I don't know anything about the reform, but for me as an outsider it's so weird to see that while in the US many notions of national heritage are considered borderline racist or fascist, similar things in Israel seem to be the only acceptable positions in the public Overton window. All that stuff about Zionism, Aliyah, Jewish identity and Jewish heritage in that context gives off weird vibes.
Could you expand what you mean and what you see different in Israel?
US, just as an example, embeds a lot of racism, sexism, futile and unjust wars in the last decades, and is closed regarding inmigration comparing it to, say, Canada. Other countries as well, so it is great to compare them along many dimensions.
You choose specific dimension to argument (e.g. heritage) living the many dimensions aside.
> is closed regarding inmigration comparing it to, say, Canada.
Is this a joke? The US went from 83.5% white in 1970, to 57.8% in 2020 [1], mainly due to immigration. How many other countries can you point to where the former majority population went from overwhelming majority, to the brink of minority status, in 60 years - less than a lifetime?
If this is "closed", then what on earth would be needed to be called "open"??
> Could you expand what you mean and what you see different in Israel?
For example, in the US public discourse you wouldn't find any notion of White Christian Liberal Democracy; if there is any, it is usually thoroughly denied by its alleged supporters and it is allegedly wrapped into layers of dog whistles and innuendos.
I didn't want to make any explicit comparisons because they are going to be crude and lacking in their form and content due to the complexity of the topic and the short format of the comment section. So, of course, one can say that the parallels I draw are inadequate and so on because reasons, but the existence of that distinction is kind of my point.
> You choose specific dimension to argument (e.g. heritage) living the many dimensions aside.
That's the context of the "Statement of Jewish scientists". It is not a statement of Israeli scientists, it is not a statement of American scientists. It is not a statement of scientists qua scientists. So that's what grabbed my attention and what I commented on.
Depends on how it is manifested as it is with any other identity.
> They're there
Where there? Thinking that Jews should have special rights in Israel by necessity means that Jews should have less rights outside of Israel. You may feel that it is the only self-evident and obviously righteous position, but I don't see why and I don't find your snarkiness justified.
> Thinking that Jews should have special rights in Israel by necessity means that Jews should have less rights outside of Israel.
I Never said that, and I really don't think it follows that Jews outside Israel should have less rights because of what goes on in Israel. Making that implication is considered anti-Semitic which you are obviously not.
All I said is that there is a specific Jewish identity just like there is a Palestinian identity. You are welcome to think that Jews should leave Israel or whatever, that still doesn't negate the fact that Jews have a unique identity.
> I really don't think it follows that Jews outside Israel should have less rights because of what goes on in Israel.
It is just a straightforward tautology. If you think that Israel is a special place wrt to Jews, it implies that every other place is not a special place for Jews, and by necessity provides less privileges and rights to Jews than Israel.
> All I said is that there is a specific Jewish identity just like there is a Palestinian identity. You are welcome to think that Jews should leave Israel or whatever, that still doesn't negate the fact that Jews have a unique identity.
There are all kinds of identities that appear and evolve with passage of time. I am not sure what’s the point of that trivial remark.
> It is just a straightforward tautology. If you think that Israel is a special place wrt to Jews, it implies that every other place is not a special place for Jews, and by necessity provides less privileges and rights to Jews than Israel.
Hmm no not really, still not seeing it. Just as I wouldn't think Asian Americans should have less rights in the U.S because they have a potential homeland in China or India. That's a really weird and childish argument I must say, I think we're done...
A Jew can make Aliyah to Israel. If Jews had same privileges in other countries (eg an ability to make Aliyah to the US, China or India), the very notion of Israel as a special place would become vacuous. I am not sure how you are not seeing it, when it's the most straightforward and simple idea.
I didn't say anything about any moral "should"s, I just pointed out a very simple logical necessity.
"Judicial review" in Israel is a unilateral and unjustified assertion of authority. It's not found in any sort of basic law and is incredibly uncommon in the kind of parliamentary supremacist unitary state (ie no tradition of institutional balance-of-power) Israel thought they were setting up ab initio. It's also obviously incestuous for a body to choose their own replacements as the Israeli supreme court does.
On face, it's far more defensible for the body with an explicit democratic mandate to reign in the body that does not, than the reverse.
> On face, it's far more defensible for the body with an explicit democratic mandate to reign in the body that does not, than the reverse.
Which is why, ordinarily, we try and do justice to our and others’ understandings by not stopping at superficial analyses.
