What to Watch in the Knesset—March 18, 2025
The New Israel Fund tracks legislation and political campaigns in and around the Knesset that have the potential to change the way Israeli democracy functions. We provide regular updates throughout this Knesset session. This document is produced by NIF Senior Director of Media & Policy, Elisheva Goldberg.
We categorize anti-democratic legislation into five buckets: (1) Free and fair elections (2) silencing dissent (3) laws that discriminate and collectively punish Israel’s Arab minority (4) judicial coup 2.0 (5) laws and government actions that enable corruption.
I. ELECTIONS
- Why the budget matters: The government is racing against the clock to approve the 2025 budget by the end of March. Why? Because if the budget is not approved by March 31, the Knesset will dissolve and Israel will hold elections.
- Allocating “coalition funds”: Last week, the government decided how it would allocate the 5 billion NIS of “coalition funds” (out of an overall budget of 756 billion NIS) that it earmarked last November for its own use. These are funds that, because they are allocated at the discretion of the government, reflect a rarified form of its top priorities.
- Some examples: More than 1.3 billion shekels will go to private ulra-orthodox education institutions. 65 million shekels the Garin Torani movement, which inter alia enables religious Zionists to create settler communities inside of secular or Arab cities. NIS 94 million will go to the Settlement Division (a settler slush fund which transfers government funds to illegal outposts, among other things); NIS 186 million will go to organizations that work to strengthen “Jewish identity” in various government ministries; NIS 100 million for the governing bodies of settlements in the West Bank; and NIS 20 million will go to Haredi educational institutions that do not teach Israel’s “core” curriculum (like math).
II. SILENCING DISSENT
- The bill: On Wednesday, February 19, a bill that would impose an 80% tax on any donation from foreign governments (Germany, Britain, the EU—allies of Israel) to civil society organizations passed its preliminary reading in the Israeli Knesset. Many NGOs, especially human rights organizations, receive foreign funds to support a large chunk of their work; receiving only 20% of these funds would all but shut them down. This bill has not yet been brought to a committee for discussion, but it is expected to be brought back up in the Knesset’s summer session, which begins in early May.
- The change: A similar bill has come up before (it was shelved as the result of massive international pressure, primarily from the Biden White House), but this time it also stipulates that Israeli courts will no longer be required to consider petitions submitted by NGOs who receive the majority of their funding from foreign ally states. So organizations that rely on the courts to promote human rights and to push back on anti-democratic or harmful government decisions would be left without legal recourse.
- The carveout: NGOs who receive Israeli government funding will not be subject to the 80% tax, even if they receive foreign funding in addition. What’s more, the Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism) will be given wide discretion to exempt any NGO as long as it is approved by the Knesset Finance Committee.
- Background: This is not the first time left-wing or pro-human rights NGOs have been attacked in Israel. In 2016, the Knesset passed a bill that required NGOs receiving foreign state donations exceeding 20,000 NIS to (1) Report that it is foreign-funded to the State Registrar, which is required to publish a list of these organizations on its website; (2) Disclose its funding in any reports, letters sent to elected officials or state employees, etc.; (3) “Prominently” disclose that it is foreign-funded in any publicly-available publication intended to further its cause (billboards, TV and newspaper ads, websites, and “Internet campaigns” which are “widespread” or “ongoing.”) This new bill would go much much further.
-
- The Bill: On July 1, 2024, Amit HaLevy (Likud) submitted a bill to prohibit (1) all formal cooperation between Israeli authorities and the ICC, (2) oblige state authorities to “act with all means at their disposal against the Court,” (3) release anyone held in detention or custody, and—importantly—(4) criminalize those who offer assistance to the court in any way. It would make aiding the court punishable by up to five years imprisonment and, in certain cases, a life sentence. The bill passed its first reading (25-11).
- Implications for civil society: This bill would apply economic sanctions to organizations registered in Israel that deliver any “information” to the court. International law experts have warned the bill’s definitions are so broad that a journalist or even someone sharing on social media a photo or video of a soldier documenting themselves committing what appears to be a war crime could face imprisonment.
