Perhaps I'm being dense, but after reading that piece it is not at all clear to me what exactly he is so upset about in Israeli politics. It's clear he doesn't like Netanyahu, at least this version, but that's as much as I got from this.
Two sources not listed, which convincingly argue that what is being proposed is a justified response to an oligarchic judicial system, are Caroline Glick's "What the Battle Over Judicial Reform in Israel Is Really About" and Ruth Wisse's "Leftist elites declaim against the power of the U.S. Supreme Court while trying to preserve judicial supremacy in Israel." These arguments are not substantively addressed by this writer.
Matti (and Bari) are gaslighting. “Democracy is in danger.” Same attacks from the left in the US. It makes me sick. They are trying to prevent Bibi from governing.
Look for Lee Smith’s in Tablet, too, which discusses how the Biden Administration is fomenting some this, much as the Obama administration worked to defeat Bibi in an earlier election.
My first gut reaction reading Matti's piece is that our 'color revolutionaries'(American Leftists) are one of the roots of this spreading narratives. Not discounting Matti, Netanyahu has been a stable force for sooo long, I just need more to understand why he has 'changed'.
I will read Lee's piece for sure - you can always count on his commentary.
I just read the Glick article. I trust her completely, as I have since my first exposure to her 7 years ago in her amazing talk, "The Iran Deal - Implications for National Security" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jR1opDZrds&ab_channel=securefreedom). It's as I suspected, & this morning my cup of leftist tears is replenished.
Writer states: "The new system, which is supposed to be set in law by next month, will allow the government to select judges and overrule the court’s decisions." But this is how things are supposed to work. Other than those based on the constitution, Congress overrules US Supreme Court decisions all the time.
The judicial reforms are talked about every day in the Time of Israel with calls to propest that border on calls to rebel against the elected government but there is never any coverage of what the changes actually do nor what the current elected leaders believe is the problem. This article seems like propaganda and Bari should look for someone to present the issues from both sides (maybe in a debate format).
Just read Glick's column in Newsweek (!!!). Really good any laying out the macro issue represented over the "judicial reform" narrative. Surprisingly like the US - or where the US might be headed if the power of the Establishment Leftists-Wall Street-Media is not curtailed.
And I read, with mostly approval, Ruth Wisse's WSJ commentary. But, at reading this:
... "The answer lies not in the judiciaries but in their contrasting political roles. Jews, who were politically dependent for two millennia, tended to invest authority in the rabbinate rather than any national government."...
I just had to laugh.
... tended to invest authority in the rabbinate rather than any national government."
"Tended to"? No. Jews, prior to the formal adoption of laws formally assimilating Jewish members of the nation's population into a kingdom or state and making them for the first time subject to the purview of its legal system (See: "Jewish emancipation" / Wikipedia*) throughout most of Europe, lived, by deliberate agreements with the state or local authorities, in segregated "ghettos" which were both culturally and legally under the authority of the local Rabbinate.** With emancipation, Jews began to have an alternative to submission to whatever vagaries their local chief Rabbis might choose to impose on them. This was a sea-change in the theretofore unchallengable authority of the Rabbinate.
Orthodox Judaism, after thousands of years of practice, is still struggling to find its way into the modern enlightened world of, well, The Enlightenment and its moral descendants.
"Go figure."
--------------------------------------------
* Caveat lector: Do not rely _solely_ on Wikipedia's articles for your background reading.
** Had this not been so, then Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" as plotted, could not have made any sense at all. The merchant's legal claims on his debtor were entirely based on Jewish religious authority, not on the powers and laws as administered by the Venetian Doge and Council.
Yes, not being in Israel and being an admirer of the Netanyahu who so angered Obama, I have no idea of what the real facts are and am not wading into this. But it did have the same tenor as the hysterical shrieks of our America left's journalism.
Yes Bruce. It’s really simple. Israel has no constitution. Today, the left control the judiciary, which is not elected by the people or appointed by an elected official. Bibi wants to pass reforms so that Israeli’s judiciary is governed more like the US. The left fears it will loose power, and so we have this gaslighting campaign. It’s no different than the left attempts in the US to paralyze government. The author of this article is all over Twitter shouting the same rhetoric from the rooftops.
Thanks, Brian, that was very helpful. It was redolent of the same hysteria we hear from our own leftist media. Wondering why Bari is propagating this stuff?
I'm not sure I would go that far - it feels like an insult to Bari. But this piece of blatant propaganda is a reminder that The Free Press, though it more often than not plays it straight, still has its leanings.
Bari is "propagating this stuff" because it is waayyy more complicated than that. I can understand that Americans may see things through a "left/right" lens but that is not the case here whatsoever. For example, we are religious Zionists who vote for right-wing parties, yet we do not support Netanyahu (who btw back in 2012 was very publicly in favour of a strong independent judiciary). Handing unlimited power with no checks whatsoever to 61 'you scratch my back I'll scratch my yours' potentially corrupt MKs to legislate away any rights they wish is a recipe for disaster. The average Israeli understands this threat. All the rest (judicial selection etc) can and should be discussed and decided by consensus.
Well and if I’m not mistaken several of the judges were appointed by Bibi himself. This article leaves me with more questions than answers. Super disappointing.
I don't understand what's going on in Israel or its politics so I won't comment on it. However from what I have read and seen on the news (when I used to watch the news), Israeli politics has always been contentious, even more so than ours, if that is possible.
Democracies are designed to be contentious. It is what makes them democracies. There is no opposition in dictatorships. An aside, more and more of the US left is moving toward socialism which has always been brutally authoritarian.
It’s true that reforms are necessary and the elected government need more input in the election of Supreme Court judges. However, for the Knesset to be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling would give unprecedented power to the government of the day and defeat the check and balance that is the Court’s primary role. I think the author also raises legitimate concerns regarding the powers that have been given to far right individuals whose views are considered extreme by many Israelis who are right of centre. I think Netanyahu’s arrogance has finally caught up with him. He has been a brilliant leader and politician. He has done great things for Israel. But he’s legacy may be in danger as he seems to have lost control of his government.
I thought Matt Friedman’s article extremely compelling and well supported, heart breaking even for those of us who love Israel. Not only the evidence he presents of how extreme the political far right that Netanyahu has allied with in order to stay in power, but the anguish affecting so many Israeli citizens who have served their country so honorably. I’m glad that Bari gave him a platform.
I strongly recommend Evelyn Gordon’s definitive essay in the 3/6 Mosaic magazine , especially for you Moti , get a grip on yourself . From many comments it is clear that your piece is very short on knowledge and insight of the past and present Israeli judicial system and very full of overblown BS , and as for Bari , you too ought to get a grip on yourself as others I’m surprised you put out this sophomoric crappy piece.
Brian - Thanks. Everyday Times of Israel covers judicial reform as if the country will/should collapse. But never addresses what the problem is with reform. Thanks again.
It seems to me that a vocal portion of the US left hates Israel and Obama's attitude towards Israel and his insulting manner towards Bibi bares out what I am saying. I also believe, the Dem/Soc Party is not only anti-Israel but antisemitic. There is a difference between the two.
One, is you don't like Israel because it doesn't treat the religion of peace very well. This is, for example, borne out when Hamas and Hezbollah fires hundreds of rockets into Israel and the leftist press and the left in general hammer Israel for defending itself. Students in our left wing universities wear the Palestinian scarfs as a sign they hate Israel and support Palestine. And the Dem/Soc Party has rabid anti-Israel and antisemitic members in their party and in congress.
Obama was very nuanced in his strategy towards Israel. Leave no daylight between the US and Israel in regards to policies (being against Israeli expansion in Judea & Samaria) near and dear to liberals and progressives. And attacking those policies (security, JCPOA) supported by the right. So when Bibi spoke in Congress against JCPOA, Obama retaliated by failing to veto UN Resolution 2334.
I believe Obama, (The left looked upon him as the messiah.) was a racist. He went to a racist church for over twenty years and looked at the pastor as avuncular. He was also an antisemite. He was and is despicable.
1. Supreme Court appointments need 7 votes from a 9 person appointed panel, 3 of whom are judges
2. Supreme Court can strike down any law, including Basic Laws, if they find it "unreasonable".
Is trial by jury "unreasonable"? The US Supreme Court won't be ruling on that because, like the rest of the US government, it has limited powers, the brilliant ideas of John Locke and the US Constitution.
Yes. The panel that appoints Israel's SCOTUS is three members of the Israel Supreme Court, two members of the Knesset, two members of the Cabinet, and two members of the Israeli Bar Association. Far as I know, the Knesset cannot veto the panel's appointments.
The system does need an overhaul. But Bibi's reforms will only replace one dictatorial power, the court, with another: the prime minister. He needs to take a broader view of reform to make all three branches part of the checks and balances on each other.
Read the Glick piece. It will go far to explain things. The left in Israel is like the left here in the US: embedded in every governmental agency, full of resentment when the people vote for a conservative government, and financed to the hilt by tech billionaires and the like.
It's about stripping the power of their court over their legislative branch, which would eliminate any checks and balances in their government - according to him - turning their government into a democratic tyranny. They could decide to hold elections less frequently or make Netanyahu president for life and no court could stop it. He says. It's a pity the first 4/5 of the article was largely ad hominem attacks on the man, his friends and political allies and his "fetid" family. I almost didn't make it to that singular specific charge, buried as it was in a landfill of verbal garbage.
"Fetid" was the word that made me consciously realize this. I don't know a whole lot about internal Israeli politics, but I do know what attacks founded on little more than blind hatred look like; we've been living with them for the last six years. And with the only specific charge against one of his hated appointments sounding something like "racist hate speech" I started wondering if Israel hasn't also been infected with a variant of the "white man bad" disease. WMB-2.0?
I can answer that - yes they have. In fact they even use the word "privilege" - in English! Being white in Israel, or "whiteness" if you will, is now considered as bad there as it is here.
The author's long diatribe against Bibbi boils down to his ONE substantive sentence:
"The new system, which is supposed to be set in law by next month, will allow the government to select judges and overrule the court’s decisions."
No nuance, no deep thinking, just a hate Bibbi and the Right piece.
This issue strikes me as a very difficult balancing between the judiciary and the legislature. Every legit government struggles with this, especially in a young country without a constitution. But the author just throws mud on the right and expects us to join in. Everytime TFP starts by saying how thoughtful the author is, I now know they are promoting a lefty point of view.
To be fair though BW did an interview with Netanyahu so his POV has been presented. I think your point in this comment is very appropriate. Too many make their decisions on how they feel.
I'm not familiar with Israel's judicial system, but one case that comes to mind is the land claim dispute that was decided in favour of the Jewish family that had the deed from the 1800s. The decision started yet another wave of Palestinian riots.
The legal dispute took 50 years to adjudicate. That is an inexcusable length of time, unfair to both parties. Any legal system that can get so mired in procedure that it can't come to a decision deserves to be reformed.
Even before Israel was a nation, starting in the early 1800's, Jews were buying land legally from willing Arabs. This amounted to 5.7% of the British Mandate for Palestine by 1945. Fast forward to today, and land is still being sold by "Palestinians" to Israeli buyers. Read up about the Jewish National Fund, established in 1901 by Theodor Herzl.
So.. I'm just trying to be neutral here. So don't pounce on me:
Publicly, Netanyahu has said that he's modelled his (or more precisely, his government's..) proposals on their Supreme Court reform to something akin to Canada's. By which 40 years ago when their Constitution was repatriated from Great Britain (this is only a general description..), and a Bill of Rights inserted, something else was also included at the behest of some of its provinces (primarily Quebec), and that something was called the 'notwithstanding clause.'
This clause has been hugely controversial from the start. It enables provincial governments (the equivalent of our state governments) to opt out of Supreme Court decisions if they deem it's warranted, with a sunset clause of five years.
We here in the United States do not have a notwithstanding clause. Here when the Supreme Court rules, it is considered final.
Thus the controversy and anxiety in Israel, and to a certain extant in Canada; that the Court will rule, but the government can choose to not abide. If for example certain rights on citizens are abrogated (using this as an example, not saying it will happen..) by a legislature, but the Court rules against, the legislature can simply ignore it.
To make it more pertinent to Americans, it could be a scenario that the Supreme Court upholds the First Amendment in a case, but the US government chooses to opt out and closes down all newspapers that do not respect the government. To use a blunt example.
We as Americans consider Court decisions as sacrosanct, though we certainly disagree on occasion and try to change decisions over time, but governments do abide (as far as I know, anyway..)
Netanyahu does not want that scenario. Cynics might say that because he's been indicted on charges of corruption, if this legislation is carried through, he can just ignore a guilty verdict if rendered.
As far as Netanyahu's personal legal issues one could also say that his treatment makes him acutely aware of injustice in the system. Ditto the others convicted he has appointed to government positions. And perhaps that is a possibility to me because of all the wasted efforts to label the former president as corrupt/criminal. Otherwise I commend your commentary about the differences in the Israeli, Canadian, and US systems. One thing no one can deny about the US system is that it provides ample opportunity for review. Also, while there are exceptions, most Supreme Court decisions leave room for subsequent legislation. Everybody whining about the evil Supreme Court in the Dobb's decision gives Congress, the real culprit of their angst, a free pass. Dobbs did nor opine one way or another about the merits of abortion. It just said the rationale upon which Roe was decided was faulty. And from a purely legal perspective, it was.
Thank you Lee, this is very helpful to the discussion. It gives me an ability to see why those who oppose the proposed reforms are voicing their concern. I’ve not read this written as clearly as you have note elsewhere. And it is a concern that I can respect. But I do not respect their tactics.
It seems to me that Israel is missing a constitution that would serve as a back stop to the problem at hand.
The proposed reforms by Netanyahu could also serve a left government if it were in power. So it is odd to me that the left in Israel are not supporting this. Perhaps because they don’t believe they can get the votes to be a majority party and control government.
Has Canada had any problems with this “notwithstanding clause” that we can look to ?
In response to your question, there have been a few. Quebec has done it the most as it shields its legislation regarding language rights from Court challenges. The notwithstanding clause allows it to do that. That means that any Canadian who wants to sue the government on Constitutional grounds on that particular law is not allowed - because of that clause. The clause must be invoked on the legislation by the government, where it is not invoked, laws can be challenged.
From what I've been reading controversial legislation is now proposed with the notwithstanding clause already in place (the province of Alberta recently, as well as Quebec)- whereas the gov't expects it to be challenged and is automatically denying anyone's right to do so..
Got it, thanks. With this in mind, I have to really respect and thank the founders of the USA for putting in place a constitutional republic (if you can keep it) three branches of government.
Yes, the American system in theory is the better one I think, girded by a Constitution that is respected and followed. Majority rule in Parliamentary systems, especially in examples such as Israel and even England with no constitutional framework, can be fraught in that since it is not bicameral, there is no political checks and balance (unless there is a minority government). And the majority can rule as it wishes, the leader of the majority party becomes PM, with nothing holding it back except for a strong and free press, an educated citizenry - and the aforementioned Supreme Court..
A fine comment per usual, Lee. We've already seen what happens when states ignore Supreme Court decisions: we either send in troops to enforce those decisions, as in Little Rock, or let the states get away with it, as in Gov. Abbott's claiming that his abortion bounty hunter law superseded Roe v Wade and therefore Texas would ignore the Supreme Court decision. The recent SCOTUS overturning of Roe let Abbott off the hook, but I'm sure this issue will bubble to the surface again.
A decision has recently come down very recently that Texas cannot enforce actions that occur in other states. Probably going to apply to Cali's efforts to tax residents who leave its jurisdiction as well. I am oversimplifying and it will likely to continue to weave its way through the court.
I was about to say the same. I follow Israeli politics very closely and this is not helpful. There’s one throwaway line about what the “Israeli Right” is (a term many may not intrinsically understand when our version of the right is so different) and then a short explanation that Netanyahu just wants to destroy his enemies. Is that really what’s behind this? I feel like I need to do a lot more reading now.
15% of the electorate (including us) voted for right wing parties that refuse to partner with Netanyahu, since he so royally screwed them over the last time they tried that (back in 2021). Who would have thought that "no tricks no shticks" Netanyahu would refuse to pass a national budget so he could weasel out of a power sharing agreement? This is not simply a left/right issue, I would say more of a "live and let live" vs "allow coercion from corrupt leaders" issue.
“What exactly is he so upset about in Israeli politics”?
While the legal reform is a complex issue and many criticisms of the current situation are obviously warranted, doing a sweeping legal reform with a government that includes in top positions extremists with terrible record, adding each day new outrageous claims and demands, and a prime-minister with a whole series of legal accusations, that looks extremely fishy.
To compare with the US, imagine an administration with a bare Congress majority who would somehow attempt major legal change (some overdue), with a cabinet that includes declared anti-semites, racists, etc., demanding the expulsion of US citizens belonging to a certain religious, ethnic or racial group. Changes may be needed, but there has to be a level of credibility behind them.
So this rant finally gets to a point and that is the judiciary won’t be left(ist) anymore or something? As Israel has no constitution, what acts as a brake on these judges now.