Judicial review has empirically strengthened democracies, rather than weakening them. Democracies that weaken or capture their independent judiciaries tend to undergo democratic backsliding, especially under reactionary governments.
It's oxymoronic to say that removing final authority to an unelected body that effectively chooses their own successors "strengthens democracy" in some metaphysical sense. The logical implication is that an unelected self-perpetuating supreme court in absolute control of the country would be the be the strongest democracy of all.
Is this even true that they chose their own replacements?
> Since 1953, Israel has selected its judges through a diverse committee composed of three Supreme Court justices, two government ministers, two members of the Knesset, and two members of the Israel Bar Association. To appoint a Supreme Court justice, a seven-vote majority of the nine-member committee is required, which means that no group can act alone. Judges can veto what the politicians want, and the politicians can veto what the judges want. This has led to a system of consensus-building and bargaining that produces judges who are for the most part perceived as centrists.
The three judicial appointees can veto any selection, and are by far the most cohesive and only long-lived subgroup of that panel. In practice they run the show.
But if the judges veto, their power is, if anything, strengthened - it keeps the supreme court in their hands. I.e. they only share power with judges of their choice, or no-one. And they can easily wait-out short-term politicians and get the appointments they want with their successors.
Their power is strengthened as compared to simply choosing their own successors as was claimed? I'm not sure it is a great system, but America has stuff like the court packing scheme that this does seem to at least prevent.
> The logical implication is that an unelected self-perpetuating supreme court in absolute control of the country would be the be the strongest democracy of all.
No: we’re talking about a judicial branch that exists within an elective system of government. The logical extension of that is not dictatorship.
We can discard metaphysics: independent judiciaries strengthen democracy by limiting the ability of executive and legislative authorities to undermine their own mandate to govern.
Again, they are self-selecting. No one gets to vote on their replacements, in practice no one gets to vote on the people who vote on their replacements. It's crazy to talk about "empirically strengthening democracy" without recourse to the actual functioning of the actual supreme court.
Just because someone writes a paper complaining about the Polish government firing holdovers from a literal totalitarian regime, or noting that communist regimes usually gut all organs of government when they take over, you don't get to extrapolate to wildly different circumstances and say "thank god no one gets to vote on this, it would be Very Dangerous For Our Democracy."
You’ve repeated this, but everything I can find online indicates that Israel’s Supreme Court is appointed by the president, after candidate selection by a committee. Some of the Supreme Court justices are on the committee, but they don’t form a majority (they seem to have 3 of 9 votes.)
Is it the perfect, ideal judicial selection process? Almost certainly not. But it’s not incestuous or unaccountable in the way you’re claiming.
The 3 can veto any appointment since a supermajority is required for nomination, and they typically vote in unison as they are the only cohesive group on the panel due to 75 years of accreted groupthink (ie the supreme court members only allow the appointment of candidates that will get along with them). It's absolutely unaccountable.
It sounds like it’s very accountable: if things are as bad as you say they are, then the other 6 voting members can form a coalition and override the 3 you claim vote as a bloc.
This is arguably more accountable than the SCOTUS process in the US, where a hair-thin congressional majority can railroad a justice into office for their natural life.
I’m not familiar with Israeli politics or government, but it’s certainly not oximoronic.
Strengthens democracy != is itself democratic
Eg, the US requiring a supermajority for impeachment is antidemocratic (the minority decides), but it strengthens democracy (because it shouldn’t be done by one side alone).
This is a pretty core principle of democratic government
I think the argument is fundamentally hobbled because its authors refuse to cite the current political situation as a reason for its opposition to the changes. There have been times and places where the proposed balance of judicial and legislative power would not have led to a dangerous descent into autocracy. That’s a function the political culture and inclinations of those at the time.
The problem is that Netenyahu’s bloc will, given untrammelled power, attempt to ensconce itself in parliament forever, just as Orban and Modi did. That is fact specific to those times and places, and is essential to the argument.
"On the table are several bills amending Israel’s “basic laws” — legally equivalent to constitutional amendments — which would grant Knesset lawmakers control over judicial appointments, eliminate judicial review of legislation and allow parliament to vote down Supreme Court decisions."
The last part means that the 51% always get their way, which a supreme court is supposed to prevent.
>It's not found in any sort of basic law and is incredibly uncommon in the kind of parliamentary supremacist unitary state
I'm admittedly not an expert in comparative law, but I can think of several states with parliamentary supremacy and supreme/constitutional courts with the power to veto laws.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" - Henry II
"How can I rid myself of that too-honest court?" - Pretty much every rotten politician, ever, who's faced the possibility of serious legal consequences
Democratic? Two million Palestinians live in the West Bank and have had no vote in the Israeli parliament since the occupation started, an occupation condemned by multiple UN resolutions.
