Israeli parliament passes law to limit judicial power(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Israeli parliament passes law to limit judicial power
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/24/world/israel-protests-vote
81 comments
It's a horrible take because it suggests that parliamentary sovereignty is authoritarian in nature, which is actually bonkers to hear. As expected, he mentions only what the court could do, but doesn't mention what the court has already done(starting with Barak in the 90s) in terms of shaping the country.
The reality is that Harari and secular Jews realize that over the next 50 years they are toast in democratic elections due to simple demographics. They need to figure out ways to protect things which they care about, and the Supreme Court is how they do this.
The reality is that Harari and secular Jews realize that over the next 50 years they are toast in democratic elections due to simple demographics. They need to figure out ways to protect things which they care about, and the Supreme Court is how they do this.
You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government. Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power.
Yes secular Israelis could very well be toast if trends continue. What exactly do you think will be the fate of the messianic elements in that scenerio? On that note, happy tisha beav.
Yes secular Israelis could very well be toast if trends continue. What exactly do you think will be the fate of the messianic elements in that scenerio? On that note, happy tisha beav.
I didn't substitute anything. The reality of the situation (which Harari forgets to mention anywhere) is that these things he is so scared of have ( or will have ) majority or supermajority support in the near future.
Talking about authoritarianism in Israel is useless as it suggests that there is something related to Russia or China or Cuba or Iran, but the reality is that the elections are pretty free, there is no rigging and it is simply people voting for programs they want.
I am sympathetic to secular Israelis(they are the economically productive element of the country) but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
Talking about authoritarianism in Israel is useless as it suggests that there is something related to Russia or China or Cuba or Iran, but the reality is that the elections are pretty free, there is no rigging and it is simply people voting for programs they want.
I am sympathetic to secular Israelis(they are the economically productive element of the country) but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
> reality is that the elections are pretty free
> but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
I feel like these things go hand in hand. An enormous amount of historical precedent suggests concentration of power and illiberalness tends to erode election freedom, even when preceded by free elections.
> but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
I feel like these things go hand in hand. An enormous amount of historical precedent suggests concentration of power and illiberalness tends to erode election freedom, even when preceded by free elections.
Illiberal democracy is a chimera. Hungary and Poland get to play make believe while safely ensconced in the European Union which they feign to detest. Elsewhere the equation is: no separation of powers = authoritarian regime of some kind // robust separation of powers = modern democracy.
Even in ancient Athens there was gradual understanding that assembly decisions require constitutional review, hence the introduction of the γραφή παρανόμων
I am a right wing secular israeli and the writing is on the wall. I was always with Bibi, but recently voted Lapid, I really don't know what to think or who to trust. Israel has changed so much in the last 20 years, whenever I go back all I can do is reminisce. I can't help but feeling that the Israel I loved is dying. It also feels like a big Americanization of the politics into two parties.
> The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government.
You have it exactly backwards: the government is selected from the MPs and is supported by the parliament. The most popular way to change a government is to call for (legislative) elections. (No executive elections — these were tried for a short period and cancelled.) The government is controlled by the parliament, not the other way around.
You have it exactly backwards: the government is selected from the MPs and is supported by the parliament. The most popular way to change a government is to call for (legislative) elections. (No executive elections — these were tried for a short period and cancelled.) The government is controlled by the parliament, not the other way around.
The government is chosen by the Knesset, and the prime minister is a member of Knesset - and usually, his entire cabinet is also made up of MKs of coalition parties. So a >50% coalition in parliament is equivalent to a government.
However, there is the 49% of parliament that constitutes the opposition. Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power. Today they have absolutely none.
There are no checks and no balances on the government/parliamentary majority except for the courts.
However, there is the 49% of parliament that constitutes the opposition. Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power. Today they have absolutely none.
There are no checks and no balances on the government/parliamentary majority except for the courts.
> Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy, and the power is vested with the majority of the parliament. As it is with any other parliamentary democracy, which is the preferred system across almost all of Europe. (We can add "parliamentary constitutional monarchies" where the monarch does not have any real power to that list.)
