- This topic has 18 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why does YWN refer to the left-wing protestors opposed to Israel judicial reform to be “anarchists”???
No one else is calling them that. More importantly, they are clearly not anarchists (ones opposed to any government). They are fascists (ones who desire a strong government, under their control because they are right rather than because they have popular support, and opposed to democracy especially if the wrong people win the election). They bear great ideological similarities to the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the period leading up to World War II.
They represent the economic and social elite of Israel. They are the grandchildren of those who in the mid-20th century founded the medinah and firmly established it as a secular, quasi-European and socialist state in which Yiddishkeit would be tolerated at best and Sefardim would be marginalized, with the hope it could that both could eventually be suppressed, stripped of their “backwardness” and assimilated. They are also the ones who started the Arab-Israeli Conflict (the Hareidim who had been the dominant group in Eretz Yisrael had no problem living with Yismaelim, on the theory that communal autonomy and respect for halacha mattered more than sovereignty and ruling over the Arabs).
After 30 years of being a one-party state (under a coalition of socialist parties) as was the case of many former colonies, they lost control in 1977, and by this point the original ruling coalition has to to struggle even get into the Kenesset, but they still control the judiciary which they made self-perpetuating. Based on democratic principles, the judiciary should be subordinate to the will of the people, but up to now has been a “House of Lords” (in the pre-20th century sense) serving as an anti-democratic method of keeping the “ignorant masses” out of power. While we should deplore the protestors, we need to understand that they are the outgoing ruling class who are fighting tooth and nail to survive (and whose departure from Eretz Yisrael will probably cripple the economy and perhaps undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself).
If you want to compare the protestors to something, don’t compare them to the anti-establishment anarchists. They are the establishment, and are basically anti-democratic fascists, rallying for the status quo ante. They are reactionaries. Compare them to those who until the early 20th century favored Britain being ruled by nobility (though they really lost power 100 years before), or perhaps to the aristocrats in France in 1789, or Russia in 1917.
Ben Gvir, the National Security Minister, refers to them as anarchists. I saw it on Arutz 7. I don’t know if it is allowed to cite other websites here, if not, I apologize. Please edit it out. This is what I found
Asked why he insists on calling demonstrators protesting against the judicial reform “anarchists”, the minister replied, “The majority of the public that I know and see support my statements and understand what I meant. There are those demonstrators who cry out from their hearts and that is important. As someone who demonstrated for a long time, I understand them and will fight for their right to demonstrate. Who are those anarchists I’m talking about? The ones who harassed the Prime Minister’s wife at the salon, who we saw throw an iron fence at a policeman or who dismantled roadblocks. They want to bring about anarchy and I make no apologies to them. I will continue to call them anarchists and it only saddens me that Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz, instead of condemning them, encourage this behavior.”
Not only does Ben Gvir call them anarchists, but so do Honenu attorneys Adi Keidar and Moshe Polski.
I’ve also noticed that when I accidentally catch a glimpse of the dumpster fire that is the home page before I quickly click on the “Coffee Room” button in the upper right to save my eternal soul.
Calling them anarchists makes them sound way cooler than they actually are. When I first noticed a headline use it, I thought there was actually a real anarchist movement in Israel, and I was like “woah sweet!” But, then it was just disappointingly about boring-old, government-loving liberals.
When they leave, they won’t cripple the economy. They will unleash it from their shackles. They currently place a choke on the economy amd ensure all the wealth goes to themselves. This is common is many small developing countries, and when the upper classes are toppled everyone else builds and thrives
>>>They are fascists (ones who desire a strong government, under their control because they are right rather than because they have popular support, and opposed to democracy especially if the wrong people win the election).
That isn’t fascism. The far right and the far left BOTH support giving the government unrestrained power to carry out their agenda. If anything I would call them Autocracists which is the name for those who support dictatorships.
The arguments for the continued power of the court to strike down laws based on the reasonableness clause basically go as follows: The public can not be trusted to make the right decision through its elected officials so it need independent unelected judges to have veto power over the elected officials who will ensure they are reasonable and responsible . That is the standard pro dictatorship argument and belief that those who support dictatorships make.
There are millions of Israelis who are vehemently against these reforms. They aren’t fascists or anarchists. When you shown this contempt and deligitimization for a significant portion of Israel’s population (the majority in my opinion), your contributing to extremely negative polorazation.
