The Supreme Court has never been unchecked, because if it’s possible for the Knesset to pass a law like this, then it’s always been possible for them to do so, and the mere possibility of a law is itself a check (just like, in the US, the possibility of impeachment was a check on the Presidency, even before it had ever been used).
Not unforeseen but this could get even more interesting.
You know that Bibi has been Prime Minister longer than anyone else in Israeli history and he has never once attempted to suspend elections, right? The paranoia about this is insane. Bibi has won and lost multiple fair elections for a quarter-century and has never resorted to any non-democratic tactics to attempt to prevent new elections when he was in charge, nor to overturn elections that went against him when he wasn’t.
The Haredim may not like the fact that there is an ostensibly Jewish state that is run according to non-Torah rules, but politically, they make up 20% of the Knesset, tops. If the Israeli secular parties ever agreed enough on basic principles to put together a constitution, the Haredim could hardly stand in their way.
Dr_Paprika, thanks for the summary. The main inaccuracy is the one I pointed out in my first message directed at you - the article (while noting that the government had hoped to pass these laws earlier this year!) states that they “rushed” this vote through the Knesset, and Netanyahu was “unable to persuade his allies to delay the vote”. The fact is that he DID persuade them to delay it, but that delay produced no compromises from the opposition, so it is a FURTHER delay (with no reason to believe it will bear any greater fruit than the first delay) that the government refused to do. Netanyahu and his allies have tried to compromise the opposition and got nothing for their efforts.
Ridiculous hyperbole. Likud is not at all a religious party. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are extreme nationalists, but do not seek any form of theocracy either.
Dr_Paprika, I appreciate the New York Times article very much. It seems to at least acknowledge what I have been saying - the legislation isn’t inherently a bad idea, the fierce opposition is based mainly on who it is that’s proposing it. That said, the article also seems to erroneously assert that doing away with the reasonableness clause is the only check on a theoretical legislative majority run amok, which is simply not true. A ruling coalition in a parliamentary system can be brought down by a no-confidence vote. And the Supreme Court can strike down laws on bases other than the too-subjective “reasonableness.”
Plenty of Haredim do serve in the military (granted, not a large percentage, but it’s been growing as the army has adapted to their cultural needs) and they do not (as a class) despise the people doing the fighting, either. They pray for their well-being on a daily basis.
It’s not lost on people at all. In fact, it amuses them how the American left is so strongly behind the current power of the Israeli judiciary while they’re so down on the American one. So yes, it is all about whose ox is being gored, isn’t it?
It’s always been unchecked, but until Aharon Barak invented new judicial standards, the lack of a check was never noticed, or was noticed and didn’t much bother those in charge of the Knesset at the time.
I saw that @Alessan posted elsewhere, so I’ll ping him once more here and then stop harassing him.
Because if he had, the courts would have overruled him.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I don’t believe that Sure, it was a bit of hyperbole. But there’s a lot of undemocratic steps that could be extremely dangerous short of cancelling elections. And one of the things a constitution needs to do is protect the nation and its people from moments in history when emotions make people do stupid things.
I’ll boil it down, and if I’m wrong on any of the particulars I’m open to being corrected:
Do you think it is smart and safe to have a government where a unicameral legislative body can pass any law, with no overriding constitution to formally define limits, and no separate executive branch having veto power, and an ultimate court override by simple majority?
I think that is a very bad idea. As I said, the court probably has too little in guiding principles in place. But this just moves that excessive power from one center to another.
Sorry, I am not impressed by “thoughts and prayers”.
Why are these people allowed to dodge universal military service? Everyone else in Israel has to serve, why not them?
You don’t want a situation where “democracy” is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. That’s where a written constitution with checks and balances, and written rights, can help. Lord know my own nation has had its problems despite having both of those things but history would have been even worse without them.
Why doesn’t Israel have a constitution? What’s the historical reason(s) for that?
I disagree. I believe it’s because he respects democracy, and fights his political battles by the rules. He has always preferred to rule from the center-right rather than far-right, and to nurture the economy by keeping the populace calm and it’s only this current coalition that has pushed the contentious issue of judicial reform to the floor of the Knesset.
Please, present to me any indication whatsoever from his four decades in the public eye that Bibi is a Trump/Erdogan/Orban wannabe.
