6 ms·
Israeli parliament passes law to limit judicial power
- potatototoo99 3y agoIf Israel is to remain a Jewish ethnostate, it must not be a full democracy. It's a simple demographic fact.
- pliny 3y agoThis law was passed specifically to allow Aryeh Dery to ignore the terms of his plea agreement and serve as a minister. It's not related to the Jewish-Arab demographic balance (which, within the 67 borders, is about 85-15).
- tootie 3y agoThat's technically true but also myopic. This was an explicit step to weaken the judiciary, strengthen the hard right and also indicted PM. This move is not explicitly anti-arab but it greatly empowers anti-arab leaders at the expense of democratic fairness. And rather severely at that. This was a canary. The next bill be worse and the one after worse again because they know they can't be stopped.
- thazework 3y agoAs the current government is making abundantly clear, 67 borders are irrelevant. There are roughly the same number of Jewish and Arab people within the territory Israel controls.
- adrian_b 3y agoIn the past the Israeli justice has been reasonably independent of the government, as can be seen from this long list where Aryeh Dery figures prominently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_public_officials_convicted_of_crimes_or_misdemeanors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_public_officia... Even if the law passed now might have only the tactical goal of promoting Aryeh Dery once more, it certainly will allow the government to do unsanctioned in the future other things that could be much more harmful.
- paulusthe 3y agoThis law is intended to prevent the judiciary from finding settlements unreasonable. Aryeh Dery is the cover story.
- invalidname 3y agoExactly. The right wingers plan to annex the territories without giving the Palestinians citizenship. It was literally in their election platform!
- paulusthe 3y agoOP was being disingenuous at best, as if the country could be brought to a standstill over a minor legislative change to allow one guy into Parliament
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoIsn't the entire point of Israel to remain a Jewish ethnostate? I'm not sure, but something happened a few decades ago that really soured them on the idea of not being in absolute control of the government of the state in which they reside. Sort of unreasonable, really. I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than gracious if they ever achieved significant power.
- throwboatyface 3y agoIt's wild that a two-state solution was widely accepted 30 years ago, and now the Overton window has moved so much that Israel occupying the entirety of Palestine and killing or displacing all the Arab population is no big deal. I sympathize with the desire for a Jewish state but the United States has supported them to the hilt in human rights abuses, war crimes and expansionism that aren't related to that goal.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoUS support was always predicated on "they're on our side against the Soviets, and their enemies are definitely siding with them". Even then, it was always strained (they painted over their plane's markings and bombed one of our ships, ffs). Ignoring the recent shenanigans, the Russians are a non-issue and the Israelis aren't much helping with that anyway. I have no idea why support continues. It's difficult to formulate an explanation that doesn't come off as whackjob conspiracy-theorist. As for a "two-state solution"... it was never much of a solution for the Israelis. The other state soon outnumbers them, and they're right back to where they were in the 1960s, but with fewer options and less advantage. Same but for details with a one-state solution. If they ever pretended to accept the two-state solution, it was only to string things along as much as possible. I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it was genuine.
- techdmn 3y agoWas that something living in a state that decided it should be a different kind of ethnostate? This might be a controversial take, but I think ethnostates in general lead to poor outcomes.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoIsrael is no ethnostate. It is ridiculous to assume that to be the case even with the context of the Jewish religion. It probably is less ethnically lopsided than the vast majority of other countries.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- afavour 3y agoI have no dog in this fight but the precise breakdown of population doesn’t decide an enthnostate. It’s about who does and does not have power and what they do with it. Take the “nation-state” law passed in 2018: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-n... > The law does three big things: > It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.” > It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.” > It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.” I don’t know enough to know the precise qualification for an ethnostate vs not but that first item clearly indicates that Israel is at minimum a country legally stratified by ethnicity.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoThere has never been a "full democracy". Democracy means rule by the people. Every democracy that has existed has been some kind of representative sample filtered through a select group. That select group does the work of making biased or prejudicial decisions, as they have the powers of rhetoric and overriding the rabble. The judicial section of a democracy has traditionally been limited as well (if it wasn't, there'd be no point to a legislative branch)
- Youden 3y agoThoughts on Switzerland? The representatives + public initiative/referendum system seems like a "full demoracy", or as close as is practically possible.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoI don't disagree, but I don't understand how this contradicts grandparent poster's point. While it's not always the rule, people usually vote for those representatives that they believe will more likely make decisions aligned with their preferences.