I also don't see what "balancing power" had any opposition have in the past. The coalition (majority) tries to advance some issues while the opposition (minority) tries to torpedo them. It has always been that way, there is absolutely nothing new here.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy, and the power is vested with the majority of the parliament. As it is with any other parliamentary democracy, which is the preferred system across almost all of Europe. (We can add "parliamentary constitutional monarchies" where the monarch does not have any real power to that list.)
I also don't see what "balancing power" had any opposition have in the past. The coalition (majority) tries to advance some issues while the opposition (minority) tries to torpedo them. It has always been that way, there is absolutely nothing new here.
so you are, literally, both correct.
The legislative has never been weaker (minority) and never been more authoritarian (majority).
Glad we can all agree on something.
The legislative has never been weaker (minority) and never been more authoritarian (majority).
Glad we can all agree on something.
The government being able to fire an MP from being a minister in the government is a strong deterrent against this minister from voting against the coalition.
The coalition and the government are one, in effect, mainly due to coalition discipline.
A good example of that is the recent vote for elimination of Reasonability, where all of the members of the coalition voted for it. Do you honestly believe there's no one person in the coalition who opposed it?
The coalition and the government are one, in effect, mainly due to coalition discipline.
A good example of that is the recent vote for elimination of Reasonability, where all of the members of the coalition voted for it. Do you honestly believe there's no one person in the coalition who opposed it?
> You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government
Isn't that totally ordinary for parliamentary democracies? Don't they literally work by having the leader parliament wear the executive hat in addition to his legislative one?
The hard distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is (mostly) an Americanism.
> Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power.
It's kind of interesting to see how the liberal zeitgeist's view of "checks and balances" shifts radically based on the context. In the US, a lot of liberals have been fantasizing furiously for the past several years over parliamentary systems that lack them, because in the US the "checks" have recently been thwarting the liberal political agenda.
Honestly, I think a lot of liberals would actually prefer a "democracy" closer to Iran's system; where there are "elections," but ultimate power rests with a liberal "Guardian Council," so the outcome is liberal regardless of the election results.
Isn't that totally ordinary for parliamentary democracies? Don't they literally work by having the leader parliament wear the executive hat in addition to his legislative one?
The hard distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is (mostly) an Americanism.
> Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power.
It's kind of interesting to see how the liberal zeitgeist's view of "checks and balances" shifts radically based on the context. In the US, a lot of liberals have been fantasizing furiously for the past several years over parliamentary systems that lack them, because in the US the "checks" have recently been thwarting the liberal political agenda.
Honestly, I think a lot of liberals would actually prefer a "democracy" closer to Iran's system; where there are "elections," but ultimate power rests with a liberal "Guardian Council," so the outcome is liberal regardless of the election results.
The only reason secular jews are losing a majority is bc
the orthodox don’t work, don’t serve in the military, and just increase the size of their families. Effectively the majority leaders are growing a majority by entrenching this dynamic, creating a runaway authoritarian theocracy. Eventually the economy will erode and collapse from this as well
[deleted]
The question he avoids is is it possible for the supreme court to have too much power? This is exactly what the other side says is happening. Today's vote was on a concept called "reasonableness" which means that the Supreme court (mostly left-wing) can veto legislation they deem "unreasonable". This is a power US citizens are not familiar with.
If any one of the branches has too much power there is a problem. I don't know if the right-suggestions are better, but I understand what they are fighting for.
If any one of the branches has too much power there is a problem. I don't know if the right-suggestions are better, but I understand what they are fighting for.
> This is a power US citizens are not familiar with.
For the US citizens: imagine that SCOTUS turns down affirmative action — not because "this Court has found affirmative action unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause", but because "this Court has found affirmative action highly unreasonable".
For the US citizens: imagine that SCOTUS turns down affirmative action — not because "this Court has found affirmative action unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause", but because "this Court has found affirmative action highly unreasonable".
No, this is a terrible metaphor, because the 14th amendment in this example doesn't exist.
Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law.