I suppose this author sees no issue with Joey’s whacko appointments and seriously a company would leave Israel for Palo Alto? California??? So we know exactly where he stands.
I do hope Bari prints an essay from the other side because this one is highly biased and doesn’t impart much real
This one really got me - "he has done two things perhaps better than anyone of his generation: defended Israel and deepened our understanding of a young country whose identity is still emergent."
I was waiting for an example of how he defended Israel "better than anyone of his generation" and found none. Service in their special forces? Winner of a counterpart to our Medal of Honor? Nothing. As far as "deepening our understanding - how this hysterical screed did that is beyond me. Other than portraying a segment as shrieking Maddows. Bari seems a bit overwrought here.
That was his good guy bona fides. It's supposed to help convince you that all the trash he's going to be dumping after that is warranted because he's a good guy.
He volunteered, he wasn't obligated to serve (as native-born Israelis are). His point is that he's establishing his bona fides that he's not someone who takes Israel for granted or that is out to 'get' her.
Every American who has served in our armed forces since the late 70s has volunteered. Does that mean each was better than any other? A bit hyperbolic, ne c'est pas?
Of course he's not taking anything away from anyone else who served, nor is he comparing and contrasting. He's making the point that he wasn't required to serve, yet chose to anyway. And the reason he's making that point is that he's establishing that he's not some Israel-hater who's out to bash Israel no matter - he believe so much in the country and and its ideals that he volunteered to put his life at risk for it. That's not hyperbolic, that's factual.
He's not claiming he's better than anyone. He's establishing that he's no Israel-basher simply out to make Israel look bad - he believes so much in the ideal that is Israel that he volunteered to put his life on the line to defend her. He's no better or worse than Yoni Netanyahu because it's not a question of better or worse.
Ha! That's funny. I just typed the same comment. Like minds, I guess. I think the last six years have really sensitized us to this kind of argument, if you can call it that.
I hope so to, perhaps Bari would grant Carolyn Glick some space or even an interview she is really terrific m, but somehow I doubt whether it will happen.
I have a lot of respect for Matti Friedman and have often appreciated his writing, but this piece is misleading.
One needn't defend either the coalition or the specific laws proposed to reform the judicial system to point out that Friedman's characterizations are wrong. He gives half a sentence to how, sure, the legal system could use some reform, claims that the proposed reforms would "neuter" it and goes on to describe the government, with no judicial checks, installing itself forever.
The judicial system, according to many jurists across the Israeli political spectrum and internationally, has arrogated to itself an amount of power that is itself almost dictatorial. It's easier to imagine it invalidating any election result it doesn't like than the government doing away with elections, because it has already used that sort of power. Catastrophizing the 61-vote override by which the government would, according to one of the proposed laws, do away with judicial review ignores both the tremendous difficulty of getting all the coalition partners to vote the same way on anything and the fact that one of the Basic Laws already has a 61-vote override built into it, which has bothered nobody until now. The government isn't going to install itself forever because the people wouldn't stand for it and they know it.
To say that the protests are not about judicial reform is to deny the evidence of one's senses. Friedman has many other problems with the government, and perhaps they are motivating him to protest, but they're not what's bringing all those people into the streets.
The claim about the government receiving under half the votes cast is just silliness. I voted for a party whose main thrust was judicial reform but which didn't pass the cutoff for a seat in the Knesset. Implying that I therefore don't support judicial reform is obviously wrong, and drawing any conclusions at all about what "the people really want" is a fool's game.
His description of the coalition partners and of Netanyahu's moves is misleading as well. The context of putting Ben Gvir in charge of the police is partly, one can assume, because of the regular musical-chairs of coalition formation and partly because, for all his faults, Ben Gvir has made a point of promoting the cause of victims of violence, especially when the police did too little to protect them.
The cherry-picked quotes are also, frankly, beneath Friedman. There are academics, businesspeople and everything else on both sides of this. Smotrich said that in '48 the Israelis should have expelled the Arabs? So did Benny Morris, an Israeli "New Historian" and one-time darling of the left. When Smotrich was Transportation Minister he did, by all accounts, a good job for all of Israel's citizens. You want irresponsible quotes? Look at the list put together in Makor Rishon two weeks ago of former generals -- the people Freidman thinks show the virtue of the protests -- calling for bloodshed.
And implying that the ultra-Orthodox parties are somehow in this government because they're on the "right" is laughable. Everybody, left and right, who needs them to form a coalition has partnered with them and acceded to their demands for the things that interest them.
I myself don't like to characterize what other people are thinking or why, and I'm not particularly gifted, as Friedman is, at weaving facts together into a narrative. Still, if I were to try to make sense of what's going on to an American audience I'd say the following: The founding generation of Israel, mostly Ashkenazi, educated, secular and successful, and its heirs look around and see a country that has grown more religious, more Sephardi and generally more diverse. Until now it has held the "commanding heights" of academia, culture, media and the judiciary (sound familiar?). This is the first time that's being challenged in a serious way, so of course it's "the end of democracy".
The average Israeli understands exactly what you don't seem to: the prospect of 61 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' potentially corrupt MKs with unlimited power and able to legislate away any civil liberties they wish. This is not a right/left nor a progressive/conservative issue - I've been a religious right wing voter my whole life (including after our move to Israel) and yet am very concerned about the possibility of a neutered court and uber-powerful legislature with no checks on it whatsoever.
You're not concerned that the Court already has virtually unlimited power. I'm not that concerned either, because while the Court has been wildly aggressive I doubt it would go so far as to jigger a left-wing government out of a right-wing electoral victory. I hope not.
By the same token I don't expect the government, even armed with a 61-vote override, to strip the electorate of its civil rights.
Tell me, if the override were made 70 and a right-led coalition got 70 seats, would democracy be over? The fact is, the override isn't the best idea, and if the protestors said something like "Yes to a requirement for 'standing'; Yes to political appointment of judges; Yes to a supermajority of justices to strike a law down; No to an override," I like to think something might budge, but I have yet to hear -- and I've been listening to this for decades -- a single person of the left say about any judicial reform that it wasn't the end of democracy.
I should correct that: Some people of the left, like Daniel Friedman and Ruth Gavison, were for judicial reform even before it was popular. Now, many people on the left are making proposals, but one assumes that's only because of the looming legislation.
The one line I found absolutely wrong was the 'less than half's. As clearly you can't elect a government with less than half of the popular vote (unlike in the states)
You are incorrect, as least in Israel. The current government received the majority of the parliamentary vote (via the vagaries of the Israeli political system, including 450,000 wasted left-wing and Arab votes) but NOT the popular vote (similar to Bush/Gore in 2000). Adding to that the half of Likud voters that do not support the speed and scale of the proposed overhaul and the supposed "will of the people" is revealed as just fake news.
Just to reiterate, the ruling political parties who received 64 Knesset seats also received LESS THAN 50% of the votes.
No need to shout. It wasn't just left-wing and Arab votes that went to waste, and anyway, it's not as if the left-of-center parties got more votes altogether, is it?
As he says, this is a complex situation, so for my own purposes I am going to assume--while recognizing and admitting that is what I am doing--that this is something akin to the fear mongering that took place when Donald Trump won the election in 2016. He was going to turn us into a One Party State. Our democracy was dead. War was inevitable. The economy was going to crash. Etc. Etc.
It was all BS. Trump was an outstanding President then and will make one again. Far from being an enemy of American Democracy, he seems to be our only hope of reclaiming it from the Permanent War State.
Netyanyahu is a smart man. Perhaps he IS also a corrupt, bitter man. But it seems unlikely all this hyperventilating is worth it. Time will tell.
..."I am going to assume--while recognizing and admitting that is what I am doing--that this is something akin to the fear mongering that took place when Donald Trump won the election in 2016." ...
That's a sentiment I've felt repeatedly where other similarly contentious matters were reported. It's this--a poisoned media-culture in which a reader, a viewer, can no longer take any case's presentation as honestly presented, or honestly argued over. Worse still, even the simplest supposedly objective "facts" as these are reported can no longer be taken for granted.
What your comment points up is a truly disastrous state of affairs: authority's once accepted basic legitimacy has, across the board, collapsed.
To reconstitute failed, corrupted, lost legitmacy is an extraordinarily daunting challenge.
And no morally-debased public, none steeped in its own self-deception, is up to that challenge.
The world is on fire and there is no "fire department" anywhere.
"We (in the U.S.) are in an information war, and it’s being waged by government agencies," ... ( -- Molly Hemingway, senior editor at "The Federalist" (newspaper) Washington, D.C.)
I'm sorry, Lynne. I've repeatedly confused you and "Zarathustra". And, well, I'm just getting old. (But my comments themselves are still very lucid and well-considered!)
So never mind any of the following (below the line)--which I'm leaving there as a reminder to myself not to forget to remember not to forget.
------------------------------------
We have to stop meeting like this. My wife thinks I'm having an affair---and I'm not even married. As my former girlfriends would ask me, "How can I miss you if you don't go away?"
But, yes, it _was_ well put. (At this time, I'd like to thank my A.I.-chatbot, which, in my absence (because I'm busy reading Fukuyama's "Political Decline and Political Decay") composes and posts _all_ of my comments--this one included, of course.)
I'd rather not be anywhere near one or near where one is being employed. It's bad enough dealing with the bozos and bozoettes that wander mindlessly through our world.
Kushner's deal with the Saudis is part of his normal investment business before and after Trump's Presidency. You'd struggle to draw a line between his venture deal and any favors the Saudis got.
Was Hunter Biden really such a brilliant painter before 2021 that he now commands $75,000 / painting.
"As for Hunter’s 75,000 per painting. There is a sucker born every day." That would refer to all the Democrats who think paying vast amounts for a Hunter Biden scribble doesn't buy any political favors.
Kushner has no political influence since Jan 2021 yet the Saudis invested in his firm long afterwards.
Jared Kushner is despised by Democrats primarily because of the leading role he had in creating Peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords, which upended 40 years of dogma by the mediocrities and intellectual midgets in the State Dept.
Kushner, with the support of an insightful and visionary President, bypassed and eclipsed Obama's policy of appeasement of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the mullahs in Iran.
I think the point is that in the US there are several checks and balances that might slow any potential dictators' march toward authoritarianism. Israel does not have a strong judiciary to check executive power. It has operated decently enough until now (not sure why... I'm certainly no expert), but the fear is that the current executive wants to weaken it completely and put it completely under its own control. That combined with some of the extremist rhetoric coming out of the Israeli leadership is extremely concerning. The possibility that extreme laws could be passed, with no way to challenge those laws, is very concerning.
That you have to say, "I think the point is ... " is not a great endorsement of this article.
Given the praises heaped upon him in the intro, I expected to learn something valuable. And perhaps there is since "you think" you found the point.
But when people start waling that it's the end of the world and we're all going to die if you don't do what I tell you to do, I tune out - for whatever reason. I'm 72 and have heard the end is neigh since I had to practice hiding under my desk in kindergarten (as if that would have done any good) because the Russians were going to nuke us all into oblivion.
Quit the hand-wringing, take a deep breath, and get to the point: This is bad because A.... B..... C.
The Germans democratically elected Hitler in 1930s Germany. Many Jews "took a deep breath" and stayed because they thought it would blow over. We all know how well that worked out.
Jewish history is filled with "end of the world" events that actually occured, and it is important to understand that cultural heritage and trauma it engenders.
Hitler was very open about his intentions. That is a fact many forget or—more likely—never knew.
I don’t doubt Netanyahu’s fidelity to his version of Israels best interests; and obviously, to the extent they disagree with him, his many enemies have every partisan political reason in the world to paint him as a villain.
But I read the book containing his brothers musings, and my recollection is he was complaining of many of the same things 50 years ago Netanyahu is now. It needs to be said there is effectively an anti-Semitic element is Israel that should not surprise us any more than the patently anti-Americanism now dominant in the White House and many Governors mansions around the country.
Netanyahu has no right wing allies left, save for the ultra-orthodox (who will support any government that gives them what they want) and the extreme right. For the first time ever Likud is the most moderate party in the government. Do you know why this is? Netanyahu is such a toxic inveterate liar that he alienated every other right wing leader that tried to partner with him in the past (who can forget "no tricks no shticks" Netanyahu refusing to pass the national budget in order to wriggle out of his power-sharing agreement back in 2021). If he resigned today, by tomorrow there would be a strong and stable 74 seats government with no need to pander to extremist elements on either side. It's actually very sad how Netanyahu's desire for power and his need to escape legal woes has completely tarnished his legacy.
I am very sure, though, that this SOUNDS like the same people crying Wolf I’ve been hearing for many years. Theres a point where people like me start tuning out the lies of the LEFT because that is all they spout.
If in this case there is a real wolf, well, the story of the little boy who cried wolf is very old, and the lesson obvious, isn’t it? You people lost my attention and trust long long ago.
..."Jewish history is filled with "end of the world" events that actually occured, and it is important to understand that cultural heritage and trauma it engenders."
Means what--in practical terms? since the fact is that Jews now have had a theocratic-monopoly state since 1948 to govern according to their system's manner of working.
As the American colonists did in breaking away from British rule, Jews, in establishing their own state, took upon themselves the responsibilities for managing their political affairs. When a group sets up its own kitchen, any complaints about the quality of the cooking are for the group members to deal with. And, if you need a "menu" and some basic kitchen operation rules but don't have these, then sit down and start negotiating them and writing the contents down for future reference.
I think that it is important to point out that the Jews did not create the state of Israel. That was created by the United Nation General Assembly acting in what it felt was the best interests of the world at the time.
That's a flat out historical falsehood and one amply known not to be so. What you refer by this false claim is the formal _recognition_ of the state of Israel by the U.N.'s general assembly. That is in no way-- neither literally or figuratively-- what can be described as the U.N.'s "creat(ing)" (your word) the state of Israel. Apart from the patent absurdity of such a claim, there's the fact that, among the _many_ things the U.N. has _no_ power to do--even if it _wanted_ to-- is "create" nation states.
If you want to make stuff up, take up science fiction.
Considering the hundreds of executive orders oner the last three presidencies, I disagree that we have strong checks and balances against a slide into executive rule.
We just have a different political phrase for how they do it.
Don't ever forget, on Joe Biden's first day in office he had a pre-planned executive order to overthrow bipartisan sanctions on Russian oil, which were holding Putin back from warmongering. That one fact raises a host of questions about his intent and the functioning of our democracy.
It seems there is another view that it is the Israeli judiciary that is marching toward authoritarianism, siezing the power to overule anything done by the democratic elected branches.
Well we spent years here trying to establish that Trump was a wrong-doer , thus far to no avail. So maybe Netanyahu has legitimate complaints about Israel's court system. Likewise the others the author described as convicts. I have heard that there is none so blind . . .
Oh, my God. That's the kindest description for what was one of the most outrageous attempts at a high-level frame-up in U.S. history that I've ever read.
"Trying to establish that Trump was a 'wrong-doer'"? Trump's political adversaries conceived, planned and executed a grotesque frame-up of Trump. And had they not been such an amazingly incompetent bunch of Keystone cops, it might not have been blown apart so easily and quickly bythose, from the ordinary observer to the professional in criminal conspiracies, who reviewed what was being claimed and said, "Now you wait just a damn minute, buster!" Where was America's intrepid "watch-dogs", the mainstream mass-media in all that? Up to its neck in flagrant complicity.
If it were not for people such as Miranda Devine, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, we'd have no idea what really had taken place.
Oh I absolutely agree with your assessment. And I am very pleased that the truth has leaked, and continues to leak, out. But there are, unfortunately, people who are ill-informed and if they read my phraseology they might be inspired to do a little digging whereas if they read yours they just think Trumper, MAGA, Extreme MAGA, domestic terrorist, or worse. And I smelled a rat at the time. For the reason that if there were any legitimate dirt on Trump the Clinton's would have found it. Instead they had to create it and use the weaponized FBI to do their dirty work. Isn't it ironic that HRC interned for the Dems during the Watergate hearings and goes on to conspire in actions that make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison? Then go on to clutch her pearls about Trump's coup?
" For the reason that if there were any legitimate dirt on Trump the Clinton's would have found it."
_Exactly!_
"Instead they had to create it and use the weaponized FBI to do their dirty work. Isn't it ironic that HRC interned for the Dems during the Watergate hearings and goes on to conspire in actions that make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison? Then go on to clutch her pearls about Trump's coup?"
Indeed!
I expect a good deal more truly shocking things to come to light in the weeks ahead. A lot of formerly very smug and arrogant power-weilders are now losing sleep and sweating bullets over these revelations. They're right to do so.
No, I spoke accurately. I would just need to make her last name Schmidt. The defiant and strutting ignorance that was ugly then remains ugly now.
You are dealing in depersonalization, guilt by association, and utterly one sided propaganda.
To be a Nazi you dont have to hate Jews: you just have to hate deeply, consistently, ignorantly and violently. The target is unimportant, since the rage is irrational.
You are surrounded by reasonable people. It is wasted on you.
