I am, in fact assuming that. Rather like I'm assuming that the High Court won't simply invalidate any election that doesn't turn out the way it wants -- after all, who's to stop it? But I don't assume that it'll do that, despite a marked penchant for intervening in government without explicit basis in law. By the same token I don't expec…
I am, in fact assuming that. Rather like I'm assuming that the High Court won't simply invalidate any election that doesn't turn out the way it wants -- after all, who's to stop it? But I don't assume that it'll do that, despite a marked penchant for intervening in government without explicit basis in law.
By the same token I don't expect the Knesset to pass a law installing itself permanently. Had any member of the coalition expressed the intention of doing so -- which is the only thing that would qualify as "explicit" -- I would have to revise my opinion.
Rather than claiming I'm naïve, which of course is possible but difficult to establish, perhaps provide some of the obvious evidence that the coalition intends to the do the things you claim.
I base my concerns on the publicly available evidence of both the moral fibre of the current coalition MKs (which sadly leaves much to be desired) and their ultimate goals in supporting these reforms. Any Israeli not a part of this ruling minority should be concerned. That's not to say that some form of judicial reforms are not advisable - obviously within a proper timeframe and via consensus - but the 61 MK override is an obvious power grab and poses the greatest danger. For the authors of the article to casually dismiss this issue as irrelevant since it will never be passed - contrary to the statements made by both Levin and Rothman - is disingenuous and misleading.
Jews have a history of ignoring danger signs, to our peril. It's not surprising that the bar is perhaps lower than others might be comfortable with.
So nothing explicit, nothing to indicate that the laws have been proposed with the purpose you stated in mind, or even that those are the goals of the coalition.
Also, calling the government a "minority" is just sophistry. It has the majority of seats in the Knesset. If some other coalition had the majority of seats in the Knesset *it* would be the government. The fact that many votes (including mine, as it happens) "didn't count" because those parties didn't pass the threshold doesn't tell us what the government would look like had they been counted, and anyway that's just not the way governments here are formed.
It would be nice if there were wide agreement on how exactly to rein in the Court. It's worth trying to achieve. Still, the government gets to govern and the opposition has a chance to weigh in. Laws aren't made by demonstrators. Were I to point out the laws that were passed by left-wing governments that infuriated and injured significant chunks of the populace and were pushed through without so much as a by-your-leave it wouldn't be to claim that "well, they did it to us so now we can do it to them" (I'm not part of the "us", anyway); it would simply be to show that that's the way the government works. As Yitzhak Rabin said (quoting, I think, Menachem Begin), "A majority of one is still a majority".
You maintain that the override is "an obvious power grab and poses the greatest danger". I don't think so. Neither of us knows, but I'm not telling anyone that the sky is falling, we should trash the economy, shut down the country and invite everyone in the world to twist Israel's arm, as many of the resistance leaders are doing. For that I think you should offer a lot more evidence. Or at least some.
And definitely we have sometimes believed that some bad thing wouldn't happen and then it did. Then again, much more often we believed that some bad thing wouldn't happen and it didn't, so if that's your reasoning, I like our odds.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you are naturally more of an optimist. I am definitely more pessimistic about the often malign influence of human nature.
Nobody is claiming the government is not legitimate. It is disingenuous however to claim they represent majority views on this issue, which is clearly not the case. Is this how the government works? Of course. Do citizens have a right to protest? Yup, at least for now. Does that make them "anarchists" as so many are parroting? (Which is btw pretty rich, coming from the anarchist poster boy Ben Gvir, whose boast just prior to the Rabin assassination is infamous).
I assume you would be as consistent in criticizing all protests that disrupt daily life, including those of the religious right before the Disengagement, disabled protestors and those from the Ethiopian community. The fact that the current protests are more disruptive because so many participate is not a legitimate reason to dismiss them.
As to the economic fallout: financial experts and economists are generally intellectually capable, risk-averse, and are fully within their rights to analyze the situation and respond appropriately. The responsibility for that worrying trend is squarely on the government for progressing in such a reckless manner, not on the opposition.
