After a 17-hour filibuster, Israel's Knesset on Thursday voted 67 to1 to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, the body that appoints the country's judges. Opposition members left the hall during the vote.

The law changes the committee’s composition, replacing two spots held by representatives of the Israel Bar Association with two attorneys appointed by Knesset members.

One of the attorneys is to be chosen by the ruling coalition and one by the opposition. A majority of at least five will be required for a selection, so long as one is a coalition member and one from the opposition.

In the old framework, the Judicial Selection Committee comprised three Supreme Court judges, two government ministers, two Knesset members, and two lawyers from the IBA.

Given that the IBA representatives typically voted with the judges, who vote as a bloc, the justices effectively had veto power over the nomination process, according to critics of the previous system.

Supporters of judicial reform have argued that the judges’ de facto majority led to ideological homogeneity on the bench.

Its opponents argue that the new law gives the political echelon too much influence over the judicial branch.

Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara criticized the new law, saying it "casts a heavy political shadow over the judicial system and harms its professionalism, independence and ability to criticize the government."

Opposition leaders on Thursday vowed to repeal the new law in the next government.

Senior Hamas spokesperson Abdul Latif al-Qanou was killed in an Israeli airstrike in the Jabalia area of northern Gaza overnight Wednesday, according to the terrorist organization.

Several other people were reportedly wounded in the strike, according to Arab media reports.

The Israel Defense Forces has not issued an official statement confirming the strike.

Al-Qanou was regarded as one of Hamas's key public figures, alongside Abu Obaida, spokesman for the terrorist group's military wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, and spokesman Hazem Qassem. He was believed to have had close ties with Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, who was killed by Israeli forces on Oct. 16, 2024.

After maintaining a low profile during the early stages of the conflict, al-Qanou resumed media appearances during the ceasefire, continuing to act as a spokesperson in Arabic-language outlets.

In a recent interview with Al-Araby TV, he accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of intentionally delaying ceasefire negotiations for political purposes, while claiming Hamas had submitted “reasonable” proposals.

Israel's Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fox said on Wednesday that the Israeli army would maintain a permanent security presence in Gaza, Southern Lebanon and Syria.

"Unequivocally, the security zones in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are permanent zones," Fox said in an interview with Galey Israel radio.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has repeatedly threatened to reduce Gaza's territory due to the Hamas terrorist organization's refusal to release the hostages, including on Wednesday, when he warned that "more and more territory will be integrated into Israel’s defense formation."

These plans are "already prepared and approved," said Katz in a message to Gaza's residents, adding, "Hamas is putting your lives at risk, causing you to lose your homes."

He called on them to "demand the removal of Hamas from Gaza and the immediate release of all Israeli hostages," adding that "this is the only way to stop the war."

Earlier this month, Katz announced that the Israel Defense Forces will remain at five outposts in Southern Lebanon "indefinitely," despite the launch of talks with Beirut over the disputed international border.

"This is intended to protect the residents of the north, regardless of any future negotiations over disputed border points," Katz's office stated.

Days earlier, the defense minister reiterated his commitment to the IDF staying in Syrian territory "indefinitely" to protect the northern border.

"Every morning when [Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa] opens his eyes in the presidential palace in Damascus, he will see the IDF watching him from the heights of the Hermon and will remember that we are here, in all security areas in southern Syria," said Katz on March 11.

"We are here to protect the residents of the Golan and the Galilee from any threat posed by him and his jihadi associates," added the minister.

Israeli officials have repeatedly vowed to prevent another attack similar to the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre from the Gaza Strip, in which Palestinian terrorists murdered some 1,200 people and took 251 captive.

On Wednesday night, the IDF announced that a two-division exercise was underway on the northern border with Lebanon, in cooperation with the Israeli Air Force, Navy, Israel Police, Israel Fire and Rescue Services, Magen David Adom and civilian security defense teams.

The drill "simulates complex scenarios of various types in defense and offense," the IDF stated, adding: "It also highlights the strengthening of defense in communities near the border and a very wide range of integrated scenarios with all security bodies operating in the area."

The Zionist story has many details, but the basic outlines are the amazing storyline from ancient emancipation to modern rejuvenation. To understand Zionism, one needs to be familiar with its history, leaders and philosophy. To understand the State of Israel, its history, leaders and policies need to be studied.