R T, I am not a Trump fan. I agree with many of the criticisms. I do not want him to run again. However, the coup/dictator/end of democracy hyperbole is BlueAnon-type insanity. I believe we need honest, moral leaders of the highest character and intelligence, steeped in first American principles. Unfortunately, politics naturally selects away from such people. Thus, we are both left to choose from an unpalatable platter of power hungry, ignorant, and corrupt narcissists, egomaniacs, charlatans, and rank demagogues. Just like the one you voted to put in office.
The writer lost me at “The peace process is dead, as it has been for more than 20 years.” Was he asleep during the Abraham Accords and it’s likely progeny, the most consequential Israeli peace successes since Egypt and Jordan? Smells like TDS, Netanyahu-style. Not interested.
He means the Israeli-Palestinian peace process - that is dead and has been at the latest since Abbas rejected Olmert's offer in 2008. Friedmann isn't blaming Israel for the peace process being dead, he's just observing that it *is* dead.
He is a big, big supporter of the Abraham Accords.
What a hysterical ridiculous article... proposed changes are in line with the rest of democratic world... leftist keep loosing power and use court to push back against the will of majority which is opposite what democracy does mean
Israeli American here. One truth and one lie. Is it true that the courts are leftist and always appoint mostly left wingers, absolutely. And this a (not the) reform is justified.
Saying that this reform is the one true reform and that's it's like anything in other democracies has been disproven time an again. In Israel the legislative branch chooses the executive for the next 4 years, and thus has full control of all decisions. The only check is the judiciary which happens post legislation. If the judiciary is non abiding as the reform says, basically the government can do anything it wants.
Counter to common thought, Democracy isn't the same as the tyranny of a majority.
…I absolutely agree with the point of the tyranny of the majority…ideally it always should be a check on power…
But if judges elect themselves how could you avoid corruption???
Also we get to the major point which is a problem in most democratic countries - how objective is a judiciary power? Do they just follow the existing law or are “progressive “, which means follow the conscience, etc…instead of the law…
IMO the bulk of the problem is the "reasoable" standard without further review. Reasonable is a very fluid standard and is often unduly influenced by emotion.
Israel is a theocracy-- a place where a dominant religion is instituted in the founding charter. Start with that problem. No state which fails a separation-of-state-and-religion test, and, hence, one which is founded on its public's preposession by a religion, can claim democratic legitimacy.
Readersaurus, you are often a thoughtful commenter on this site, but I can't grasp why our definition of "democracy" i.e, government based on the consent of the people, can't include states where the polity rests on religious principles. The US prinicple of the separation of church and state may work for us, but I don't see why it must always be that way, if the people choose otherwise.
If I can jump in on your conversation, I’m a secular Israeli Jew who did a very Orthodox conversion in America before I came here and married my Middle Eastern Jewish husband. Israel is not a theocracy, although it has some elements of one. I’m not sure that certain citizens have less rights as a result of not being Jewish; it’s more complicated than that.
For example, Muslims actually can handle family issues here in sharia courts; Jews and Muslims (or any other non-similar combination) cannot marry in-country, but if they marry out of the country, the government will recognize their marriage. Likewise, Muslims cannot make aliyah (they can’t immigrate to Israel from anywhere because they aren’t Jewish), but those who are citizens here enjoy the freedom and security of Israel while their kids don’t serve and die in the IDF. The religious ministries control some stuff, but it isn’t a lot, and although in many ways the country is increasingly conservative, it’s not necessarily increasingly religious.
Your corrective comments are a breath of fresh air here.
Now, granting your points as written there, I'd just like to interject the authority of Flavius Josephus, the 1st C. Jewish figure who left posterity his history of the Jewish Wars.
(Wikipedia / Flavius Josephus)
..."Josephus recorded the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–70), including the siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94). The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Greek and Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity. Josephus's works are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Israel, and provide a significant and independent extra-Biblical account of such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, " ...
(The remainder here is addressed to others, esp. those who deny Jewish social origins in theocratic rule)
With Josephus, we are dealing with the person who coined the very term "theocracy" and he did that to describe what was then the Jewish political order in Judea of that time. He needed to coin the term because, prior to his doing that, there was no quite accurate term to describe the Jewish political order's characteristics.
SInce his time, the term, for many centuries the nature of Jewish society's political order in Judea was taken for granted as he'd defined it:
(quote)
'The word theocracy originates from the Greek: θεοκρατία (theocratia) meaning "the rule of God'. This, in turn, derives from θεός (theos), meaning 'god', and κρατέω (krateo), meaning 'to rule'. Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was 'rule by god(s)' or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
"The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century AD to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. However, according to Josephus, the government of the Jews was unique. Josephus offered the term 'theocracy' to describe this polity in which God was sovereign and His word was law.
"Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the Enlightenment era, when the term took on negative connotations and was barely salvaged by Hegel's commentary. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning 'sacerdotal government under divine inspiration' (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning 'priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" was recorded in 1825.' " (end quote)
"The US prinicple of the separation of church and state may work for us, but I don't see why it must always be that way, if the people choose otherwise."
They may choose otherwise. But, in doing so, they may not pretend to be egalitarian democracies--and no "democracy" in which citizens do not have fully equal rights and privileges _in_ _law_ can justly regard itself as a "democracy" in which there are equal rights for all citizens.
A democratic polity built on a religious principle is by no means necessaarily incompatible with all citizens (believers or not) having equal rights under the law. It would depend on how such a system is implemented.
Your idea about what constitutes "democracy" would, in essence, require all governments everywhere to adopt a godless neutrality on a whole range of religious, cultural, and moral matters--and that, in itself, is profoundly undemocratic, if again the people wish it to be otherwise. What about their "equal rights"?
..."Your idea about what constitutes "democracy" would, in essence, require all governments everywhere to adopt a godless neutrality on a whole range of religious, cultural, and moral matters" ...
While I would personally prefer that all governments everywhere _did_ adopt a godless _neutrality_ on all official matters of _state_--including those matters of a plainly moral character--I would not urge or advocate that such a change be effected overnight or by fiat imposed on people and their governments by some exterior force or authority.
Nor do I advocate any concerted ridding of civic life and all about that which is cultural of religious content. I do not want J. S. Bach's religious compositions censored or suppressed. Nor would I wish to see religious texts --sacred or otherwise--erased, "sanitized", proscribed, or shunted off to places where they are never seen or read again. We must not erase or alter history's record in some misguided belief--like tearing down statues of former slave-holders--that this helps anyone today to a more moral life or understanding of ourselves.
The right to worship freely (or to abstain) is specifically protected in the Constitution's basic rights--as it is rightly the case. No one should be made to worhip or not to worship by any force or order of law or any authority --except his or her own.
Readersaurus, I think we agree more than we disagree about this. I certainly don't think anyone should be forced to worship, as I am a classical liberal in outlook.
But because I am a classical liberal, I can also imagine countries that wish to see their societies organized along their religious principles--Islam comes to mind. I am not a Muslim, and would not necessarily wish to live in a society whose government was built on Islam, but I certainly acknowledge the right of Muslims to create such a society, if again such a decision could be said to represent the popular will.
Oh, BS. There are numerous democracies that have official state religions, such as England, Scotland, Spain, and Greece. Those of other religions are free to practice in Israel and, as citizens, have full rights. In fact, non-Jews have more freedom in that they are absolved of the requirement to serve in the military. (They may volunteer, but are not required to do so.)
There is no legally-applied religious test in Britain*--nor can there be one. That is what effectively describes a nation which practices real, meaningful _freedom_ of or freedom _from_ religion. As for Spain or Greece, I cannot say. So, you've perhaps cited two countries as "numerous" democracies that have official state religions. There are, in fact a few more--Denmark and Sweden, both Kingdoms, have official religions; but in those, too, there is, as far as I am aware, no religious test ever applied for any state-granted right or privilege.
* Except, perhaps, for the monarch--who supposedly must profess and adhere to protecting and defending "the faith"--being The (Anglican) Church of England (Scotland, Wales). In civil life, no religious test may be imposed prior, during or after the grant of a state-sponsored right or privilege.
That is not the case in Israel, as far as I am aware.
-----------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Can that be rightly said of the Israeli Knesset? If not, then we have nothing more to debate on this issue.
Exactly what “legally-applied religious test” are you referring to? The only possible thing I can think of is in claiming an automatic right to Israeli citizenship. In that, it’s a question of ancestry and has absolutely nothing to do with religious practice. Frankly, it’s no different than Ireland or Portugal or Japan or other counties giving citizenship preference to those of native extraction.
And why cite American law in regards to the Knesset? You still haven’t cited ANY way that Israel is “prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” much less that it is a theocracy.
What, on the West Bank or in the Golan Heights, are (or were) "Jewish settlements"? who may live in these? who may _not_ live in them? and how is this determined?
Oh, please. If you can’t see the difference between ancestry and religious practice (when a person of Jewish ancestry who is an atheist could be eligible for Israeli citizenship), then you are the one playing dumb.
If what you’re really having a problem with is Jews claiming a homeland, then at least be honest about it. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for those examples of how Israel is a theocracy.
Nonsense! Israel is most certainly not a theocracy. Israel is the nation of the Jewish People, NOT the Jewish religion. It is not based on Jewish law, but mostly on English law that was practiced in the area during the British mandate after WWI and the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. It also has a few hold overs from Ottoman law.
See his "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" (1994, Pluto Press) pages 4-12 from Chapter 1: "A Closed Utopia?"
(excerpt)
... presumably to avoid embarrassment, the terms "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" are usually not explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial Law of Return. According to that law, only persons officially recognized as "Jewish" have an automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They automatically receive an "immigration certificate" which provides them on arrival with "citizenship by virtue of having returned to the Jewish homeland", and with the right to many financial benefits, which vary somewhat according to the country from which they emigrated. ... The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID card, which everyone is required to carry at all times. ID cards list the official "nationality" of a person, which can be "Jewish", "Arab", "Druze" and the like, with the significant exception of "Israeli". Attempts to force the Interior Minister to allow Israelis wishing to be officially described as "Israeli", or even as "Israeli-Jew" in their ID cards have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have received a letter from the Ministry of the Interior stating that "it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality". The letter does not specify who made this decision or when. There are so many laws and regulations in Israel which descriminate in favor of the persons defined as those "who can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return" that the subject demands a separate treatment." ...
Fair point. To the extent that that founding claim affects laws and executive branch. So far the judiciary has been blocking most actions that would disenfranchise non Jews.
Stop importing America's culture war and its histeria.
The proposed judicial reform would enable US-style checks and balances between the judiciary and legislative branches... and the override clause exists in other parliamentary democracies like Canada. It is not the end of the world.
Not true. Israel has a parliamentary system and not a presidential system. At any time in the US there
the Congress and President can be controlled by different parties. In Israel there is only one chamber of the legislature and the coalition controls both the executive and legislative branches. These branches are not truly separate
Any time someone makes a comparison to other countries - whether Canada or Hungary or Turkey - it’s rarely valid because the differences between democracies matter.
Good point, and a terrible feature of the Israeli system. Every system needs to have a role for the opposition to play, both to express its views and limit the excesses of the majority. Israel seems to be more a 'pure democracy', which we all know is two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner.
Actually, we don't know that in human political relations 'pure' democracy (i.e. majority rule) may be reduced to the caricature of "two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner." Once fundamental civil rights are legally (de jure) assured to all without respect to their "race", religion (or not), creed, age (being a legal adult), and, of course, where age old common law principles and sanctions against murder, theft, assault, etc. are in place, then there's no justification for a damning of 'pure' democracy by likening it to "wolves devouring sheep for dinner" analogy.
In any human society, the "sheep" always outnumber (and can, where democracy's free & fair votes are protected, _out-vote_ ) the "wolves".
"Common law" is not universal. Which I think raises an interesting point. As a result of our reliance in common law here in the States do we have a unique experience or point of view that does not translate well elsewhere? Is it that point of view/experience that many of us here see slipping away in the name of "progressivism"?
The (English) common law may not be universal, strictly speaking, but, more and more, despite frequent appearances to the contrary, basic principles of justice are practically universal. (In China, certain of them are again being hotly disputed; but it is the Chinese central authorities, not those demanding their basic rights be respected, who look like the "wolves".)
Our founding principles (literally) state that We hold these Truths to be _self-evident_: That _all_ men (which means all mankind) are created (in their rights and in law) equal--that is, equal before the state's authority and equal in respect of the application of the law.
A great many foreign non-English speaking people read and took this view to heart and have tried to act on it since. The supposed premise is that it can eventually, mutatis, mutandis, "translate" everywhere among people.
"Is it that point of view/experience that many of us here see slipping away in the name of 'progressivism'?"
I think so, yes. That's at the heart of much of current U.S. social and political strife. We have to battle over these issues from time to time because they are always going to be subjected to certain people's doubts, objections, misunderstandings and failures to grasp and honor core democratic principles.
Personally I believe those are some of the most wonderful words ever written. But that is just little ole provincial me. I would like to think they could apply universally but they were the result of a millenia of Western civilization so I am not sure. I do think if the people of a different culture/geography voluntarily embrace the words and apply them within their cultural framework it is workable.
Britain has had a form of constitutional government for hundreds of years, a stable tradition of monarchy, and two houses of Parliament. Beyond that I don’t know. Israel is a much younger democracy in a very messy place founded by socialists who for decades had basically one party rule across all branches.
By limiting the power of the (non-elected) upper house (the "Lords"). It can't introduce legislation and can only delay bills passed by the lower house (the "Commons", the elected chamber.) There are various other Acts of Parliament that hold sway, mostly to ensure the primacy of the popular vote ... in theory. In practice, of course, it's the usual British hotchpotch of "It's the constitution because it's been happening a very long time" (by which I don't mean to imply I dislike it), something quasi-mystical about "The Crown in Parliament" (which means the authority of the Sovereign is sublimated into the Commons; again, by "quasi-mystical" I don't imply dislike.) The problem of judicial over-reach is also very real here, a direct consequence of the unspeakable Blair government's decision to enshrine the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law, making it very easy for Left-wing activist lawyers to, for example, stymie the legislation of Conservative governments to protect our borders. One frustration with the Tory administration is that it hasn't used its majority to unwind any of this. I tend to view articles like this one through that lens: Netyanyahu appears to be attempting such an un-wind. The reaction of the Left is as predictable as it's hysterical.
... Together with a judiciary completely under the control of the government, at the whim of the government, means literally no way to challenge bad laws, racist laws, anti-democratic laws
What is also an issue is unchecked long term and blatant judiciary activism. The current reforms go too far but it is in essence a response to the extreme degree that the judiciary and the attorney general has expanded their own power and ruled on government policies or appointments in a very one sided (left) manner.
Until the free press published the other article**, I wasn't familiar with them full context. The reporting as well as the popular narrative is pretty one-sided.
** It didn't get emailed and I happened upon it via Twitter.
Found this to be rather shallow reading. I'll admit I do not follow Israeli news at all. However, I found this article eerily similar to the elite media and government reporting style of "orange man bad" we've had for nearly a decade in the USA. This could have been made into an exposé outlining specific drawbacks of each component of the new Netanyahu coalition, but instead all I know is there are a lot of poo poo heads running Israel and leftists are not happy about it.
He writes of government attacking it’s own citizens...hmm, sounds like today’s America! Our government ignores the illegal alien invasion, targets and spies o. conservative parents, enables rampant crime, sends all our tax dollars to Ukraine, and tells about hoards of supposed white supremacists hiding behind every tree. Interesting that liberals see it in another country but not their own.
I am very disappointed in Matti Friedman’s latest writings, which up until now I have typically enjoyed.
At least he concedes that the judicial system in Israel requires reform - and I agree that a chunk of the reforms and certainly the way they are being pushed through go too far, not mention useles because what is also necessary is reform between legislative and executive branches.
There are plenty of soldiers and officers, or hi tech workers, who support the government and/or reform who don’t write open letters.
Unfortunately, the very right wing parties did not get a smattering of 5 mandates (like Bennet’s party - the previous prime minister!!!), but 14 seats in government. The ultra orthodox parties together have even more. It has always been more acceptable among the left and center to denigrate religious or settler Jews over the other sizeable sector of Israeli Arabs. Yes, this is the most extreme right wing government in Israel’s history. But why does he not discuss the extremist (yes - extremist) response of left wing and opposition leaders like Ehud Barak and Ron Huldai? In any other country, left wing people would be freaked out by ex generals or defense ministers practically calling for mutiny against security forces and to disobey the ELECTED government, or for left wing veterans to steal an old tank and try to bring it to a protest, or to speak of spilling blood. Let’s be honest - everyone here is a veteran, whether they are protesting or not.
Economically there is major concern Typically people dislike it when the owners and leaders of capital and finances use their influence to affect political discourse - but in Israel because it’s the sexy hi tech sector somehow its fine. We need an independent judiciary and financial institutions, but the same hi tech people making panicky public statement really have no problem leaving the state - it’s the rest of us who will really suffer. The economic question is partially based in reality and partially a wag the dog situation.
