[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now how mainstream American Jewish groups that rarely criticize Israel are reacting to the new law there weakening the judiciary, and what are the implications for US-Israel relations at the governmental level? With us for this is Ron Kampeas, Washington bureau chief for JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. That's a news organization. Ron, thanks for joining us. Welcome to WNYC.

Ron Kampeas: Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Can you start by reminding people of what the change in the law actually entails?

Ron Kampeas: Well, first, there's a whole package of laws that are supposed to go through, and the one that just went through a couple of weeks ago removes from the Supreme Court the power to review laws and executive decisions and declare them not to meet a reasonable standard. In other words, to say that they're unreasonable. This has been exercised, for instance, most recently in Netanyahu's attempt to make a thrice-convicted tax evader, Aria Derry, the Interior Minister, saying that it's just not reasonable by any standards to allow that person to be in such an influential position. He wants the Supreme Court not to have that power in order for him to fill his cabinet the way he sees fit.

Brian Lehrer: Before we get to the American Jewish reaction, that is the American Jewish reaction, just for a little more context from over there, there have been big protests in Israel, a lot of people have seen that in the news. How big, and are they continuing?

Ron Kampeas: Yes, the protests are continuing, from what I can see. I think people-- Netanyahu certainly hoped that they would peter off as soon as they started in February. How big? It's hard to say because police in Israel don't give counts because they don't want to be accused of being partisan one way or the other, but the protesters say that they're in the hundreds of thousands, a couple of hundred thousand in Tel Aviv, a couple of hundred thousand or maybe a little less across the rest of the country. Netanyahu, like I said, he'd hoped that they would peter out, but they haven't. Now the Knesset is in recess. I think he hopes that's going to give him a bit of a breather, but then you're still seeing the protesters coming out because what happens in Israel? The Knesset recesses in July. Supposedly, nothing's supposed to happen until after the Jewish holidays in late September, and nothing will happen legislatively. At least in the immediate sense, there's nothing to spur the protests, but nonetheless, they're going out.

Brian Lehrer: Who's for the law, and who's against it in Israel? Does that break down along demographic lines that are clear enough to summarize it briefly?

Ron Kampeas: I think the demographic lines that would break down are right and left. There's been an attempt by the government, by the people who are proponents of the law, to suggest that the people who oppose it are mostly Ashkenazi and supposedly elite, the people who are for it are Mizrahi or Sephardi and not the elite. I'm Sephardic, my family in Israel are all either Sephardic or Mizrahi, or at least one part of my family are. I'm not coming out in any kind of position, but they're all protesting the thing. That's just anecdotal, but then you can [unintelligible 00:03:50] [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: Sephardic meaning, for people who don't know, people with more recent roots in the Middle East, and the Ashkenazi more like people who've emigrated from Europe or the United States, yes?

Ron Kampeas: Exactly. The Ashkenazis, of course, were the leaders in establishing in Israel for decades, they were the elite, but that's changing. That demographically has changed a lot in Israel just simply by dint of intermarriage, and it's not so clear anymore. Otherwise, certainly, the ultra orthodox are for the changes because they see the courts as having inhibited their efforts to consolidate certain things they want. For instance, they want to be able to legislate and to codify the fact that they don't have to do army service. That's one thing. They don't want the religious courts, which control civilian life, civil life, like marriage and death and divorce in Israel, they don't want them to have to answer to the Supreme Court, which in certain cases, they do. That's [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: The more religiously orthodox tend more to be for this. Now, to the American Jewish context, your article starts by saying, "For months earlier this year, mainstream American Jewish groups waffled on how much to weigh in on Israel's internal political debates, something many had studiously avoided in the past, but that felt like a distant memory on Monday," this is Monday last week, "after Israel's parliament approved a law that its authors and critics, including many of those American Jewish groups alike, said would reshape the country." What changed last Monday?

Ron Kampeas: What changed between March when they waffled and last Monday I think is just seeing Netanyahu press ahead with this. I think they'd hoped in March that after he-- What had happened in March is that his defense minister, Yoav Galant, spoke out against pushing so hard. The defense minister was in favor of the reforms that Netanyahu was proposing, but he saw how much this was ripping Israel apart, including its military establishment, and he saw it was even affecting military readiness. Netanyahu fired Yoav Galant.

