6 ms·

Israeli democracy is fighting for its life – Yuval Harari

55 points by malloryerik 3y ago

ftyers 3y ago
https://archive.ph/8RK3M https://archive.ph/8RK3M
- tamimio 3y ago
  Thank you!
Alupis 3y ago
For once, it would be nice to have one of these articles just explain the facts without the editorialization. It makes it very difficult to actually understand what's going on vs. the writer's agenda. > Government members openly brag about their intentions. They explain that since they won Israel’s last elections, it means they can now do anything they want. Like other authoritarian forces, the Israeli government doesn’t understand what democracy means. It thinks it is a dictatorship of the majority, and that those who win democratic elections are thereby granted unlimited power. What kind of writing is this? I'd expect better journalism from a high school newspaper... and this is from a journalism outfit that charges $70 monthly! The way the article is written, it reads like a tantrum from someone not getting what they want. The nuance is entirely lost, and the entire article is designed to have the reader come away with exactly one set of thoughts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tguvot 3y ago
  Current ruling coalition after establishing government all of sudden decided to do wide reaching reform of supreme court even though that they were running on platform of security and lowering cost of life. Reform will prevent supreme court from overruling unlawful laws and government actions. It will also give to government ability to pretty much appoint it's own judges to supreme court (currently there is a rather complicated scheme that requires a discussions and compromises). (this is very simplistic overview)(in last 30 years supreme court overruled 22 laws or so). Big part of population not happy with those changes and been protesting for past 7 months. A good chunk of people (30%-40% or so) who actually voted in current coalition are also against those changes. Ruling coalition has opinion that because they got majority that can do anything they want because this is democracy. Or something like this. There was long negotiations between coalition and opposition but they failed. In reality prime minister probably would have liked to cancel/soften reforms, but it will mean that his coalition will fall apart and current polls predict for them minority after elections PS. Today passed first law of the reform, which severely limits how supreme court can use "reasonableness" in making it's decisions with regards to government actions
  - orwin 3y ago
    You shouldn't be able to pass reforms that change how the government is supposed to work without a 60% referendum imho. (or at most, you pass/activate the law but it must be confirmed within a year by referendum, and only in emergency settings).
- qohen 3y ago
  What kind of writing is this? It's an opinion piece (and is labelled as such). it reads like a tantrum from someone not getting what they want. Or like a patriotic cri de coeur from someone gravely concerned about decisions the government of his country is taking.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    The problem is the lack of nuance, or anything from the other perspective. There's zero chance the "other side" woke up one day and decided to be evil. But that's how this article frames the situation, which does it far more disservice than the writer realizes. How about the article sharing why the "other side" views things they way they do? Share some polling on the subject, educate readers on both perspectives and possible goals and outcomes. Instead, it's all doomsday talk and how democracy is hanging on by a tired thread... Currently this just reads like the low/zero effort posts all to common in the US which essentially devolve into a tantrum when someone didn't get their way.
    - nocoiner 3y ago
      I think you are still not understanding what an opinion piece is? It’s fine that you weren’t persuaded by it - maybe it was a poor argument, or maybe you weren’t the target audience, or maybe you’re totally hidebound in your thinking and perfect rhetoric wouldn’t have moved your opinion in the slightest. Could be any or none of the above, and again, that’s OK! But at the end of the day, the author is under no obligation to state his opponents’ points for them.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        An opinion piece is a persuasive piece, as you've already noted. In persuasive writing, you are supposed to... persuade the audience to share your conclusion. This piece does no persuading. It's written for a certain subset of readers that already think poorly of the current Israeli government, and stops just short of shouting a token "Hitler!". Which leaves one to wonder - who's this piece really for then? It's not persuading anyone. We learn in grade school that persuasive pieces must address opposing viewpoints. It's not enough to just state your opinion within a vacuum. There's two sides to a disagreement, and making zero attempt to cross that threshold and provide context or discussion fails to bring anyone closer to the writer's viewpoint. Overall it's a very poorly written opinion, devoid of any facts or reality. It doesn't even present one "side" of the issue, it only shares the writer's naïve and poorly articulated viewpoint. In essence, this piece doesn't even need to exist... anyone who's going to agree with it already does, and no one else will take it seriously.
- justbored123 3y ago
  [dead]