If the government cant start really governing and taking control of themselves, then they don't deserve to be a government and they will fall apart. At this point in time I hope so. But to recall, Bibi's opposition was a thorn in the side of Bennet/Lapid constantly, just within the halls of parliament. The current opposition isn’t interested in politics - rather in activism.
Friedman’s analysis is really frustrating and disappointing, because I know he loves Israel but he right now isn’t communicating the level of nuance or complexity that this situation deserves.
Well you know economics is not an exact science or art right? The old saw is put 100 economists in a circle and ask them to point the direction needed and they will point 100 different directions. They have certainly created a problem in the States. We are just waiting to see how bad.
In how many other Middle East countries could the author publicly march in opposition to the government and not be teargassed, or beaten, or jailed, or permanently disappeared? My generation fought in the Vietnam War. When our soldiers were lucky enough to return home they had the ability, the right, to protest its idiocy and waste of human life, and vociferously oppose the U.S. government that supported it, within the borders of the nation's capital. That was democracy in practice.
Israel is a beautiful, though imperfect, parliamentary democracy...as are all functioning democracies. If you don't like Israel's current government, then vote it out...it's one of the easiest political systems in the world to do so...it's set up with the voting population in mind, allowing it to remove its ruling party(ies) when confidence in the ruling government is lost by the majority of the electorate.
I understood all of your opinion being of the same generation. The problem is they may be in the situation Canadians find themselves in. Our Liberal government has run amok with a Prime Minister that has literally spent more money than all our Prime Ministers together since Confederation. He has sicced the police, on horseback, with rubber bullets tear gas and pepper spray on a loud but peaceful protest of the draconian mandates we suffered under for 2 years.
Vote them out? We have tried but because of the ridiculous style of voting system we have its not possible. The irony is that one of the platforms he ran on in 2016 was he, Trudeau, would give us voting reform. Yet another lie in what has become the most ruthlessly corrupt leader of North America.
My bet is, Isreal as in Canada, is suffering the consequences of Woke-ism. It knows no party boundaries and its goal is digitalizing the entire planet and controlling the people.
Unlike most nations around the world Canada has never had a true civil war.
Everyone who's come here to Canada came to escape something politically or religiously initiated that threatened thier existence.
Trudeau has brought that fear to Canada.
It's call the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.
The US is able to stand against them more strongly because you've been raised to stand up and fight for your rights.
Canadians never dreamed thier own government would turn against them.
The US will find itself in Isreals situation. Be prepared.
Bad political leadership and lousy political ideas come and go...especially in democracies. The ridiculous experiment in nouveau fascism will eventually be expunged from the Canadian political landscape, as will Trudeau himself...because the electorate will make it happen. Canada, though it might not seem so right now, is still a democracy. The World Economic Forum, aided by uncensored news sources like Canada's Rebel News, is being exposed for what it is...and it's leader, Klaus Schwab is already being reduced to a silly meme. The United Nations spends all day writing finger pointing resolutions designed to crush the existential sovereignty of Israel...but, the UN is impotent; they aren't lawmakers or law enforcers. Israel will continue to exist and thrive, despite the fact that the UN, in the past decade, has adopted twice as many resolutions against it as it has against all other nations, combined.
My parents generation dealt with McCarthyism, which was very scary if you were an American-Jew who belonged to The Communist Party, like some of my relatives...which seemed to make sense during the economic devastation of The Great Depression. The era of McCarthyism was here to stay, until it wasn't. The same fate awaits Woke(ism) politics.
"Bad political leadership and lousy political ideas come and go"...
No. The particular _actors_ of any given moment "come and go". The bad leadership and ideas _remain_ and persist, through changing actors in and changing actors out.
If your ship is sinking, changing a superficial course setting isn't going to save it.
The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Emancipation Proclamation have endured for lifespan of The United States: 247 years...yet have been modified over time to allow for minor adjustments, like the freedom of its slaves, the voting right for all Americans, the right to live with all rights as an American citizen while being a member of the LBGTQ community, etc. Politicians change...political policy changes (eg. stopping the military draft)...bad actors act badly within and outside the government...but, the core beliefs [and basic promises made to its citizens] by a democratic nation, like the U.S., continue to triumph over tyranny. The millions of people streaming across our southern border just last year are proof of this.
I guess you missed the explanation that once the judiciary is eviscerated there will be nothing to prevent the ruling coalition from changing the timing of elections, deciding who in fact is allowed to vote, and basically legislating any other limitation on civil rights it can think of, such as modesty rules for women a la Iran. American conservatives who so jealously guard their rights should be all over this.
Do you live here? Do you have skin in the game? Are you familiar with the level of corruption amongst the current crop of MKs? I do and I am. That "worst case scenario" is just Levin's "Phase 2" that he has refused to elucidate.
I don't live there. But this article was published here which is trying to convince me of something using little more than ad hominem attacks and hyperbolic sounding language. I agree with Catskill Mountain Man that it sounds very sketchy.
There are many other reasoned and balanced articles if you are interested in learning more. I felt that this was his "cry from the heart" so to speak, which is why I responded so positively, as I'm already intimately familiar with the nuances of the situation. It is incredible how Israelis from all walks of life, all professions, and across the political spectrum -. with the conspicuous absence of the ultra-orthodox and far-right - are gathering by the hundreds of thousands weekly to protest what they understand is a risk to their civil liberties.
I have skin in the game. I have been reading the entire span of left-right media and have seen little to no consideration on the part of left wing sources to posit that maybe the judiciary requires at least some teeny tiny bit of reform. Oh the other hand I have seen numerous right wing articles empathizing with the emotions of the protestors or calling to slow down the legislative blitz, including rabbis and settlers. I am deeply concerned about the coalition, but really think the opposition is trying to bring down the government using the economy and the army as it’s weapons, which is simply not democratic.
And I assume Phase 3 is the prison camps. But have you noticed that Phase 1 has only gone through first reading, that Levin and Committee Chair Rothman have both repeatedly expressed an interest in negotiating amendments, and have said they are not in a hurry to "push through" these reforms?
Actually they have expressed the exact opposite, the pace is stopping for "not one minute". They plan on finiishing "Phase 1" within a few weeks. They could have met last night with the opposition at the Presidents office instead of passing yet another bill, why didn't they? Because they have no reason to stop. They know how unpopular the full overhaul is, and now is their only chance.
From today's Jerusalem Post ( not a friend of the Coalition):
"While reform leaders Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chairman Simcha Rothman accepted these calls to action [to meet to negotiate without preconditions] , but opposition leadership refused to negotiate without the precondition of cessation of legislation."
By getting a stop to the legislative process, (the process Members of Knesset get paid
to operate in, whether for or against legislation), Lapid wants to declare victory so his troops in the streets can feel good. But he has no desire to actually negotiate.
Maybe the writer needs to leave Israel and come to America Amir Canada and see the anti Israel fervor from a distance. Maybe he is to close and blinded by his ideology. It sounds a lot like the way someone would describe Trump or Desantis here in America from the left. He call Bennett a far right zealot. This is like an NBC hiring member of the Lincoln project or the National Review and calling them conservatives.
Sorry, Israel and America are both I trouble, along with most of the west. But it isn’t because of this authors fears. It is because of the weakness and self hatred of the leftist elites in all our countries. He even seems upset that after Israelis are murdered that the response was swift and overwhelming. Well it should be. It should be worse.
Thanks for your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree. I’m sure the fascism in Canada under Pierre would be more to your likening. Give it a shot.
Very simple Matti. The far left loonies have dragged the responsible left into extinction. Look at the labor party's swan song: Meirav Michaeli and her four seats, projected to disappear in the next elections. That is the tragedy here. The best the opposition can offer is Yair Lapid? With Ehud Barak yelping like a mad man from the bleachers? Continue to protest, you and all the other "good Israelis." The rest of us, well, we just don't care about hollow people who threaten to leave Israel, to pull their money and genius out of the country, or who threaten to refuse orders when in military service, if showing up at all for it. The judicial reform--as long as it stays exactly how it is and is not watered-down by any compromise, will be the most significant improvement in Israel in recent years. For all of us. We've seen the parade of good Israelis' leaders shouting gevalt, and we've seen the clips of those same leaders from less than two years ago saying exactly the opposite--supporting judicial reform with as much fervor as today's Likud. Disappointing. I look forward to the day when we will have a responsible Zionist left-of-center party to challenge us on the right, with original and rigorous Jewish and Zionist and Israeli ideas, and not the warmed-over claptrap spouted by our own version of useful idiots.
So you have no concerns about handing unlimited power to 61 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours'potentially corrupt MKs who can then legislate away any human rights they wish? Do you live in Israel and would be personally affected by that repression?
Power was not handed to them. There was an election, the fifth in two years. How's that for a Democracy. Also, their power is not unlimited; this is not a Marvel Comics movie we are talking about. I presume you are getting your talking points from Haaretz. No, I don't live in an Israel where I will be personally affected by the imaginary repression of some leftist loony pipe-dreamers. I live in an Israel where protesters can nightly prance around in front of an elected Prime Minister's house every single night for months on end with giant inflatable phalluses screaming vile epithets at the top of their lungs. With no consequences. How's that for human rights? You couldn't get away with that in front of the White House.
Oh, you wouldn't believe it if I told you.... One ultra-orthodox former mayor who was voted out by his own constituents for corruption (replaced by a woman, no less!) is now - you guessed it - an MK. Another 60 individuals just like him all willing to make a deal are unfortunately not difficult to find.
Then you are suspicious. Which believe me I get. I am pretty sure we have some full-blown crooks in office here. But it takes more than suspicion to right the wrong.
Does any democratic government consist of a single body with unlimited power? "Trust me that will never happen" isn't going to work. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true every time.
By definition in a democracy power is retained by the people. The people spoke in the last election. I did not say "[T] rust me that will never happen" nor would I as I am skeptical by nature. I am not so pessimistic however as to believe that absolute power will corrupt absolutely every time. There have been benevolent monarchs for example. It sounds to me like your complaint is not so much with Netanyahu but rather with Israel's system of government. All I questioned was your speculation regarding corruption. I stand by the comment. Otherwise we should just let my mama rule the world. She too had all the answers.
It is fascinating to me that this type of division and one half of the country going after the other half is happening in many places all over the world. There is clearly something going on here, and trying to get to the bottom of it is essential.
... "Over 50 countries were affected, but with no significant coordination or cooperation among their respective revolutionaries. Some of the major contributing factors were widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership, demands for more participation in government and democracy, demands for freedom of the press, other demands made by the working class for economic rights, the upsurge of nationalism, the regrouping of established government forces"...
(Wikipedia* / "Revolutions of 1848")
----------------------------------------------
* Caveat lector: _Never_ rely solely on a Wikipedia article
I agree with the two above. The writer’s fear of their future in power and dislike of Netanyahu and Likud is clear. The objective, policy driven, facts on the ground why is not.
He writes about lies but presents none. Some have fiery rhetoric, even a tragic response to a tragic terror attack - that seems like the cost of living in so close to G-d the last 80 years.
I’m grateful for the list of other readings. That is what will set set The Free Press apart from the rest.
Perhaps I'm being dense, but after reading that piece it is not at all clear to me what exactly he is so upset about in Israeli politics. It's clear he doesn't like Netanyahu, at least this version, but that's as much as I got from this.
Two sources not listed, which convincingly argue that what is being proposed is a justified response to an oligarchic judicial system, are Caroline Glick's "What the Battle Over Judicial Reform in Israel Is Really About" and Ruth Wisse's "Leftist elites declaim against the power of the U.S. Supreme Court while trying to preserve judicial supremacy in Israel." These arguments are not substantively addressed by this writer.
Yes, I read Carolyn’s article.
Will find Ruth’s.
Thanks.
Matti (and Bari) are gaslighting. “Democracy is in danger.” Same attacks from the left in the US. It makes me sick. They are trying to prevent Bibi from governing.
Look for Lee Smith’s in Tablet, too, which discusses how the Biden Administration is fomenting some this, much as the Obama administration worked to defeat Bibi in an earlier election.
My first gut reaction reading Matti's piece is that our 'color revolutionaries'(American Leftists) are one of the roots of this spreading narratives. Not discounting Matti, Netanyahu has been a stable force for sooo long, I just need more to understand why he has 'changed'.
I will read Lee's piece for sure - you can always count on his commentary.
Michael Doran’s piece today in Tablet is another must read.
It was very good.
It certainly is.
Thanks, will check it out.
Link?
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/tom-nides-israels-arsonist-in-chief
Yes, absolutely.
I’ve read that.
Totally agree; turns out there's an NDS just like TDS
Yes.
I just read the Glick article. I trust her completely, as I have since my first exposure to her 7 years ago in her amazing talk, "The Iran Deal - Implications for National Security" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jR1opDZrds&ab_channel=securefreedom). It's as I suspected, & this morning my cup of leftist tears is replenished.
Thank you. Glick’s article, indeed, provided more context to the issue. A link for those who want to read:
https://www.newsweek.com/what-battle-over-judicial-reform-israel-really-about-opinion-1784875
Thank you for the link!
Exactly. This is a good summary of Israel's current judiciary independence. Few would advocate for such a system in the United States:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/who-chooses-judges-the-evolution-and-planned-radical-overhaul-of-judicial-selection/
Thanks for the recommendations.
The best indeed is Ruth Wisse's opinion article in the WSJ. Here is the link for others who might be interested: https://www.wsj.com/articles/god-save-this-honorable-court-but-not-that-one-israel-knesset-checks-balances-supreme-court-netanyahu-13320a9a?st=6xl9e63q5lat50s&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Yes, thank you.
Excellent analysis.
Best is she lays waist to the hypocrisy of the left.
Yes. She nails it.
Writer states: "The new system, which is supposed to be set in law by next month, will allow the government to select judges and overrule the court’s decisions." But this is how things are supposed to work. Other than those based on the constitution, Congress overrules US Supreme Court decisions all the time.
The judicial reforms are talked about every day in the Time of Israel with calls to propest that border on calls to rebel against the elected government but there is never any coverage of what the changes actually do nor what the current elected leaders believe is the problem. This article seems like propaganda and Bari should look for someone to present the issues from both sides (maybe in a debate format).
Yes, Wisse's in the Wall Street Journal was very good.
The linked articles by Havrov and Mukasey provide an opposing view.
Can you please post the Ruth Wisse article. I cannot find it. Thank you.
Try searching "God Save This Honorable Court, but Not That One", it was published in the WSJ on Feb 16, 2023.
Thank you, I found it.
I really like Ruth’s writing and she is very smart for sure.
Just read Glick's column in Newsweek (!!!). Really good any laying out the macro issue represented over the "judicial reform" narrative. Surprisingly like the US - or where the US might be headed if the power of the Establishment Leftists-Wall Street-Media is not curtailed.
And I read, with mostly approval, Ruth Wisse's WSJ commentary. But, at reading this:
... "The answer lies not in the judiciaries but in their contrasting political roles. Jews, who were politically dependent for two millennia, tended to invest authority in the rabbinate rather than any national government."...
I just had to laugh.
... tended to invest authority in the rabbinate rather than any national government."
"Tended to"? No. Jews, prior to the formal adoption of laws formally assimilating Jewish members of the nation's population into a kingdom or state and making them for the first time subject to the purview of its legal system (See: "Jewish emancipation" / Wikipedia*) throughout most of Europe, lived, by deliberate agreements with the state or local authorities, in segregated "ghettos" which were both culturally and legally under the authority of the local Rabbinate.** With emancipation, Jews began to have an alternative to submission to whatever vagaries their local chief Rabbis might choose to impose on them. This was a sea-change in the theretofore unchallengable authority of the Rabbinate.
Orthodox Judaism, after thousands of years of practice, is still struggling to find its way into the modern enlightened world of, well, The Enlightenment and its moral descendants.
"Go figure."
--------------------------------------------
* Caveat lector: Do not rely _solely_ on Wikipedia's articles for your background reading.
** Had this not been so, then Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" as plotted, could not have made any sense at all. The merchant's legal claims on his debtor were entirely based on Jewish religious authority, not on the powers and laws as administered by the Venetian Doge and Council.
Yes, not being in Israel and being an admirer of the Netanyahu who so angered Obama, I have no idea of what the real facts are and am not wading into this. But it did have the same tenor as the hysterical shrieks of our America left's journalism.
Yes Bruce. It’s really simple. Israel has no constitution. Today, the left control the judiciary, which is not elected by the people or appointed by an elected official. Bibi wants to pass reforms so that Israeli’s judiciary is governed more like the US. The left fears it will loose power, and so we have this gaslighting campaign. It’s no different than the left attempts in the US to paralyze government. The author of this article is all over Twitter shouting the same rhetoric from the rooftops.
Thanks, Brian, that was very helpful. It was redolent of the same hysteria we hear from our own leftist media. Wondering why Bari is propagating this stuff?
You can take the girl out of the NYT, but you can't take the NYT out of the girl.