There were massive, massive, unprecedentedly large protests because he fired Yoav Galant. Then, he rescinded his firing of Yoav Galant and said he was going to take his recommendation and take a break. I think that the American Jewish organizations were watching that. This was a tremendously uncomfortable thing for them. I think ideologically, just in terms of their own demographics and culturally, they are against the reforms, but they're also inherently against criticizing Israel, especially for its internal politics. They said, "Okay, great, we can take a break now. This is all going to sort out, or perhaps it'll sort out over the next few weeks," and that didn't happen. Netanyahu went back to trying to push through the reforms. Now it's almost like they've been prepped psychologically for the last six months or so to finally say, "Okay, that's it. We're going to have to step up and make it clear that we oppose these reforms right now."

Brian Lehrer: You quote, for example, the position of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti Defamation League, the ADL as pretty well known, but how would you describe the place of the AJC, the American Jewish Committee, in American Jewish politics typically?

Ron Kampeas: Until about three decades ago, the AJC and the ADL were pretty much in the same liberal space. They wouldn't call themselves partisan, but they were certainly more aligned with the Democratic Party. More recently, the AJC has focused more on foreign affairs, it's a little more hawkish, a little more centrist than the ADL. Whereas three decades ago, a church state separation thing at the Supreme Court might have attracted amicus briefs from both organizations, you're less likely to get it from the AJC now. It's certainly interesting, I think, that the AJC has stepped up as far as the Israel reforms and been critical.

Brian Lehrer: How critical are they?

Ron Kampeas: Well, what have they said? New law was pushed through unilaterally by the governing coalition amid deepening divisions in Israeli society, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who've taken to the streets. They're saying, they're just accusing Netanyahu of using blunt force. They're even coming out first in saying it. I think that they're really rattled by why the Israeli government's doing this. I talked a little bit now just about the cultures that the American Jewish organizations come out of. One of the interesting things, I think, is that even before Netanyahu had put his government in place in late December when he was pulling it together, the thing that shocked a lot of Israelis, the thing that really started the nascent protest movement, was some of the extreme things that then proposed cabinet ministers had said or were saying about LGBTQ community. That's something that's taken for granted, at least among the liberal American majority, that the LGBTQ have rights, that they should marry. They don't marry in Israel, but they have rights equivalent to marriage, that they shouldn't be persecuted in any way, and people saying really shocking things from that perspective, and so that, I think, is one of the main elements, is driving this unease with the reforms, that and also the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, most of their members are reform or conservative.

The courts in Israel have been seen as protecting the non-orthodox community, something that's not so much noticed among Israelis, but is very much noticed here, where those two movements are preeminent in the American Jewish community.

Brian Lehrer: Right. The reform movement, a relatively liberal group of American Jews, the largest organized group of American Jews by congregation membership, I believe, and what's called the conservative movement in American Jewish life, it's kind of Centrist, and then you get the Orthodox movement which is further to the right. They have political groups allied with them too, like you cite the Zionist Organization of America further to the right, but there's also the well-known Israel Lobby, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and you write that they took a cautious approach. I'm very curious about what AIPAC is doing because they are so influential over American policy.

Ron Kampeas: AIPAC, I think what's interesting is that in March, they were initially part of the talks that wanted to express some sort of-- in much less blunt ways that the organizations did last Monday, but AIPAC was part of the conversation among Jewish organizations that were going to express caution about what Netanyahu was planning. AIPAC's in a difficult position as far as it is concerned because a lot of their credibility has to do with their influence with any given Israeli government, any given American government, and they cannot come out as too critical of the Netanyahu government. On the other hand, they're non-partisan. They have a lot of donors, they've had a lot of leaders who are Democrats who give a lot of money to Democratic politicians. If you go to their annual conference when they had them, they've canceled them since the pandemic, they're law to reformed Jews, a lot of conservative Jews, and they don't want to alienate that sector as well. The Israeli protest movement is gaining traction among Democrats, among Jewish Democrats, in particular. It's giving them license to criticize Israel in I think a way that they never felt they'd had a license before, so it's like basically, AIPAC's caught between a rock and a hard place.