- fortzi 3y agoOnce they've voted for whomever made the best election campaign, can now do as they please, sans checks and balances that exist in a modern democratic country. Once this government has been established, they started pushing their reform, which has caused many to switch sides. Recent polls show that the coalition wouldn't win an election, if it would be held today. What do you say to the now majority of the people that don't approve of the government's actions? too bad that you made that mistake of trusting those guys? In a truly democratic country, the elected government should have power, but it must be held in check by powerful institutions like the supreme court.
- jessepasley 3y agoWhy should it remain a Jewish ethonostate? Countries and cultures change. They should embrace diversity and reap the benefits. They should follow Europe's lead.
- nashashmi 3y agoAnd why should they follow anyone's lead? They are not Europe. Why should they embrace diversity? Diversity has a separate set of problems still being dealt with. They were founded on a jewish identity. Changing is not a possibility. Too many wars and conflicts have baked them to remain an ethnostate.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoBecause that's what the voters voted for?
- poisonarena 3y agoeurope seems far worse off.. what are the benefits to be reaped?
- AzzieElbab 3y agoI am unsure about the goals, but this is what the rule by the seld-elected judiciary was. When Israel's courts aligned themselves too far to the left and along the racial divide, they became incompatible with Israel's current demographics and majority-elected government. The catch is, the Israeli right wing may swing too far just as well.
- adamc 3y agoDisasterous.
- nashashmi 3y ago> The court is now barred from overruling the national government using the legal standard of “reasonableness,” a concept that judges previously used to block ministerial appointments and contest planning decisions, among other government measures. So which court and check and balance would oversee something like this? Edit: Looks like they can still overrule laws and regulations but just can't use "reasonableness" to overrule. I agree this gave the courts unlimited power.
- invalidname 3y agoNone. The ruling party will have no oversight with any power.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoIt's a slow slide into an authoritarian state, which will accelerate as power is consolidated. Similar to what the Republican party is trying to achieve, but by stacking the Supreme court (done), having them rubber stamp vastly increased presidential powers and locking up the presidency though gerrymandering (partially done).
- maratc 3y agoStacking the Supreme court with likely-minded people is not limited to any party, and has indeed been used by both. I think this is a feature, not a bug, and it's there by design.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoThe difference that the justices they put on the bench are pretty extreme. Witness the reversal of several important decisions, like Roe vs Wade, something the court has historically been loathed to do. Or the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, usurping the intentions of Congress. They're systematically rewriting the law because they know they have a durable majority and that Congress and voters have no recourse.
- cs702 3y agoThe best take I've read on the situation in Israel was written by Yuval Noah Harari, author of "Sapiens"[a], for the Financial Times[b]: "To understand events in Israel, there is just one question to ask: what limits the power of the government? Robust democracies rely on a whole system of checks and balances. But Israel lacks a constitution, an upper house in the parliament, a federal structure or any other check on government power except one — the Supreme Court. This Monday, the Netanyahu government plans to pass the first in a series of laws that will neutralise the Supreme Court. If it succeeds, it will gain unlimited power. Members of the Netanyahu coalition have already disclosed their intention to pass laws and pursue policies that will discriminate against Arab people, women, LGBTQ people and secular people. Once the Supreme Court is out of the way, nothing will remain to stop them. In such a situation, the government could also rig future elections, for example by banning Arab parties from participating — a step previously proposed by coalition members." A government whose power is not limited by checks and balances is called an authoritarian government. Sigh. --- [a] https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095 https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/d... [b] https://www.ft.com/content/b027a525-05b1-45fc-a2c2-f131d341bc6b https://www.ft.com/content/b027a525-05b1-45fc-a2c2-f131d341b...
