Israel General Discussion: Annus Horribilis

[Hnv1]

It's over. Either Bibi forfeits or he'll be ousted by force.

My expectation is Gantz replacing RZ in the coalition. You think I'm too pessimistic?

Can't see that happening.

Firstly, he doesn't have the numbers as I don't see the whole Statist party following him. Secondly, Bibi won't push a party from his bloc away, it's against his instincts.

I think the government will fall soon

[OSR stands with Israel]

Looking at the reform I don’t get what the massive opposition is given that it would still result in less say by politicians on who gets to be on the judicial branch than here in the US where every judicial appointment is made by the president and then has to be approved by the senate .

Mmmm. like. you. know. maybe. the. US. legal. system. is. like. really. really. bad?

It's a slippery slope to that abysmal abomination you yanks call a justice system, we're not willing to accept even a minor politicization of the judicial branch.

How do you put checks on the judicial system though if judges and lawyers can effectively have the most say who fills vacancies?

You guys unlike us dont even have a written constitution so that gives the Supreme Court more power as at least here in the US , the Supreme Court has to make their rulings on the basis of a written constitution while in Israel that does not seem to be the case which effectively can make your Supreme Court a Super Legislature.
 
Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty and yes we do that better than any nation on earth despite the hate we and our system seem to get.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

[Zinneke]

Why are the headlines saying the far right parties are the ones putting Bibi under pressure, threatening to leave? Are they asking Bibi to continue forward or do they realise they overplayed their hand and want him to postpone it?

[Vosem]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

...is that the case? America has a far older constitution than most other developed democratic nations and has done a very strong job at maintaining the freedoms that it considers fundamental, like freedom of speech (far broader in the US than other nations), the freedom to bear arms (barely or non-existent elsewhere), and the freedom not to have soldiers quartered in your home (never seriously questioned). A comparison to, for example, Britain -- which has a similar culture in many ways, but no written constitution and parliamentary supremacy -- seems to leave checks and balances looking very good to my eyes.

[Zinneke]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

...is that the case? America has a far older constitution than most other developed democratic nations and has done a very strong job at maintaining the freedoms that it considers fundamental, like freedom of speech (far broader in the US than other nations), the freedom to bear arms (barely or non-existent elsewhere), and the freedom not to have soldiers quartered in your home (never seriously questioned). A comparison to, for example, Britain -- which has a similar culture in many ways, but no written constitution and parliamentary supremacy -- seems to leave checks and balances looking very good to my eyes.

Such a strong job that African Americans only exercised some of the rights you cite from the 60s onwards...nevermind the Patriot Act and how civil liberties were crushed in favour of "yeehaw I can buy an AR-15 therefore I'm free".

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Looking at the reform I don’t get what the massive opposition is given that it would still result in less say by politicians on who gets to be on the judicial branch than here in the US where every judicial appointment is made by the president and then has to be approved by the senate .

Mmmm. like. you. know. maybe. the. US. legal. system. is. like. really. really. bad?

It's a slippery slope to that abysmal abomination you yanks call a justice system, we're not willing to accept even a minor politicization of the judicial branch.

Better horrible courts than no courts, as thousands of Palestinians can attest.

[Vosem]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

...is that the case? America has a far older constitution than most other developed democratic nations and has done a very strong job at maintaining the freedoms that it considers fundamental, like freedom of speech (far broader in the US than other nations), the freedom to bear arms (barely or non-existent elsewhere), and the freedom not to have soldiers quartered in your home (never seriously questioned). A comparison to, for example, Britain -- which has a similar culture in many ways, but no written constitution and parliamentary supremacy -- seems to leave checks and balances looking very good to my eyes.

Such a strong job that African Americans only exercised some of the rights you cite from the 60s onwards...nevermind the Patriot Act and how civil liberties were crushed in favour of "yeehaw I can buy an AR-15 therefore I'm free".

Ah, yes, Britain's control orders and TPIM notices were certainly much fairer than anything the Patriot Act did, and the left and the right are probably both very happy with Britain's free speech record. Certainly Britain has no restrictions on 'hate speech' or anything of that nature. (Oh wait).