In my experience, everybody thinks he's a realist.
Still, there's actual evidence that people on opposite sides of the political divide have opinions about the malevolence of their opponents that are simply wrong. Not by a little, by a lot. So between us, I think I've got a more solid foundation for not assuming that either side will destroy the country, given the opportunity.
My point wasn't that the government represents the majority opinion on judicial reform. It's that it doesn't matter. We don't know what the majority opinion is and if we did it has no operative value. Anyway, I don't believe I referred to anyone as anarchists, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
But since you brought the assassination into this, I'm curious: With famous generals on the left saying that Netanyahu "deserves to be executed" or is a "rodef" and others calling for civil war, were someone to -- Heaven forbid -- shoot Netanyahu, what would the protestors say? I mean, the Oslo protestors could at least say they never thought such a thing could happen because it never had, but we're past that now.
You assume correctly, I have consistently been against that sort of civil disobedience. And the fact that the current protests have been more disruptive is also because the police have allowed it and the Court has allowed it. In the run-up to the disengagement the police took blatantly illegal measures both to prevent demonstrations and to punish demonstrators, and the Court refused to intervene.
As Haim Navon pointed out in a post today, when a high-tech tycoon withdraws his company's account from Israel as an act of protest, that's not risk-analysis, that's someone using his power to twist the country's arm, likely hurting poorer people in the process. I won't go into the demonstrable problems with assuming that any group of people is making a decision because they're all "intellectually capable [and] risk averse", but I'll point out that there's zero reason to believe that if these laws go through Israel will suddenly start nationalizing industries or stop enforcing contracts, which are the kinds of things financial risk analysts care about.
Again, you have the right to your opinion, and I to mine. Personally I think history teaches us to take things at face value. I'm sure all those optimists who thought Russia would never invade Ukraine at the behest of a single individual are rethinking their philosophy. And of course, there are 1930s Germany's Jews. Again, that's a personal opinion, but I would definitely disagree that yours is based on a more "solid foundation". But we can leave it at that.
The very same man who boasted about getting to Rabin just before his assassination is now a powerful minister with control over public security. Legality aside there is something fundamentally and morally wrong with that. I am sure the relevant individuals have round the clock security, but frankly I have been surprised at the relative lack of violence and blocking of streets, given the overwhelming numbers participating. When dozens of disabled protestors blocked highways during near-daily protests in 2018 the disruptions were substantial.
There has been overwhelming opposition -according to numerous polls, 3/4 of the population - to the speed and scale of the proposed reforms. For the government to ignore the fact that the majority wants reforms via dialogue, consensus, and a broad coalition is reckless and self-serving, and only serves to illustrate that they don't have the people's best interests in mind, but rather are racing towards a deadline for their own narrow interests.
My brother is an international financial expert with 30 years experience and - along with practically every other professional in the field - disagrees with the cavalier approach to the potential economic dangers of an uber-powerful ultra-right government with no judiciary brakes. Of course one can always find a few who agree with you, but it seems there are not too many of those.
The solid foundation is the evidence that people's demonization of their political opponents is off the mark in measurable ways. I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical of those studies like I'm skeptical of all studies, but their plausible and they match our overall observations pretty well.
Opinion polls, on the other hand, are generally held to be worthless except when repeated and aggregated over time, to show trends. And that's when they're done well.
"Uber-powerful" and "ultra-right" aren't actually things. I'm sure your brother is very good at what he does, but really that just enables him to make a plausible-sounding case for what he believes -- it's doesn't help one get at the truth unless the truth is what one is looking for. Maybe he is, but that'd be a rarity.
I'm sure I could find studies that demonstrate the tendency of human nature to double down when faced with uncomfortable truths rather than admit one has backed the wrong side. Explaining away numerous poll results and invalidating the concerns of countless professionals are yet more examples of this phenomenon. However as I said previously, that's your prerogative.