If your supreme court is issuing diktats to executive agencies they are extremely part of the government. I don't know of any state where "the government" writ large doesn't assert absolute power; we are discussing the components and functioning of said government.
Having laws tested by courts is not a very special idea; it's exactly what the Supreme Court in the United States does. Other countries have different systems; the Upper House (e.g. House of Lords in the UK, or Senate in many European countries) do this. Neither system is perfect and both have their up- and downsides, but these systems exist for a reason. You really want to make sure the basic principles of your democracy and society are upheld – as codified in the Basic Law in Israel – and can't "just" be overruled with a simple 51% majority just because this one election swung that way.
Some things could probably be reformed; that judges choose their own replacement for example – although making this a political process also has its downsides, as we've seen in the US – but that's not really what people are worried about. The problem with the current proposal any checks and balances can be overrides with little more than a shrug, reducing the court to an advisory organ rather than any real "checks and balances" power. And what's worse all of this is done over a fairly small set of issues – mostly Jewish settlements and some related issues – which smells of scorched earth politics.
And that the whole "Israel is for the Jewish people" Basic Law got approved by the courts proves it's not as left-wing biased as is claimed.
I don't know if anyone is following this topic, especially now as it's been flagged, although there weren't that many views or comments about it as well. So I'm not even sure anyone will even read my comment. But that's okay, because I need to write this for myself, first and foremost.
I've seen it happen all over the world, people marching out in protest, governments suppressing free speech, and even countries being toppled over. I watched and felt for these poor people, whose lives have been ruined, or at least put on ice for a long, long time.
And now I see it happen in the last place I ever expected: my own home. Growing up in Israel you hear a lot of stories from people who came from oppressive regimes, or even Holocaust survivors. You hear the same things again and again, how in retrospect the signs were clear to see, but nobody believe it could actually happen. How fast things go south. I am dreaded seeing this with my very own eyes right now, and not just because it's all happening so fast, but we also have to much to lose.
We are a democratic state, proudly democratic, one could say. We have some of the strongest courthouses in the world. We have a great economy and a booming tech scene. But in recent weeks, the new extremist government, elected for office just a few months ago, has been relentlessly attacking our courts, our state bank (equivalent of the Federal Reserve), our attorneys. They have been trying to close down public media channels while "recommending" extremist, right-wing propaganda channels.
Today, the Knesset passed laws that forbid entering hospitals with non-kosher food during Passover, and a law that grants the religious fundamental "courts" even more power to handle everyday judicial cases.
The judicial "reform", dubbed "regime overthrow" by a lot of people around here, aims to let politicians choose the judges of the supreme court, while also granting the parliament a new ability to just ignore any supreme court ruling, in case their personally appointed judges become too independent.
In Israel, we don't have a constitution, bill of rights, or a second parliament. The only means to stop some crazy laws from coming to fruition is the supreme court. The current government is already voting for the new laws to take this ability away. This means they can do anything, and nobody can ever stop them. Any law, and wild idea, if they have some sort of majority, they can waltz it in. If you're thinking "this sounds a lot like tyranny of the masses", well, you're right, and that's why hundreds of thousands of people are protesting.
There are masses of people out there protesting, but the response of the government is hostile. This is something I've never seen before. Not a single person in the government is giving a serious explanation of how this is going to be helpful to anyone. Hundreds of economists, lawmen, noble prize winners, everyone is showing red flags that these changes will destroy the economy, and put Israel in a really bad place in terms of "Democracy". But the extremist government is refusing to stop and make amends to the suggested "reform", no explanations given, just a big fat "Nope".
Our currency is taking a huge hit in the markets. Investors are either taking the money out of the country or recommending to do so. Banks are issuing warnings.
This is absolutely nuts.
For the first time in my life, I am truly afraid. I never knew you could be so anxious. I see my country being completely derailed by religious fanatics.
I see a possibility where I lose everything I worked for becoming more real every day. I never realized how much I had to lose.
I see the culture that I was so proud of, a beautiful culture, being aggressively destroyed by an angry, religious mob.
Not all hope is lost yet, but I am making peace with a new reality, in which I might have to actually get out of here soon. If that happens, I don't know if there will ever be a cure for my broken heart. I hope that I never have to find out.