The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional.
Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.
Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law.
The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional.
Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.
Israel has a body of Basic Laws, and Barak has declared that body to represent a Constitution.
The Supreme Court is doing a good job determining where a law contradicts a Basic Law, and invalidating that law because of a contradiction. E.g. Surrogacy law was returned to the legislative — not since it was "unreasonable", but because it was unequal. (The legislative fixed the law to include homosexuals, and the law passed.)
The "unreasonableness" clause is not the only tool SC has at their disposal. From now on, they can use the other tools — just not "we find this unreasonable".
> are disingenuous to outright misleading
HN Guidelines: "Assume good faith."
The Supreme Court is doing a good job determining where a law contradicts a Basic Law, and invalidating that law because of a contradiction. E.g. Surrogacy law was returned to the legislative — not since it was "unreasonable", but because it was unequal. (The legislative fixed the law to include homosexuals, and the law passed.)
The "unreasonableness" clause is not the only tool SC has at their disposal. From now on, they can use the other tools — just not "we find this unreasonable".
> are disingenuous to outright misleading
HN Guidelines: "Assume good faith."
> just not "we find this unreasonable"
That's an over simplistic representation, which you may have done in good faith. The coalition MPs are making it very hard to assume that they spread this narrative in good faith.
The notion of Reasonability or Reasonableness is a well established legal principal [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability
That's an over simplistic representation, which you may have done in good faith. The coalition MPs are making it very hard to assume that they spread this narrative in good faith.
The notion of Reasonability or Reasonableness is a well established legal principal [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability
Thats essentially what they do.
There is lots of handwaving about how they are technically just interpreting the Constitution and federal law, but the U.S. Supreme Court has made political, subjective decisions for as long as the court has existed.
Now, if SCOTUS explicitly and deliberately violated the Constitution, that would be... something. But this is impossible in Israel, from what I understand.
There is lots of handwaving about how they are technically just interpreting the Constitution and federal law, but the U.S. Supreme Court has made political, subjective decisions for as long as the court has existed.
Now, if SCOTUS explicitly and deliberately violated the Constitution, that would be... something. But this is impossible in Israel, from what I understand.
If only Israel had a constitutional laws. In lack of the only democracy keeper is the supreme court
Israel has Basic Laws in lieu of Constitution, and Barak has declared the body of Basic Laws to be a Constitution.
UK, notably, also has no constitution — it however wouldn't be reasonable to argue that "the only democracy keeper [in the UK] is the supreme court".
UK, notably, also has no constitution — it however wouldn't be reasonable to argue that "the only democracy keeper [in the UK] is the supreme court".
> UK, notably, also has no constitution — it however wouldn't be reasonable to argue that "the only democracy keeper [in the UK] is the supreme court".
Exactly. IIRC, the UK didn't have anything called a "Supreme Court" until very recently (its highest "court" used to be a committee in the upper house of parliament), and even then it's clearly subordination to Parliament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...:
> The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty,[6] so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation [Acts of Parliament] made by Parliament. However, as with any law court in the UK, it can overturn secondary legislation [an American translation may be executive orders and agency regulations] if, for an example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made.
Exactly. IIRC, the UK didn't have anything called a "Supreme Court" until very recently (its highest "court" used to be a committee in the upper house of parliament), and even then it's clearly subordination to Parliament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...:
> The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty,[6] so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation [Acts of Parliament] made by Parliament. However, as with any law court in the UK, it can overturn secondary legislation [an American translation may be executive orders and agency regulations] if, for an example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made.
Basic Law in Israel is made in the same process as regular law, so it can't be relied upon for depending the public from the regime.
The UK is a monarchy, so... In all seriousness, I don't know enough about UK law and government structure, but if I take what you said in face value, it may very well be that the UK's democracy is held by norms, and not government structure. That doesn't make it OK. It just means that they're prone to fall like other post democratic nations.
The UK is a monarchy, so... In all seriousness, I don't know enough about UK law and government structure, but if I take what you said in face value, it may very well be that the UK's democracy is held by norms, and not government structure. That doesn't make it OK. It just means that they're prone to fall like other post democratic nations.