Anyway this has been an educational exchange for me. It has been refreshing to discuss alternate viewpoints in a respectful manner.
Oh, and since you asked.... I just remembered one concrete example of a law that Shas introduced and quickly withdrew, obviously waiting for a more auspicious time when the judiciary can no longer interfere: they attempted to criminalize (with heavy fines and jail time) 'immodest dress' for women and any mixed prayer services throughout the entire Western Wall complex, whereas the status quo is coverup before entering the actual prayer area and egalitarian prayer at the separate southern section, with free movement throughout the main plaza. Considering the majority of world Jewry - and indeed the Israeli population - is not Orthodox, this would definitely qualify as religious coercion. There is a fine line between expecting respect for a particular site of worship and inappropriately oppressive rules related solely to the desire to impose one set of standards over others. Many justly see this episode as the 'canary in the coal mine'.
As I heard it, Shas never even formally proposed it. They can propose it anytime, but there's no reason to think it'll pass, and if it passes it's not certain to be struck down by the Court, and if it's struck down by the Court it's not certain that Shas can drag the whole coalition into overriding that. And if all that happens, it's still not the end of democracy.
I don't think it serves your cause to bring up religious coercion, given that the Court has ruled against Haredim having separate seating at a concert in a public park (for which they had a permit), even though all those attending wanted it. Likewise it ruled against separate university classes for Haredi men and women (which, considering the complaints about Haredim not contributing to the economy, seems particularly egregious). So who is actually imposing their standards on others?
Obviously there were complaints about those issues, or they would not have been brought to court. Public funds - which are derived mainly from the non-charedi portion of the community - should not be used at a segregated event. I'm just curious, was an option for 3 sections - men, women and mixed - offered as an alternative? I'm not familiar with the classroom case and wonder if female teachers were forbidden to teach male students. We live in Beit Shemesh in a religious Zionist Anglo community and are personally aware of the harassment of those outside the charedi community. Respect and compromise are alien concepts to certain segments of the charedi population, that is just a fact of life here. The level of corruption and intolerance we have witnessed amongst the charedi leadership does not engender confidence in their ability to compromise on issues crucial to the non-religious majority once given the power. Just because something has not been done before does not mean that - given the opportunity - it will not be done in the future.
Of course public funds are used for segregated events, and why shouldn't they? In any case, if I recall correctly there was no demand for a third section because there was no actual complainant who wanted to attend the event and sit next to someone of the opposite sex. This is a perfect example of what happens when the Court drops the traditional requirement for "standing": Anybody can sue the government because he doesn't like what it's doing, regardless of whether he's being harmed.
BTW, last week the TA city council forbid Haredim from having their 𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘢 because it was segregated.
None of this has to do with harassment, unless we're talking about the Court and the City Council harassing the Haredim.
Your lack of confidence in the Haredim manifests itself in your voting for someone else, as it should. Outside of that, it doesn't have any privileged position in Israeli law.
Your last statement is curious. Not only can things happen that haven't happened before, I'm willing to guarantee that things will happen that haven't happened before. I just don't which things or when, and neither do you. My whole contention is that there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny. I don't have to explain why I'm not shouting to the whole world that it should strongarm the elected government into compliance with the wishes of the opposition, or promoting an economic collapse. People who are doing that should have really solid reasons, and they don't.
Perhaps that is a good example of SC overreach, which can then be discussed during negotiations. As to whether a publicly funded event (versus private) can be gender-segregated - well that's a slippery slope and another discussion entirely.
Your contention that "there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny" is your opinion and obviously not one shared by the majority of citizens. As you have no worries you are welcome to keep your money invested within the country, just as those concerned about the future of civil liberties are well within their rights to withdraw their funds.
We've played this out, but I'll just mention in closing that you keep referring to rights as if someone's arguing for freezing people's accounts (as was actually done before the Likud came to power) or shutting them up. We've been talking about what people should do, not what they can do. Oh, and I seriously doubt that many of the people who are sure we're headed for tyranny are actually taking their money out of the country or buying gold and stocking their bomb shelters, as one would expect if they believed their own posters.
