Strikes and protests as pressure mounts on Israel's Netanyahu

You seem to have an extraordinarily poor understanding of democracy and history if you think that government doing anything it was elected to do is 'democracy'. If people elect a government to persecute a particular group or effectively turn itself into a dictatorship is that still your version of 'democracy'. I'm not claiming that is the case here, but what would prevent that in your version?

 

One of the problems trying to explain the legal issues involved is that most people on the forum do not want to read past one sentence on any issue.

At this time, in Israel a debate continues as to what the constitutional role should be of the Supreme Court of Israel in regards to interpreting its country's laws.

Former Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak, who served as a member of the court from 1978 to 1995 and as its president from 1995 to 2006 stated this:

"The judge of a supreme court is not a mirror. He is an artist, creating the picture with his or her own hands. He is “legislating”—engaging in “judicial legislation.” Judicial creativity—judicial legislation—is natural to law itself. Law without discretion is a body without a spirit. Judicial creativity is part of legal existence. Such creativity—“judicial lawmaking”—is the task of a supreme court."

Many legal and political scholars responded to the above words saying it went to far in assigning the court a role, specifically, it went to far because the "discretion" Barak basically said the court has in its role, would allow it not just to interpret existing laws but go very far in ignoring or enforcing them which many argue blurs the line between political and legal roles.

Certainly it is a debate in Israel that the above words for many went too far in allowing Judges to use "discretion" meaning their personal political agenda in manner to to promote specific political and economic policies.

In fact Judge Richard Posner, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Seventh Circuit, wrote in 2007 that Barak's position went much further that even the most activist of courts in democracies. An activist court is said not to shy away from interpreting controversial laws but what Barak has suggested is not in line with the role of Supreme Courts in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US. France, Netherlands, Germany, who Israel's mix of civil and common law principles is similar too.

This brings us now to the crux of the issue. Netanyahu recently re-elected was convicted of corruption.

He has proposed “judicial reform" which would change how Judges are appointedAmong other proposals, the coalition seeks to change the way judges are appointed, reducing or eliminate the current role of the non government regulatory society that enforces a code of conduct and ethics on all lawyers (bar association) among oher things.

His proposal would prevent the court from overriding or striking down laws, or at least limit those occasions by demanding that a supermajority of judges (in some proposals, twelve of the fifteen on the court) agree.

Where it gets very volatile is that Netanyahu wants the elected ASSEMBLY (the Knesset) to be able to override ANY Supreme Court ruling with a minimal vote of 61 of the total 120 votes of elected members in the Knesset,

Netanyahu also wants to limit the “reasonableness doctrine,” which is used to subjects government decisions to judicial rejection on the grounds the decision was not "reasonable" pretty much an open ended case by case concept no different than in the US or Canada.

The debate is not simple. Some people are making it absurdly simple. Its not. Its a debate that constantly takes place in all democracies where we struggle with the role of elected officials making laws and courts who interpret them.

Some believe the coalition that enabled Netanyahu to put together enough seats to win consists of extreme right wing groups who want to be able to ignore the Supreme Court rulings that have made certain laws illegal (unconstitutional) including laws as to issues on the West Bank or with definining who a Jew is.

It is not an issue that will be resolved easily but Netanyahu plays. He tests how far he can go and tests the popular reaction of his people juggling it with his own power agenda.

I am a Jew and volunteered in Israel and politically would have what they call a Kadima-Labour Party bias. So I do not support Likud, Netanyahu's party or many of the religious political parties that support him. I also believe the Israeli laws intended their Supreme Court to not be a political tool but also still have to hold all elected politicians accountable to basic fundamental constitutional principles because without that, there is no rule of law and politicians make themselves above the law.

Is there a parallel between Netanyahu and Trump. No. Its based on different issues. No politician in Israel as much as they try will ever be above the law. Israelis would never allow it. Its a deeply engrained belief in Jewish culture that laws can not and will not be contaminated by political interests and this safeguard will exist.

 

I have studied in Jewish religious school for three years and I actually enjoyed it much more than secular Russian schools. So try to scare with horrible religious Jewish someone else. I do all things you mentioned and I voted for Ben Gvir and Smotrich. Everything is going to be fine. Unless protesters burn the country to the ground.

 

If you're not claiming that's the case than what is your freaking point? Minority does not have a right to have influence political decisions via judicial activists. They have rights not to be persecuted in any way.

 

OK, so you genuinely don't understand how democracies are supposed to work. You seem to think it is an elected dictatorship.

Just one question, how are those 'rights not to be persecuted' enforced if there are not independent courts with the ability to stop your elected dictatorship? What is to stop your elected dictator shutting down opposition media and banning opposition parties if that is what their voters want, or if they just decide to?

Maybe you should re-think your idea of democracy, unless you want Israel to just become the Jewish version of the regimes that surround it. Perhaps you do, in which case just ignore me.