It may be that the supreme court has too much power, but the executive branch actually has executive power, which the court does not. In the meanwhile, the parliament is held hostage by the government, by the power of coalition and party discipline. An evidence for that is the total uniformity in how they vote for the problematic bills in question.
What issue specifically are the conservatives in Israel mad about? Settlements.
It's not about high political principles or abstract questions of balance of power. It's conservatives mad that the supreme court keeps finding settlements illegal.
That's it. That's all it is. That's why they care about it now, as opposed to any other time in Israel's history. The ultra Zionists are in power and they want to cement as much Jewish settlement for as long as they can.
That's what this is. It's simple.
It's not about high political principles or abstract questions of balance of power. It's conservatives mad that the supreme court keeps finding settlements illegal.
That's it. That's all it is. That's why they care about it now, as opposed to any other time in Israel's history. The ultra Zionists are in power and they want to cement as much Jewish settlement for as long as they can.
That's what this is. It's simple.
It's a slow slide into an authoritarian state, which will accelerate as power is consolidated.
Similar to what the Republican party is trying to achieve, but by stacking the Supreme court (done), having them rubber stamp vastly increased presidential powers and locking up the presidency though gerrymandering (partially done).
Similar to what the Republican party is trying to achieve, but by stacking the Supreme court (done), having them rubber stamp vastly increased presidential powers and locking up the presidency though gerrymandering (partially done).
Stacking the Supreme court with likely-minded people is not limited to any party, and has indeed been used by both. I think this is a feature, not a bug, and it's there by design.
The difference that the justices they put on the bench are pretty extreme. Witness the reversal of several important decisions, like Roe vs Wade, something the court has historically been loathed to do. Or the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, usurping the intentions of Congress. They're systematically rewriting the law because they know they have a durable majority and that Congress and voters have no recourse.
> The court is now barred from overruling the national government using the legal standard of “reasonableness,” a concept that judges previously used to block ministerial appointments and contest planning decisions, among other government measures.
So which court and check and balance would oversee something like this?
Edit: Looks like they can still overrule laws and regulations but just can't use "reasonableness" to overrule. I agree this gave the courts unlimited power.
So which court and check and balance would oversee something like this?
Edit: Looks like they can still overrule laws and regulations but just can't use "reasonableness" to overrule. I agree this gave the courts unlimited power.
None. The ruling party will have no oversight with any power.
Well, shit. Time to look for an escape window faster. I’m suspecting that religion will soon encroach upon whatever is left of the secular Israel.
Israel is a self proclaimed Jewish state. What leads people to think it maintains secularism?
Beyond Israel specifically, it feels like religion (in the context of governance) is a boat anchor that fights against the successful, doing well, tolerant, permissive parts of society. It constantly is a source of decoupled, easy-to-antagonize/coerce, simple popularism, that often acts against it's own & the broader self-interest.
I'd just love to see a religious state that can act liberally & broadly.
I'd just love to see a religious state that can act liberally & broadly.
Israeli here so this is my interpretation which is radically different to whatever you will read anywhere else. Bear with me.
Israel occupied territories as part of a war in 67 from Jordan. It wanted parts of that land which made sense as it was a very thin border so the liberal party started settling there. However, Israel never annexed those areas and kept them occupied. Why?
Because then the millions of Palestinians living there would get Israeli citizenship and voting rights. This is good and bad. It's good because "supposedly" Israel will give them independence one day. It's bad because it's really a dirty trick. Israel used Jewish settlements where the settlers did have citizenship to slowly grab lands while keeping the Palestinians under marshal law. Yes, there are nuances but that's the gist, 3 million people under marshal law yet Israel still calls itself a democracy.
How come?
The supreme court which is supposedly independent and a very strong human rights law. But both were used as a mask to whitewash the fact that it's been decades with no progress...