I am, in fact assuming that. Rather like I'm assuming that the High Court won't simply invalidate any election that doesn't turn out the way it wants -- after all, who's to stop it? But I don't assume that it'll do that, despite a marked penchant for intervening in government without explicit basis in law.
By the same token I don't expect the Knesset to pass a law installing itself permanently. Had any member of the coalition expressed the intention of doing so -- which is the only thing that would qualify as "explicit" -- I would have to revise my opinion.
Rather than claiming I'm naïve, which of course is possible but difficult to establish, perhaps provide some of the obvious evidence that the coalition intends to the do the things you claim.
I base my concerns on the publicly available evidence of both the moral fibre of the current coalition MKs (which sadly leaves much to be desired) and their ultimate goals in supporting these reforms. Any Israeli not a part of this ruling minority should be concerned. That's not to say that some form of judicial reforms are not advisable - obviously within a proper timeframe and via consensus - but the 61 MK override is an obvious power grab and poses the greatest danger. For the authors of the article to casually dismiss this issue as irrelevant since it will never be passed - contrary to the statements made by both Levin and Rothman - is disingenuous and misleading.
Jews have a history of ignoring danger signs, to our peril. It's not surprising that the bar is perhaps lower than others might be comfortable with.
So nothing explicit, nothing to indicate that the laws have been proposed with the purpose you stated in mind, or even that those are the goals of the coalition.
Also, calling the government a "minority" is just sophistry. It has the majority of seats in the Knesset. If some other coalition had the majority of seats in the Knesset *it* would be the government. The fact that many votes (including mine, as it happens) "didn't count" because those parties didn't pass the threshold doesn't tell us what the government would look like had they been counted, and anyway that's just not the way governments here are formed.
It would be nice if there were wide agreement on how exactly to rein in the Court. It's worth trying to achieve. Still, the government gets to govern and the opposition has a chance to weigh in. Laws aren't made by demonstrators. Were I to point out the laws that were passed by left-wing governments that infuriated and injured significant chunks of the populace and were pushed through without so much as a by-your-leave it wouldn't be to claim that "well, they did it to us so now we can do it to them" (I'm not part of the "us", anyway); it would simply be to show that that's the way the government works. As Yitzhak Rabin said (quoting, I think, Menachem Begin), "A majority of one is still a majority".
You maintain that the override is "an obvious power grab and poses the greatest danger". I don't think so. Neither of us knows, but I'm not telling anyone that the sky is falling, we should trash the economy, shut down the country and invite everyone in the world to twist Israel's arm, as many of the resistance leaders are doing. For that I think you should offer a lot more evidence. Or at least some.
And definitely we have sometimes believed that some bad thing wouldn't happen and then it did. Then again, much more often we believed that some bad thing wouldn't happen and it didn't, so if that's your reasoning, I like our odds.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you are naturally more of an optimist. I am definitely more pessimistic about the often malign influence of human nature.
Nobody is claiming the government is not legitimate. It is disingenuous however to claim they represent majority views on this issue, which is clearly not the case. Is this how the government works? Of course. Do citizens have a right to protest? Yup, at least for now. Does that make them "anarchists" as so many are parroting? (Which is btw pretty rich, coming from the anarchist poster boy Ben Gvir, whose boast just prior to the Rabin assassination is infamous).
I assume you would be as consistent in criticizing all protests that disrupt daily life, including those of the religious right before the Disengagement, disabled protestors and those from the Ethiopian community. The fact that the current protests are more disruptive because so many participate is not a legitimate reason to dismiss them.
As to the economic fallout: financial experts and economists are generally intellectually capable, risk-averse, and are fully within their rights to analyze the situation and respond appropriately. The responsibility for that worrying trend is squarely on the government for progressing in such a reckless manner, not on the opposition.
In my experience, everybody thinks he's a realist.