- mamonster 3y agoIt's a horrible take because it suggests that parliamentary sovereignty is authoritarian in nature, which is actually bonkers to hear. As expected, he mentions only what the court could do, but doesn't mention what the court has already done(starting with Barak in the 90s) in terms of shaping the country. The reality is that Harari and secular Jews realize that over the next 50 years they are toast in democratic elections due to simple demographics. They need to figure out ways to protect things which they care about, and the Supreme Court is how they do this.
- thazework 3y agoYou substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government. Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power. Yes secular Israelis could very well be toast if trends continue. What exactly do you think will be the fate of the messianic elements in that scenerio? On that note, happy tisha beav.
- invalidname 3y agoIsraeli here so this is my interpretation which is radically different to whatever you will read anywhere else. Bear with me. Israel occupied territories as part of a war in 67 from Jordan. It wanted parts of that land which made sense as it was a very thin border so the liberal party started settling there. However, Israel never annexed those areas and kept them occupied. Why? Because then the millions of Palestinians living there would get Israeli citizenship and voting rights. This is good and bad. It's good because "supposedly" Israel will give them independence one day. It's bad because it's really a dirty trick. Israel used Jewish settlements where the settlers did have citizenship to slowly grab lands while keeping the Palestinians under marshal law. Yes, there are nuances but that's the gist, 3 million people under marshal law yet Israel still calls itself a democracy. How come? The supreme court which is supposedly independent and a very strong human rights law. But both were used as a mask to whitewash the fact that it's been decades with no progress... The right wing wants to annex these areas. This would be legal. But it doesn't want to give the Palestinians Israeli citizenship, that would be VERY illegal and is considered insane. Even the problematic supreme court that we have wouldn't let that happen. That's why they need to destroy it. In the meantime, our prime minister (AKA crime minister) is pretty corrupt. Not an unusual sight around here. He's on trial but refuses to abdicate, his solution is to burn the courts to the ground so he doesn't go to jail. They are doing this one piece at a time so people don't see what they're doing, but effectively they're removing the power of the courts and they plan to install their own judges. Effectively eliminating any oversight since we have only one house of parliament.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoBut what dynamics/motivations make many Israelis support Netanyahu and this judicial overhaul? With Trump, I noticed the perspective of international observers was very different than mine on the ground in Florida/Texas. The legitimate grievances that blossomed into the craziness, and decades of partisan priming, weren't really acknowledged. Now I feel like I'm on the other end. This judicial thing seems like a crazy change for Israelis to support, but maybe it makes some sense from the inside.
- invalidname 3y ago
- hxii 3y agoWell, shit. Time to look for an escape window faster. I’m suspecting that religion will soon encroach upon whatever is left of the secular Israel.
- nashashmi 3y agoIsrael is a self proclaimed Jewish state. What leads people to think it maintains secularism?
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoBeyond Israel specifically, it feels like religion (in the context of governance) is a boat anchor that fights against the successful, doing well, tolerant, permissive parts of society. It constantly is a source of decoupled, easy-to-antagonize/coerce, simple popularism, that often acts against it's own & the broader self-interest. I'd just love to see a religious state that can act liberally & broadly.
- mmmmmmtoes 3y ago[dead]
- jgb1984 3y agojewish state, islamic state. They have more in common than you would think. Religion poisons everything.
- nashashmi 3y ago> Religion poisons everything. Did you know that the fundamental building blocks of humanity came from religion? For example, let's start with "law".
- ldehaan 3y ago[dead]
- yehosef 3y agoThe real interesting part is when happens the supreme court rules this new law "unreasonable".