The right wing wants to annex these areas. This would be legal. But it doesn't want to give the Palestinians Israeli citizenship, that would be VERY illegal and is considered insane. Even the problematic supreme court that we have wouldn't let that happen. That's why they need to destroy it.
In the meantime, our prime minister (AKA crime minister) is pretty corrupt. Not an unusual sight around here. He's on trial but refuses to abdicate, his solution is to burn the courts to the ground so he doesn't go to jail.
They are doing this one piece at a time so people don't see what they're doing, but effectively they're removing the power of the courts and they plan to install their own judges. Effectively eliminating any oversight since we have only one house of parliament.
Israel occupied territories as part of a war in 67 from Jordan. It wanted parts of that land which made sense as it was a very thin border so the liberal party started settling there. However, Israel never annexed those areas and kept them occupied. Why?
Because then the millions of Palestinians living there would get Israeli citizenship and voting rights. This is good and bad. It's good because "supposedly" Israel will give them independence one day. It's bad because it's really a dirty trick. Israel used Jewish settlements where the settlers did have citizenship to slowly grab lands while keeping the Palestinians under marshal law. Yes, there are nuances but that's the gist, 3 million people under marshal law yet Israel still calls itself a democracy.
How come?
The supreme court which is supposedly independent and a very strong human rights law. But both were used as a mask to whitewash the fact that it's been decades with no progress...
The right wing wants to annex these areas. This would be legal. But it doesn't want to give the Palestinians Israeli citizenship, that would be VERY illegal and is considered insane. Even the problematic supreme court that we have wouldn't let that happen. That's why they need to destroy it.
In the meantime, our prime minister (AKA crime minister) is pretty corrupt. Not an unusual sight around here. He's on trial but refuses to abdicate, his solution is to burn the courts to the ground so he doesn't go to jail.
They are doing this one piece at a time so people don't see what they're doing, but effectively they're removing the power of the courts and they plan to install their own judges. Effectively eliminating any oversight since we have only one house of parliament.
>The supreme court which is supposedly independent and a very strong human rights law
This is the problem - the supreme court is very leftist and has the "authoritarian power" to reject any bill they deem "unreasonable". This is what they are fighting about.
Ultimately the fight is about what happens to the state when the majority is religious, which is a demographic inevitability given current trends.
This is the problem - the supreme court is very leftist and has the "authoritarian power" to reject any bill they deem "unreasonable". This is what they are fighting about.
Ultimately the fight is about what happens to the state when the majority is religious, which is a demographic inevitability given current trends.
The supreme court "pretends" to be leftist. That's all part of the trick. Remember that the Human rights law was passed by a Licud government. They approved laws prohibiting Jews from working on the sabath, destroying houses of terrorist families (collective punishment isn't legal in a democracy) etc.
But they're perceived as Liberal by the right since they need to blame someone for the pragmatism of their own MPs.
> Ultimately the fight is about what happens to the state when the majority is religious, which is a demographic inevitability given current trends.
Yes. Although they don't need a majority. All they need is enough non-religious useful idiots who think this is about right vs. left...
But they're perceived as Liberal by the right since they need to blame someone for the pragmatism of their own MPs.
> Ultimately the fight is about what happens to the state when the majority is religious, which is a demographic inevitability given current trends.
Yes. Although they don't need a majority. All they need is enough non-religious useful idiots who think this is about right vs. left...
For someone who doesn't follow the Israeli politics, your reply lays out a broader picture of what's happening.
But what dynamics/motivations make many Israelis support Netanyahu and this judicial overhaul?
With Trump, I noticed the perspective of international observers was very different than mine on the ground in Florida/Texas. The legitimate grievances that blossomed into the craziness, and decades of partisan priming, weren't really acknowledged.
Now I feel like I'm on the other end. This judicial thing seems like a crazy change for Israelis to support, but maybe it makes some sense from the inside.
With Trump, I noticed the perspective of international observers was very different than mine on the ground in Florida/Texas. The legitimate grievances that blossomed into the craziness, and decades of partisan priming, weren't really acknowledged.