- Recent history of Israel and the ICC: Israel does not recognize the ICC's authority. Still, last November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the most recent war on Gaza. At the same time, the court issued a warrant against Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, who was killed in Israeli strikes.
- Why this anti-ICC bill is different: While other proposals with similar aspirations have been presented in the Knesset before by far-right politicians, this one is different. It was presented by a member of the Netanyahu’s Likud Party as a direct reaction to the ICC prosecutor announcing that he would seek arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.
- In the U.S.: This bill compliments the efforts of the current U.S. administration. President Trump issued an executive order that enables the State Department and the Treasury Department to sanction and hold liable organizations and individuals that aid or assist the Court's investigations of U.S. citizens or U.S. allies, including Israel. The U.S. also directly sanctioned (and limited travel for) ICC prosecutor Karim Kahn.
- The bill: A law prohibiting the entry into Israel of non-citizens who deny the Holocaust or atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, passed its third and final reading in the Knesset plenum (12-0) on February 19. This bill passed its third reading just under a month after the Knesset passed a law criminalizing the denial, minimization or celebration of Hamas’s October 7 attack. See below for more details.
- The change: The expansion of the “Entry to Israel” Law, sponsored by MK Mishel Buskila (New Hope), expands an already-existing law that bans entry to anyone who advocates for boycotts against Israel or advocates for the prosecution of Israelis for war crimes.
- Previously: In March 2017 the Knesset passed an amendment to the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 28)—or “The Progressive Ban”—barring from entry into Israel any person who “knowingly published a public call to engage in a boycott against the State of Israel or has made a commitment to participate in such a boycott.” The Law defined boycott in such a way as to equate boycotts of Israel with boycotts of Israeli settlements–“an area under its control.”
- What’s behind this bill: This bill was initially designed to give Israel the capability to harass and punish those who oppose a settler and ultranationalist agenda. Since the initial amendment’s to the Entry to Israel Law, NIF has strongly opposed it. We labelled the law a “Progressive Ban” and said that the Netanyahu government was using “blacklists and litmus tests to bar progressive visitors from entering Israel based on their beliefs” which “flies in the face of the democratic principles enshrined in Israel’s declaration of independence.”
- Most Recently: Four days after this bill was passed, Israel’s Interior Minister Moshe Arbel (Shas) denied two European Union lawmakers entry to Israel, accusing one, French Member of Parliament Rima Hassan, of promoting a boycott against Israel. Arbel gave the order to deny Hassan entry while she was already on the plane. Upon arrival, she and her fellow EU delegates were interrogated, filmed, and held in the bathroom for an hour and a half before being put back on a plane to Brussels.
Other instances: In August of 2019, U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were denied entry to Israel based on this law, and over the previous two years, other instances of political profiling at the airport included the Palestinian-American student Lara Al Qasem, Peter Beinart, and NIF’s own VP of Finance, Jennifer Spitzer. For a full list see here.
III. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ARAB CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL
- The bill: The initial version of this bill, proposed by Limor Son Har-Melech (Jewish Power) would have given university administrations power to interpret Israel’s anti-terrorism law—and, on that basis, break up student groups, suspend students, and deny them their degree at the end of their studies. Son Har Melech and others were spinning this bill, calling it “the law to prevent terrorism”, even as the law is actually about political persecution.
- Defanged by civil society: Early on, the Shin Bet declared this law unnecessary—and as a result, the bill’s content changed significantly over time. While the laws’ advocates were trying to turn university administrators into their enforcers on campus, the bill’s final version—after work by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Abraham Initiatives, and Standing Together—does not accomplish much that is new.
- The details: The bill, which passed its first reading, says (1) it is illegal for student groups to commit terrorism (it already was) and (2) institutions of higher education must write into their bylaws that student groups are forbidden from organizing actions that are illegal (essentially, insisting that they restate existing law).
-
- The law: In January, the Israeli Knesset passed a law criminalizing the denial, minimization or celebration of the October 7 Hamas attacks. MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu) sponsored the bill, modeling it after a 1986 law prohibiting Holocaust denial. The bill, which mandates a five year sentence to October 7 deniers, passed its third and final reading in a 16-0 vote.
