4 ms·

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 pat

by 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > who's this piece really for then? Investors, for one. Sovereign parliaments are risky structures. Particularly when underpinned by a majoritarian and religious-fundamentalist base. Israel's Supreme Court has issues. The FT has covered them well. (Imagine if SCOTUS justices chose not only their replacements, but staffed the federal courts.) But this--ramming through a neutering of the court--is obviously a crap solution, one that's been derided by powerful voices within Israel and without. Within Israel, the issue is hopelessly polarized. Outside, opinions are still being formed. Having an honest if biased opinion adds information to that discussion, even if it won't change minds domestically. Note that the FT does this frequently. It's how they keep their articles short. You're expected to click through to prior articles that flesh out the context from a neutral position if you're coming to the field anew.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > zero chance the "other side" woke up one day and decided to be evil. But that's how this article frames the situation I don't think it does. The majority have priorities, which they doubtless see as morally-upstanding ones, that they want to pursue unchecked. They are giving themselves that liberty. Majoritarianism is a known failure mode of democracy; Israel appears to have a majority that believes their winning elections lets them overrule checks and balances. The suspicion, reasonable enough, given the majority's fundamentalist voter bloc, is this unchecked power will be used to overrule minority rights.
- malloryerik 3y ago
  This is opinion by Yuval Harari, who has become a public intellectual worldwide and maybe something of a leading figure in the current protests in Israel. Most FT readers will already be somewhat familiar with the situation in Israel so it's not written as a backgrounder. For that you might try: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65086871 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65086871 Edit: Another decent backgrounder is https://apnews.com/article/netanyahu-israel-hospital-judicial-overhaul-protests-closures-fb595629e7033ee34d246ee9a367c4d4 https://apnews.com/article/netanyahu-israel-hospital-judicia...
  - tguvot 3y ago
    he is most definitely not "something of a leading figure". even with "maybe" prepended
    - malloryerik 3y ago
      Fair enough; it may just be how it looks from my vantage point as a non-Israeli. I should also have said "major voice" instead of "leading figure" but that might also be wrong. That said I watched him (on YouTube) give what looked like a major address to an enormous group of demonstrators. So, who would you say are the major voices of the protests?
      - tguvot 3y ago
        pretty much everybody who had >10k twitter followers probably could address demonstrators. Protests are managed and organized by people who are listed on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p.... kiYou can say that they are the voices of protests. Opposition parties (with their structures) stay aside, in order to avoid accusations that that protests are simply a way to bring coalition down, etc. During protests there is a bunch of people who make speeches, including current opposition leaders, ex supreme court judges, ex president, ex leaders/ministers from right parties, etc. Pretty much everybody fairly known in Israel.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Didn’t the leader of the “other side” recently get convicted of bribery relating to his government position? I don’t follow Israeli politics very closely, but judging by the company kept when campaigning and raising money in America, “evil” doesn’t may not be a recently developed attribute.

by qohen 3y ago

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.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > who's this piece really for then? Investors, for one. Sovereign parliaments are risky structures. Particularly when underpinned by a majoritarian and religious-fundamentalist base. Israel's Supreme Court has issues. The FT has covered them well. (Imagine if SCOTUS justices chose not only their replacements, but staffed the federal courts.) But this--ramming through a neutering of the court--is obviously a crap solution, one that's been derided by powerful voices within Israel and without. Within Israel, the issue is hopelessly polarized. Outside, opinions are still being formed. Having an honest if biased opinion adds information to that discussion, even if it won't change minds domestically. Note that the FT does this frequently. It's how they keep their articles short. You're expected to click through to prior articles that flesh out the context from a neutral position if you're coming to the field anew.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> zero chance the "other side" woke up one day and decided to be evil. But that's how this article frames the situation I don't think it does. The majority have priorities, which they doubtless see as morally-upstanding ones, that they want to pursue unchecked. They are giving themselves that liberty. Majoritarianism is a known failure mode of democracy; Israel appears to have a majority that believes their winning elections lets them overrule checks and balances. The suspicion, reasonable enough, given the majority's fundamentalist voter bloc, is this unchecked power will be used to overrule minority rights.
malloryerik 3y ago
This is opinion by Yuval Harari, who has become a public intellectual worldwide and maybe something of a leading figure in the current protests in Israel. Most FT readers will already be somewhat familiar with the situation in Israel so it's not written as a backgrounder. For that you might try: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65086871 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65086871 Edit: Another decent backgrounder is https://apnews.com/article/netanyahu-israel-hospital-judicial-overhaul-protests-closures-fb595629e7033ee34d246ee9a367c4d4 https://apnews.com/article/netanyahu-israel-hospital-judicia...
- tguvot 3y ago
  he is most definitely not "something of a leading figure". even with "maybe" prepended
  - malloryerik 3y ago
    Fair enough; it may just be how it looks from my vantage point as a non-Israeli. I should also have said "major voice" instead of "leading figure" but that might also be wrong. That said I watched him (on YouTube) give what looked like a major address to an enormous group of demonstrators. So, who would you say are the major voices of the protests?
    - tguvot 3y ago
      pretty much everybody who had >10k twitter followers probably could address demonstrators. Protests are managed and organized by people who are listed on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p.... kiYou can say that they are the voices of protests. Opposition parties (with their structures) stay aside, in order to avoid accusations that that protests are simply a way to bring coalition down, etc. During protests there is a bunch of people who make speeches, including current opposition leaders, ex supreme court judges, ex president, ex leaders/ministers from right parties, etc. Pretty much everybody fairly known in Israel.
Spooky23 3y ago
Didn’t the leader of the “other side” recently get convicted of bribery relating to his government position? I don’t follow Israeli politics very closely, but judging by the company kept when campaigning and raising money in America, “evil” doesn’t may not be a recently developed attribute.