After two years of war, the conclusion of the ceasefire in Gaza and the adoption of Security Council resolution 2803 marked an important turning point, one that many, both in and outside Israel, hope will be the beginning of a new era, even if the details of what this era will look like are still unclear.

Within Israel, however, the celebration of the end of the war and the return of the hostages were also mixed with concerns regarding Netanyahu’s government’s next steps. The ceasefire was imposed on Netanyahu, and many of the hard-right members of his government expressed disappointment about it: it crushed their fantasies about an “ultimate victory” and the establishment of settlements in Gaza. As a result, many were concerned that in an attempt to appease its electorate, and perhaps to divert public attention from the fact that the management of the conflict in Gaza was overtaken by the United States, the government would escalate its internal attacks on the rule of law. Unfortunately, these concerns proved to be well-founded.

One area in which the attacks are taking place is the legislative arena – the Knesset. The government has been pushing forward a series of bills that undermine democracy: these include, for example, a bill targeting NGOs and civil society organizations and a new bill proposing an extreme “restructuring” that will effectively strip the Attorney General from her authorities, curtailing her ability to ensure that the government abides by the law. At the same time, the government is sponsoring a bill expanding the use of the death penalty for terrorism offences, with the support of the newly-nominated head of the state’s General Security Service.

The government’s desire to remove the Attorney General from office is also an important aspect of the aftermath of the current ongoing investigation of the Military Advocate General. The background for the investigation was the leaking of a video allegedly portraying abuse of a prisoner by IDF soldiers in the military detention base of Sde Teiman. According to media publications, the Military Advocate General’s office is accused of intentionally leaking the video, in an attempt to generate public support for the need to investigate war crimes, and then filing a false deposition to the court to investigate the leakage.

The alleged misconduct of the Military Advocate General served the government as an excuse to launch a campaign not only against the Military Advocate General herself, who was accused of “defaming” IDF soldiers by investigating the allegations, but also against the legitimacy of investigating alleged war crimes, against the justice system as a whole, and against the Attorney General specifically.

Thus, for example, Minister of Defense Katz stated, upon appointing a new Military Advocate General, that his role was “protection of the IDF soldiers, who are fighting bravely under difficult and complex conditions for the security of the State of Israel, and certainly not to initiate or take part in blood libels that defame IDF soldiers, harm their dignity and expose them to persecution around the world”. With some ministers suggesting that the Sde Teiman investigation was rigged, and with one of the central witnesses in the Sde Teiman affair released to Gaza as part of the hostage deal, the odds of bringing to justice those involved in abuse in Sde Teiman currently appear rather low.

++++++++++Advertisement++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The backlash of the Sde Teiman affair and its implications for undermining the rule of law extend well beyond the specific case. Speculations were spread on social media that the Attorney General was also involved, with Minister Ben Gvir fueling these speculations by stating that “he is certain” that data from the Military Advocate General’s phone will incriminate the Attorney General. To date, no evidence to such effect has been provided. The close institutional relationship between the Military Advocate General and the Attorney General’s office led to a controversy regarding who should be the state organ to accompany the investigation. Minister of Justic Levine seized the opportunity to initiate further friction with both the Attorney General and the Supreme Court on this matter. All of this unfolds against the background of Netanyau’s own trial that is still ongoing, albeit slowly.

However, perhaps the most evident indications of the erosion of the rule of law are the incidents that are taking place “on the ground”. Settler violence in the West Bank has escalated significantly, and the military appears to have lost control over it. Hearings in front of the Supreme Court are interrupted on a regular basis, including by members of the Knesset. A mob led by MK Almog Cohen broke into a computer science class in Ben-Gurion University held by a lecturer who harshly criticized the IDF (out of the classroom), and leaders of the protest movement are harassed both by right-wing activists and the police.

The attention of the international community is focused on the situation in Gaza, and rightly so. But the execution of any plan which requires the cooperation of Israel depends on the existence of a government that respects its obligations, including its international obligations, and does not aim to appease the most extreme parts of its electorate.

This coming year is an election year in Israel, with the next elections scheduled to take place at the end of October 2026. The existence of elections on the horizon no doubt drives some of the government’s actions, both in terms of urgency and willingness to pass as many laws as possible before the elections, and in terms of reaching the elections in what the government perceives as the best conditions for it to win. As a result, we are likely to see escalation of the attacks on institutions and actors that the government perceives as standing in its way: from the Attorney General to political opponents to the heads of the protest movement to the free media. The ability of these actors and institutions to withstand such attacks is crucial for the ability to hold a fair election, for the ability to replace the current government, and for the future of Israel and the region as a whole.