Also, yes, somebody who cannot buy an AR-15 in the modern world is not considered free by the American mainstream on civil liberties, nor would they by the people who created that mainstream. (Britain also once had a right to bear arms, incidentally -- only for Protestants in 1689, but still -- and I observe that this is an excellent example of the American checks-and-balances system preserving a right that Britain's parliamentary supremacy has ditched).

But seriously, this is the Israel thread, if we're not going to tie this to the debate over Knesset supremacy/the Israeli Supreme Court we should move this to another thread.

[Torrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/sarahleah1/status/1640257740789383168

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Looking at the reform I don’t get what the massive opposition is given that it would still result in less say by politicians on who gets to be on the judicial branch than here in the US where every judicial appointment is made by the president and then has to be approved by the senate .

Mmmm. like. you. know. maybe. the. US. legal. system. is. like. really. really. bad?

It's a slippery slope to that abysmal abomination you yanks call a justice system, we're not willing to accept even a minor politicization of the judicial branch.

Better horrible courts than no courts, as thousands of Palestinians can attest.

The proposed reforms don't even pretend to solve that problem, though.

[Zinneke]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

...is that the case? America has a far older constitution than most other developed democratic nations and has done a very strong job at maintaining the freedoms that it considers fundamental, like freedom of speech (far broader in the US than other nations), the freedom to bear arms (barely or non-existent elsewhere), and the freedom not to have soldiers quartered in your home (never seriously questioned). A comparison to, for example, Britain -- which has a similar culture in many ways, but no written constitution and parliamentary supremacy -- seems to leave checks and balances looking very good to my eyes.

Such a strong job that African Americans only exercised some of the rights you cite from the 60s onwards...nevermind the Patriot Act and how civil liberties were crushed in favour of "yeehaw I can buy an AR-15 therefore I'm free".

Ah, yes, Britain's control orders and TPIM notices were certainly much fairer than anything the Patriot Act did, and the left and the right are probably both very happy with Britain's free speech record. Certainly Britain has no restrictions on 'hate speech' or anything of that nature. (Oh wait).

Also, yes, somebody who cannot buy an AR-15 in the modern world is not considered free by the American mainstream on civil liberties, nor would they by the people who created that mainstream. (Britain also once had a right to bear arms, incidentally -- only for Protestants in 1689, but still -- and I observe that this is an excellent example of the American checks-and-balances system preserving a right that Britain's parliamentary supremacy has ditched).

But seriously, this is the Israel thread, if we're not going to tie this to the debate over Knesset supremacy/the Israeli Supreme Court we should move this to another thread.

Full of strawmen, weird non-seqiturs, and just plain sociopathic rhetoric to rival jaichind's...no point debating with such a bad faith, paid up member of the hyperauthoritarian cult of American exceptionalism.

[CumbrianLefty]

Good of Netanyahu to not back down. He may lose now, but it is better to lose with conviction and courage than to surrender without taking a stand.

Nice to see it confirmed that the modern GOP is actually hostile to democracy.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1640266505114861568?s=20

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1640278585435910149?s=20

[America Needs R'hllor]

Looking at the reform I don’t get what the massive opposition is given that it would still result in less say by politicians on who gets to be on the judicial branch than here in the US where every judicial appointment is made by the president and then has to be approved by the senate .

Mmmm. like. you. know. maybe. the. US. legal. system. is. like. really. really. bad?

It's a slippery slope to that abysmal abomination you yanks call a justice system, we're not willing to accept even a minor politicization of the judicial branch.

How do you put checks on the judicial system though if judges and lawyers can effectively have the most say who fills vacancies?

You guys unlike us dont even have a written constitution so that gives the Supreme Court more power as at least here in the US , the Supreme Court has to make their rulings on the basis of a written constitution while in Israel that does not seem to be the case which effectively can make your Supreme Court a Super Legislature.
 
Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty and yes we do that better than any nation on earth despite the hate we and our system seem to get.

Every country - except Poland - has some checks and balances on government appointing judges. The US system is terrible, but even there you have a separate congress and President. Other countries have a tradition of appointing according to recommendations of a professional committee. Israel's parliamentary system means the coalition controls the government. If you give the coalition full control of appointing even 1 Supreme Court judge per term, the supreme court ceases to have independence. Under the current reform there will be one (1) branch - the coalition.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1640272630241542144?s=20

[Silent Hunter]

Anyone want to livestream a lettuce?