I'm not sure I would go that far - it feels like an insult to Bari. But this piece of blatant propaganda is a reminder that The Free Press, though it more often than not plays it straight, still has its leanings.
Virtue signaling, not journalism
Yeah... you'll never see a piece like THIS in The FP: https://www.thefp.com/p/our-think-tank-sparked-mass-protests
Just a guess, because she is herself a liberal journalist, that she sympathizes with this emotional position. But yeah, this is obvious hackery.
Bari is "propagating this stuff" because it is waayyy more complicated than that. I can understand that Americans may see things through a "left/right" lens but that is not the case here whatsoever. For example, we are religious Zionists who vote for right-wing parties, yet we do not support Netanyahu (who btw back in 2012 was very publicly in favour of a strong independent judiciary). Handing unlimited power with no checks whatsoever to 61 'you scratch my back I'll scratch my yours' potentially corrupt MKs to legislate away any rights they wish is a recipe for disaster. The average Israeli understands this threat. All the rest (judicial selection etc) can and should be discussed and decided by consensus.
I'm sure it is complicated, but I'm also sure this particular piece is short on actual journalism.
Well and if I’m not mistaken several of the judges were appointed by Bibi himself. This article leaves me with more questions than answers. Super disappointing.
I don't understand what's going on in Israel or its politics so I won't comment on it. However from what I have read and seen on the news (when I used to watch the news), Israeli politics has always been contentious, even more so than ours, if that is possible.
Democracies are designed to be contentious. It is what makes them democracies. There is no opposition in dictatorships. An aside, more and more of the US left is moving toward socialism which has always been brutally authoritarian.
It’s true that reforms are necessary and the elected government need more input in the election of Supreme Court judges. However, for the Knesset to be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling would give unprecedented power to the government of the day and defeat the check and balance that is the Court’s primary role. I think the author also raises legitimate concerns regarding the powers that have been given to far right individuals whose views are considered extreme by many Israelis who are right of centre. I think Netanyahu’s arrogance has finally caught up with him. He has been a brilliant leader and politician. He has done great things for Israel. But he’s legacy may be in danger as he seems to have lost control of his government.
So Bibi would have been better off spending his time seeking new agreements with neighbors under the Abraham Accords than tinker with the judiciary ?
Seems like it to me.
I thought Matt Friedman’s article extremely compelling and well supported, heart breaking even for those of us who love Israel. Not only the evidence he presents of how extreme the political far right that Netanyahu has allied with in order to stay in power, but the anguish affecting so many Israeli citizens who have served their country so honorably. I’m glad that Bari gave him a platform.
I strongly recommend Evelyn Gordon’s definitive essay in the 3/6 Mosaic magazine , especially for you Moti , get a grip on yourself . From many comments it is clear that your piece is very short on knowledge and insight of the past and present Israeli judicial system and very full of overblown BS , and as for Bari , you too ought to get a grip on yourself as others I’m surprised you put out this sophomoric crappy piece.
Brian - Thanks. Everyday Times of Israel covers judicial reform as if the country will/should collapse. But never addresses what the problem is with reform. Thanks again.
Thank you.
So, the left is paralyzing U.S. government, not the Gaetz, Green, Boebert, etc. GOP?
Explain.
Gaetz refusing to vote for speaker, for one.
Explained.
He refused to vote for McCarthy. That's not the same as refusing to vote. As usual, it seems like you got nothing.
Troll alert, troll alert please ignore his blather.
Yes, not 100% agreeing with the echo chamber/groupthink is "trolling."
Pathetic.
I know too well. I thought I'd give him a chance, but he's failed in every regard to legitimize his trolling. Unsurprising.
Nothing needs to be legitimized. It was live on TV, Mike.
It seems to me that a vocal portion of the US left hates Israel and Obama's attitude towards Israel and his insulting manner towards Bibi bares out what I am saying. I also believe, the Dem/Soc Party is not only anti-Israel but antisemitic. There is a difference between the two.
One, is you don't like Israel because it doesn't treat the religion of peace very well. This is, for example, borne out when Hamas and Hezbollah fires hundreds of rockets into Israel and the leftist press and the left in general hammer Israel for defending itself. Students in our left wing universities wear the Palestinian scarfs as a sign they hate Israel and support Palestine. And the Dem/Soc Party has rabid anti-Israel and antisemitic members in their party and in congress.
Two, you hate Jews.
Bingo
Obama was very nuanced in his strategy towards Israel. Leave no daylight between the US and Israel in regards to policies (being against Israeli expansion in Judea & Samaria) near and dear to liberals and progressives. And attacking those policies (security, JCPOA) supported by the right. So when Bibi spoke in Congress against JCPOA, Obama retaliated by failing to veto UN Resolution 2334.
I believe Obama, (The left looked upon him as the messiah.) was a racist. He went to a racist church for over twenty years and looked at the pastor as avuncular. He was also an antisemite. He was and is despicable.
I suppose that I can find similarities in a person being anti colonial and in being a racist.
I think the best move is to bus settlers in and take over people's houses when they're at a funeral.
Here's a summary:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/who-chooses-judges-the-evolution-and-planned-radical-overhaul-of-judicial-selection/
Among other tidbits:
1. Supreme Court appointments need 7 votes from a 9 person appointed panel, 3 of whom are judges
2. Supreme Court can strike down any law, including Basic Laws, if they find it "unreasonable".
Is trial by jury "unreasonable"? The US Supreme Court won't be ruling on that because, like the rest of the US government, it has limited powers, the brilliant ideas of John Locke and the US Constitution.
Yes. The panel that appoints Israel's SCOTUS is three members of the Israel Supreme Court, two members of the Knesset, two members of the Cabinet, and two members of the Israeli Bar Association. Far as I know, the Knesset cannot veto the panel's appointments.
The system does need an overhaul. But Bibi's reforms will only replace one dictatorial power, the court, with another: the prime minister. He needs to take a broader view of reform to make all three branches part of the checks and balances on each other.
Read the Glick piece. It will go far to explain things. The left in Israel is like the left here in the US: embedded in every governmental agency, full of resentment when the people vote for a conservative government, and financed to the hilt by tech billionaires and the like.
That is exactly right
It did kind of have a Joy Reid flavor to it
Hmmm, more like those hateful, ignoramus, idiots on the view.
Great comment. Sly. Witty. Spot on.
It's about stripping the power of their court over their legislative branch, which would eliminate any checks and balances in their government - according to him - turning their government into a democratic tyranny. They could decide to hold elections less frequently or make Netanyahu president for life and no court could stop it. He says. It's a pity the first 4/5 of the article was largely ad hominem attacks on the man, his friends and political allies and his "fetid" family. I almost didn't make it to that singular specific charge, buried as it was in a landfill of verbal garbage.
"Fetid" was the word that made me consciously realize this. I don't know a whole lot about internal Israeli politics, but I do know what attacks founded on little more than blind hatred look like; we've been living with them for the last six years. And with the only specific charge against one of his hated appointments sounding something like "racist hate speech" I started wondering if Israel hasn't also been infected with a variant of the "white man bad" disease. WMB-2.0?
I can answer that - yes they have. In fact they even use the word "privilege" - in English! Being white in Israel, or "whiteness" if you will, is now considered as bad there as it is here.
The author's long diatribe against Bibbi boils down to his ONE substantive sentence:
"The new system, which is supposed to be set in law by next month, will allow the government to select judges and overrule the court’s decisions."
No nuance, no deep thinking, just a hate Bibbi and the Right piece.
This issue strikes me as a very difficult balancing between the judiciary and the legislature. Every legit government struggles with this, especially in a young country without a constitution. But the author just throws mud on the right and expects us to join in. Everytime TFP starts by saying how thoughtful the author is, I now know they are promoting a lefty point of view.
To be fair though BW did an interview with Netanyahu so his POV has been presented. I think your point in this comment is very appropriate. Too many make their decisions on how they feel.
That actually had a series of questions with actual answers. This had a single substantive allegation argued by simile rather than with facts.
I am no scholar of Israel or her politics but this read as an emotional rant to me.
I'm not familiar with Israel's judicial system, but one case that comes to mind is the land claim dispute that was decided in favour of the Jewish family that had the deed from the 1800s. The decision started yet another wave of Palestinian riots.
The legal dispute took 50 years to adjudicate. That is an inexcusable length of time, unfair to both parties. Any legal system that can get so mired in procedure that it can't come to a decision deserves to be reformed.
Even before Israel was a nation, starting in the early 1800's, Jews were buying land legally from willing Arabs. This amounted to 5.7% of the British Mandate for Palestine by 1945. Fast forward to today, and land is still being sold by "Palestinians" to Israeli buyers. Read up about the Jewish National Fund, established in 1901 by Theodor Herzl.
So.. I'm just trying to be neutral here. So don't pounce on me:
Publicly, Netanyahu has said that he's modelled his (or more precisely, his government's..) proposals on their Supreme Court reform to something akin to Canada's. By which 40 years ago when their Constitution was repatriated from Great Britain (this is only a general description..), and a Bill of Rights inserted, something else was also included at the behest of some of its provinces (primarily Quebec), and that something was called the 'notwithstanding clause.'
This clause has been hugely controversial from the start. It enables provincial governments (the equivalent of our state governments) to opt out of Supreme Court decisions if they deem it's warranted, with a sunset clause of five years.
We here in the United States do not have a notwithstanding clause. Here when the Supreme Court rules, it is considered final.
Thus the controversy and anxiety in Israel, and to a certain extant in Canada; that the Court will rule, but the government can choose to not abide. If for example certain rights on citizens are abrogated (using this as an example, not saying it will happen..) by a legislature, but the Court rules against, the legislature can simply ignore it.
To make it more pertinent to Americans, it could be a scenario that the Supreme Court upholds the First Amendment in a case, but the US government chooses to opt out and closes down all newspapers that do not respect the government. To use a blunt example.
We as Americans consider Court decisions as sacrosanct, though we certainly disagree on occasion and try to change decisions over time, but governments do abide (as far as I know, anyway..)
Netanyahu does not want that scenario. Cynics might say that because he's been indicted on charges of corruption, if this legislation is carried through, he can just ignore a guilty verdict if rendered.
As far as Netanyahu's personal legal issues one could also say that his treatment makes him acutely aware of injustice in the system. Ditto the others convicted he has appointed to government positions. And perhaps that is a possibility to me because of all the wasted efforts to label the former president as corrupt/criminal. Otherwise I commend your commentary about the differences in the Israeli, Canadian, and US systems. One thing no one can deny about the US system is that it provides ample opportunity for review. Also, while there are exceptions, most Supreme Court decisions leave room for subsequent legislation. Everybody whining about the evil Supreme Court in the Dobb's decision gives Congress, the real culprit of their angst, a free pass. Dobbs did nor opine one way or another about the merits of abortion. It just said the rationale upon which Roe was decided was faulty. And from a purely legal perspective, it was.
Thank you Lee, this is very helpful to the discussion. It gives me an ability to see why those who oppose the proposed reforms are voicing their concern. I’ve not read this written as clearly as you have note elsewhere. And it is a concern that I can respect. But I do not respect their tactics.
It seems to me that Israel is missing a constitution that would serve as a back stop to the problem at hand.
The proposed reforms by Netanyahu could also serve a left government if it were in power. So it is odd to me that the left in Israel are not supporting this. Perhaps because they don’t believe they can get the votes to be a majority party and control government.
Has Canada had any problems with this “notwithstanding clause” that we can look to ?
In response to your question, there have been a few. Quebec has done it the most as it shields its legislation regarding language rights from Court challenges. The notwithstanding clause allows it to do that. That means that any Canadian who wants to sue the government on Constitutional grounds on that particular law is not allowed - because of that clause. The clause must be invoked on the legislation by the government, where it is not invoked, laws can be challenged.
From what I've been reading controversial legislation is now proposed with the notwithstanding clause already in place (the province of Alberta recently, as well as Quebec)- whereas the gov't expects it to be challenged and is automatically denying anyone's right to do so..
Got it, thanks. With this in mind, I have to really respect and thank the founders of the USA for putting in place a constitutional republic (if you can keep it) three branches of government.
Yes, the American system in theory is the better one I think, girded by a Constitution that is respected and followed. Majority rule in Parliamentary systems, especially in examples such as Israel and even England with no constitutional framework, can be fraught in that since it is not bicameral, there is no political checks and balance (unless there is a minority government). And the majority can rule as it wishes, the leader of the majority party becomes PM, with nothing holding it back except for a strong and free press, an educated citizenry - and the aforementioned Supreme Court..
Yup, let’s not loose site of the fact that the US has neither a strong free press nor an educated citizenry.
A fine comment per usual, Lee. We've already seen what happens when states ignore Supreme Court decisions: we either send in troops to enforce those decisions, as in Little Rock, or let the states get away with it, as in Gov. Abbott's claiming that his abortion bounty hunter law superseded Roe v Wade and therefore Texas would ignore the Supreme Court decision. The recent SCOTUS overturning of Roe let Abbott off the hook, but I'm sure this issue will bubble to the surface again.
A decision has recently come down very recently that Texas cannot enforce actions that occur in other states. Probably going to apply to Cali's efforts to tax residents who leave its jurisdiction as well. I am oversimplifying and it will likely to continue to weave its way through the court.
I was about to say the same. I follow Israeli politics very closely and this is not helpful. There’s one throwaway line about what the “Israeli Right” is (a term many may not intrinsically understand when our version of the right is so different) and then a short explanation that Netanyahu just wants to destroy his enemies. Is that really what’s behind this? I feel like I need to do a lot more reading now.
Great place to start:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/who-chooses-judges-the-evolution-and-planned-radical-overhaul-of-judicial-selection/
My understanding is that the right wing nationalists are persecuting a subset of the population who may have a more liberal mindset.
Sounds like here, in reverse. Free OUR political prisoners.
15% of the electorate (including us) voted for right wing parties that refuse to partner with Netanyahu, since he so royally screwed them over the last time they tried that (back in 2021). Who would have thought that "no tricks no shticks" Netanyahu would refuse to pass a national budget so he could weasel out of a power sharing agreement? This is not simply a left/right issue, I would say more of a "live and let live" vs "allow coercion from corrupt leaders" issue.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/who-chooses-judges-the-evolution-and-planned-radical-overhaul-of-judicial-selection/
“What exactly is he so upset about in Israeli politics”?
While the legal reform is a complex issue and many criticisms of the current situation are obviously warranted, doing a sweeping legal reform with a government that includes in top positions extremists with terrible record, adding each day new outrageous claims and demands, and a prime-minister with a whole series of legal accusations, that looks extremely fishy.
To compare with the US, imagine an administration with a bare Congress majority who would somehow attempt major legal change (some overdue), with a cabinet that includes declared anti-semites, racists, etc., demanding the expulsion of US citizens belonging to a certain religious, ethnic or racial group. Changes may be needed, but there has to be a level of credibility behind them.
I see what you did there. Good work. Maybe needed change/reform should be carried out only with widespread support.
You are correct.
I have posted other analysis addressing the policy issues from various sources.
Thank youb
Correctamundo
Because it is a rant and not an analysis
hmmm... sounds like many of the comments on your piece are also 'dense.' Three 'equal' branches works better than most.
I agree, Peter. It’s a mish-mash of history and humble bragging. “Where’s the beef,” as the old Wendy’s commercial went.
So this rant finally gets to a point and that is the judiciary won’t be left(ist) anymore or something? As Israel has no constitution, what acts as a brake on these judges now.
I suppose this author sees no issue with Joey’s whacko appointments and seriously a company would leave Israel for Palo Alto? California??? So we know exactly where he stands.
I do hope Bari prints an essay from the other side because this one is highly biased and doesn’t impart much real
information
He “took up arms to defend israel” when he got drafted.
The entire thing reads like a typical npr article. Notice there are no actual facts, just some innuendo and orange man smears.
I kept waiting for his examples. And waiting. And waiting.
This one really got me - "he has done two things perhaps better than anyone of his generation: defended Israel and deepened our understanding of a young country whose identity is still emergent."
I was waiting for an example of how he defended Israel "better than anyone of his generation" and found none. Service in their special forces? Winner of a counterpart to our Medal of Honor? Nothing. As far as "deepening our understanding - how this hysterical screed did that is beyond me. Other than portraying a segment as shrieking Maddows. Bari seems a bit overwrought here.
That was his good guy bona fides. It's supposed to help convince you that all the trash he's going to be dumping after that is warranted because he's a good guy.
So is it just me that believes good guys do not dump trash on others?
He volunteered, he wasn't obligated to serve (as native-born Israelis are). His point is that he's establishing his bona fides that he's not someone who takes Israel for granted or that is out to 'get' her.
Every American who has served in our armed forces since the late 70s has volunteered. Does that mean each was better than any other? A bit hyperbolic, ne c'est pas?