 

This is a translation of the recent article written by Israeli prof. Youval Harari in HaAretz magazine:

What is democracy?
In a broader view, what is currently happening in Israel stems from a lack of understanding of what democracy is all about. Too many people in the government, in the Knesset, in the media and on the street think that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority. They think that once 51% of elected officials want something, then there is nothing to limit them. But this is not a democracy.
If 51% of voters want to shut down all opposition media, is that legal?
If 51% of voters want to disenfranchise the other 49%, are they allowed to do so?
If 51% of the voters, or even 99% of the voters, want to send the remaining 1% to extermination camps and exterminate them, is it democratic to do such a thing? A few days ago, Uganda passed a law that imposes the death penalty on LGBT people. The law passed with a majority of 387 supporters, against two opponents. Is this a democratic law?
Such moves are not democratic, because democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is the rule of the people. And the people also includes the minority. The propaganda mouthpieces of this government, and of dictatorial regimes throughout history, claim that only the majority is the people, while the minority is not part of the people. They claim that the minority is a disaffected elite, or a bunch of traitors, or foreign agents. This is not true. All the people in the country are the people, both the majority and the minority. And in a democracy, even minorities - even very small minorities - have rights.
In a democracy, of course, the majority have tremendous rights. Most people have the right to establish a government as they see fit, and to set policies as they wish in a huge variety of fields. If the majority wants war - we go to war. If the majority wants peace - they make peace. If the majority wants to raise taxes - raise taxes. If the majority wants to lower taxes - lower taxes. If the majority wants to increase the education budget at the expense of the defense budget - that's what they do. The majority wants the opposite - they do the opposite. It is in the hands of the majority to decide many things. But there are two places where the hands of the majority must not be pushed. There are two baskets of rights that are protected from the majority.
One basket has human rights, such as the right to life. Even if 99% of the population wants to destroy 1% of the population, in a democracy this is not allowed, because it violates the most basic human right - the right to life. There are other rights in the basket of human rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of movement.
A second basket is the basket of civil rights. These are the basic rules of the democratic game. A clear example is the right to vote. If the majority was allowed to deny the right to vote from the minority, then in a democracy there would only be one electoral system. The winners in that election would immediately deny the right to vote to the losers, and peace be upon Israel. For there to be a democracy, the majority must not touch the basket of civil rights, unless the minority also agrees to make some change there.
For years the reservists said "yes" every time they were called, and they were the first to say "no!" to the dictatorial demand for blind obedience. Going to war requires great courage. Standing up to a dictatorship requires great courage of a different kind. It turns out that the Israelis were blessed with both types of courage. Reservists have more than enough good reasons to say no to a tyrannical government trying to amass unlimited power.
Of course, in a democracy it is possible to conduct lengthy discussions on the question of what are the limits of human rights and civil rights. Even the right to life has limits. There are democratic countries where there is a death penalty. In extreme cases the state allows itself to deny the right to a criminal life. And every country allows itself to declare war, and send people to kill and be killed. So where exactly is the line of the right to life?
There are also long discussions on the question of which rights are even included in the two baskets. Who determined that freedom of religion is a basic human right? Should internet access be defined as a human right these days? And what about animal rights? Or artificial intelligence?
We will not solve these questions here. The world is a very complex place. Precisely because the world is complex and there are no simple and absolute answers to such fundamental questions, a healthy democracy is a complete system of checks and balances, in which no party can decide alone what are human rights and what are civil rights.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth and ideas in my brain. I never mentioned "horrible religious Jews", and I'd never think of anyone, Jewish or not, as "horrible" just for being religious. What seems horrible to me is being forced to live like they do. I'll probably spend the rest of my life in jail if that happens.

Did you enjoy posting on a Friday night? Would you enjoy being forced not to post on a Friday night?

You said you live in the south. I've lived there for several years. I have family there. I understand some of your concerns better than you think. There are no fast and easy solutions to such problems.Your way - Ben Gvir's and Smotrich's way - will take us to a path leading to exactly the same kind of society like the sector you're complaining about. Absent an independent justice system able and willing to preserve individual rights, we'll become what we're fighting against.

 

Yes, it is no dictatorship if the elected government does exactly what people who voted them in wanted them to do, unless people are stupid and have no idea what they voted for. I posted the explanation what democracy is according to prof. Harari:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...raels-netanyahu.609360/page-2#post-1074124923

If you voted for the coalition - are you aware that after the judicial reform the coalition could legislate ANY LAW and nobody can stop them?
If the coalition will legislate a law that religious people don't have to serve in the army and they will not have to pay taxes - this will became a law in Israel. Do you support such law?
If the coalition will legislate a law that pedophiles, thieves and murderers can be Knesset members - this will became a law in Israel. Do you support such law?
If the coalition will legislate that driving a car on Shabbat, eating khometz during Passover or eating non kosher food is a crime - this will became a law in Israel. Do you support such law?