They aren’t fascists or anarchists. Ben Gvir is the classical fascist who belives in politics of fear, will, and emotion as opposed to politics of reason. Also, he defends extreme settlers who burn cars and throw stones atvthe police. Those are real anarchists and he made his career defending them.
Dan the> (the majority in my opinion)
this is why they run elections and, in Israel, pretty often. If you are, for some reason, interested in Jewish opinion (as this is the society you mostly live in), it is probably 60+% who voted for the parties supporting coalition. You are simply denying reality that there are so many people who disagree with you.
>>>There are millions of Israelis who are vehemently against these reforms. They aren’t fascists or anarchists.
Opposing the reform in itself doesn’t make any a fascist or a anarchist (although as above the argument given for the opposition are pro dictatorship arguments) It is the manner that some have expressed their opposition that makes them such horrible people.
>>>When you shown this contempt and deligitimization for a significant portion of Israel’s population your contributing to extremely negative polorazation.
Had the people making these protests not had a long history of showing such contempt and delegitimization to those who support these reform they probably never would have happened.
Were the the supreme court not so clearly biased and reliably left wing (1) there wouldn’t be such a need to curtail some of its power and (2)those who are protesting wouldn’t care so much if happened anyway.
If they really wanted to curb the judiciary they would let the supreme court override the new law curbing the judiciary’s power and then cut the court’s budget by 10% for the following year. That is one thing the court can’t override. I think it may take a year or two before they play nice.
Abba, this sounds like a good idea, indeed. One problem is that all Israeli parties loath to cut budget from anyone – as this could also happen with them later on.
I’m confused, does the court in Israel have the power to create new laws, or is it just like America where they just strike down laws? My instinct as someone who likes freedom is that it should be as difficult as possible to make news laws, so I’m confused as to why people (especially what appears to be the conservative side) would oppose a strong judicial branch.
Dear Neville,
Why do you see new laws as a possible threat to freedom?
Serious question.
>>>I’m confused, does the court in Israel have the power to create new laws, or is it just like America where they just strike down laws?
Officially they can’t create new laws but technically they can. If a petition is brought to them claiming that the government is being unreasonable for NOT doing something they can and have forced it to act. Therefore they do have power to create laws. –
>>>My instinct as someone who likes freedom is that it should be as difficult as possible to make news laws
This is the actually the first time I’ve seen anyone argue in favor of the supreme court with an argument that borders on anarchy.
>>>I’m confused as to why people (especially what appears to be the conservative side) would oppose a strong judicial branch.
Unelected people who are accountable to no one being able to strike down any laws they want because they say it is “unreasonable” isn’t judicial review. It’s dictatorship
Neville Chaim Berlin
As far as I know the court doesn’t make the laws. They strike down a law based on a “reasonableness” standard. The problem with this is that the court is made up of left wing activists and they just strike down what they don’t like. In addition the judges appoint their own successors. What the reforms are supposed to do is prevent activists from only passing laws that benefit the leftists and also change the way judges are appointed.
Hope this helps. Also great username.The Keenest has the power to lower the budget and here are a few example when they did. When Lapid’s Party was in charge weren’t there cut’s in the aid to Haredi families and to yeshivas. Were these not cuts to their budget. Likewise, wasn’t the Arab sector promised Billion of Shekels in aid in order to get them to be part of the government and when Likud came in power the Arab sector’s budget was cut. So it does happen. The Supreme Court did not put a stay on the judicial overhaul law just agreed to hear the case. Another thing the government can due is make a law that the Supreme Court must reflect the population of Israel. So if the Haredis make up 20% of the population then 20% of the Supreme Court should be Haredi. Thereby diluting the power of the leftist.
“Why do you see new laws as a possible threat to freedom?”
Generally, by definition, a law restricts one from doing something, meaning you are no longer free to do that thing. Seems pretty pashut.“This is the actually the first time I’ve seen anyone argue in favor of the supreme court with an argument that borders on anarchy.”
Doesn’t seem like it should be such a stretch. The whole point of judicial branch is the curb government overreach. It seems like it was only a few years back when that was considered a conservative ideal. Now I guess anyone who isn’t pro-authoritarian is an anarchist.“They strike down a law based on a “reasonableness” standard.”
That’s pretty stupid; they should have a constitution. Is that what these reforms would seek to do?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.