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 des…
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.
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.