Now I feel like I'm on the other end. This judicial thing seems like a crazy change for Israelis to support, but maybe it makes some sense from the inside.
A rallying cry for them is: I vote right and keep getting left wing. They feel the claims against Netanyahu are all made up (similar to the Trump camp claims). There's also a dislike of liberal values and a lot of religion involved...
The right has been in power almost continuously since 1977 (with a few short terms in between). Yet policies are far from what they promise. The right blames the liberals similarly to the "deep state" claims you see in the states. The judiciary is a major part of that.
Ironically the judiciary today is very right wing and protects them from external criticisms.
The right has been in power almost continuously since 1977 (with a few short terms in between). Yet policies are far from what they promise. The right blames the liberals similarly to the "deep state" claims you see in the states. The judiciary is a major part of that.
Ironically the judiciary today is very right wing and protects them from external criticisms.
It's worth noting that many of what Likud voters today deem as "left wing" was actually done by the Likud in the past (like the human rights base law [1]).
Essentially, when you actually gain power and have to take responsible action, you see that the right wing biblical fantasies can't end well for the county in reality.
The problem today is that many of those right wingers who are also religious fundamentalists are now in power, and they care not about this world but about the next [2], so they're willing to make the sacrifice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Human_Dignity_and_L... [2] https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%9... (It's only in Hebrew, but Google Translate is your friend)
Essentially, when you actually gain power and have to take responsible action, you see that the right wing biblical fantasies can't end well for the county in reality.
The problem today is that many of those right wingers who are also religious fundamentalists are now in power, and they care not about this world but about the next [2], so they're willing to make the sacrifice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Human_Dignity_and_L... [2] https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%9... (It's only in Hebrew, but Google Translate is your friend)
Exactly. Likud PMs gave territories and signed peace accords.
When people complain that both parties are exactly alike I groan. That's "good government". People make reasonable decisions which are the same in almost all cases, just some nuanced differences but the general direction is based on consensus.
What we have now isn't right wing. It's far right fascists and autocrats who are holding the Likud party like a puppeteer.
When people complain that both parties are exactly alike I groan. That's "good government". People make reasonable decisions which are the same in almost all cases, just some nuanced differences but the general direction is based on consensus.
What we have now isn't right wing. It's far right fascists and autocrats who are holding the Likud party like a puppeteer.
I thought a multiparty system would resist this kind of polarization...
But the distrust I can understand. In the U.S. some legitimate systemic problems (especially in rural areas) and surpressed issues/controversies built up institutional skepticism among conservatives. Bad actors (on the extreme left and right) amplified it and turned it to obsession. The pressure was always there, ready to explode for years, but Trump just tapped it particularly well.
But the distrust I can understand. In the U.S. some legitimate systemic problems (especially in rural areas) and surpressed issues/controversies built up institutional skepticism among conservatives. Bad actors (on the extreme left and right) amplified it and turned it to obsession. The pressure was always there, ready to explode for years, but Trump just tapped it particularly well.
It's supposed to but blocks form naturally. Also Netanyahu is a VERY divisive figure that spews poison. He essentially poisoned the well of discourse and made it an "us vs. them" situation.
He isn't 100% wrong. As a person who lives in Tel Aviv I'm a liberal and an atheist. I have almost nothing in common with a settler in the west bank. But there was a status quo and he smashed it with a jackhammer.
He isn't 100% wrong. As a person who lives in Tel Aviv I'm a liberal and an atheist. I have almost nothing in common with a settler in the west bank. But there was a status quo and he smashed it with a jackhammer.
> Israeli here
"Left wing" israeli here..
"Left wing" israeli here..
He seems to be truly left-wing and not a neolib parading as 'center-left' that's oddly close to neocon on all subject but feminism and lgbtq rights, so I don't understand the quotes here.
Sure. Assumed it was clear from the context.
Disasterous.
The real interesting part is when happens the supreme court rules this new law "unreasonable".
If Israel is to remain a Jewish ethnostate, it must not be a full democracy. It's a simple demographic fact.