[Storr]

Looking at the reform I don’t get what the massive opposition is given that it would still result in less say by politicians on who gets to be on the judicial branch than here in the US where every judicial appointment is made by the president and then has to be approved by the senate .

Mmmm. like. you. know. maybe. the. US. legal. system. is. like. really. really. bad?

It's a slippery slope to that abysmal abomination you yanks call a justice system, we're not willing to accept even a minor politicization of the judicial branch.

How do you put checks on the judicial system though if judges and lawyers can effectively have the most say who fills vacancies?

You guys unlike us dont even have a written constitution so that gives the Supreme Court more power as at least here in the US , the Supreme Court has to make their rulings on the basis of a written constitution while in Israel that does not seem to be the case which effectively can make your Supreme Court a Super Legislature.
 
Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty and yes we do that better than any nation on earth despite the hate we and our system seem to get.

Every country - except Poland - has some checks and balances on government appointing judges. The US system is terrible, but even there you have a separate congress and President. Other countries have a tradition of appointing according to recommendations of a professional committee. Israel's parliamentary system means the coalition controls the government. If you give the coalition full control of appointing even 1 Supreme Court judge per term, the supreme court ceases to have independence. Under the current reform there will be one (1) branch - the coalition.

Speaking of Poland, lmao:

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1640281260718280705?s=20

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Looking at the reform I don’t get what the massive opposition is given that it would still result in less say by politicians on who gets to be on the judicial branch than here in the US where every judicial appointment is made by the president and then has to be approved by the senate .

Mmmm. like. you. know. maybe. the. US. legal. system. is. like. really. really. bad?

It's a slippery slope to that abysmal abomination you yanks call a justice system, we're not willing to accept even a minor politicization of the judicial branch.

How do you put checks on the judicial system though if judges and lawyers can effectively have the most say who fills vacancies?

You guys unlike us dont even have a written constitution so that gives the Supreme Court more power as at least here in the US , the Supreme Court has to make their rulings on the basis of a written constitution while in Israel that does not seem to be the case which effectively can make your Supreme Court a Super Legislature.
 
Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty and yes we do that better than any nation on earth despite the hate we and our system seem to get.

Every country - except Poland - has some checks and balances on government appointing judges. The US system is terrible, but even there you have a separate congress and President. Other countries have a tradition of appointing according to recommendations of a professional committee. Israel's parliamentary system means the coalition controls the government. If you give the coalition full control of appointing even 1 Supreme Court judge per term, the supreme court ceases to have independence. Under the current reform there will be one (1) branch - the coalition.

Speaking of Poland, lmao:

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1640281260718280705?s=20

Of course they did.

[Vosem]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

...is that the case? America has a far older constitution than most other developed democratic nations and has done a very strong job at maintaining the freedoms that it considers fundamental, like freedom of speech (far broader in the US than other nations), the freedom to bear arms (barely or non-existent elsewhere), and the freedom not to have soldiers quartered in your home (never seriously questioned). A comparison to, for example, Britain -- which has a similar culture in many ways, but no written constitution and parliamentary supremacy -- seems to leave checks and balances looking very good to my eyes.

Such a strong job that African Americans only exercised some of the rights you cite from the 60s onwards...nevermind the Patriot Act and how civil liberties were crushed in favour of "yeehaw I can buy an AR-15 therefore I'm free".

Ah, yes, Britain's control orders and TPIM notices were certainly much fairer than anything the Patriot Act did, and the left and the right are probably both very happy with Britain's free speech record. Certainly Britain has no restrictions on 'hate speech' or anything of that nature. (Oh wait).

Also, yes, somebody who cannot buy an AR-15 in the modern world is not considered free by the American mainstream on civil liberties, nor would they by the people who created that mainstream. (Britain also once had a right to bear arms, incidentally -- only for Protestants in 1689, but still -- and I observe that this is an excellent example of the American checks-and-balances system preserving a right that Britain's parliamentary supremacy has ditched).

But seriously, this is the Israel thread, if we're not going to tie this to the debate over Knesset supremacy/the Israeli Supreme Court we should move this to another thread.