What the coalition says? They say - 'trust us, we are good guys, we will never make a bad laws". If you have a good memory you will remember that Begin said - trust us, we will never remove Jews from settlements. Do you remember Yamit?
If you have a good memory you will remember that Sharon said - trust us, we will never remove Jews from settlements. Do you remember:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

So coalition says - don't worry, if we will not fulfill our promises, the next election you will not vote for us! What the coalition don't want to tell you that they will have the power to change the law in a such way that the next election will be in the next 20 years, or change the laws like Putin or Orban did - they have election in Russia and Hungary and Putin and Orban always win.

 

What were the demonstrations every Saturday night ? the so called black shirts "just not Bibi".

 

The demonstrations are against the planned reforms of the justice system, and against personal laws for Bibi and Deri. Nothing to do with "just not Bibi".

 

I am NOT an Israeli, but I still smell the stink of the b.s., you're pedalling. "Everyone knows," those things, how? Have you had "Arabs steal something from you," and you presented, " the best footage ever," which police ignored? That would sound like a serious problem with your police, if I thought it were true. But I am guessing that you never had footage of an Arab stealing anything of yours. Am I right? If not, please fill us on all the details.

Or have you seen the unquestionable video evidence of one of your friend's, which police completely disregarded? What did they tell him? If this has not happened to either you or a close friend, how have you come to "know" it? And why do you mention the thief's ethnicity? Are you saying that the police do arrest Israelis, but not Arabs? Yeah, that seems really credible. It would be just like Israeli security forces, which are afraid to attack Palestinians, and who only conduct raids on Israelis, right?

Same questions about the demands for money, for protection from themselves. You, personally, have been extorted for this? And you have gone to Israeli authorities, who were uninterested in following up on your report? Why does that sound so unbelievable to me-- as well as that the worst offense of Netanyahu's, was accepting some cigars?

 

Life in the Muslim Arab sector in Israel is not what western couch warriors imagine. Not at all. Crime and corruption are rampant, and there's not much the police can do about it. Witnesses are afraid to testify. Any Arab who collaborates with the police risks not only his/her own life, but also the lives of close family members, including very young children. Honor killings are a plague.

Two of the largest, and oldest, crime families in Israel are the Hariri family from Tayibe and the Jarushi family from Ramle. Muslim Arabs.

There are significant differences between various Arab groups in different regions. The poster you quoted lives in southern Israel, among Negev Bedouins. And yes, Negev Bedouins are well known for extortion and drug trafficking.

 

Sorry, but your info is not correct.
And i gave you proof.

 

Thanks for the context: that these charges may have some basis in fact, in isolated areas, in which non-Arab Israelis, are a minority, but are not at all representative of the main of Israel-- which was the impression that poster gave, by not specifying any particular area.

 

This is one of the problems of HAVING a "Muslim Sector".

When Israel limits where Arabs may live, that aspect of apartheid has costs for Israel as well as costs for those whose freedom is being denied.

Plus, it becomes FAR harder for the populace to have faith in police and Israeli law.

 

I have to add - also for the context - that many Bedouins, and other Arabs, volunteer in the IDF. The Arab society is not monolithic, and its relationship with the state of Israel and Jewish Israelis often seems like one of those love-hate romances.

 

I have learned alot about the Israeli Arabs and Bedouins ... and i have to say that most are fifth coloumn.
Especially the Bedouin society in the Israeli Negev.
I wouldn't say that "many" Bedouins, and other Arabs, volunteer in the IDF ... some do.
Deep in their hearts Arabs know that the best place in the world to live as an Arab is Israel.. but they won't say it

 

??
This is just plain DISGUSTING.

Bulldozing people's homes, taking water rights by force, destroying olive orchards, ruling by Israeli military law in which those ruled have no representation ...

That is humanitarian atrocity, NOT romance.

Try to see the difference.

And, yes it is true that West Bank opposes terrorist tactics and is well known by the IDF to be cooperative with anti terrorist moves. President Abbas has long been allowed weapons for this reason.

(As if a country needs Israel's permission to have weapons!)

 

Yawn, squatters don't own the land and they can be evicted at any time. "I tried to steal public land but the legal owner took it back and removed my squatter settlement!" So much ignorance out of the left.

Why don't you post your address so we can have squatters set up shop on your front law and we will see how you react.

 

While strikes and protests continue .. the Arabo Jihado terror continue.
2 young sisters brutally murdered by Palestinians, 36 Italian murdered by an Arab & rockets fired from Lebanon to Israel.
Israel is under heavy terror attack.

 

There are Arabs living inside Israel's official borders who are Israeli citizens and Arabs living in territories outside those official borders but under Israeli rule who are not. Try to see the difference.

 

I'm well aware of that.

Please let me know if I made a mistake or miscommunication related to your point.

 

How is this subject even relevant to our USA centric discourse here?

 

You didn't appear to understand the post you were referring to. Clearly the poster was referring to Israeli Arabs, making your angry response wide of the mark.