- Internal opposition: Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara opposed this legislation because it has the potential to complicate the prosecution of Hamas members. Justice Minister Yariv Levin said that this law was brought by a private MK and not the government because of her opposition.
- How it chills speech: This bill’s main achievement will be to tamp down on free speech inside of Israel. Among human rights advocates there is great concern that this will be used to further overpolice the speech of Israel’s Arab population who have been charged with incitement and identifying with terrorist groups (for so much as a Facebook post about children in Gaza) since the war began.
- ACRI’s response: “The criminalization of expressions should be preserved for extreme circumstances where there is a real and imminent threat, such as incitement to violence,” Gil Gan-Mor of the Association for Civil Rights said. Because the law is “formulated in an ambiguous manner,” it will be hard to predict how it will be enforced, creating “a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
-
IV. JUDICIAL OVERHAUL 2.0
- The Bill: Justice Minister and judicial overhaul troubadour Yariv Levin (Likud) in collaboration with Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar (New Hope) has revived legislation that brought Israelis out into the streets in massive numbers to protest his judicial overhaul before October 7, 2023. This legislation would restructure the committee that selects the country's judges to give politicians the power to choose who will sit on Israel’s Supreme Court. This changes the balance of power in Israel dramatically, giving the legislative-executive power over the judicial branch. This dangerous law is being passed under the radar because Israelis are exhausted; they have been protesting to bring the hostages home and end the war for the last 15 months.
- How soon: Over the last two weeks, the Knesset Law and Constitution Committee has held intensive discussions of this law and completed a draft. The opposition MKs submitted 71,023 objections to the bill, a number that, if written as a date, comes out to 7/10/2023–the day of Hamas’s attack on Israel, suggesting that this law is only going to pass because Israelis are exhausted from the war, and the hostage crisis that has accompanied it. Despite the opposition, this bill will come to the Knesset floor for a second and third reading in the next two weeks, before the end of the session on April 2.
- The law: Israel's Knesset passed a law that politicizes the process for appointing a judicial ombudsman, handing another win to advocates of the judicial overhaul. The goal of this law is to offer the government a tool to remove judges that do not align with their agenda. The law passed in a vote of 56-48.
- The change: The judicial selection committee previously had the authority to appoint the judicial ombudsman. The ombudsman is the address for complaints against the judiciary; it is the office that examines judicial conduct. With the passage of this law, a separate committee, led by the pro-judicial overhaul Justice Minister Yariv Levin (Likud), will now determine who will sit in this important position of power over the judiciary.
- Criticism: Barak Laser, the legal adviser to the judicial branch of government, warned that this law is unconstitutional, calling it a "political arrangement inconsistent with the independence and non-dependence clause of the Basic Law: The Judiciary."
- The move: On March 5, Justice Minister Yariv Levin (Likud) began the process of removing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara from her post. Levin accused her of politicizing her office and repeatedly thwarting ‘the will’ of the voters. The attorney general is responsible for safeguarding the public interest, the rule of law, and preventing corruption. It has been only in very rare cases that she has refused to represent the government, and whenever she did (when it came to the government giving special treatment to the ultra-Orthodox or trying to politicize the judiciary), the High Court of Justice backed her position.
- Netanyahu’s ulterior motive: The attorney general is also the Prosecutor General in Israel and, as such, she is in charge of Netanyahu’s criminal trial, which is still ongoing. She can, at any time, stop his trial or get him a plea bargain. This is a large part of why he himself cannot dismiss her—the conflict of interest is too blatant. But of course, the entire cabinet, who answer to Netanyahu and are invested in him remaining in power, is tainted by this conflict of interest.
- The rules: It is within the government’s power to dismiss the Attorney General if there are "prolonged substantive disagreements between the government and the attorney general that create a situation that prevents effective cooperation." Levin wants to use this rule to dismiss Baharav-Miara.