Brian Lehrer: A place in a Hard Rock Cafe, I don't know, something like that.

Ron Kampeas: [laughs] Exactly.

Brian Lehrer: Now, listeners, Jewish listeners for this call-in, what's your emotional connection with Israel historically, and is it changing? 212-433-WNYC, or what's your political or even financial or charitable relationship with Israel, and is it changing as the Israeli politics and their context of democracy in Israel change? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 for Ron Kampeas, who's the Washington bureau chief for JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Tweet @Brian Lehrer if you want to comment that way or text or call us 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692.

Just to stay on AIPAC for a minute, I'm going to read the quote from AIPAC in your article about these judiciary changes. They said, "While we believe it was a serious mistake for this government to ignore the pleading of the majority of its citizens, as well as its president, and pass this bill without significant compromise, it was done democratically, as in any democracy, including the United States, governments are empowered to make decisions however disappointing or unwise we may believe them to be." AIPAC is sort of supporting the process as Democratic by which these changes came about but implying at least that they don't support the changes. I guess my question is, does AIPAC distancing itself from the Israeli government, from this major and Israeli government action, even that little bit have potential implications for US policy toward Israel?

Ron Kampeas: Well, I think that it's just like, to moderately correct you, the person who's saying that is a Democratic majority for Israel, and the Democratic majority for Israel is a pro-Democratic party movement, but it's very much aligned in its ideology with AIPAC, even though every time I say that, they call me and they say, "We're not formally aligned with AIPAC," and I tell them, "I know. I didn't say that you're formally aligned, but everything you say is something that AIPAC would say."

They're delivering this criticism in a way that AIPAC, I think, would allow its Democrats because it has Republicans as well, but it would allow its Democrats to deliver the criticism. Ultimately, yes, you make a good point in that I think the Biden administration will look at the Democratic majority for Israel, which expresses the absolutely establishment pro-Israel line within the Democratic party, see that that organization is not afraid to criticize this move, and say, "Okay, we've got our backs covered as far as the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic party goes."

Brian Lehrer: Orit in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hello, Orit. Thank you for calling in.

Orit: Good morning. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: Okay. Go ahead.

Orit: I can tell you that during the elections, both last one and the one before, I asked many people, mainly Jews who supported Trump, whether they understand that Trump is not good for America, and all of them said, "Yes, he's not good for America, but he's good for Israel, and we are voting the Israeli interest, not the American interests." Now when I ask them whether you understand what's happening, and they say, "Yes, but we are not interfering," so I don't see how these people don't see the contradictions between their views. I [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: The people you're talking about are mostly in the Orthodox community?

Orit: No, no, no. No, secular Jews in the middle of Manhattan.

Brian Lehrer: Orit, thank you very much. Ron, go ahead.

Ron Kampeas: In the last American election, I talked to a lot of Russian Jews around the country. There would be people of Russian Jewish descent and Russians who have come in the last 30 or 40 years who tend to swing right a little bit, so that kind of argument might resonate in that crowd, and also Israeli Americans, people who've immigrated here from Israel.

Brian Lehrer: Right, just to be clear about the context of American Jews and how they vote in American presidential elections, I think about 70% voted for Hillary Clinton and Biden, not Trump, right?

Ron Kampeas: Oh yes, it's still a two-thirds majority. I forget what the numbers are, but they're even higher than that in the midterms in 2022. There is definitely, among the majority of Jews, either two-thirds or more than two-thirds favor Democrats, and like I said, then that especially applies to the elections in which Trump ran or in which he was a factor.

Brian Lehrer: Neil in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Neil.