- invalidname 3y ago
  The facts are hard to explain without context. It's an obscure legal ruling that's at the center, the idea that a judge can make a decision based on common sense. They outlawed common sense for judges. This is a part of a much greater movement with multiple forces in play trying to turn Israel into an autocracy. (Israeli, from Liberal side).
- xenospn 3y ago
  There is no nuance in Israel anymore, and the writing reflects just that.
- hedgedoops2 3y ago
  Here you go: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-20/ty-article/what-is-the-reasonableness-standard-and-why-axing-it-is-dangerous/00000188-d925-df52-a79d-dd27c72b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-20/ty-article/wh... Note that abolishing the common law reasonableness standard isn't the only change Netanjahu had planned originally. He's been forced to backtrack a lot. The original proposals intended to allow the government to override supreme court decisions generally (not just ones based on the reasonableness doctrine). I dont see how this wouldn't have eliminated all legal limits to government power in Israel. In a sense there already aren't any limits: 50% of parliament is enough to change the basic laws.
tguvot 3y ago
I pretty sure that I read same article in Hebrew today and I am not sure what it's point. I think commenters in Hebrew were of same opinion
pseudo0 3y ago
This topic (and the submitted article) were discussed earlier today: Israeli parliament passes law to limit judicial power (nytimes.com) | 43 points | by asimpletune 11 hours ago | 60 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36847600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36847600
lucubratory 3y ago
It is not possible for an apartheid system to be a democracy. It can't be a democracy when three quarters of Palestinians living under Israeli rule are not permitted to vote.
- isr 3y ago
  +1 (as an antidote to the sadly expected downvoting you're getting)
- invalidname 3y ago
  As an Israeli I very much agree. Wrote this in another post going into more detail on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36848564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36848564
londgine 3y ago
I've been following the situation in Israel, and I don't understand why the reasonability clause is something good to have in the first place. If a law is being passed, the SC could overrule it by simply saying that it is unreasonable. That sounds like an awful reason. Now the SC has to actually show which of the basic laws the proposed law contradicts. This is how it works in the US, and that makes sense to me. What am I missing?
- tguvot 3y ago
  It's been used to prevent corruption in appointments. Or people with multiple criminal convictions from assuming ministerial posts (after those people as part of plea agreements promised to stay out of politics, as example). Or all kinds of stupid or dangerous things that government tries to pull off. Essentially parties that are part of current coalition tend to be regarded as "job factories" and supreme court interferes with it. So they are not happy. Also they want to fire attorney general (also judicial advisor to government ) which manages criminal case against prime minister and in general tries to prevent unlawful laws from passing. Firing her given conflict of interest is currently "unreasonable"
  - londgine 3y ago
    Using a bad tool for a good cause is still bad. Let's say that the Knesset wants to lower the SC salary, but the SC thinks that that salary is "unreasonably" low for the lifestyle that they deserve. Then they can simply cancel that law. And unlike with politicians, if the people think that that is a bad decision, they can't impeach any of them, nor can they have any influence into who the new justices will be.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      Everybody agrees that there should be reform. One that is done in consensus. But they went and did the most extreme version of reform. And they did it because if they don't do it - coalition will fall and they will loose next election. This is reform is so bad, that leaders of ultra-right party that run on platform of supreme court reform for a decade said that it bad and shouldn't be done And if we are talking about new justices. One of the next planned laws is the one that gives to government ability to pick justices of their choosing
squarefoot 3y ago
> It makes it very difficult to actually understand what's going on vs. the writer's agenda. Speaking broadly, you can't have democracy without a balance of powers between the government and the judicial system. Therefore any emerging dictatorship must first limit the powers of the judicial system and/or undermine its independence by appointing their own corrupt puppets in place. When a clash happens between any government and its nation's courts, you can bet all horses that they're after taking absolute power. Putin did it, Erdogan did it, Lukashenko did it, Orban did it, and at least in the EU other countries are working on it (Italy, Poland).
pharos92 3y ago
Ironic given Yuval's association with a multitude of anti-democratic organizations.
mrtri 3y ago
[dead]
BasedAnon 3y ago
the fascist country... is fascist‽‽‽
rafi25 3y ago
Translation to US terms: current supreme court should have a veto on next candidates to supreme court. It should be able to cancel any law or government decision, even constitutional amendments. Anything but that is not a democracy. (Yes, Yuval thinks you’re stupid.)