*

Editor’s Pick

by MARGARITA IOV

It’s been a long time since I’ve read a contemporary novel as radical as Ottessa Moshfegh’s Lapvona. The story takes place in the medieval village of Lapvona, ruled by the arbitrary whims of Lord Villiam. The world is brutal and bare: Marek, the deformed son of the village shepherd, lives a life shaped by poverty, violence, and piety. There are no heroes here, but villains abound: Marek’s abusive father, the pleasure-seeking, idiotic Villiam, and even Marek himself, who murders Villiam’s son out of primitive jealousy and eventually takes his place in the castle — a Hieronymus Bosch hell turned fiction.

But this cabinet of cruelties is merely the backdrop for a much greater crime: whenever the villagers begin to complain about their taxes, murderous bandits descend upon them – a divine punishment, they believe, though it was Villiam who sent them. Just as the devastating drought that befalls Lapvona is no divine plague. One wonders: why do these pitiful peasants tolerate this? And then, inevitably, one thinks of us – the pitiful inhabitants of the 21st century.

*

The Week on Verfassungsblog

summarised by EVA MARIA BREDLER

Amid war and peace plans, Germany is asking itself a fundamental question: what actually happens if the Federal Republic is attacked, or if such an attack is imminent? Constitutionally, the Bundestag can only declare a state of defence with a two-thirds majority – a threshold that Die Linke or the AfD could block. MORITZ VON ROCHOW (GER) explains the circumstances under which the Bundestag would, however, be obliged to act.

Last Sunday, Chile went to the polls. The runoff on 14 December 2025 will decide, but many already consider the result a foregone conclusion: everything points to José Antonio Kast of the far-right Republicanos becoming Chile’s next president. RODRIGO KAUFMANN (ENG) explores what this potential administration could mean: either a Bukele-style law-and-order regime, or massive street protests against austerity measures.

Meanwhile, in the UK, protests are moving off the streets and onto politicians’ private homes. In 2015, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood drove a tank to David Cameron’s front gate to protest fracking; in 2023, Greenpeace staged a demonstration at Rishi Sunak’s house; and most recently, Youth Demand gathered outside Keir Starmer’s home to protest his stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict. A revised Crime and Policing Bill aims to criminalise such demonstrations. While the need for protection is important, NATHAN WHETTON (ENG) questions whether the bill is compatible with the right to assembly under Article 11 of the ECHR.

Forum shopping is not limited to protests – apparently, it extends to legal training too. After failing in Rhineland-Palatinate, a far-right activist has now been allowed to undertake his legal traineeship in Saxony, despite his extremist past, as the Saxony Higher Administrative Court has now ruled. SIMON MÜLLER (GER) criticises this Saxon exception and warns of its wider consequences.

Even fundamental rights protection seems to be up for some shopping. The European Commission is planning a swift overhaul of digital regulation via omnibus legislation. Last week, the draft was leaked. HANNAH RUSCHEMEIER (ENG) examines the proposed changes and warns: if passed, it could throw the very foundations of EU data protection law under the (omni)bus.

The EU has been busy elsewhere, too. Last week, the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee debated the Commission’s proposal for a Return Regulation, aimed at increasing the EU’s return rate and allowing migrants to be placed in “return hubs” in third countries outside the EU. GIANNA ECKERT (ENG) explains why such hubs are unlikely to improve return rates – but will almost certainly undermine migrants’ human rights.

The Commission also published the long-awaited European Democracy Shield. FRANCA MARIA FEISEL (ENG) welcomes the new bottom-up, “whole-of-society” approach, but warns that threats are not purely external and that concrete implementation measures are lacking.

If you follow not only this newsletter but also – heaven forbid – social media, your feed has probably already been flooded with AI-generated content: singing dogs and all. What’s supposed to be entertaining is far less appealing to the entertainment industry itself (not to mention the environment). One of the most debated questions worldwide in this regard is how generative AI may use copyrighted material. Now, the Munich Regional Court has ruled in favour of the German collecting society GEMA against OpenAI, becoming the first court in the EU to tackle this question – with striking simplicity, as LINDA KUSCHEL and DARIUS ROSTAM (GER/ENG) note: If it looks like a duck…

On a related note, our symposium “Enabling Access, Fostering Innovation: Towards a Digital Knowledge Agenda in Europe” (ENG) came to a close this week. TERESA NOBRE argues that a Digital Knowledge Act could finally give Europe’s knowledge institutions a proper place in the EU’s digital strategy.

Text and data mining are exempt from EU copyright law, but only for works to which researchers have “lawful access”. According to TATIANA-ELENI SYNODINOU and GIORGOS VRAKAS (ENG), however, this criterion is interpreted far too narrowly.

As narrowly as one might interpret “lawful access”, our blog will always fall within its scope. We remain open access – with your help.

*

That’s it for this week. Take care and all the best!

Yours,

the Verfassungsblog Team

If you would like to receive the weekly editorial as an e-mail, you can subscribe here.