I do not think it’s smart. I think it would be a more than excellent idea for Israel to have a solid constitution. However, I think that given the choice in front of Israel now (status quo ante vs new just-passed law) centering the power in a body that votes among themselves and is voted on by the public is better than centering it on a body that has neither of those qualities.
My cynical speculation is, then Ben-Gurion would have had to deal with these issues in the 1950s.
By the way, we could also ask why the United Kingdom doesn’t have a constitution (because it is not a republic) and whether or not that is OK…
That explains why he’s a criminal who had to seize control of the courts to stop from being convicted!
So you’re saying that what he’s done in the past is no guide to what he’s doing right now? Because he is quite manifestly not “keeping the populace calm” right now.
cmkeller seems to disagree, but what I’ve read is what I’ve posted upthread: That the very religious see it as an affront to god’s law, as laid out in the Torah. In other words, anything written by man would be an usurpation of what god already wrote.
I’d be very interested if someone could definitively show me that this is correct or incorrect.
Well…it sure seems that he willingly got in bed with the far right to maintain power and then caved into far right demands about the court despite massive protests against that. I am not sure viewing his actions from 30+ years ago make people feel better about his actions now.
Ben-Gvir, a far-right extremist with a record of anti-Arab rhetoric, was long considered an outcast in Israeli politics but was pivotal in Netanyahu’s return to power last November. A coalition of far-right parties, including Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power Party, gave Netanyahu what proved to be the decisive margin. Now, Netanyahu can’t back away from the proposed judicial reforms entirely without risking Ben-Gvir’s critical political support. - SOURCE
Israel on Thursday swore in Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister of the most right-wing and religiously conservative government in the country’s history. - SOURCE
A new government seen as the most right-wing in Israel’s history has been agreed, sealing Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to power.
Mr Netanyahu, who won elections in November, is set to serve an historic sixth term as prime minster.
His coalition contains far-right parties, including one whose leader was once convicted of anti-Arab racism. - SOURCE
Interesting take. Last I checked, he was very much still pending trial on the corruption charges, and one of the three has been revealed to be extremely weak on evidence. But sure, have your narrative.
It’s true, right now the opposition has whipped up some serious civil unrest against him. He clearly did not anticipate just how vocal and disruptive they would be about the judicial reform - many of which points these same opposing politicians agreed to in the past. It’s a problem he’ll need to deal with.
I didn’t disagree with that, I merely disagreed that that sector is capable of blocking a constitution if there was popular will to write one that the non-Haredim would agree upon.
Yes, he did do that. That’s how democracy works in a parliamentary system. In any coalition agreement, parties extract their price from the big party that is tasked with forming a ruling coalition. So?
The protests are from his political opponents, and the losers of the election. They are clearly very vocal and disruptive, but he has the sense that they do not represent the majority of Israeli voters, and he is very likely correct. That said, he did try to sit down with those opponents with Herzog mediating to reach some sort of compromise, but got nowhere.
I think that no matter how much you disagree with the points of view of him or his coalition partners, there is no evidence that ANY of them are seeking power outside the bounds of the established democratic process, and that all the screams of “you’re killing democracy” from the protesters is personal anti-Netanyahu animus and paranoia.
So, I reject your characterization of him as a reasonable man interested in democracy and governing from the center-right. He’s an aging guy (73), a millionaire and had lots of time in the seat of power. He could have just retired with ease. He didn’t choose that to remain the “center-right” guy. He chose power and embraced zealots to keep it.
They did not do this because what they really want is a strong democracy. This is a power grab any way you slice it.
Well, yeah, it wouldn’t do much good to fix the courts after he got convicted, would it?
How could he possibly have anticipated that the people would hate it just as much now as they did in April?
You literally CANNOT have a democracy without having such a situation, or at least the potential for such a situation. If you want a system that is set up in such a way to protect the rule of law, and/or protect minority rights, or anything at all along those lines, that’s fine – and I would agree (at least in principle) with such a system – but that’s NOT democracy at all.
I’m glad to hear that you think you know my home country better than I do, but you might be surprised to learn that I’m going to trust my own experience over whatever nonsense you heard on right wing American media.
If that’s you definition of democracy I’m relieved to live in a nation that doesn’t meet that definition. This link is better at explaining it that I am, and I’ll note that John Adams specifically argued against a unicameral government (like Israel) and that there needed to be check and balances in a multi-branch government to truly protect the rights of all citizens.