Neil: Hi, thank you for letting me on, Brian. Yes, I am an American Jew who has visited Israel many times [unintelligible 00:17:30] high school and at the university secondary school. I actually studied Arabic studies at Georgetown and worked on developing the two-state proposal for Israeli-Palestinian peace. This government is ignoring a tenant that democracy is not just a dictatorship of majority over minority. In America, we have split government. The Israeli system is very different. Right now, the only check on the possibility of dictatorship of a democratically elected majority, a barely minimal majority, is the Supreme Court, and they're trying to take that possibility away. Israel needs to be, in my opinion, in the opinion of many people in and out of Israel, Israel must be democratic and secure and Jewish, and you can't give up on any of them, including democracy.

Brian Lehrer: Do you feel like your relationship as a long-time supporter of Israel, as I think you characterized yourself, is changing? I mean, is it at an emotional level, is it at a political level, what are the implications as you see it?

Neil: It's all of the above. It's emotional, it's political, it's financial. The Netanyahu regime, which is including people who are too racist to be allowed to serve in the Israeli Army and someone who was in jail for tax evasion, all because Netanyahu wants to save his skin in that process. The challenge is how to support an Israel that is Jewish and democratic and secure without supporting this government. It's a challenge.

Brian Lehrer: It's a challenge.

Neil: I don't think this challenge existed before.

Brian Lehrer: Neil, thank you. I'm going to leave it there for time. I appreciate it. Saul on Staten Island, you're on WNYC. Hi, Saul. Thanks for calling in.

Saul: You're welcome. Good morning to you and to your guest. I guess I'll be the counteract to Neil. I'm an Orthodox Jew. I've been to Israel many times. My connection to Israel is mainly ideological. I just wanted to push back on what I believe is a mischaracterization of the reforms in particular. It's being characterized in the American media, in general, as this hard-line right-wing government totally being off the rails and pushing it through. There are certain things that should be reformed in Israel judiciary towards legislation, which is what's going on now. In Israel right now, the people who get to choose the next Supreme Court Justice are the Supreme Court justices themselves, plus a couple of people that they add, like lawyers that they get to choose to be on the panel. The equivalent would be if Sonia Sotomayor leaves the court and Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito sit on the panel with two people from the Federalist Society and get to choose who the next Supreme Court justice is. That shouldn't be happening. That should be changed. That's one of the main reasons they're trying to change it. Now, how do they change it? They did because the right-wing governments in Israel now are a little hotheaded. They tried pushing it through without getting a consensus. That is true. It's a little pushed in. The idea that this is some over-the-top unreasonable reform that's being shoved down the throats of Israelis isn't true. Half the Israeli people are right-wing, which is why the elections were so crazy, with five elections in a row.

Brian Lehrer: Right. What do you say, and understanding your critique of how Supreme Court justices are selected there, to the big problem that a lot of American Jews, among others, have with this particular change? Because in Israel, unlike the United States, there isn't a separate executive branch and legislative branch like we have the president and we have Congress. They have the prime minister system. That's basically whoever the Knesset, their Congress, chooses to be the head of state is the head of state. The Knesset has all the power, except the checks on them by the Supreme Court, and now, that's largely gone. It's not really a democracy in the sense that it was two weeks ago. Your reply?

Saul: Sure. My reply would be that it's not 100% true that there are no other checks. The other check would be the minority getting enough votes to become the majority, and that should be part of the question of the judicial reform question in general, should be how do we make this effective checks and balances on both sides. It's not good for the judiciary, for example, one of the other things they want to do reform, and I'll speak quickly because I don't want to take too much time, is that they have a standard where a judge can just on their own decide if something is either reasonable or unreasonable. A judge without any reference to any law can say, "I don't find it reasonable. I decided that-- earlier in the day you talked about rent and rent stabilization. Imagine a conservative justice in Supreme Court says, "I don't think rent stabilization is reasonable. Therefore, it's illegal to stabilize rent." That's what can happen in Israel. That's also a problem. You need to have checks and balances on both sides. That should be discussed calmly. It's Middle East, believe me, I'm an Israeli, I know how it works. Nothing [unintelligible 00:22:45] calmly, but it has to get discussed in a way, and both sides need to respect each other and not claim that the other side are evil.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Thank you, Saul. I appreciate your call. One more. Jeremy in Yonkers, you're on WNYC, and Jeremy, we're going to have to limit you to about 30 seconds. Hi there.

