Do you stand with the Israeli protestors?

[Vice President Christian Man]

I don't think there's as big as a difference between the American/international left so I just made it into one category. While I'm still a Zionist, I feel as if Netanyahu's actions/coalitions is a power grab and one that threatens to send the country towards authoritarianism.

[Vosem]

Yes (R-leaning) (YB-leaning)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course.

[Ferguson97]

Yes of course. Bibi is awful and wants to lead Israel down a darker path.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are valid reasons to oppose it but I don’t understand why it’s viewed as so much if a threat given that it still doesn’t give the government as much influence over judicial picks as our system does . Like in our system the president literally makes every judicial appointment  and the senate confirms each one.

It’s honestly amazing how much our systems in general  are so greatly opposed by so many nations despite the fact that’s undoubtedly been successful here .

[Alcibiades]

There are valid reasons to oppose it but I don’t understand why it’s viewed as so much if a threat given that it still doesn’t give the government as much influence over judicial picks as our system does . Like in our system the president literally makes every judicial appointment  and the senate confirms each one.

It’s honestly amazing how much our systems in general  are so greatly opposed by so many nations despite the fact that’s undoubtedly been successful here .

In some ways, this reform is arguably a step away from the American system, because it erodes checks and balances. Anyway, that is besides the point — your America-brained post is offensively myopic. Context matters here, and maybe you should reflect on the fact that this is being carried out by a vile extremist government with significant fascist elements to understand why so many Israelis so strongly oppose it.

[President Johnson]

Yes, very strongly Netanyahu is trying to become an autocrat or dictator and escape from prosecution over his apparent wrongdoings.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes

[Middle-aged Europe]

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I think the protests need to bring down this morally insane government, yes.

[DavidB.]

No. It's a sloppy law, I would have preferred a clause requiring a 2/3 parliamentary majority to override the High Court, but ultimately there is nothing wrong with the Knesset having the final say. It makes Israel more democratic - not less.

[Middle-aged Europe]

No. It's a sloppy law, I would have preferred a clause requiring a 2/3 parliamentary majority to override the High Court, but ultimately there is nothing wrong with the Knesset having the final say. It makes Israel more democratic - not less.

Maybe more "democratic" in a strict classical Athenian sense, yes.

Modern democracies don't operate under these principles though, since they have separation of powers.

[DavidB.]

No. It's a sloppy law, I would have preferred a clause requiring a 2/3 parliamentary majority to override the High Court, but ultimately there is nothing wrong with the Knesset having the final say. It makes Israel more democratic - not less.

Maybe more "democratic" in a strict classical Athenian sense, yes.

Modern democracies don't operate under these principles though, since they have separation of powers.

These days it's quite the hype - particularly among so-called "GONGOs" - to completely invert the term democracy so that it would supposedly refer to the "checks and balances" that prevent policy from being affected by the will of the people. That's not my definition of democracy, though. That's my definition of the technocratic elitism, which has run wild in the West and eroded real democracy.

[Middle-aged Europe]

No. It's a sloppy law, I would have preferred a clause requiring a 2/3 parliamentary majority to override the High Court, but ultimately there is nothing wrong with the Knesset having the final say. It makes Israel more democratic - not less.

Maybe more "democratic" in a strict classical Athenian sense, yes.

Modern democracies don't operate under these principles though, since they have separation of powers.

These days it's quite the hype - particularly among so-called "GONGOs" - to completely invert the term democracy so that it would supposedly refer to the "checks and balances" that prevent policy from being affected by the will of the people. That's not my definition of democracy, though. That's my definition of the technocratic elitism, which has run wild in the West and eroded real democracy.

"These days"? If you refer to the time period from maybe the 18th century till today then you are of course correct. And it's a "hype" that was apparently originated by John Locke and the likes. Personally I don't care what "your" definition of democracy is, especially since it is probably a particularly appalling one.

[DavidB.]

"These days"? If you refer to the time period from maybe the 18th century till today then you are of course correct. And it's a "hype" that was apparently originated by John Locke and the likes. Personally I don't care what "your" definition of democracy is, especially since it is probably a particularly appalling one.