Full of strawmen, weird non-seqiturs, and just plain sociopathic rhetoric to rival jaichind's...no point debating with such a bad faith, paid up member of the hyperauthoritarian cult of American exceptionalism.

…what part of that was a strawman or a non sequitur? You brought up the Patriot Act and gun rights (!?) as examples of America valuing civil liberties less than Britain; I pointed out that Britain enacted measures very similar to your first example and that your second example is a civil liberty that Britain abandoned. (I guess the free speech stuff you didn’t discuss, but it seems like the central civil liberty to me and like one where Britain’s record is remarkably bad relative to peer nations. Also, I discussed it in the initial post which you were quoting).

And, yes, my family made huge sacrifices and struggled for years to assimilate to “yeehaw I can buy an AR-15” culture, with that as substantially the end-goal, so I am in that sense very much “paid up” to right-wing Americana. It is more the case that we have paid in, though.

[TheTide]

Bibi...byebye?

[jaichind]

If Netanyahu backs down then the protestors will merely continue to protest to demand his resignation. 

[Zinneke]

Checks and Balances is one of the best ways to defend liberty

There's depressingly little real evidence for this given how much sense it makes on paper and how thoroughly most Americans believe it.

...is that the case? America has a far older constitution than most other developed democratic nations and has done a very strong job at maintaining the freedoms that it considers fundamental, like freedom of speech (far broader in the US than other nations), the freedom to bear arms (barely or non-existent elsewhere), and the freedom not to have soldiers quartered in your home (never seriously questioned). A comparison to, for example, Britain -- which has a similar culture in many ways, but no written constitution and parliamentary supremacy -- seems to leave checks and balances looking very good to my eyes.

Such a strong job that African Americans only exercised some of the rights you cite from the 60s onwards...nevermind the Patriot Act and how civil liberties were crushed in favour of "yeehaw I can buy an AR-15 therefore I'm free".

Ah, yes, Britain's control orders and TPIM notices were certainly much fairer than anything the Patriot Act did, and the left and the right are probably both very happy with Britain's free speech record. Certainly Britain has no restrictions on 'hate speech' or anything of that nature. (Oh wait).

Also, yes, somebody who cannot buy an AR-15 in the modern world is not considered free by the American mainstream on civil liberties, nor would they by the people who created that mainstream. (Britain also once had a right to bear arms, incidentally -- only for Protestants in 1689, but still -- and I observe that this is an excellent example of the American checks-and-balances system preserving a right that Britain's parliamentary supremacy has ditched).

But seriously, this is the Israel thread, if we're not going to tie this to the debate over Knesset supremacy/the Israeli Supreme Court we should move this to another thread.

Full of strawmen, weird non-seqiturs, and just plain sociopathic rhetoric to rival jaichind's...no point debating with such a bad faith, paid up member of the hyperauthoritarian cult of American exceptionalism.

…what part of that was a strawman or a non sequitur? You brought up the Patriot Act and gun rights (!?) as examples of America valuing civil liberties less than Britain; I pointed out that Britain enacted measures very similar to your first example and that your second example is a civil liberty that Britain abandoned. (I guess the free speech stuff you didn’t discuss, but it seems like the central civil liberty to me and like one where Britain’s record is remarkably bad relative to peer nations. Also, I discussed it in the initial post which you were quoting).

And, yes, my family made huge sacrifices and struggled for years to assimilate to “yeehaw I can buy an AR-15” culture, with that as substantially the end-goal, so I am in that sense very much “paid up” to right-wing Americana. It is more the case that we have paid in, though.

[Vosem]

Well, I hope one day your country’s government lets you write whatever message your cryptic gif was meant to convey.

[Torrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnshelPfeffer/status/1640311349254266880

[Vosem]

If Netanyahu backs down then the protestors will merely continue to protest to demand his resignation. 

Conventional wisdom on Hebrew-language Twitter seems to be that if he backs down RZ will leave the coalition, and he will either make Gantz the Defense Minister in a coalition government (…unlikely IMO, we’ve already tried this once) or Israel will go to new elections (IMO very likely). At the moment it distinctly seems like Netanyahu would be disfavored but that it wouldn’t be hopeless, but it’s hard for me to think of a government taking a defeat like this and then winning the next election anywhere in the world.