Of course he's not taking anything away from anyone else who served, nor is he comparing and contrasting. He's making the point that he wasn't required to serve, yet chose to anyway. And the reason he's making that point is that he's establishing that he's not some Israel-hater who's out to bash Israel no matter - he believe so much in the country and and its ideals that he volunteered to put his life at risk for it. That's not hyperbolic, that's factual.
lol
lololol
ROFL
come on Zach spare the hyperbole Weiss already loaded that up for everybody
? I'm not sure what you're saying..?
I do not question his love for Israel. I also do not question his hate for Netanyahu.
"I always assumed that when it came to matters of national security, he could be trusted" - hate & trust usually do not go hand in hand.
True, but... socialist rot was embedded in Israel from when Israel was just an idea. He's fixated on having the socialist rot version of Israel.
True but better than anyone else? Better than Yoni Netanyahu?
He's not claiming he's better than anyone. He's establishing that he's no Israel-basher simply out to make Israel look bad - he believes so much in the ideal that is Israel that he volunteered to put his life on the line to defend her. He's no better or worse than Yoni Netanyahu because it's not a question of better or worse.
I got that, but the verbiage was odd, implying he's better than most. that was my point.
Ha! That's funny. I just typed the same comment. Like minds, I guess. I think the last six years have really sensitized us to this kind of argument, if you can call it that.
There were a lot of facts in the article.
I’m listening
I hope so to, perhaps Bari would grant Carolyn Glick some space or even an interview she is really terrific m, but somehow I doubt whether it will happen.
Yes, would be great for Bari to interview Caroline Glick on Honestly to discuss this topic.
Actually, this doesn't impart any information that couldn't easily been obtained by following the Israeli political scene.
The author should be heralding the fact that he has a platform from which he can lobby for his favored outcome....But he isn't.
Edited to correct grammar.
You are correct.
I’ve posted a bunch of articles from the other side on this blog.
Here's an argument for the other side that showed up a couple days ago on Unherd:
https://unherd.com/2023/03/israels-democracy-is-not-in-peril/
It, at least, attempts to explain the details of what it's all about.
I have a lot of respect for Matti Friedman and have often appreciated his writing, but this piece is misleading.
One needn't defend either the coalition or the specific laws proposed to reform the judicial system to point out that Friedman's characterizations are wrong. He gives half a sentence to how, sure, the legal system could use some reform, claims that the proposed reforms would "neuter" it and goes on to describe the government, with no judicial checks, installing itself forever.
The judicial system, according to many jurists across the Israeli political spectrum and internationally, has arrogated to itself an amount of power that is itself almost dictatorial. It's easier to imagine it invalidating any election result it doesn't like than the government doing away with elections, because it has already used that sort of power. Catastrophizing the 61-vote override by which the government would, according to one of the proposed laws, do away with judicial review ignores both the tremendous difficulty of getting all the coalition partners to vote the same way on anything and the fact that one of the Basic Laws already has a 61-vote override built into it, which has bothered nobody until now. The government isn't going to install itself forever because the people wouldn't stand for it and they know it.
To say that the protests are not about judicial reform is to deny the evidence of one's senses. Friedman has many other problems with the government, and perhaps they are motivating him to protest, but they're not what's bringing all those people into the streets.
The claim about the government receiving under half the votes cast is just silliness. I voted for a party whose main thrust was judicial reform but which didn't pass the cutoff for a seat in the Knesset. Implying that I therefore don't support judicial reform is obviously wrong, and drawing any conclusions at all about what "the people really want" is a fool's game.
His description of the coalition partners and of Netanyahu's moves is misleading as well. The context of putting Ben Gvir in charge of the police is partly, one can assume, because of the regular musical-chairs of coalition formation and partly because, for all his faults, Ben Gvir has made a point of promoting the cause of victims of violence, especially when the police did too little to protect them.
The cherry-picked quotes are also, frankly, beneath Friedman. There are academics, businesspeople and everything else on both sides of this. Smotrich said that in '48 the Israelis should have expelled the Arabs? So did Benny Morris, an Israeli "New Historian" and one-time darling of the left. When Smotrich was Transportation Minister he did, by all accounts, a good job for all of Israel's citizens. You want irresponsible quotes? Look at the list put together in Makor Rishon two weeks ago of former generals -- the people Freidman thinks show the virtue of the protests -- calling for bloodshed.
And implying that the ultra-Orthodox parties are somehow in this government because they're on the "right" is laughable. Everybody, left and right, who needs them to form a coalition has partnered with them and acceded to their demands for the things that interest them.
I myself don't like to characterize what other people are thinking or why, and I'm not particularly gifted, as Friedman is, at weaving facts together into a narrative. Still, if I were to try to make sense of what's going on to an American audience I'd say the following: The founding generation of Israel, mostly Ashkenazi, educated, secular and successful, and its heirs look around and see a country that has grown more religious, more Sephardi and generally more diverse. Until now it has held the "commanding heights" of academia, culture, media and the judiciary (sound familiar?). This is the first time that's being challenged in a serious way, so of course it's "the end of democracy".
Excellent comments you've laid it all out!
This comment was more sensible and informative than the article. Thank you
Exactly. 100%.
Thanks.
You sound pretty gifted to me. And demonstrate humility. A rare thing these days. Thanks for the insights.
Please, you'll turn my head...
Very informative! Thank you.
Always good to hear more of what guest authors avoid telling readers.
The average Israeli understands exactly what you don't seem to: the prospect of 61 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' potentially corrupt MKs with unlimited power and able to legislate away any civil liberties they wish. This is not a right/left nor a progressive/conservative issue - I've been a religious right wing voter my whole life (including after our move to Israel) and yet am very concerned about the possibility of a neutered court and uber-powerful legislature with no checks on it whatsoever.
You're not concerned that the Court already has virtually unlimited power. I'm not that concerned either, because while the Court has been wildly aggressive I doubt it would go so far as to jigger a left-wing government out of a right-wing electoral victory. I hope not.
By the same token I don't expect the government, even armed with a 61-vote override, to strip the electorate of its civil rights.
Tell me, if the override were made 70 and a right-led coalition got 70 seats, would democracy be over? The fact is, the override isn't the best idea, and if the protestors said something like "Yes to a requirement for 'standing'; Yes to political appointment of judges; Yes to a supermajority of justices to strike a law down; No to an override," I like to think something might budge, but I have yet to hear -- and I've been listening to this for decades -- a single person of the left say about any judicial reform that it wasn't the end of democracy.
"I doubt it would go so far as to jigger a left-wing government out of a right-wing electoral victory. I hope not."...
Yeah, right. Because _that_ could never happen--fortunately. (snark)
-- Donald Trump
I should correct that: Some people of the left, like Daniel Friedman and Ruth Gavison, were for judicial reform even before it was popular. Now, many people on the left are making proposals, but one assumes that's only because of the looming legislation.
To any matter which concerns Israeli society and politics, my first, main and last question is always the same: "WWSSD?" and "WWISD?"
"What would Shlomo Sand do?"
and "What would Israel Shahak do (if he were alive)?
The one line I found absolutely wrong was the 'less than half's. As clearly you can't elect a government with less than half of the popular vote (unlike in the states)
In Canada, Justin Trudeau was elected with 31% of the popular vote. It's what happens when a country has more than 2 political parties.
You are incorrect, as least in Israel. The current government received the majority of the parliamentary vote (via the vagaries of the Israeli political system, including 450,000 wasted left-wing and Arab votes) but NOT the popular vote (similar to Bush/Gore in 2000). Adding to that the half of Likud voters that do not support the speed and scale of the proposed overhaul and the supposed "will of the people" is revealed as just fake news.
Just to reiterate, the ruling political parties who received 64 Knesset seats also received LESS THAN 50% of the votes.
No need to shout. It wasn't just left-wing and Arab votes that went to waste, and anyway, it's not as if the left-of-center parties got more votes altogether, is it?
Thanks. I stand corrected.
I assume he's referring to the fact that many votes went to parties that didn't pass the electoral cutoff.
As he says, this is a complex situation, so for my own purposes I am going to assume--while recognizing and admitting that is what I am doing--that this is something akin to the fear mongering that took place when Donald Trump won the election in 2016. He was going to turn us into a One Party State. Our democracy was dead. War was inevitable. The economy was going to crash. Etc. Etc.
It was all BS. Trump was an outstanding President then and will make one again. Far from being an enemy of American Democracy, he seems to be our only hope of reclaiming it from the Permanent War State.
Netyanyahu is a smart man. Perhaps he IS also a corrupt, bitter man. But it seems unlikely all this hyperventilating is worth it. Time will tell.
..."I am going to assume--while recognizing and admitting that is what I am doing--that this is something akin to the fear mongering that took place when Donald Trump won the election in 2016." ...
That's a sentiment I've felt repeatedly where other similarly contentious matters were reported. It's this--a poisoned media-culture in which a reader, a viewer, can no longer take any case's presentation as honestly presented, or honestly argued over. Worse still, even the simplest supposedly objective "facts" as these are reported can no longer be taken for granted.
What your comment points up is a truly disastrous state of affairs: authority's once accepted basic legitimacy has, across the board, collapsed.
To reconstitute failed, corrupted, lost legitmacy is an extraordinarily daunting challenge.
And no morally-debased public, none steeped in its own self-deception, is up to that challenge.
The world is on fire and there is no "fire department" anywhere.
"We (in the U.S.) are in an information war, and it’s being waged by government agencies," ... ( -- Molly Hemingway, senior editor at "The Federalist" (newspaper) Washington, D.C.)
Well, you and I trying our best not to be stupid is a start. We can’t fix THE problem, but small efforts are never wasted, or so I choose to believe.
Well put.
Lynne,(?) Oh, no! In meant "Zarathustra"
I'm sorry, Lynne. I've repeatedly confused you and "Zarathustra". And, well, I'm just getting old. (But my comments themselves are still very lucid and well-considered!)
So never mind any of the following (below the line)--which I'm leaving there as a reminder to myself not to forget to remember not to forget.
------------------------------------
We have to stop meeting like this. My wife thinks I'm having an affair---and I'm not even married. As my former girlfriends would ask me, "How can I miss you if you don't go away?"
But, yes, it _was_ well put. (At this time, I'd like to thank my A.I.-chatbot, which, in my absence (because I'm busy reading Fukuyama's "Political Decline and Political Decay") composes and posts _all_ of my comments--this one included, of course.)
Well well. I may have to reconsider my position on chat bots.
I'd rather not be anywhere near one or near where one is being employed. It's bad enough dealing with the bozos and bozoettes that wander mindlessly through our world.
I took the comment as a joke and responded with one of my own.
LOL! (indicated as appropriate here)
"Netyanyahu is a smart man. Perhaps he IS also a corrupt"
Corrupt because he kept about $240,000 in gifts.
I wonder if the same strict judgement will ever apply to Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.
Kushner's deal with the Saudis is part of his normal investment business before and after Trump's Presidency. You'd struggle to draw a line between his venture deal and any favors the Saudis got.
Was Hunter Biden really such a brilliant painter before 2021 that he now commands $75,000 / painting.
"As for Hunter’s 75,000 per painting. There is a sucker born every day." That would refer to all the Democrats who think paying vast amounts for a Hunter Biden scribble doesn't buy any political favors.
Kushner has no political influence since Jan 2021 yet the Saudis invested in his firm long afterwards.
Jared Kushner is despised by Democrats primarily because of the leading role he had in creating Peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords, which upended 40 years of dogma by the mediocrities and intellectual midgets in the State Dept.
Kushner, with the support of an insightful and visionary President, bypassed and eclipsed Obama's policy of appeasement of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the mullahs in Iran.
Enjoy the fruits of his efforts:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/02/20/uae-israel-unmanned-vessel/
I think the point is that in the US there are several checks and balances that might slow any potential dictators' march toward authoritarianism. Israel does not have a strong judiciary to check executive power. It has operated decently enough until now (not sure why... I'm certainly no expert), but the fear is that the current executive wants to weaken it completely and put it completely under its own control. That combined with some of the extremist rhetoric coming out of the Israeli leadership is extremely concerning. The possibility that extreme laws could be passed, with no way to challenge those laws, is very concerning.
That you have to say, "I think the point is ... " is not a great endorsement of this article.
Given the praises heaped upon him in the intro, I expected to learn something valuable. And perhaps there is since "you think" you found the point.
But when people start waling that it's the end of the world and we're all going to die if you don't do what I tell you to do, I tune out - for whatever reason. I'm 72 and have heard the end is neigh since I had to practice hiding under my desk in kindergarten (as if that would have done any good) because the Russians were going to nuke us all into oblivion.
Quit the hand-wringing, take a deep breath, and get to the point: This is bad because A.... B..... C.
It really isn't difficult.
The Germans democratically elected Hitler in 1930s Germany. Many Jews "took a deep breath" and stayed because they thought it would blow over. We all know how well that worked out.
Jewish history is filled with "end of the world" events that actually occured, and it is important to understand that cultural heritage and trauma it engenders.
Hitler was very open about his intentions. That is a fact many forget or—more likely—never knew.
I don’t doubt Netanyahu’s fidelity to his version of Israels best interests; and obviously, to the extent they disagree with him, his many enemies have every partisan political reason in the world to paint him as a villain.
But I read the book containing his brothers musings, and my recollection is he was complaining of many of the same things 50 years ago Netanyahu is now. It needs to be said there is effectively an anti-Semitic element is Israel that should not surprise us any more than the patently anti-Americanism now dominant in the White House and many Governors mansions around the country.
Netanyahu has no right wing allies left, save for the ultra-orthodox (who will support any government that gives them what they want) and the extreme right. For the first time ever Likud is the most moderate party in the government. Do you know why this is? Netanyahu is such a toxic inveterate liar that he alienated every other right wing leader that tried to partner with him in the past (who can forget "no tricks no shticks" Netanyahu refusing to pass the national budget in order to wriggle out of his power-sharing agreement back in 2021). If he resigned today, by tomorrow there would be a strong and stable 74 seats government with no need to pander to extremist elements on either side. It's actually very sad how Netanyahu's desire for power and his need to escape legal woes has completely tarnished his legacy.
You may be right. I dont know.
I am very sure, though, that this SOUNDS like the same people crying Wolf I’ve been hearing for many years. Theres a point where people like me start tuning out the lies of the LEFT because that is all they spout.
If in this case there is a real wolf, well, the story of the little boy who cried wolf is very old, and the lesson obvious, isn’t it? You people lost my attention and trust long long ago.
..."Jewish history is filled with "end of the world" events that actually occured, and it is important to understand that cultural heritage and trauma it engenders."
Means what--in practical terms? since the fact is that Jews now have had a theocratic-monopoly state since 1948 to govern according to their system's manner of working.
As the American colonists did in breaking away from British rule, Jews, in establishing their own state, took upon themselves the responsibilities for managing their political affairs. When a group sets up its own kitchen, any complaints about the quality of the cooking are for the group members to deal with. And, if you need a "menu" and some basic kitchen operation rules but don't have these, then sit down and start negotiating them and writing the contents down for future reference.
I think that it is important to point out that the Jews did not create the state of Israel. That was created by the United Nation General Assembly acting in what it felt was the best interests of the world at the time.
That's a flat out historical falsehood and one amply known not to be so. What you refer by this false claim is the formal _recognition_ of the state of Israel by the U.N.'s general assembly. That is in no way-- neither literally or figuratively-- what can be described as the U.N.'s "creat(ing)" (your word) the state of Israel. Apart from the patent absurdity of such a claim, there's the fact that, among the _many_ things the U.N. has _no_ power to do--even if it _wanted_ to-- is "create" nation states.
If you want to make stuff up, take up science fiction.
Very good point and does put the article in a different perspective.
Thanks, I appreciate that positive feedback.
Considering the hundreds of executive orders oner the last three presidencies, I disagree that we have strong checks and balances against a slide into executive rule.
We just have a different political phrase for how they do it.
Don't ever forget, on Joe Biden's first day in office he had a pre-planned executive order to overthrow bipartisan sanctions on Russian oil, which were holding Putin back from warmongering. That one fact raises a host of questions about his intent and the functioning of our democracy.
Being pressured to shut down the Willow Project in Alaska today. 188,000 gallons a day.
It seems there is another view that it is the Israeli judiciary that is marching toward authoritarianism, siezing the power to overule anything done by the democratic elected branches.
The most important check on the courts of any nation is the prohibition of the court to act as a prosecutor.
That is a check that is worth fighting for.
I'd be very interested in reading some good reporting on this.
Sounds to me like the current executive and many of those he has appointed may have been victimized by that judiciary.
To say nothing of the completely unchecked surveillance state that got busted spying on the Netanyahus without a warrant.
Thank you. I did not know that.
Yes, same playbook is being used in Israel as was used in the US against Trump in 2016.
Bibi was cleared of earlier charges.
But the left is trying to attack him in the courts again.
Spot on Barry, it sounded like an Israeli version of TDS.
Well we spent years here trying to establish that Trump was a wrong-doer , thus far to no avail. So maybe Netanyahu has legitimate complaints about Israel's court system. Likewise the others the author described as convicts. I have heard that there is none so blind . . .
Oh, my God. That's the kindest description for what was one of the most outrageous attempts at a high-level frame-up in U.S. history that I've ever read.