- The process: Firing Baharav-Miara could take months, and would be certain to be challenged in the High Court of Justice. The first move that Levin took to fire the attorney general was to propose a no-confidence motion to the cabinet. That motion will be discussed in the next cabinet meeting on March 23. A successful motion could serve as grounds for (1) staffing the committee responsible for dismissing her, (2) convening the five-member committee that endorsed her for the post to verify Levin’s claims, (3) writing to the five-member public committee, detailing the government’s objections, (4) a committee hearing where the attorney general can present his or her position, and (5) the committee issuing a recommendation to the government on whether or not to dismiss them. The government can ignore this recommendation, but Netanyahu and his aides will have to justify to the High Court of Justice that dismissing Baharav-Miara is reasonable.
- Part of the judicial coup: Former Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit called Levin’s attempt to remove the Attorney General as “a return to the judicial coup in full force.” The attorney general, he said, is “a gatekeeper who must protect the red lines and the principles of the rule of law. This is part of her loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” He continued: “The issue isn't removal from office, but protecting Israel's democracy. We don't have a constitution, we don't have houses of Congress, no declaration of human rights or local electoral system. They're going to crush the court and attorney general, in one fell swoop."
- Academic opposition: In mid-March, the presidents of Israel’s eight research universities said their institutions will go on strike if the government fires Baharav-Miara. In a letter, they warned “of the unprecedented danger to the rule of law if the attorney general is fired.”
- The move: On March 15,, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that he would fire the head of Israel’s security service, the Shin Bet, Ronen Bar. The Attorney General’s Office office has insisted that Netanyahu consult with it before dismissing Bar, to ensure there were no improper considerations. He does not appear to have done so. The motivation for his firing is assumed to be because the Shin Bet is currently looking into whether top aides to the prime minister had improper ties to Qatar.
- Opposition statements: Opposition leader Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party will petition the High Court to reverse the dismissal. The Democrats Party chair, Yair Golan, called the decision a "declaration of war" on the state of Israel, and said that “the greatest existential threat to Israel is not external but internal, and it is Netanyahu himself."
V. CORRUPTION-ENABLING LEGISLATION AND DECISIONS
- The Bill: A bill had been in the works to enable the Haredi to avoid the draft formally. The Haredi parties have conditioned their participation in Netanyahu’s coalition government on this bill’s passage. They threatened not to vote for the budget, which must pass by the end of March, if this bill did not advance.
- Neutralized: This bill has been much discussed, and the conclusion of all parties involved was that the Haredi parties would content themselves with the status quo. They will continue to live with the situation as it already stands: the law requires that they enlist; but the government does not (or does, but minimally) enforce that law. This concession by the Haredi parties means that this ‘threat’ to the coalition has been virtually neutralized.
- The bill: Likud MK Tally Gotliv (Likud) proposed a bill that would effectively place Knesset members above the law. It would prevent law enforcement officials from opening criminal investigations into members of the Knesset (except in the case of corruption or) if a large supermajority—90 MKs—approve the investigation. Knesset members would thus become their own police, judge, and jury. On March 11, the Knesset Committee held its second discussion on this bill to try and advance it to a first reading.
- The change: As it stands, MKs possess immunity from investigation when the acts or statements they make are made as ‘part of their public service’ and retain the power to grant them immunity from going to trial. However, law enforcement officials may open criminal investigations against members of Knesset and indict MKs, with the approval of the attorney general.,This bill would change that. It would strip the attorney general of the power to approve investigations into MKs, and give that power to a supermajority vote of the Knesset.
- A jab at the courts: According to the bill’s preamble, “The court has no means to intervene, assess, or determine the scope of a Knesset member’s duties or what is done in the fulfillment of those duties. It is not the court’s role, nor does it have the tools, to decide on the extent of a Knesset member’s functions.
- Conflict of interest: Gotliv appears to believe that she (and possibly Netanyahu) will be shielded from the criminal investigations currently underway against both of them. Shikma Bressler, a central figure in the pro-democracy movement, filed charges against Gotliv after she revealed that Bressler’s husband was a member of the Shin Bet (itself a national security risk) and accused him of playing a part in the October 7 Hamas massacre (a conspiracy theory). Bressler is suing for defamation.
Join Us
Join NIF's email list to receive urgent updates, smart analysis, and opportunities to get involved.