Jeremy: Hey, Brian. Thanks so much for having me. I will be very quick. My concern regards specifically the function of the judiciary having, in this new scope potentially, allowing the current cabinet to redefine Jewishness. This both as a product of being able to define who is eligible for birthright, who's eligible for homecoming, but also, for me, personally as an LGBT Ashkenaz, just thinking about my ability to claim Jewishness as a philosophical point. The way that these things interface not only affect my own concerns as an American Jew and someone who supports Land Back movements domestically and also in Israel and who's concerned about the rights of Palestinian citizens, but also just as a person who wants to be able to say confidently, "Hello, I'm queer and I'm Jewish."

Brian Lehrer: Jeremy, thank you very much. As we start to wrap up, Ron, and my guest is Ron Kampeas, Washington bureau chief for JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, we've heard a smattering of calls, obviously, not a scientific sample, but people with some different views. As conversation starters or conversation continues as we do here, how is the Biden administration reacting to the weakening of the courts in Israel? Are there implications for US policy in a way that matters to Israel?

Ron Kampeas: The Biden administration's very concerned about the weakening of the courts. Biden spent his entire political career upholding Israel as a model democracy and an ally, and he sees the proposed reforms as undercutting that. They're not just beneath the surfaces. They're not just diplomatic implications for how the United States defends Israel in international arenas, and Israel has always counted on the United States to do that, there are security implications as well. Israel is a pillar of US military policy in the Middle East, not just in terms of defending in Israel, but in terms of Israel advancing US interests, standing as a bulwark against Iranian interests, which the United States would see as sinister with or without Israel as part of the equation. Here you have military reservists saying, "We're not going to serve. It's cutting ahead of Israeli readiness." You've got intelligence sharing, and intelligence sharing works best when you have two very, very similar societies, which is how it's worked between Israel and the United States. It's why the US has the Five Eyes policy with four other countries that are very similar to the States, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, and Australia. That's how it's worked with Israel. If Israel's seen as drifting away from the democratic outlook that the United States has, that might be a problem for intelligence sharing. There's a lot of concern that runs deep for the Biden administration.

Brian Lehrer: Does it go beyond opinion statement at this point? In other words, the Biden administration saying they don't like this to anything that has consequences on the ground? I heard what you just said about things that could happen down the road, but I saw the Biden administration is reportedly working with Saudi Arabia right now on some kind of normalization of relations with Israel. I think that's also to build that Gulf States coalition with Israel against Iran. I'm curious if that sends a signal to Israel that there are really no consequences for you other than the Biden administration saying we don't like it.

Ron Kampeas: Yes, I think you're right. In terms of what the Biden administration would do, I don't think a lot will happen, but there are certain things that are out of the Biden administration and Israel's control that could happen, which you just mentioned. Whereas the Biden administration thinks it's incredibly important to bring together a coalition that would stand against Iran and an Israeli-Saudi relationship would definitely consolidate that, the Saudis might be the key actors here. They might retreat from any-- they are making noises that they would retreat. Even the existing partners that came in through the Abraham Accords are saying, "Please, Prime Minister Netanyahu, don't come visit Bahrain right now, don't come visit the United Arab Emirates." It's even undercutting those important accords which were achieved under the Trump administration. I think things that Netanyahu doesn't want to happen could happen even if the Biden administration is as [unintelligible 00:27:35] as can be.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, in our last 30 seconds, does it hurt the Palestinian cause, let's say the cause of a two-state solution if I can put it that way, each time an Arab country makes a pact with Israel that doesn't include Palestinian self-determination of some kind in the bargain?

Ron Kampeas: I think that there are Palestinians who certainly posit that, who put that forward. I don't know if it's necessarily true. I think that the United Arab Emirates said when it got into the Abraham Accords, we can have a positive influence for the Palestinians, and they actually proved that, at least in the short-term, practically, by keeping Netanyahu from annexing part of the West Bank. I think, from a Palestinian perspective, there are pros and cons.

Brian Lehrer: There we leave it with Ron Kampeas, Washington bureau chief for JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Thank you so much for joining us.

Ron Kampeas: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.