5 ms·

The 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

by cs702 3y ago

The 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 ago
It'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 ago
  You 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.
  - mamonster 3y ago
    I didn't substitute anything. The reality of the situation (which Harari forgets to mention anywhere) is that these things he is so scared of have ( or will have ) majority or supermajority support in the near future. Talking about authoritarianism in Israel is useless as it suggests that there is something related to Russia or China or Cuba or Iran, but the reality is that the elections are pretty free, there is no rigging and it is simply people voting for programs they want. I am sympathetic to secular Israelis(they are the economically productive element of the country) but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
    - brucethemoose2 3y ago
      > reality is that the elections are pretty free > but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution. I feel like these things go hand in hand. An enormous amount of historical precedent suggests concentration of power and illiberalness tends to erode election freedom, even when preceded by free elections.
    - thazework 3y ago
      Illiberal democracy is a chimera. Hungary and Poland get to play make believe while safely ensconced in the European Union which they feign to detest. Elsewhere the equation is: no separation of powers = authoritarian regime of some kind // robust separation of powers = modern democracy. Even in ancient Athens there was gradual understanding that assembly decisions require constitutional review, hence the introduction of the γραφή παρανόμων
    - poisonarena 3y ago
      I am a right wing secular israeli and the writing is on the wall. I was always with Bibi, but recently voted Lapid, I really don't know what to think or who to trust. Israel has changed so much in the last 20 years, whenever I go back all I can do is reminisce. I can't help but feeling that the Israel I loved is dying. It also feels like a big Americanization of the politics into two parties.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- baerrie 3y ago
  The only reason secular jews are losing a majority is bc the orthodox don’t work, don’t serve in the military, and just increase the size of their families. Effectively the majority leaders are growing a majority by entrenching this dynamic, creating a runaway authoritarian theocracy. Eventually the economy will erode and collapse from this as well
yehosef 3y ago
The question he avoids is is it possible for the supreme court to have too much power? This is exactly what the other side says is happening. Today's vote was on a concept called "reasonableness" which means that the Supreme court (mostly left-wing) can veto legislation they deem "unreasonable". This is a power US citizens are not familiar with. If any one of the branches has too much power there is a problem. I don't know if the right-suggestions are better, but I understand what they are fighting for.
- maratc 3y ago
  > This is a power US citizens are not familiar with. For the US citizens: imagine that SCOTUS turns down affirmative action — not because "this Court has found affirmative action unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause", but because "this Court has found affirmative action highly unreasonable".
  - paulusthe 3y ago
    No, this is a terrible metaphor, because the 14th amendment in this example doesn't exist. Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law. The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional. Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.
    - maratc 3y ago
      Israel has a body of Basic Laws, and Barak has declared that body to represent a Constitution. The Supreme Court is doing a good job determining where a law contradicts a Basic Law, and invalidating that law because of a contradiction. E.g. Surrogacy law was returned to the legislative — not since it was "unreasonable", but because it was unequal. (The legislative fixed the law to include homosexuals, and the law passed.) The "unreasonableness" clause is not the only tool SC has at their disposal. From now on, they can use the other tools — just not "we find this unreasonable". > are disingenuous to outright misleading HN Guidelines: "Assume good faith."

by cs702 3y ago

mamonster 3y ago

It'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 ago
You 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.
- mamonster 3y ago
  I didn't substitute anything. The reality of the situation (which Harari forgets to mention anywhere) is that these things he is so scared of have ( or will have ) majority or supermajority support in the near future. Talking about authoritarianism in Israel is useless as it suggests that there is something related to Russia or China or Cuba or Iran, but the reality is that the elections are pretty free, there is no rigging and it is simply people voting for programs they want. I am sympathetic to secular Israelis(they are the economically productive element of the country) but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    > reality is that the elections are pretty free > but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution. I feel like these things go hand in hand. An enormous amount of historical precedent suggests concentration of power and illiberalness tends to erode election freedom, even when preceded by free elections.
  - thazework 3y ago
    Illiberal democracy is a chimera. Hungary and Poland get to play make believe while safely ensconced in the European Union which they feign to detest. Elsewhere the equation is: no separation of powers = authoritarian regime of some kind // robust separation of powers = modern democracy. Even in ancient Athens there was gradual understanding that assembly decisions require constitutional review, hence the introduction of the γραφή παρανόμων
  - poisonarena 3y ago
    I am a right wing secular israeli and the writing is on the wall. I was always with Bibi, but recently voted Lapid, I really don't know what to think or who to trust. Israel has changed so much in the last 20 years, whenever I go back all I can do is reminisce. I can't help but feeling that the Israel I loved is dying. It also feels like a big Americanization of the politics into two parties.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
baerrie 3y ago
The only reason secular jews are losing a majority is bc the orthodox don’t work, don’t serve in the military, and just increase the size of their families. Effectively the majority leaders are growing a majority by entrenching this dynamic, creating a runaway authoritarian theocracy. Eventually the economy will erode and collapse from this as well

yehosef 3y ago

The question he avoids is is it possible for the supreme court to have too much power? This is exactly what the other side says is happening. Today's vote was on a concept called "reasonableness" which means that the Supreme court (mostly left-wing) can veto legislation they deem "unreasonable". This is a power US citizens are not familiar with. If any one of the branches has too much power there is a problem. I don't know if the right-suggestions are better, but I understand what they are fighting for.

maratc 3y ago
> This is a power US citizens are not familiar with. For the US citizens: imagine that SCOTUS turns down affirmative action — not because "this Court has found affirmative action unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause", but because "this Court has found affirmative action highly unreasonable".
- paulusthe 3y ago
  No, this is a terrible metaphor, because the 14th amendment in this example doesn't exist. Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law. The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional. Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.
  - maratc 3y ago
    Israel has a body of Basic Laws, and Barak has declared that body to represent a Constitution. The Supreme Court is doing a good job determining where a law contradicts a Basic Law, and invalidating that law because of a contradiction. E.g. Surrogacy law was returned to the legislative — not since it was "unreasonable", but because it was unequal. (The legislative fixed the law to include homosexuals, and the law passed.) The "unreasonableness" clause is not the only tool SC has at their disposal. From now on, they can use the other tools — just not "we find this unreasonable". > are disingenuous to outright misleading HN Guidelines: "Assume good faith."