"Trying to establish that Trump was a 'wrong-doer'"? Trump's political adversaries conceived, planned and executed a grotesque frame-up of Trump. And had they not been such an amazingly incompetent bunch of Keystone cops, it might not have been blown apart so easily and quickly bythose, from the ordinary observer to the professional in criminal conspiracies, who reviewed what was being claimed and said, "Now you wait just a damn minute, buster!" Where was America's intrepid "watch-dogs", the mainstream mass-media in all that? Up to its neck in flagrant complicity.
If it were not for people such as Miranda Devine, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, we'd have no idea what really had taken place.
Oh I absolutely agree with your assessment. And I am very pleased that the truth has leaked, and continues to leak, out. But there are, unfortunately, people who are ill-informed and if they read my phraseology they might be inspired to do a little digging whereas if they read yours they just think Trumper, MAGA, Extreme MAGA, domestic terrorist, or worse. And I smelled a rat at the time. For the reason that if there were any legitimate dirt on Trump the Clinton's would have found it. Instead they had to create it and use the weaponized FBI to do their dirty work. Isn't it ironic that HRC interned for the Dems during the Watergate hearings and goes on to conspire in actions that make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison? Then go on to clutch her pearls about Trump's coup?
This!
" For the reason that if there were any legitimate dirt on Trump the Clinton's would have found it."
_Exactly!_
"Instead they had to create it and use the weaponized FBI to do their dirty work. Isn't it ironic that HRC interned for the Dems during the Watergate hearings and goes on to conspire in actions that make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison? Then go on to clutch her pearls about Trump's coup?"
Indeed!
I expect a good deal more truly shocking things to come to light in the weeks ahead. A lot of formerly very smug and arrogant power-weilders are now losing sleep and sweating bullets over these revelations. They're right to do so.
The bill is coming due and it's a whopper.
Oh I pray. But my cynical, secular side thinks they have gotten away with so much for so long they are completely emboldened.
Is this Rob Reiner?
No serious person could possibly believe this hysteria. The good news is that you are here; I am hopeful you can be deprogrammed.
He has the mind of a child and the chatter of a three year old. So OF COURSE he hates Trump. If I were looking at the same cartoon he is I would too.
And if this were Germany in 1935 he would hate Jews and Bolsheviks for the same reason.
No, I spoke accurately. I would just need to make her last name Schmidt. The defiant and strutting ignorance that was ugly then remains ugly now.
You are dealing in depersonalization, guilt by association, and utterly one sided propaganda.
To be a Nazi you dont have to hate Jews: you just have to hate deeply, consistently, ignorantly and violently. The target is unimportant, since the rage is irrational.
You are surrounded by reasonable people. It is wasted on you.
R T, I am not a Trump fan. I agree with many of the criticisms. I do not want him to run again. However, the coup/dictator/end of democracy hyperbole is BlueAnon-type insanity. I believe we need honest, moral leaders of the highest character and intelligence, steeped in first American principles. Unfortunately, politics naturally selects away from such people. Thus, we are both left to choose from an unpalatable platter of power hungry, ignorant, and corrupt narcissists, egomaniacs, charlatans, and rank demagogues. Just like the one you voted to put in office.
Amen, brother.
Ok...Then why did you vote for Biden?
Does RT stand for Russia Times?
Answer at length if you like. I have become proficient at ignoring your responses.
Should be a fun week though to discuss Jan. 6th. Not with you, of course, but with people who have done WAY less psychdeljcs than you.
The writer lost me at “The peace process is dead, as it has been for more than 20 years.” Was he asleep during the Abraham Accords and it’s likely progeny, the most consequential Israeli peace successes since Egypt and Jordan? Smells like TDS, Netanyahu-style. Not interested.
He means the Israeli-Palestinian peace process - that is dead and has been at the latest since Abbas rejected Olmert's offer in 2008. Friedmann isn't blaming Israel for the peace process being dead, he's just observing that it *is* dead.
He is a big, big supporter of the Abraham Accords.
This is exactly where he lost me, too.
What a hysterical ridiculous article... proposed changes are in line with the rest of democratic world... leftist keep loosing power and use court to push back against the will of majority which is opposite what democracy does mean
Israeli American here. One truth and one lie. Is it true that the courts are leftist and always appoint mostly left wingers, absolutely. And this a (not the) reform is justified.
Saying that this reform is the one true reform and that's it's like anything in other democracies has been disproven time an again. In Israel the legislative branch chooses the executive for the next 4 years, and thus has full control of all decisions. The only check is the judiciary which happens post legislation. If the judiciary is non abiding as the reform says, basically the government can do anything it wants.
Counter to common thought, Democracy isn't the same as the tyranny of a majority.
I have a major problem with unelected judges making decisions on the basis of what they think is "reasonable" instead of what is legal.
Legal is not the same as moral.
Slavery was legal.
True that it's subjective though.
Morality and law as you agreed are completely different things…
Judges exist to defend the law….
Morality should be discussed during elections
…I absolutely agree with the point of the tyranny of the majority…ideally it always should be a check on power…
But if judges elect themselves how could you avoid corruption???
Also we get to the major point which is a problem in most democratic countries - how objective is a judiciary power? Do they just follow the existing law or are “progressive “, which means follow the conscience, etc…instead of the law…
IMO the bulk of the problem is the "reasoable" standard without further review. Reasonable is a very fluid standard and is often unduly influenced by emotion.
Israel is a theocracy-- a place where a dominant religion is instituted in the founding charter. Start with that problem. No state which fails a separation-of-state-and-religion test, and, hence, one which is founded on its public's preposession by a religion, can claim democratic legitimacy.
Readersaurus, you are often a thoughtful commenter on this site, but I can't grasp why our definition of "democracy" i.e, government based on the consent of the people, can't include states where the polity rests on religious principles. The US prinicple of the separation of church and state may work for us, but I don't see why it must always be that way, if the people choose otherwise.
If I can jump in on your conversation, I’m a secular Israeli Jew who did a very Orthodox conversion in America before I came here and married my Middle Eastern Jewish husband. Israel is not a theocracy, although it has some elements of one. I’m not sure that certain citizens have less rights as a result of not being Jewish; it’s more complicated than that.
For example, Muslims actually can handle family issues here in sharia courts; Jews and Muslims (or any other non-similar combination) cannot marry in-country, but if they marry out of the country, the government will recognize their marriage. Likewise, Muslims cannot make aliyah (they can’t immigrate to Israel from anywhere because they aren’t Jewish), but those who are citizens here enjoy the freedom and security of Israel while their kids don’t serve and die in the IDF. The religious ministries control some stuff, but it isn’t a lot, and although in many ways the country is increasingly conservative, it’s not necessarily increasingly religious.
Your corrective comments are a breath of fresh air here.
Now, granting your points as written there, I'd just like to interject the authority of Flavius Josephus, the 1st C. Jewish figure who left posterity his history of the Jewish Wars.
(Wikipedia / Flavius Josephus)
..."Josephus recorded the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–70), including the siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94). The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Greek and Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity. Josephus's works are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Israel, and provide a significant and independent extra-Biblical account of such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, " ...
(The remainder here is addressed to others, esp. those who deny Jewish social origins in theocratic rule)
With Josephus, we are dealing with the person who coined the very term "theocracy" and he did that to describe what was then the Jewish political order in Judea of that time. He needed to coin the term because, prior to his doing that, there was no quite accurate term to describe the Jewish political order's characteristics.
SInce his time, the term, for many centuries the nature of Jewish society's political order in Judea was taken for granted as he'd defined it:
(quote)
'The word theocracy originates from the Greek: θεοκρατία (theocratia) meaning "the rule of God'. This, in turn, derives from θεός (theos), meaning 'god', and κρατέω (krateo), meaning 'to rule'. Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was 'rule by god(s)' or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
"The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century AD to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. However, according to Josephus, the government of the Jews was unique. Josephus offered the term 'theocracy' to describe this polity in which God was sovereign and His word was law.
"Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the Enlightenment era, when the term took on negative connotations and was barely salvaged by Hegel's commentary. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning 'sacerdotal government under divine inspiration' (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning 'priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" was recorded in 1825.' " (end quote)
(Wikipedia / "Theocracy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)
----------------------------
Caveat lector: Don't accept everything at Wikipedia uncritically or rely on it as your sole source of information.
In this case, read Josephus yourself (the digital texts are freely available at
Archive.org : (https://archive.org/search?query=Flavius+Josephus) and read him in light of varied modern scholars critiques on his writings.
"The US prinicple of the separation of church and state may work for us, but I don't see why it must always be that way, if the people choose otherwise."
They may choose otherwise. But, in doing so, they may not pretend to be egalitarian democracies--and no "democracy" in which citizens do not have fully equal rights and privileges _in_ _law_ can justly regard itself as a "democracy" in which there are equal rights for all citizens.
A democratic polity built on a religious principle is by no means necessaarily incompatible with all citizens (believers or not) having equal rights under the law. It would depend on how such a system is implemented.
Your idea about what constitutes "democracy" would, in essence, require all governments everywhere to adopt a godless neutrality on a whole range of religious, cultural, and moral matters--and that, in itself, is profoundly undemocratic, if again the people wish it to be otherwise. What about their "equal rights"?
We have a bit of a conundrum here, do we not?
..."Your idea about what constitutes "democracy" would, in essence, require all governments everywhere to adopt a godless neutrality on a whole range of religious, cultural, and moral matters" ...
While I would personally prefer that all governments everywhere _did_ adopt a godless _neutrality_ on all official matters of _state_--including those matters of a plainly moral character--I would not urge or advocate that such a change be effected overnight or by fiat imposed on people and their governments by some exterior force or authority.
Nor do I advocate any concerted ridding of civic life and all about that which is cultural of religious content. I do not want J. S. Bach's religious compositions censored or suppressed. Nor would I wish to see religious texts --sacred or otherwise--erased, "sanitized", proscribed, or shunted off to places where they are never seen or read again. We must not erase or alter history's record in some misguided belief--like tearing down statues of former slave-holders--that this helps anyone today to a more moral life or understanding of ourselves.
The right to worship freely (or to abstain) is specifically protected in the Constitution's basic rights--as it is rightly the case. No one should be made to worhip or not to worship by any force or order of law or any authority --except his or her own.
Readersaurus, I think we agree more than we disagree about this. I certainly don't think anyone should be forced to worship, as I am a classical liberal in outlook.
But because I am a classical liberal, I can also imagine countries that wish to see their societies organized along their religious principles--Islam comes to mind. I am not a Muslim, and would not necessarily wish to live in a society whose government was built on Islam, but I certainly acknowledge the right of Muslims to create such a society, if again such a decision could be said to represent the popular will.
Oh, BS. There are numerous democracies that have official state religions, such as England, Scotland, Spain, and Greece. Those of other religions are free to practice in Israel and, as citizens, have full rights. In fact, non-Jews have more freedom in that they are absolved of the requirement to serve in the military. (They may volunteer, but are not required to do so.)
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
There is no legally-applied religious test in Britain*--nor can there be one. That is what effectively describes a nation which practices real, meaningful _freedom_ of or freedom _from_ religion. As for Spain or Greece, I cannot say. So, you've perhaps cited two countries as "numerous" democracies that have official state religions. There are, in fact a few more--Denmark and Sweden, both Kingdoms, have official religions; but in those, too, there is, as far as I am aware, no religious test ever applied for any state-granted right or privilege.
* Except, perhaps, for the monarch--who supposedly must profess and adhere to protecting and defending "the faith"--being The (Anglican) Church of England (Scotland, Wales). In civil life, no religious test may be imposed prior, during or after the grant of a state-sponsored right or privilege.
That is not the case in Israel, as far as I am aware.
-----------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Can that be rightly said of the Israeli Knesset? If not, then we have nothing more to debate on this issue.
Exactly what “legally-applied religious test” are you referring to? The only possible thing I can think of is in claiming an automatic right to Israeli citizenship. In that, it’s a question of ancestry and has absolutely nothing to do with religious practice. Frankly, it’s no different than Ireland or Portugal or Japan or other counties giving citizenship preference to those of native extraction.
And why cite American law in regards to the Knesset? You still haven’t cited ANY way that Israel is “prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” much less that it is a theocracy.
You are being ridiculous.
What, on the West Bank or in the Golan Heights, are (or were) "Jewish settlements"? who may live in these? who may _not_ live in them? and how is this determined?
"In that, it’s a question of ancestry and has absolutely nothing to do with religious practice."
This "ancestry", as you call it, is itself explicitly religiously defined and circumscribed-- matrilineally. Please don't play dumb.
Oh, please. If you can’t see the difference between ancestry and religious practice (when a person of Jewish ancestry who is an atheist could be eligible for Israeli citizenship), then you are the one playing dumb.
If what you’re really having a problem with is Jews claiming a homeland, then at least be honest about it. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for those examples of how Israel is a theocracy.
Nonsense! Israel is most certainly not a theocracy. Israel is the nation of the Jewish People, NOT the Jewish religion. It is not based on Jewish law, but mostly on English law that was practiced in the area during the British mandate after WWI and the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. It also has a few hold overs from Ottoman law.
Israel Shahak would have disputed that.
See his "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" (1994, Pluto Press) pages 4-12 from Chapter 1: "A Closed Utopia?"
(excerpt)
... presumably to avoid embarrassment, the terms "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" are usually not explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial Law of Return. According to that law, only persons officially recognized as "Jewish" have an automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They automatically receive an "immigration certificate" which provides them on arrival with "citizenship by virtue of having returned to the Jewish homeland", and with the right to many financial benefits, which vary somewhat according to the country from which they emigrated. ... The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID card, which everyone is required to carry at all times. ID cards list the official "nationality" of a person, which can be "Jewish", "Arab", "Druze" and the like, with the significant exception of "Israeli". Attempts to force the Interior Minister to allow Israelis wishing to be officially described as "Israeli", or even as "Israeli-Jew" in their ID cards have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have received a letter from the Ministry of the Interior stating that "it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality". The letter does not specify who made this decision or when. There are so many laws and regulations in Israel which descriminate in favor of the persons defined as those "who can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return" that the subject demands a separate treatment." ...
(close quote)
Fair point. To the extent that that founding claim affects laws and executive branch. So far the judiciary has been blocking most actions that would disenfranchise non Jews.
"So far"? Israel was founded in 1948 and has had a documented history since that time. How old are you?--that is, when, for you did "the world" begin?
It is interesting to hear you say that. I have zero background in this matter so I was only able to take this article at face value.
Stop importing America's culture war and its histeria.
The proposed judicial reform would enable US-style checks and balances between the judiciary and legislative branches... and the override clause exists in other parliamentary democracies like Canada. It is not the end of the world.
Not true. Israel has a parliamentary system and not a presidential system. At any time in the US there
the Congress and President can be controlled by different parties. In Israel there is only one chamber of the legislature and the coalition controls both the executive and legislative branches. These branches are not truly separate
Any time someone makes a comparison to other countries - whether Canada or Hungary or Turkey - it’s rarely valid because the differences between democracies matter.
Good point, and a terrible feature of the Israeli system. Every system needs to have a role for the opposition to play, both to express its views and limit the excesses of the majority. Israel seems to be more a 'pure democracy', which we all know is two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner.
Actually, we don't know that in human political relations 'pure' democracy (i.e. majority rule) may be reduced to the caricature of "two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner." Once fundamental civil rights are legally (de jure) assured to all without respect to their "race", religion (or not), creed, age (being a legal adult), and, of course, where age old common law principles and sanctions against murder, theft, assault, etc. are in place, then there's no justification for a damning of 'pure' democracy by likening it to "wolves devouring sheep for dinner" analogy.
In any human society, the "sheep" always outnumber (and can, where democracy's free & fair votes are protected, _out-vote_ ) the "wolves".
Please. No childishly simple analogies.
"Common law" is not universal. Which I think raises an interesting point. As a result of our reliance in common law here in the States do we have a unique experience or point of view that does not translate well elsewhere? Is it that point of view/experience that many of us here see slipping away in the name of "progressivism"?
The (English) common law may not be universal, strictly speaking, but, more and more, despite frequent appearances to the contrary, basic principles of justice are practically universal. (In China, certain of them are again being hotly disputed; but it is the Chinese central authorities, not those demanding their basic rights be respected, who look like the "wolves".)
Our founding principles (literally) state that We hold these Truths to be _self-evident_: That _all_ men (which means all mankind) are created (in their rights and in law) equal--that is, equal before the state's authority and equal in respect of the application of the law.
A great many foreign non-English speaking people read and took this view to heart and have tried to act on it since. The supposed premise is that it can eventually, mutatis, mutandis, "translate" everywhere among people.
"Is it that point of view/experience that many of us here see slipping away in the name of 'progressivism'?"
I think so, yes. That's at the heart of much of current U.S. social and political strife. We have to battle over these issues from time to time because they are always going to be subjected to certain people's doubts, objections, misunderstandings and failures to grasp and honor core democratic principles.