This law was passed specifically to allow Aryeh Dery to ignore the terms of his plea agreement and serve as a minister. It's not related to the Jewish-Arab demographic balance (which, within the 67 borders, is about 85-15).
That's technically true but also myopic. This was an explicit step to weaken the judiciary, strengthen the hard right and also indicted PM. This move is not explicitly anti-arab but it greatly empowers anti-arab leaders at the expense of democratic fairness. And rather severely at that. This was a canary. The next bill be worse and the one after worse again because they know they can't be stopped.
As the current government is making abundantly clear, 67 borders are irrelevant. There are roughly the same number of Jewish and Arab people within the territory Israel controls.
In the past the Israeli justice has been reasonably independent of the government, as can be seen from this long list where Aryeh Dery figures prominently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_public_officia...
Even if the law passed now might have only the tactical goal of promoting Aryeh Dery once more, it certainly will allow the government to do unsanctioned in the future other things that could be much more harmful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_public_officia...
Even if the law passed now might have only the tactical goal of promoting Aryeh Dery once more, it certainly will allow the government to do unsanctioned in the future other things that could be much more harmful.
This law is intended to prevent the judiciary from finding settlements unreasonable. Aryeh Dery is the cover story.
Exactly. The right wingers plan to annex the territories without giving the Palestinians citizenship. It was literally in their election platform!
OP was being disingenuous at best, as if the country could be brought to a standstill over a minor legislative change to allow one guy into Parliament
Isn't the entire point of Israel to remain a Jewish ethnostate? I'm not sure, but something happened a few decades ago that really soured them on the idea of not being in absolute control of the government of the state in which they reside.
Sort of unreasonable, really. I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than gracious if they ever achieved significant power.
Sort of unreasonable, really. I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than gracious if they ever achieved significant power.
It's wild that a two-state solution was widely accepted 30 years ago, and now the Overton window has moved so much that Israel occupying the entirety of Palestine and killing or displacing all the Arab population is no big deal.
I sympathize with the desire for a Jewish state but the United States has supported them to the hilt in human rights abuses, war crimes and expansionism that aren't related to that goal.
I sympathize with the desire for a Jewish state but the United States has supported them to the hilt in human rights abuses, war crimes and expansionism that aren't related to that goal.
US support was always predicated on "they're on our side against the Soviets, and their enemies are definitely siding with them". Even then, it was always strained (they painted over their plane's markings and bombed one of our ships, ffs).
Ignoring the recent shenanigans, the Russians are a non-issue and the Israelis aren't much helping with that anyway. I have no idea why support continues. It's difficult to formulate an explanation that doesn't come off as whackjob conspiracy-theorist.
As for a "two-state solution"... it was never much of a solution for the Israelis. The other state soon outnumbers them, and they're right back to where they were in the 1960s, but with fewer options and less advantage. Same but for details with a one-state solution. If they ever pretended to accept the two-state solution, it was only to string things along as much as possible. I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it was genuine.
Ignoring the recent shenanigans, the Russians are a non-issue and the Israelis aren't much helping with that anyway. I have no idea why support continues. It's difficult to formulate an explanation that doesn't come off as whackjob conspiracy-theorist.
As for a "two-state solution"... it was never much of a solution for the Israelis. The other state soon outnumbers them, and they're right back to where they were in the 1960s, but with fewer options and less advantage. Same but for details with a one-state solution. If they ever pretended to accept the two-state solution, it was only to string things along as much as possible. I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it was genuine.
I know you're being sarcastic but I think that same something really soured the world on there being any ethnostates at all, anywhere.
Was that something living in a state that decided it should be a different kind of ethnostate? This might be a controversial take, but I think ethnostates in general lead to poor outcomes.
Sure, it seems like ethnostates seem like they lead to poor outcomes. But you're also saying that to criticize an ethnicity who found out what the outcomes were for non-ethnostates, so it falls a little flat. And since they're the ones you have to convince, not me, you might need to work on your argument a bit.