However, to understand Zionism and the State of Israel, one must also understand the Palestinian people.

The foundation of all Zionist thought is that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and they alone have the right to govern it. Yet, a student of Zionism should ask, “How did Zionist leaders relate to the other people on their land?” “How should Zionists deal with the Palestinians?” and “How will Zionists deal with the Palestinians in the future?” Ignoring these questions leaves a gaping hole in Zionist philosophy.

The United Nations adopted Resolution 3379 in November 1975, which “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” This resolution effectively made the international community officially denounce Zionism and the values of the State of Israel as racist. This resolution and its accompanying libel of Zionism as a racist ideology lasted for 16 years until the United Nations revoked the resolution in December 1991. The Arab League, led by the Palestinians, was the leading advocate for the Zionism is racism resolution. To fully understand that Zionism isn’t racism, one must understand why Palestinians mistakenly thought Zionism discriminated against them, and why they are wrong.

Early Zionists were willing to share the land of Israel with the Arabs who lived there. Before Israel was established, early Zionist leaders accepted the suggestions of both the British Peel Commission and the United Nations Partition Plan that the Jewish people and the Palestinian people split the land. At Israel’s seminal moments, Israel’s leaders reached out to the Arabs and offered peace.

Only an understanding of Arabs who lived both inside and outside of British Mandatory Palestine’s refusal to talk to the Peel Commission, their rejection of the U.N. Partition Plan and their continued intransigence in the face of numerous Israeli peace proposals can explain why there hasn’t been a Palestinian state.

It is only by researching and understanding the Palestinians, their demands and their culture of violence that one can explain that it isn’t the responsibility of Zionists to satisfy Palestinian demands. Palestinian demonization of Israel instead of Palestinian progress is the cause of their unhappiness. Misunderstanding Zionism by conflating it with Palestinian destiny and desires can only happen when the student misunderstands the Palestinians.

Palestinians accuse Israel of stealing land from the native Palestinians. If educators don’t teach that Palestinians aren’t indigenous to the land of Israel, that the Palestinians weren’t colonized and that Zionism isn’t immoral for returning the Jewish people to live in their historic homeland, then they aren’t fully explaining Zionism.

Although the study of Zionism is a study of objective facts, history and philosophy, it also contains a narrative. Every people has a story and every nation has its legends. In any good story, there is a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” For over a century, the Palestinians have tried to portray the Zionists as the bad guy. To teach the Zionist narrative properly, people must clearly explain why Zionists aren’t the “bad guys” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is only by familiarizing oneself with the Palestinian admiration of violence and terrorism in response to Zionist offers of peace that Zionists can understand their narrative.

It isn’t enough for Zionist leaders, educators, advocates and influencers to talk about the virtues of Zionism. To fully explain Zionism, the views of the other side, the anti-Zionists, must be explained as well.

Between 20% and 30% of adults no longer affiliate with the religion which they grew up in many Western countries, including 28% of Americans. But fewer than 1% of adults who were raised as Israeli Jews no longer identify as such, per a new Pew Research Center report on "religious switching."

Pew drew on data from 36 countries, including 36,908 American adults from a study conducted between July 2023 and March 2024, and surveys of 41,503 adults outside of the United States conducted between January and May 2024.

"Christianity and Buddhism have experienced especially large losses from this 'religious switching,' while rising numbers of adults have no religious affiliation," per the Pew study.

In South Korea, 50% of adults surveyed said that they had switched from their birth religion, per the Pew study, followed by Spain (40%), Canada (38%), Sweden (37%), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (36% each) and Australia, France, Germany and Japan (34% each).

Pew found that religious switching was also rare—lower than 5%—in India, Nigeria and Thailand, in addition to Israel.

"Most of the movement has been into the category we call religiously unaffiliated, which consists of people who answer a question about their religion by saying they are atheists, agnostics or 'nothing in particular,'" Pew found. "Most of the switching is disaffiliation—people leaving the religion of their childhood and no longer identifying with any religion."

Per Pew, 80% of Jews worldwide live in the United States and Israel.

"Viewed as a percentage of all U.S. adults, few people have left or joined Judaism. But Jewish adults make up only a small fraction of the U.S. population to begin with, about 2%," according to the study. "Most people who were raised Jewish in Israel and the United States still identify this way today, resulting in high Jewish retention rates in both countries—though it’s higher in Israel than in the United States."