No garden without gardeners' maintenance.
Personally I believe those are some of the most wonderful words ever written. But that is just little ole provincial me. I would like to think they could apply universally but they were the result of a millenia of Western civilization so I am not sure. I do think if the people of a different culture/geography voluntarily embrace the words and apply them within their cultural framework it is workable.
You make an interesting observation.
So how does the British system deal with this ?
Britain has had a form of constitutional government for hundreds of years, a stable tradition of monarchy, and two houses of Parliament. Beyond that I don’t know. Israel is a much younger democracy in a very messy place founded by socialists who for decades had basically one party rule across all branches.
Another very interesting observation. Thank you.
By limiting the power of the (non-elected) upper house (the "Lords"). It can't introduce legislation and can only delay bills passed by the lower house (the "Commons", the elected chamber.) There are various other Acts of Parliament that hold sway, mostly to ensure the primacy of the popular vote ... in theory. In practice, of course, it's the usual British hotchpotch of "It's the constitution because it's been happening a very long time" (by which I don't mean to imply I dislike it), something quasi-mystical about "The Crown in Parliament" (which means the authority of the Sovereign is sublimated into the Commons; again, by "quasi-mystical" I don't imply dislike.) The problem of judicial over-reach is also very real here, a direct consequence of the unspeakable Blair government's decision to enshrine the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law, making it very easy for Left-wing activist lawyers to, for example, stymie the legislation of Conservative governments to protect our borders. One frustration with the Tory administration is that it hasn't used its majority to unwind any of this. I tend to view articles like this one through that lens: Netyanyahu appears to be attempting such an un-wind. The reaction of the Left is as predictable as it's hysterical.
... Together with a judiciary completely under the control of the government, at the whim of the government, means literally no way to challenge bad laws, racist laws, anti-democratic laws
Yes. It’s of course a major issue.
What is also an issue is unchecked long term and blatant judiciary activism. The current reforms go too far but it is in essence a response to the extreme degree that the judiciary and the attorney general has expanded their own power and ruled on government policies or appointments in a very one sided (left) manner.
Until the free press published the other article**, I wasn't familiar with them full context. The reporting as well as the popular narrative is pretty one-sided.
** It didn't get emailed and I happened upon it via Twitter.
Can you make an argument without raising the spectre of racism? The judiciary is a part of government. Just different parts in different places.
Found this to be rather shallow reading. I'll admit I do not follow Israeli news at all. However, I found this article eerily similar to the elite media and government reporting style of "orange man bad" we've had for nearly a decade in the USA. This could have been made into an exposé outlining specific drawbacks of each component of the new Netanyahu coalition, but instead all I know is there are a lot of poo poo heads running Israel and leftists are not happy about it.
Specifically:
- ad hominems instead of information
- accusations of racism
- "far right" as a pejorative
- primarily an appeal to emotional fear
- claims democracy is ending
- cherry picked quotes
I agree, completely aligned with the rhetorical style of far left propaganda, and why I'm choosing to discount his perspective.
He writes of government attacking it’s own citizens...hmm, sounds like today’s America! Our government ignores the illegal alien invasion, targets and spies o. conservative parents, enables rampant crime, sends all our tax dollars to Ukraine, and tells about hoards of supposed white supremacists hiding behind every tree. Interesting that liberals see it in another country but not their own.
The writer is a liberal, doing the exact same things you just described liberals doing but when they are out of power.
Agree!
I am very disappointed in Matti Friedman’s latest writings, which up until now I have typically enjoyed.
At least he concedes that the judicial system in Israel requires reform - and I agree that a chunk of the reforms and certainly the way they are being pushed through go too far, not mention useles because what is also necessary is reform between legislative and executive branches.
There are plenty of soldiers and officers, or hi tech workers, who support the government and/or reform who don’t write open letters.
Unfortunately, the very right wing parties did not get a smattering of 5 mandates (like Bennet’s party - the previous prime minister!!!), but 14 seats in government. The ultra orthodox parties together have even more. It has always been more acceptable among the left and center to denigrate religious or settler Jews over the other sizeable sector of Israeli Arabs. Yes, this is the most extreme right wing government in Israel’s history. But why does he not discuss the extremist (yes - extremist) response of left wing and opposition leaders like Ehud Barak and Ron Huldai? In any other country, left wing people would be freaked out by ex generals or defense ministers practically calling for mutiny against security forces and to disobey the ELECTED government, or for left wing veterans to steal an old tank and try to bring it to a protest, or to speak of spilling blood. Let’s be honest - everyone here is a veteran, whether they are protesting or not.
Economically there is major concern Typically people dislike it when the owners and leaders of capital and finances use their influence to affect political discourse - but in Israel because it’s the sexy hi tech sector somehow its fine. We need an independent judiciary and financial institutions, but the same hi tech people making panicky public statement really have no problem leaving the state - it’s the rest of us who will really suffer. The economic question is partially based in reality and partially a wag the dog situation.
If the government cant start really governing and taking control of themselves, then they don't deserve to be a government and they will fall apart. At this point in time I hope so. But to recall, Bibi's opposition was a thorn in the side of Bennet/Lapid constantly, just within the halls of parliament. The current opposition isn’t interested in politics - rather in activism.
Friedman’s analysis is really frustrating and disappointing, because I know he loves Israel but he right now isn’t communicating the level of nuance or complexity that this situation deserves.
How come your font size is bigger than everyone else's? It makes it look like shouting.
Good comment though.
It is not larger on my device. But I have noted very small font sometimes on comments.
On my phone it auto sizes his to normal but then everyone else's is so small it's hard to read. On my desktop his stands out as huge.
I see. I just use my phone for this. It is how I curb my screen time.
Hey, I like it, no reading glasses necessary! ;)
Really? SORRY!
Fact is that there isn't an economist worth their dime that doesn't think that this will bankrupt the country. And it already started to happen.
Well you know economics is not an exact science or art right? The old saw is put 100 economists in a circle and ask them to point the direction needed and they will point 100 different directions. They have certainly created a problem in the States. We are just waiting to see how bad.
Except for Yisrael Aumann who received the Nobel Prize in economics. Maybe worth a quarter.
In how many other Middle East countries could the author publicly march in opposition to the government and not be teargassed, or beaten, or jailed, or permanently disappeared? My generation fought in the Vietnam War. When our soldiers were lucky enough to return home they had the ability, the right, to protest its idiocy and waste of human life, and vociferously oppose the U.S. government that supported it, within the borders of the nation's capital. That was democracy in practice.
Israel is a beautiful, though imperfect, parliamentary democracy...as are all functioning democracies. If you don't like Israel's current government, then vote it out...it's one of the easiest political systems in the world to do so...it's set up with the voting population in mind, allowing it to remove its ruling party(ies) when confidence in the ruling government is lost by the majority of the electorate.
I understood all of your opinion being of the same generation. The problem is they may be in the situation Canadians find themselves in. Our Liberal government has run amok with a Prime Minister that has literally spent more money than all our Prime Ministers together since Confederation. He has sicced the police, on horseback, with rubber bullets tear gas and pepper spray on a loud but peaceful protest of the draconian mandates we suffered under for 2 years.
Vote them out? We have tried but because of the ridiculous style of voting system we have its not possible. The irony is that one of the platforms he ran on in 2016 was he, Trudeau, would give us voting reform. Yet another lie in what has become the most ruthlessly corrupt leader of North America.
My bet is, Isreal as in Canada, is suffering the consequences of Woke-ism. It knows no party boundaries and its goal is digitalizing the entire planet and controlling the people.
Unlike most nations around the world Canada has never had a true civil war.
Everyone who's come here to Canada came to escape something politically or religiously initiated that threatened thier existence.
Trudeau has brought that fear to Canada.
It's call the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.
The US is able to stand against them more strongly because you've been raised to stand up and fight for your rights.
Canadians never dreamed thier own government would turn against them.
The US will find itself in Isreals situation. Be prepared.
Bad political leadership and lousy political ideas come and go...especially in democracies. The ridiculous experiment in nouveau fascism will eventually be expunged from the Canadian political landscape, as will Trudeau himself...because the electorate will make it happen. Canada, though it might not seem so right now, is still a democracy. The World Economic Forum, aided by uncensored news sources like Canada's Rebel News, is being exposed for what it is...and it's leader, Klaus Schwab is already being reduced to a silly meme. The United Nations spends all day writing finger pointing resolutions designed to crush the existential sovereignty of Israel...but, the UN is impotent; they aren't lawmakers or law enforcers. Israel will continue to exist and thrive, despite the fact that the UN, in the past decade, has adopted twice as many resolutions against it as it has against all other nations, combined.
My parents generation dealt with McCarthyism, which was very scary if you were an American-Jew who belonged to The Communist Party, like some of my relatives...which seemed to make sense during the economic devastation of The Great Depression. The era of McCarthyism was here to stay, until it wasn't. The same fate awaits Woke(ism) politics.
Catskill Mountain Man
24 min ago
"Bad political leadership and lousy political ideas come and go"...
No. The particular _actors_ of any given moment "come and go". The bad leadership and ideas _remain_ and persist, through changing actors in and changing actors out.
If your ship is sinking, changing a superficial course setting isn't going to save it.
The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Emancipation Proclamation have endured for lifespan of The United States: 247 years...yet have been modified over time to allow for minor adjustments, like the freedom of its slaves, the voting right for all Americans, the right to live with all rights as an American citizen while being a member of the LBGTQ community, etc. Politicians change...political policy changes (eg. stopping the military draft)...bad actors act badly within and outside the government...but, the core beliefs [and basic promises made to its citizens] by a democratic nation, like the U.S., continue to triumph over tyranny. The millions of people streaming across our southern border just last year are proof of this.
I guess you missed the explanation that once the judiciary is eviscerated there will be nothing to prevent the ruling coalition from changing the timing of elections, deciding who in fact is allowed to vote, and basically legislating any other limitation on civil rights it can think of, such as modesty rules for women a la Iran. American conservatives who so jealously guard their rights should be all over this.
You're projecting an extreme worst case scenario of a legislative outcome that hasn't yet occurred. I'm not buying it.
Do you live here? Do you have skin in the game? Are you familiar with the level of corruption amongst the current crop of MKs? I do and I am. That "worst case scenario" is just Levin's "Phase 2" that he has refused to elucidate.
I don't live there. But this article was published here which is trying to convince me of something using little more than ad hominem attacks and hyperbolic sounding language. I agree with Catskill Mountain Man that it sounds very sketchy.
There are many other reasoned and balanced articles if you are interested in learning more. I felt that this was his "cry from the heart" so to speak, which is why I responded so positively, as I'm already intimately familiar with the nuances of the situation. It is incredible how Israelis from all walks of life, all professions, and across the political spectrum -. with the conspicuous absence of the ultra-orthodox and far-right - are gathering by the hundreds of thousands weekly to protest what they understand is a risk to their civil liberties.
I have skin in the game. I have been reading the entire span of left-right media and have seen little to no consideration on the part of left wing sources to posit that maybe the judiciary requires at least some teeny tiny bit of reform. Oh the other hand I have seen numerous right wing articles empathizing with the emotions of the protestors or calling to slow down the legislative blitz, including rabbis and settlers. I am deeply concerned about the coalition, but really think the opposition is trying to bring down the government using the economy and the army as it’s weapons, which is simply not democratic.
And I assume Phase 3 is the prison camps. But have you noticed that Phase 1 has only gone through first reading, that Levin and Committee Chair Rothman have both repeatedly expressed an interest in negotiating amendments, and have said they are not in a hurry to "push through" these reforms?
Actually they have expressed the exact opposite, the pace is stopping for "not one minute". They plan on finiishing "Phase 1" within a few weeks. They could have met last night with the opposition at the Presidents office instead of passing yet another bill, why didn't they? Because they have no reason to stop. They know how unpopular the full overhaul is, and now is their only chance.
From today's Jerusalem Post ( not a friend of the Coalition):
"While reform leaders Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chairman Simcha Rothman accepted these calls to action [to meet to negotiate without preconditions] , but opposition leadership refused to negotiate without the precondition of cessation of legislation."
By getting a stop to the legislative process, (the process Members of Knesset get paid
to operate in, whether for or against legislation), Lapid wants to declare victory so his troops in the streets can feel good. But he has no desire to actually negotiate.
Maybe the writer needs to leave Israel and come to America Amir Canada and see the anti Israel fervor from a distance. Maybe he is to close and blinded by his ideology. It sounds a lot like the way someone would describe Trump or Desantis here in America from the left. He call Bennett a far right zealot. This is like an NBC hiring member of the Lincoln project or the National Review and calling them conservatives.
Sorry, Israel and America are both I trouble, along with most of the west. But it isn’t because of this authors fears. It is because of the weakness and self hatred of the leftist elites in all our countries. He even seems upset that after Israelis are murdered that the response was swift and overwhelming. Well it should be. It should be worse.
Thanks for your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree. I’m sure the fascism in Canada under Pierre would be more to your likening. Give it a shot.
Yes, well said.
Very simple Matti. The far left loonies have dragged the responsible left into extinction. Look at the labor party's swan song: Meirav Michaeli and her four seats, projected to disappear in the next elections. That is the tragedy here. The best the opposition can offer is Yair Lapid? With Ehud Barak yelping like a mad man from the bleachers? Continue to protest, you and all the other "good Israelis." The rest of us, well, we just don't care about hollow people who threaten to leave Israel, to pull their money and genius out of the country, or who threaten to refuse orders when in military service, if showing up at all for it. The judicial reform--as long as it stays exactly how it is and is not watered-down by any compromise, will be the most significant improvement in Israel in recent years. For all of us. We've seen the parade of good Israelis' leaders shouting gevalt, and we've seen the clips of those same leaders from less than two years ago saying exactly the opposite--supporting judicial reform with as much fervor as today's Likud. Disappointing. I look forward to the day when we will have a responsible Zionist left-of-center party to challenge us on the right, with original and rigorous Jewish and Zionist and Israeli ideas, and not the warmed-over claptrap spouted by our own version of useful idiots.
Thank you. Well said.
It appears to me that the gaslighting of the left in Israel is no different than used in the US.
So you have no concerns about handing unlimited power to 61 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours'potentially corrupt MKs who can then legislate away any human rights they wish? Do you live in Israel and would be personally affected by that repression?
Power was not handed to them. There was an election, the fifth in two years. How's that for a Democracy. Also, their power is not unlimited; this is not a Marvel Comics movie we are talking about. I presume you are getting your talking points from Haaretz. No, I don't live in an Israel where I will be personally affected by the imaginary repression of some leftist loony pipe-dreamers. I live in an Israel where protesters can nightly prance around in front of an elected Prime Minister's house every single night for months on end with giant inflatable phalluses screaming vile epithets at the top of their lungs. With no consequences. How's that for human rights? You couldn't get away with that in front of the White House.
Love the I live dichotomy. Very impactful.
"Potentially corrupt"? That is the standard now?
Oh, you wouldn't believe it if I told you.... One ultra-orthodox former mayor who was voted out by his own constituents for corruption (replaced by a woman, no less!) is now - you guessed it - an MK. Another 60 individuals just like him all willing to make a deal are unfortunately not difficult to find.
Then you are suspicious. Which believe me I get. I am pretty sure we have some full-blown crooks in office here. But it takes more than suspicion to right the wrong.
Does any democratic government consist of a single body with unlimited power? "Trust me that will never happen" isn't going to work. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true every time.
By definition in a democracy power is retained by the people. The people spoke in the last election. I did not say "[T] rust me that will never happen" nor would I as I am skeptical by nature. I am not so pessimistic however as to believe that absolute power will corrupt absolutely every time. There have been benevolent monarchs for example. It sounds to me like your complaint is not so much with Netanyahu but rather with Israel's system of government. All I questioned was your speculation regarding corruption. I stand by the comment. Otherwise we should just let my mama rule the world. She too had all the answers.
It is fascinating to me that this type of division and one half of the country going after the other half is happening in many places all over the world. There is clearly something going on here, and trying to get to the bottom of it is essential.
For review: the world of 1848.
... "Over 50 countries were affected, but with no significant coordination or cooperation among their respective revolutionaries. Some of the major contributing factors were widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership, demands for more participation in government and democracy, demands for freedom of the press, other demands made by the working class for economic rights, the upsurge of nationalism, the regrouping of established government forces"...
(Wikipedia* / "Revolutions of 1848")
----------------------------------------------
* Caveat lector: _Never_ rely solely on a Wikipedia article
Great post! Thank you! Those who don’t know history...or...
Damn good point.
I agree with the two above. The writer’s fear of their future in power and dislike of Netanyahu and Likud is clear. The objective, policy driven, facts on the ground why is not.
He writes about lies but presents none. Some have fiery rhetoric, even a tragic response to a tragic terror attack - that seems like the cost of living in so close to G-d the last 80 years.
I’m grateful for the list of other readings. That is what will set set The Free Press apart from the rest.
By the time Friedman got to the point (paragraph 15? 16?) I had lost interest. What a badly written column!