55 points by malloryerik 3y ago

ftyers 3y ago

https://archive.ph/8RK3M https://archive.ph/8RK3M

tamimio 3y ago
Thank you!

Alupis 3y ago

For once, it would be nice to have one of these articles just explain the facts without the editorialization. It makes it very difficult to actually understand what's going on vs. the writer's agenda. > Government members openly brag about their intentions. They explain that since they won Israel’s last elections, it means they can now do anything they want. Like other authoritarian forces, the Israeli government doesn’t understand what democracy means. It thinks it is a dictatorship of the majority, and that those who win democratic elections are thereby granted unlimited power. What kind of writing is this? I'd expect better journalism from a high school newspaper... and this is from a journalism outfit that charges $70 monthly! The way the article is written, it reads like a tantrum from someone not getting what they want. The nuance is entirely lost, and the entire article is designed to have the reader come away with exactly one set of thoughts.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tguvot 3y ago
Current ruling coalition after establishing government all of sudden decided to do wide reaching reform of supreme court even though that they were running on platform of security and lowering cost of life. Reform will prevent supreme court from overruling unlawful laws and government actions. It will also give to government ability to pretty much appoint it's own judges to supreme court (currently there is a rather complicated scheme that requires a discussions and compromises). (this is very simplistic overview)(in last 30 years supreme court overruled 22 laws or so). Big part of population not happy with those changes and been protesting for past 7 months. A good chunk of people (30%-40% or so) who actually voted in current coalition are also against those changes. Ruling coalition has opinion that because they got majority that can do anything they want because this is democracy. Or something like this. There was long negotiations between coalition and opposition but they failed. In reality prime minister probably would have liked to cancel/soften reforms, but it will mean that his coalition will fall apart and current polls predict for them minority after elections PS. Today passed first law of the reform, which severely limits how supreme court can use "reasonableness" in making it's decisions with regards to government actions
- orwin 3y ago
  You shouldn't be able to pass reforms that change how the government is supposed to work without a 60% referendum imho. (or at most, you pass/activate the law but it must be confirmed within a year by referendum, and only in emergency settings).
qohen 3y ago
What kind of writing is this? It's an opinion piece (and is labelled as such). it reads like a tantrum from someone not getting what they want. Or like a patriotic cri de coeur from someone gravely concerned about decisions the government of his country is taking.
- Alupis 3y ago
  The problem is the lack of nuance, or anything from the other perspective. There's zero chance the "other side" woke up one day and decided to be evil. But that's how this article frames the situation, which does it far more disservice than the writer realizes. How about the article sharing why the "other side" views things they way they do? Share some polling on the subject, educate readers on both perspectives and possible goals and outcomes. Instead, it's all doomsday talk and how democracy is hanging on by a tired thread... Currently this just reads like the low/zero effort posts all to common in the US which essentially devolve into a tantrum when someone didn't get their way.
  - nocoiner 3y ago
    I think you are still not understanding what an opinion piece is? It’s fine that you weren’t persuaded by it - maybe it was a poor argument, or maybe you weren’t the target audience, or maybe you’re totally hidebound in your thinking and perfect rhetoric wouldn’t have moved your opinion in the slightest. Could be any or none of the above, and again, that’s OK! But at the end of the day, the author is under no obligation to state his opponents’ points for them.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      An opinion piece is a persuasive piece, as you've already noted. In persuasive writing, you are supposed to... persuade the audience to share your conclusion. This piece does no persuading. It's written for a certain subset of readers that already think poorly of the current Israeli government, and stops just short of shouting a token "Hitler!". Which leaves one to wonder - who's this piece really for then? It's not persuading anyone. We learn in grade school that persuasive pieces must address opposing viewpoints. It's not enough to just state your opinion within a vacuum. There's two sides to a disagreement, and making zero attempt to cross that threshold and provide context or discussion fails to bring anyone closer to the writer's viewpoint. Overall it's a very poorly written opinion, devoid of any facts or reality. It doesn't even present one "side" of the issue, it only shares the writer's naïve and poorly articulated viewpoint. In essence, this piece doesn't even need to exist... anyone who's going to agree with it already does, and no one else will take it seriously.
justbored123 3y ago
[dead]
invalidname 3y ago
The facts are hard to explain without context. It's an obscure legal ruling that's at the center, the idea that a judge can make a decision based on common sense. They outlawed common sense for judges. This is a part of a much greater movement with multiple forces in play trying to turn Israel into an autocracy. (Israeli, from Liberal side).
xenospn 3y ago
There is no nuance in Israel anymore, and the writing reflects just that.
hedgedoops2 3y ago
Here you go: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-20/ty-article/what-is-the-reasonableness-standard-and-why-axing-it-is-dangerous/00000188-d925-df52-a79d-dd27c72b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-20/ty-article/wh... Note that abolishing the common law reasonableness standard isn't the only change Netanjahu had planned originally. He's been forced to backtrack a lot. The original proposals intended to allow the government to override supreme court decisions generally (not just ones based on the reasonableness doctrine). I dont see how this wouldn't have eliminated all legal limits to government power in Israel. In a sense there already aren't any limits: 50% of parliament is enough to change the basic laws.