About a quarter (24%) of U.S. adults raised Jewish no longer identify as such, some 24 times the corresponding number of Israeli adults, with most now identifying as atheist, agnostic or no faith, according to the study.

Among U.S. adults raised Jewish, 17% are now unaffiliated, 2% identify as Christian and 1% as Muslim, the study found.

In Israel, Pew found that Jews often switch religious denominations, which the research body defines as "religious" (Dati), "ultra-Orthodox" (Haredi), "traditional" (Masorti) and "secular" (Hiloni).

Of the 22% of Israeli Jews who switched denominations from the one in which they were raised, 10% were raised traditional and 9% religious, and 9% of Israeli adults who weren't raised secular now identify as such, according to Pew. Fewer than 1% of those raised Haredi have switched, and about the same number have become Haredi, the study found.

Overall, per the Pew data, shifts in denominations in Israel have seen 15% become less religiously observant and 6% become more observant.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested the Turkish national Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student at Tufts University in the Boston area, for supporting Hamas, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Ozturk was “granted the privilege to be in this country on a visa,” a senior spokesperson at the department told JNS. “A visa is a privilege not a right.” 

“Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated,” the spokesperson added. “This is common sense security.”

Ozturk’s arrest comes as the Trump administration seeks to detain and deport those on student visas partaking in “antisemitic, anti-American activity,” as part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order to combat antisemitism.

Ozturk, who is Muslim, was arrested on Tuesday outside her apartment in Somerville, Mass., en route to break the Ramadan fast with her friends, according to a statement from her lawyer, the Associated Press reported.

“We are unaware of her whereabouts and have not been able to contact her,” the attorney stated. “No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of.”

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered that Ozturk remain in the state without advance written notice from the government to the court. Someone with Ozturk’s name, who was born in Turkey, is in custody at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, La., per the ICE website.

Video circulating on social media appeared to show multiple plainclothes officers, some with badges displayed, arresting a woman in a white coat and pinkish head covering. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, posted a screenshot of the video.

Stop Antisemitism wrote that Ozturk, after graduating from Columbia University, “led pro-Hamas, violent antisemitic and anti-American events as a Ph.D. student at Tufts.”

In this powerful premiere episode of “Straight Up,” host Danny Seaman, former senior official at the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, sits down with veteran Israeli journalist and broadcaster Lital Shemesh (Channel 14 News) for a hard-hitting conversation on the future of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority and the dangerous implications of international funding.

As Israel contemplates “the day after” the Gaza war, Danny and Lital break down why Israelis overwhelmingly reject the return of the Palestinian Authority to power in Gaza. Lital, author of “How Much Is a Dead Jew Worth?,” exposes the PA’s disturbing “pay-for-slay” policy—funding terrorists and rewarding families of those who murder Jews.

Topics covered include:

• Trump’s proposed Gaza relocation plan
  
• The PA’s continued support for Hamas terrorists
  
• Palestinian indoctrination through education
  
• UNRWA’s complicity in terror activities
  
• U.S. and European aid fueling extremism
  
• Why true peace requires cultural reform, not just political deals

See more at: @JNS_TV. And don’t forget to hit the subscribe button!

JNS will host its inaugural International Policy Summit on Monday, April 28, 2025. This daylong event will convene government officials, policymakers, diplomats, security experts, leaders of pro-Israel organizations, and influencers for vital discussions aimed at addressing Israel’s critical challenges and opportunities in a post-Oct. 7 world.

Registration at this point is for invitees only. However, you can submit a request for registration using the following link.

Israel, under the leadership of the Minister of Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism Amichai Chikli, has extended an invitation to political and cultural leaders worldwide: Attend an “International Conference to Combat Antisemitism” in Jerusalem. This initiative reflects a critical truth—Israel must lead this battle. For years now, antisemitism has been the ideological backbone of the broader woke coalition in which so-called “oppressed” groups wage war against their so-called “oppressors.” At the heart of this narrative lies an effort to delegitimize, even destroy, Israel.

What we are witnessing is no longer a fringe phenomenon but a flood. The oldest hatred has taken on a new, modern form—manifesting in public squares and university campuses as a revolt against the core Judeo-Christian values of the West. The Oct. 7 massacre, in which Hamas terrorists slaughtered Israeli civilians, revealed an unexpected twist. Instead of sympathy, it sparked a wave of global political antisemitism. Today, every Jew—left or right, secular or religious—feels the threat.