Not sure why you even respond to me then? And no, democracy actually used to function properly much more recently.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Democracy means majoritarian rule which is why democracy also needs to have checks placed on it too like we do with the constitution. The constitution makes it pretty clear what things are not up to democratic choice as individual rights should not be up to democratic choice as they are rights .

It’s why liberal rhetoric on democracy over the past few years has become cringe as it completely misunderstands what our system is about . For example when Dobbs happened there were many liberals who citied that to say that it’s an decision that threatens democracy when the decision itself was literally as pro democracy as you can get . The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of abortion  should be up to democratic choice and that’s what it is now and in fact if you believe if it’s a right then you absolutely should not be pro democracy on that issue as rights cannot be left to democratic choice .

[Make Canada Boring Again]

This one is hard to answer because...it kind of seems like both sides are looking for a quick fix, which from their point of view is to get what they want with complete disregard for the concerns of the other side and move on. Likud and the coalition government wants the judicial reform to pass and make Israel's government follow unrestricted parliamentary supremacy, while the opposition and protestors want to kill the judicial overhaul for good without addressing the excessive power of Israel's Supreme Court and Israel's lack of checks and balances, which help result in the current arrangement. It's hard to stand with either side when neither wants to take a hard look at Israel's system of government and improve it in any way.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Absolutely, and they are re-instilling my faith in the homeland.

But I can't go as far as to be optimistic that they will make the changes to the political system that are so desperately needed, especially after the last four years of turmoil.

[Zinneke]

I actually think David is right and there should be some mechanisms to overrule a potential court decision but only through a strong, convincing majority. I do think that the judicilisation of politics may become a serious problem in democracies but not in the way the right-wing thinks it will. I'll just cite an example that left-wingers should take into account : we European member-states signed EU treaty law basically enshrining certain rules that were overt post-1990 neo-liberal ideological ones. And while nobody seems to mind if certain big member states break them, would you really like it if ECJ judges suddenly dictated fiscal policy, or even monetary policy (a german court ruled the ECB's QE actions illegal for example)? Sometimes the judges are there to enforce a straightjacket on political creativity, and the result is most of the political class are lawyers who debate the fine print rather than economists, engineers, sociologists who look for original political economy solutions to complex societal problems.

The spirit of this law however is to basically ram several other laws while they still have a majority and eventually achieve right-wing hegemony within the judiciary branch. And Israel is a segregated society now, that requires a constitution guaranteeing basic rights for its various different segments, stripping them of the right to impose their way of life on other segments.

I also think its a shame these kind of protests aren't made for guaranteeing a settlement with the Arab population of Israel-Palestine...Palestinian flags being torn down at protests for example...surely the Israeli secular classes need to understand that if they want guarantee of protection on their basic rights, then Arabs need their own guarentees of autonomy and identity recognition (the security issue is another debate).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Democracy means majoritarian rule which is why democracy also needs to have checks placed on it too like we do with the constitution. The constitution makes it pretty clear what things are not up to democratic choice as individual rights should not be up to democratic choice as they are rights .

It’s why liberal rhetoric on democracy over the past few years has become cringe as it completely misunderstands what our system is about . For example when Dobbs happened there were many liberals who citied that to say that it’s an decision that threatens democracy when the decision itself was literally as pro democracy as you can get . The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of abortion  should be up to democratic choice and that’s what it is now and in fact if you believe if it’s a right then you absolutely should not be pro democracy on that issue as rights cannot be left to democratic choice .

Yes, "democracy" is not "a result I like" and if anything, the reform does make the country more democratic.
I personally oppose the reform partially for exactly that reason. I don't think Likud's majoritarian democracy ideas are good for stability. Our Founding Fathers were mindful of the problems that come from unchecked democracy, in fact.
If literally the only pillar on which the state rests is the uncertain and changing popular will (influenced and easily manipulated as it is), that does not seem like a very stable foundation indeed.

This poll was so lopsidedly in favor of what is not far from your view here, yet I feel many are not applying that here...

[Sir Mohamed]

Of course. Bibi and his insane govt need to go and this so-called reform is nothing but an authoritarian power grab.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I am the Israeli protestors