tguvot 3y ago

I pretty sure that I read same article in Hebrew today and I am not sure what it's point. I think commenters in Hebrew were of same opinion

pseudo0 3y ago

This topic (and the submitted article) were discussed earlier today: Israeli parliament passes law to limit judicial power (nytimes.com) | 43 points | by asimpletune 11 hours ago | 60 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36847600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36847600

lucubratory 3y ago

It is not possible for an apartheid system to be a democracy. It can't be a democracy when three quarters of Palestinians living under Israeli rule are not permitted to vote.

isr 3y ago
+1 (as an antidote to the sadly expected downvoting you're getting)
invalidname 3y ago
As an Israeli I very much agree. Wrote this in another post going into more detail on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36848564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36848564

londgine 3y ago

I've been following the situation in Israel, and I don't understand why the reasonability clause is something good to have in the first place. If a law is being passed, the SC could overrule it by simply saying that it is unreasonable. That sounds like an awful reason. Now the SC has to actually show which of the basic laws the proposed law contradicts. This is how it works in the US, and that makes sense to me. What am I missing?

tguvot 3y ago
It's been used to prevent corruption in appointments. Or people with multiple criminal convictions from assuming ministerial posts (after those people as part of plea agreements promised to stay out of politics, as example). Or all kinds of stupid or dangerous things that government tries to pull off. Essentially parties that are part of current coalition tend to be regarded as "job factories" and supreme court interferes with it. So they are not happy. Also they want to fire attorney general (also judicial advisor to government ) which manages criminal case against prime minister and in general tries to prevent unlawful laws from passing. Firing her given conflict of interest is currently "unreasonable"
- londgine 3y ago
  Using a bad tool for a good cause is still bad. Let's say that the Knesset wants to lower the SC salary, but the SC thinks that that salary is "unreasonably" low for the lifestyle that they deserve. Then they can simply cancel that law. And unlike with politicians, if the people think that that is a bad decision, they can't impeach any of them, nor can they have any influence into who the new justices will be.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    Everybody agrees that there should be reform. One that is done in consensus. But they went and did the most extreme version of reform. And they did it because if they don't do it - coalition will fall and they will loose next election. This is reform is so bad, that leaders of ultra-right party that run on platform of supreme court reform for a decade said that it bad and shouldn't be done And if we are talking about new justices. One of the next planned laws is the one that gives to government ability to pick justices of their choosing

squarefoot 3y ago

> It makes it very difficult to actually understand what's going on vs. the writer's agenda. Speaking broadly, you can't have democracy without a balance of powers between the government and the judicial system. Therefore any emerging dictatorship must first limit the powers of the judicial system and/or undermine its independence by appointing their own corrupt puppets in place. When a clash happens between any government and its nation's courts, you can bet all horses that they're after taking absolute power. Putin did it, Erdogan did it, Lukashenko did it, Orban did it, and at least in the EU other countries are working on it (Italy, Poland).

pharos92 3y ago

Ironic given Yuval's association with a multitude of anti-democratic organizations.

mrtri 3y ago

[dead]

BasedAnon 3y ago

the fascist country... is fascist‽‽‽

rafi25 3y ago

Translation to US terms: current supreme court should have a veto on next candidates to supreme court. It should be able to cancel any law or government decision, even constitutional amendments. Anything but that is not a democracy. (Yes, Yuval thinks you’re stupid.)