The details of the proposed legislation (like the override clause) would be subject to negotiation if the Opposition would show up where discussions are supposed to take place, namely, in the Knesset building. Instead they have chosen to boycott the proceedings, sow hysteria, and take to the streets. The reason for this is that the refor…
The details of the proposed legislation (like the override clause) would be subject to negotiation if the Opposition would show up where discussions are supposed to take place, namely, in the Knesset building. Instead they have chosen to boycott the proceedings, sow hysteria, and take to the streets. The reason for this is that the reforms would correct the most frustrating aspect of Israeli democracy -- that the Right continually wins elections but the Left keeps ruling, via the supreme and constantly exercised authority of the High Court. The Court has been the self-perpetuating "home court" of the Left for decades, where everybody has standing and every Government decision is disputed.
This is far more than a "left/right" issue, although it is understandable that many Americans view the situation through that prism. I have calculated roughly 1/3 of those who oppose these reforms are fully "right-wing", with the rest identifying as centrist and a smaller percentage fully left-wing (the Arab communities who constitute 20% of the population are definitely between a rock and a hard place and have been wisely staying out of the fray, although it's safe to assume they oppose the reforms since their civil rights would be in jeopardy). There has been no true left-wing in Israel since the Second Intifada traumatized a generation and the "Peace Camp" disintegrated; Noa Tishby discusses this phenomenon at length in her excellent book, which I highly recommend. And yes, today for the first time both she and Miriam Adelson - staunch right-wing supporters - publicly criticized the government and called for compromise.
As you say, using the term Left to be synonymous with the old "Peace Camp" is indeed out of date. On the other hand, Left/Right in Israel does cover alignments of opinion across a wide range of issues, and is reflected in the coalitions that form (or fail to form) after elections. And in Supreme Court decisions. In any case, I agree that the camps formed around this issue have blurred boundaries.
There is a small but growing right-wing protest movement whose members support reforms through dialogue and consensus. They are unhappy with the framing of the issue as a fundamental left vs right clash. One of the organizers insightfully pointed out this schism can be traced partly to years of incitement from Netanyahu referring to any opponents as leftists and traitors. I can tell you from personal experience that "smolanit" (or leftist) is a preferred insult amongst the younger demographic. Unfortunately it is a universal human tendency to gravitate towards charismatic populist demagogues rather than the quieter, more thoughtful and collaborative, less bombastic leaders.
The coalition came in and said: we're passing this judicial reform before the Passover break and we're not making any changes. Levin was clear on that from day 1. What should the opposition do in that case? Why is the coalition even proposing the override clause?
Every part of the proposed reform is intended to redress a critical issue, including the override. Back in 2003 a public committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge considered how to mainstream Haredi youth into the job market. It came to the conclusion that Israeli society would be better off letting haredi youth work than refusing to let them work unless they go to the army first. That report became a law, approved by the Knesset 56-41.
I hate that decision and that law. I think it's wrong and wrong-headed. But the Knesset thought it was a better solution than doing nothing. The Supreme Court disagreed and, using incredible (non-credible) legal calisthenics, struck down the law on the grounds that it violated the "human dignity" of draftees. And here we are, twenty years later, with no solution.
The override clause is a 5th-rate solution to the court's inability to recognize that messy political compromises are nevertheless a better solution to messy social problems than purism dispensed by a bench of philosopher-kings. The clause is truly dangerous. We have to hope that at some point we can convince haredim that judicial appointments by the majority + the need for a supermajority to strike down laws are sufficient to create a court willing to acknowledge that Knesset's authority to legislate.
As soon as the President announced he was willing to broker a compromise the coalition indicated it was willing, and in fact negotiations have been going on non-stop. Read the news.
The details of the proposed legislation (like the override clause) would be subject to negotiation if the Opposition would show up where discussions are supposed to take place, namely, in the Knesset building. Instead they have chosen to boycott the proceedings, sow hysteria, and take to the streets. The reason for this is that the reforms would correct the most frustrating aspect of Israeli democracy -- that the Right continually wins elections but the Left keeps ruling, via the supreme and constantly exercised authority of the High Court. The Court has been the self-perpetuating "home court" of the Left for decades, where everybody has standing and every Government decision is disputed.
This is far more than a "left/right" issue, although it is understandable that many Americans view the situation through that prism. I have calculated roughly 1/3 of those who oppose these reforms are fully "right-wing", with the rest identifying as centrist and a smaller percentage fully left-wing (the Arab communities who constitute 20% of the population are definitely between a rock and a hard place and have been wisely staying out of the fray, although it's safe to assume they oppose the reforms since their civil rights would be in jeopardy). There has been no true left-wing in Israel since the Second Intifada traumatized a generation and the "Peace Camp" disintegrated; Noa Tishby discusses this phenomenon at length in her excellent book, which I highly recommend. And yes, today for the first time both she and Miriam Adelson - staunch right-wing supporters - publicly criticized the government and called for compromise.
As you say, using the term Left to be synonymous with the old "Peace Camp" is indeed out of date. On the other hand, Left/Right in Israel does cover alignments of opinion across a wide range of issues, and is reflected in the coalitions that form (or fail to form) after elections. And in Supreme Court decisions. In any case, I agree that the camps formed around this issue have blurred boundaries.
There is a small but growing right-wing protest movement whose members support reforms through dialogue and consensus. They are unhappy with the framing of the issue as a fundamental left vs right clash. One of the organizers insightfully pointed out this schism can be traced partly to years of incitement from Netanyahu referring to any opponents as leftists and traitors. I can tell you from personal experience that "smolanit" (or leftist) is a preferred insult amongst the younger demographic. Unfortunately it is a universal human tendency to gravitate towards charismatic populist demagogues rather than the quieter, more thoughtful and collaborative, less bombastic leaders.
The coalition came in and said: we're passing this judicial reform before the Passover break and we're not making any changes. Levin was clear on that from day 1. What should the opposition do in that case? Why is the coalition even proposing the override clause?
Every part of the proposed reform is intended to redress a critical issue, including the override. Back in 2003 a public committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge considered how to mainstream Haredi youth into the job market. It came to the conclusion that Israeli society would be better off letting haredi youth work than refusing to let them work unless they go to the army first. That report became a law, approved by the Knesset 56-41.
I hate that decision and that law. I think it's wrong and wrong-headed. But the Knesset thought it was a better solution than doing nothing. The Supreme Court disagreed and, using incredible (non-credible) legal calisthenics, struck down the law on the grounds that it violated the "human dignity" of draftees. And here we are, twenty years later, with no solution.
The override clause is a 5th-rate solution to the court's inability to recognize that messy political compromises are nevertheless a better solution to messy social problems than purism dispensed by a bench of philosopher-kings. The clause is truly dangerous. We have to hope that at some point we can convince haredim that judicial appointments by the majority + the need for a supermajority to strike down laws are sufficient to create a court willing to acknowledge that Knesset's authority to legislate.
As soon as the President announced he was willing to broker a compromise the coalition indicated it was willing, and in fact negotiations have been going on non-stop. Read the news.