Israel, understanding this, has expanded its battleground. It is now fighting not only for physical security but also for moral clarity. The government seeks to assume global leadership in the fight against antisemitism, opening its doors to both left-wing leaders who rightly denounce the few remaining neo-fascists, and to the growing right-wing forces in Europe who, without hesitation, name radical Islam—and its alliance with the radical left—as one of the primary engines of modern antisemitism. And they are not wrong. The data, the attacks, the studies—all point to the same conclusion: Today’s antisemitism thrives on school campuses and in public protests where anti-Zionist hate morphs into raw terror against Jews.

But just days before the conference, some invitees withdrew. It’s a familiar pattern. Since Oct. 7, the silence—and worse, the refusals—have been staggering. From the United Nation’s failure to explicitly condemn Hamas’s atrocities, to the global reluctance to acknowledge the rape and mutilation of Israeli women and the cold refusal to mourn murdered infants—the world has chosen equivocation over moral responsibility. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres famously said the massacre “did not happen in a vacuum,” as if that could ever justify it.

What’s worse, many of these same voices have condemned Israel, even calling it “genocidal”—a grotesque inversion of reality, as Hamas, not Israel, is the genocidal actor. The refusal to attend the Jerusalem conference is rooted in the claim that some right-wing European invitees are themselves antisemites. French, German, Austrian and Hungarian political leaders have been dismissed for their political affiliations.

But if that’s the case, shouldn’t these concerns be voiced at the very conference convened to confront antisemitism? Refusing to show up is a political gesture that delegitimizes not only the guests but Israel itself. Why?

Among the most controversial invitees was Jordan Bardella, the 29-year-old president of France’s National Rally. Yes, he succeeded Marine Le Pen, who in turn broke from her father Jean-Marie Le Pen—a notorious antisemite. But Marine Le Pen has consistently and publicly repudiated her father’s legacy, even calling the Holocaust “the greatest horror in history.” Bardella, too, speaking to Israeli journalist Eldad Beck, declared his “total commitment to fighting antisemitism.”

Yet his presence, along with representatives from Spain’s Vox, Sweden’s Democrats and the Dutch Party for Freedom, caused an uproar. Jewish organizations, including the European Jewish Congress, members of Italy’s and France’s Jewish communities, and the chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, distanced themselves from the event. By rejecting the entire forum, they allowed their disagreement with Israel’s current government—particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—to overshadow the conference’s true purpose.

A particularly revealing example comes from an academic in La Stampa, who wrote that the far right and Evangelicals have aligned not with the Israel that she approves of, but with “Netanyahu’s racist and anti-democratic Israel.” This academic mocked the conference’s premise, claiming it focuses on “so-called antisemitism” by the United Nations and international courts, rather than the “real” threat. But how can one debate such hollow logic? Israel remains a vibrant democracy, often painfully so, where dissent flourishes. And the persecution Israel faces at the United Nations and its affiliated bodies is not hypothetical—it’s documented, studied and widely condemned for its obsessive anti-Israel bias.

Even Bernard-Henri Lévy, usually a voice of clarity, declined to attend—publishing a strangely self-referential explanation that amounts to an intellectualized self-accusation. He acknowledges that the right is no longer inherently antisemitic and that Israel is right to broaden its alliances. Yet, guided by instinct or nostalgia, he still refused. Is it nostalgia for the resistance trenches of 76 years ago? That era is over.

As for the concern that nationalism contains dangerous elements, of course. But the nobility of Zionism lies in its goal—to save the Jewish nation in a painful war for survival. Young Israelis, from across the political and religious spectrum, fight together to defend that goal.

And what do we hear in Western streets? “Kill the Jews,” chanted not by skinheads, but by leftist Palestinian supporters. The portrayal of Israel as a colonial, racist, genocidal state has deep roots in Soviet anti-American, anti-Zionist propaganda. A few pages of postwar history are enough to trace the line. Since the 1960s, antisemitic hatred has hidden behind anti-Zionist rhetoric, following the three Ds: demonization, double standards and delegitimization. Terrorism has always marched beside antisemitism. This is the truth.

With cautious determination, Israel now acknowledges what some refused to see for years—that it may find more allies on the right than the left. Even Bardella.