Still, there's actual evidence that people on opposite sides of the political divide have opinions about the malevolence of their opponents that are simply wrong. Not by a little, by a lot. So between us, I think I've got a more solid foundation for not assuming that either side will destroy the country, given the opportunity.
My point wasn't that the government represents the majority opinion on judicial reform. It's that it doesn't matter. We don't know what the majority opinion is and if we did it has no operative value. Anyway, I don't believe I referred to anyone as anarchists, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
But since you brought the assassination into this, I'm curious: With famous generals on the left saying that Netanyahu "deserves to be executed" or is a "rodef" and others calling for civil war, were someone to -- Heaven forbid -- shoot Netanyahu, what would the protestors say? I mean, the Oslo protestors could at least say they never thought such a thing could happen because it never had, but we're past that now.
You assume correctly, I have consistently been against that sort of civil disobedience. And the fact that the current protests have been more disruptive is also because the police have allowed it and the Court has allowed it. In the run-up to the disengagement the police took blatantly illegal measures both to prevent demonstrations and to punish demonstrators, and the Court refused to intervene.
As Haim Navon pointed out in a post today, when a high-tech tycoon withdraws his company's account from Israel as an act of protest, that's not risk-analysis, that's someone using his power to twist the country's arm, likely hurting poorer people in the process. I won't go into the demonstrable problems with assuming that any group of people is making a decision because they're all "intellectually capable [and] risk averse", but I'll point out that there's zero reason to believe that if these laws go through Israel will suddenly start nationalizing industries or stop enforcing contracts, which are the kinds of things financial risk analysts care about.
Again, you have the right to your opinion, and I to mine. Personally I think history teaches us to take things at face value. I'm sure all those optimists who thought Russia would never invade Ukraine at the behest of a single individual are rethinking their philosophy. And of course, there are 1930s Germany's Jews. Again, that's a personal opinion, but I would definitely disagree that yours is based on a more "solid foundation". But we can leave it at that.
The very same man who boasted about getting to Rabin just before his assassination is now a powerful minister with control over public security. Legality aside there is something fundamentally and morally wrong with that. I am sure the relevant individuals have round the clock security, but frankly I have been surprised at the relative lack of violence and blocking of streets, given the overwhelming numbers participating. When dozens of disabled protestors blocked highways during near-daily protests in 2018 the disruptions were substantial.
There has been overwhelming opposition -according to numerous polls, 3/4 of the population - to the speed and scale of the proposed reforms. For the government to ignore the fact that the majority wants reforms via dialogue, consensus, and a broad coalition is reckless and self-serving, and only serves to illustrate that they don't have the people's best interests in mind, but rather are racing towards a deadline for their own narrow interests.
My brother is an international financial expert with 30 years experience and - along with practically every other professional in the field - disagrees with the cavalier approach to the potential economic dangers of an uber-powerful ultra-right government with no judiciary brakes. Of course one can always find a few who agree with you, but it seems there are not too many of those.
The solid foundation is the evidence that people's demonization of their political opponents is off the mark in measurable ways. I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical of those studies like I'm skeptical of all studies, but their plausible and they match our overall observations pretty well.
Opinion polls, on the other hand, are generally held to be worthless except when repeated and aggregated over time, to show trends. And that's when they're done well.
"Uber-powerful" and "ultra-right" aren't actually things. I'm sure your brother is very good at what he does, but really that just enables him to make a plausible-sounding case for what he believes -- it's doesn't help one get at the truth unless the truth is what one is looking for. Maybe he is, but that'd be a rarity.
I'm sure I could find studies that demonstrate the tendency of human nature to double down when faced with uncomfortable truths rather than admit one has backed the wrong side. Explaining away numerous poll results and invalidating the concerns of countless professionals are yet more examples of this phenomenon. However as I said previously, that's your prerogative.
Anyway this has been an educational exchange for me. It has been refreshing to discuss alternate viewpoints in a respectful manner.
