Levin's decision to leave the process instead in the hands of ministers has faced fierce criticism for politicizing a delicate and sensitive topic. Proponents argue that the situation is so dire as to make the work relationship between the government and the attorney-general obsolete. In the last line of the decision, the ministers note that an injunction against the ministerial hearing would be 'wildly exceptional' and 'fundamentally opposed to the legal principle by which legal overview should take place after an act has been committed, not before.' The government called for the injunction requests to be rejected. The decision did not address the attorney-general's position, concretized in several advisery opinions over the past few weeks, that the legislation to dismiss her has far-reaching consequences for the legal advisery as a whole and for whoever her successor may be - it would politicize a powerful key position, viewed by some as one of the only checks on power on the government. The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG) said that the government's response 'clearly reveals the serious flaws' in its dismissal attempts. 'Instead of presenting a real legal justification for changing the mechanism, the government is trying to explain why it needs to dismiss the attorney general right now and why it needs to do so by changing the rules of the game. The response indicates that the government is aware of the weakness of the move from a legal perspective and is trying to justify a decision that was made in a clear conflict of interest,' it explained.
Middle East Eye
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
The Jewish diaspora must confront what Israel is doing in our name
Israel's minister of diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, Amichai Chikli, is worried about the Jews in Britain. In the aftermath of the hyperbolic media and political reaction to pro-Palestine chants at the Glastonbury music festival, Chikli posted on X that the Jewish community must "leave the country". His reasons? The supposedly ubiquitous antisemitism across Britain, from the BBC to music fans, was threatening the "blood of Jews and Israelis living in Britain". He added: "I am deeply disturbed by what is happening in Britain. In a place where antisemitism flourishes, society sinks into dark and dangerous a conservative revolution, this country is lost." Chikli has spent years building close alliances with some of Europe's far-right parties, many of whom maintain ties with actual neo-Nazis, because he sees them as useful allies in his dream of building a global ethno-nationalist movement led by the master of the model, Israel. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters This is Israel in 2025 - pursuing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza, implementing a grotesque system where Palestinians seeking aid are gunned down, and smearing any criticism as akin to Nazism. Messianic vision Israel's messianic extremism is too rarely interrogated in the West, but it is a frightening phenomenon that threatens the lives of Palestinians, less dogmatic Jews and the entire Middle East. Judaism is not Zionism, and those who argue they are one and the same are being fundamentally dishonest An influential segment of the Israeli Jewish population views Iran's Islamic Republic or the Taliban's Afghanistan as ideal models to follow - fundamentalist, theocratic states that accept nobody who does not conform to their vision - Jew, Christian, Muslim or atheist. As a Jewish journalist who has been writing about Israel and Palestine for over 20 years, I sometimes hesitate to centre uncomfortable Jewish feelings in the face of horrors in Gaza, the West Bank and beyond. While it is vital to focus principally on Palestinian lives, suffering and resistance, it is impossible to ignore the moral, political and practical culpability of the organised Jewish community in the UK, US and much of the western world. None of this would be happening if more Jews had refused to partake in anguished silence or acquiescence over endless occupation and deprivation in Palestine; refused to lobby their governments for yet more money and arms for Israel; and resisted pressuring media outlets to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli actions. Collective silence "Why should any Jew feel obligated to perform emotional penance for the actions of the Israeli government?" one Australian Jewish writer recently asked. It is a fair question - until you recognise the inherent dishonesty in its premise. When every major (and mostly self-appointed) representative Jewish organisation in Australia, the UK, US and Europe uncritically endorses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war aims in Gaza, backs Israel's illegal military strikes against Iran, and says nothing about daily settler-led pogroms in the West Bank, it is reasonable to ask: what kind of Judaism is being supported, and in whose name? Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Judaism is not Zionism, and those who argue they are one and the same are being fundamentally dishonest. Yet collectively, Jews are often held responsible when the world's only Jewish state claims to act in our name. Jewish critics are shunned and blacklisted from Jewish organisations for any deviation from the party line of "Israel, right or wrong". This leaves no room for disagreement or robust debate. War on Gaza: After Palestinians, Zionism's next victim is the Jewish faith Read More » Unsurprisingly, many citizens in democracies cannot tell the difference between Israel and Judaism - the latter's "official" spokespeople insist there isn't one. Many of these Zionist organisations have long been right-wing, but the 21st century has seen a rapid shift towards a more authoritarian stance on Israel, Palestinians, Islam and immigration. It is why a growing number of American Jews voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election (even though a majority still supported former Vice President Kamala Harris). The American Jewish writer Peter Beinart argues in his new book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, that conflating Zionism and Judaism certainly does not make Jews any safer, nor does a "Free Palestine" sign inherently endanger Jews. "But if conflating Israel and Zionism is a terrible way to defend Jews," he writes, "it's an effective way to discredit Palestinians because it turns Palestinian opposition to Zionism from a natural response to oppression into a form of bigotry." For many Jews in the diaspora - and I was instructed to follow these dictates when growing up in Melbourne, Australia in the 1970s and 1980s - Israel was framed as a beacon of freedom, a place of refuge in the event of pogroms or genocide. But what if the victims of the Nazi genocide are now perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinians? Zionist conflation The global Jewish population is around 16 million, with nearly half living in just two places: Israel and the US. A live and necessary battle is now under way for the soul of this community. What does it mean to be Jewish in the 21st century? As a secular, atheist Jew myself, I would argue it means reckoning with the catastrophic actions of the Jewish state, supported by much of the diaspora. We must build something more humane and robust - a vision that upholds the concept of a multiracial world. We as Jews urgently need to challenge the Jewish mainstream's embrace of Jewish supremacy in Israel and its increasing lip-service to multiculturalism at home - in London, New York or Sydney. These are inherently contradictory ideologies, and yet Jews are rarely held to account for them. How is it acceptable to romanticise West Bank settlers, whose vision is exclusionary and violent, while embracing the diverse cultures, foods and religions in your own backyard? To be clear, Jews outside of Israel are not all personally responsible for the actions of the Israeli state - no more than Muslims were responsible for the crimes of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or Catholics for the sins of paedophile priests. But many Jews have allowed themselves to be represented by the most militarised - and frankly racist - elements within their communities, under the delusion that this is what will keep us safe in the century after the Holocaust. Moral reckoning At a time when real antisemitism is rising in many parts of the world, the pro-Israel lobby and the loudest Zionist voices are singularly ill-equipped to respond. The hardline thinking was perhaps best articulated by former Netanyahu spokesperson Eylon Levy, who posted on X in 2024 after Israel had assassinated an "enemy" leader: "Not your grandparents' Jews anymore" - an apparent reference to decades of defenceless Jews killed without revenge or punishment. In this worldview, Israel is the protector of Jews - and without its "live by the sword, die by the sword" approach, we would all be quivering Jews on the cattle train to Auschwitz. The Jewish community is undergoing a long-overdue moral reckoning with its identity, role and responsibility Only the most blinkered would look at the Middle East today and conclude that Israel is more secure for Jews than it was before 7 October 2023. It is not. It remains more unsafe to be Jewish in Israel than in almost any other part of the globe. The Jewish community is undergoing a long-overdue moral reckoning with its identity, role and responsibility. Only some are meeting the moment. As Phil Weiss, Jewish founder of the US news website Mondoweiss, recently wrote: "This is a vulnerable time for American Jews, as [New York mayoral candidate] Zohran Mamdani says. Overwhelmingly, our community is identified with a brutal aggressor." This is our challenge in the 21st century. And it is also a choice. Do we continue to associate with a fascistic Israel, or build inclusive communities in the diaspora? For me, the decision is clear. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