There has never been a "full democracy". Democracy means rule by the people. Every democracy that has existed has been some kind of representative sample filtered through a select group. That select group does the work of making biased or prejudicial decisions, as they have the powers of rhetoric and overriding the rabble. The judicial section of a democracy has traditionally been limited as well (if it wasn't, there'd be no point to a legislative branch)
I don't disagree, but I don't understand how this contradicts grandparent poster's point. While it's not always the rule, people usually vote for those representatives that they believe will more likely make decisions aligned with their preferences.
Once they've voted for whomever made the best election campaign, can now do as they please, sans checks and balances that exist in a modern democratic country.
Once this government has been established, they started pushing their reform, which has caused many to switch sides. Recent polls show that the coalition wouldn't win an election, if it would be held today.
What do you say to the now majority of the people that don't approve of the government's actions? too bad that you made that mistake of trusting those guys?
In a truly democratic country, the elected government should have power, but it must be held in check by powerful institutions like the supreme court.
Once this government has been established, they started pushing their reform, which has caused many to switch sides. Recent polls show that the coalition wouldn't win an election, if it would be held today.
What do you say to the now majority of the people that don't approve of the government's actions? too bad that you made that mistake of trusting those guys?
In a truly democratic country, the elected government should have power, but it must be held in check by powerful institutions like the supreme court.
Thoughts on Switzerland?
The representatives + public initiative/referendum system seems like a "full demoracy", or as close as is practically possible.
The representatives + public initiative/referendum system seems like a "full demoracy", or as close as is practically possible.
Why should it remain a Jewish ethonostate? Countries and cultures change. They should embrace diversity and reap the benefits. They should follow Europe's lead.
And why should they follow anyone's lead? They are not Europe. Why should they embrace diversity? Diversity has a separate set of problems still being dealt with.
They were founded on a jewish identity. Changing is not a possibility. Too many wars and conflicts have baked them to remain an ethnostate.
They were founded on a jewish identity. Changing is not a possibility. Too many wars and conflicts have baked them to remain an ethnostate.
Because that's what the voters voted for?
europe seems far worse off.. what are the benefits to be reaped?
[deleted]
I am unsure about the goals, but this is what the rule by the seld-elected judiciary was. When Israel's courts aligned themselves too far to the left and along the racial divide, they became incompatible with Israel's current demographics and majority-elected government. The catch is, the Israeli right wing may swing too far just as well.
Israel is no ethnostate. It is ridiculous to assume that to be the case even with the context of the Jewish religion. It probably is less ethnically lopsided than the vast majority of other countries.
I have no dog in this fight but the precise breakdown of population doesn’t decide an enthnostate. It’s about who does and does not have power and what they do with it. Take the “nation-state” law passed in 2018:
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-n...
> The law does three big things:
> It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”
> It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”
> It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”
I don’t know enough to know the precise qualification for an ethnostate vs not but that first item clearly indicates that Israel is at minimum a country legally stratified by ethnicity.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-n...
> The law does three big things:
> It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”
> It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”
> It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”
I don’t know enough to know the precise qualification for an ethnostate vs not but that first item clearly indicates that Israel is at minimum a country legally stratified by ethnicity.
[deleted]
"To understand events in Israel, there is just one question to ask: what limits the power of the government? Robust democracies rely on a whole system of checks and balances. But Israel lacks a constitution, an upper house in the parliament, a federal structure or any other check on government power except one — the Supreme Court. This Monday, the Netanyahu government plans to pass the first in a series of laws that will neutralise the Supreme Court. If it succeeds, it will gain unlimited power.
Members of the Netanyahu coalition have already disclosed their intention to pass laws and pursue policies that will discriminate against Arab people, women, LGBTQ people and secular people. Once the Supreme Court is out of the way, nothing will remain to stop them. In such a situation, the government could also rig future elections, for example by banning Arab parties from participating — a step previously proposed by coalition members."
A government whose power is not limited by checks and balances is called an authoritarian government.
Sigh.
---
[a] https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/d...
[b] https://www.ft.com/content/b027a525-05b1-45fc-a2c2-f131d341b...