Oh, and since you asked.... I just remembered one concrete example of a law that Shas introduced and quickly withdrew, obviously waiting for a more auspicious time when the judiciary can no longer interfere: they attempted to criminalize (with heavy fines and jail time) 'immodest dress' for women and any mixed prayer services throughout the entire Western Wall complex, whereas the status quo is coverup before entering the actual prayer area and egalitarian prayer at the separate southern section, with free movement throughout the main plaza. Considering the majority of world Jewry - and indeed the Israeli population - is not Orthodox, this would definitely qualify as religious coercion. There is a fine line between expecting respect for a particular site of worship and inappropriately oppressive rules related solely to the desire to impose one set of standards over others. Many justly see this episode as the 'canary in the coal mine'.
As I heard it, Shas never even formally proposed it. They can propose it anytime, but there's no reason to think it'll pass, and if it passes it's not certain to be struck down by the Court, and if it's struck down by the Court it's not certain that Shas can drag the whole coalition into overriding that. And if all that happens, it's still not the end of democracy.
I don't think it serves your cause to bring up religious coercion, given that the Court has ruled against Haredim having separate seating at a concert in a public park (for which they had a permit), even though all those attending wanted it. Likewise it ruled against separate university classes for Haredi men and women (which, considering the complaints about Haredim not contributing to the economy, seems particularly egregious). So who is actually imposing their standards on others?
Obviously there were complaints about those issues, or they would not have been brought to court. Public funds - which are derived mainly from the non-charedi portion of the community - should not be used at a segregated event. I'm just curious, was an option for 3 sections - men, women and mixed - offered as an alternative? I'm not familiar with the classroom case and wonder if female teachers were forbidden to teach male students. We live in Beit Shemesh in a religious Zionist Anglo community and are personally aware of the harassment of those outside the charedi community. Respect and compromise are alien concepts to certain segments of the charedi population, that is just a fact of life here. The level of corruption and intolerance we have witnessed amongst the charedi leadership does not engender confidence in their ability to compromise on issues crucial to the non-religious majority once given the power. Just because something has not been done before does not mean that - given the opportunity - it will not be done in the future.
Of course public funds are used for segregated events, and why shouldn't they? In any case, if I recall correctly there was no demand for a third section because there was no actual complainant who wanted to attend the event and sit next to someone of the opposite sex. This is a perfect example of what happens when the Court drops the traditional requirement for "standing": Anybody can sue the government because he doesn't like what it's doing, regardless of whether he's being harmed.
BTW, last week the TA city council forbid Haredim from having their 𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘢 because it was segregated.
None of this has to do with harassment, unless we're talking about the Court and the City Council harassing the Haredim.
Your lack of confidence in the Haredim manifests itself in your voting for someone else, as it should. Outside of that, it doesn't have any privileged position in Israeli law.
Your last statement is curious. Not only can things happen that haven't happened before, I'm willing to guarantee that things will happen that haven't happened before. I just don't which things or when, and neither do you. My whole contention is that there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny. I don't have to explain why I'm not shouting to the whole world that it should strongarm the elected government into compliance with the wishes of the opposition, or promoting an economic collapse. People who are doing that should have really solid reasons, and they don't.
Perhaps that is a good example of SC overreach, which can then be discussed during negotiations. As to whether a publicly funded event (versus private) can be gender-segregated - well that's a slippery slope and another discussion entirely.
Your contention that "there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny" is your opinion and obviously not one shared by the majority of citizens. As you have no worries you are welcome to keep your money invested within the country, just as those concerned about the future of civil liberties are well within their rights to withdraw their funds.
We've played this out, but I'll just mention in closing that you keep referring to rights as if someone's arguing for freezing people's accounts (as was actually done before the Likud came to power) or shutting them up. We've been talking about what people should do, not what they can do. Oh, and I seriously doubt that many of the people who are sure we're headed for tyranny are actually taking their money out of the country or buying gold and stocking their bomb shelters, as one would expect if they believed their own posters.