It's not clear to me what makes Netanyahu "populist", rather than just popular. I don't know whether the current coalition is a good one or a bad one, whether it's better than a Likud-led coalition or worse. What's clear to a disinterested observer -- if you can find one -- is that a lot of both the adulation and the hatred of Netanyahu was simply obsessive. People hated Netanyahu first and came up with a reason after -- and the reasons would change with circumstances.
In any case, to many Israelis the biggest danger to their rights and to their representative government is the wild overreach of the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court and the state attorneys. Here too I don't know whether the specific law mentioned for overriding a Court decision is a good way of taming that (I suspect not), but tamed it needs to be. The most activist US Supreme Court is positively demure compared to its Israeli counterpart.
Also, I rather suspect that few Israelis who know of Dan Meridor would call his latest incarnation "center-Right".
In sum, the author seems to have divided Israeli politics into the Good People and the Bad People (the Court, the Coalition, Dan Meridor and the guy from Yesh Atid being Good and Netanyahu and the Likud being Bad) with typical disregard for both nuance and for The People -- meaning the electorate -- themselves. The latter has made it's latest call and we pray for the best. Had it reinstated the Likud under Netanyahu it wouldn't have made the country any more or less liberal.
You could also note that this could be a model for the United States as well. We need a broad ideological coalition, from socialist left to anti-MAGA right, to defeat the attempt of Trump and his fellow travellers to overthrow American democracy. Unfortunately, many politicians and activists do not seem to understand this. Fortunately, there are many who do.
"Netanyahu himself had abandoned the decades-long boycott of explicitly racist parties by mainstream political leaders, engineering the entry into the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) of Otzma Yehudit, a Jewish supremacist party."
It is strange to me to equate "explicitly racist" with "Jewish supremacist." Israel is a Jewish supremacist state by self-definition under its founding Basic Laws. Islam and Christianity are not placed on equal footing with Judaism. That is an observation, not a criticism.
Almost every country in the world has an official religion. Israel is not different from any other country in this way. Even secular France privileges secularism over religion. It is the United States that is unusual when it comes to religion.
Beyond just religion, Israel defines itself as the nation state of the Jewish people. One could argue that the French Republic defines itself as the nation state of the French people and is therefore "French supremacist." I don't say that pejoratively, it is pretty normal around the world. That is why I question why the writer equates it with "racist." It is now fashionable to act like ethno-nationalism is some kind of abomination when in fact it is the norm all around the world.
Almost every country defines itself in this way. It is absurd to call this "supremacist". It is the country's policies, the presence or lack of democracy, that are the difference.
No, it is not reasonable, and words matter. "Supremacy" has a negative connotation. And in the context of discussion about Israel, it feeds into an antisemitic trope that would deny to Jews what others demand for themselves.
I agree that words matter. That is why the author chose his words poorly. The fact of the matter is Jews are supreme in Israel. I think they have every right to be. The negative connotation of the word is what I am pushing back on.
It's not clear to me what makes Netanyahu "populist", rather than just popular. I don't know whether the current coalition is a good one or a bad one, whether it's better than a Likud-led coalition or worse. What's clear to a disinterested observer -- if you can find one -- is that a lot of both the adulation and the hatred of Netanyahu was simply obsessive. People hated Netanyahu first and came up with a reason after -- and the reasons would change with circumstances.
In any case, to many Israelis the biggest danger to their rights and to their representative government is the wild overreach of the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court and the state attorneys. Here too I don't know whether the specific law mentioned for overriding a Court decision is a good way of taming that (I suspect not), but tamed it needs to be. The most activist US Supreme Court is positively demure compared to its Israeli counterpart.
Also, I rather suspect that few Israelis who know of Dan Meridor would call his latest incarnation "center-Right".
In sum, the author seems to have divided Israeli politics into the Good People and the Bad People (the Court, the Coalition, Dan Meridor and the guy from Yesh Atid being Good and Netanyahu and the Likud being Bad) with typical disregard for both nuance and for The People -- meaning the electorate -- themselves. The latter has made it's latest call and we pray for the best. Had it reinstated the Likud under Netanyahu it wouldn't have made the country any more or less liberal.
You could also note that this could be a model for the United States as well. We need a broad ideological coalition, from socialist left to anti-MAGA right, to defeat the attempt of Trump and his fellow travellers to overthrow American democracy. Unfortunately, many politicians and activists do not seem to understand this. Fortunately, there are many who do.
"Netanyahu himself had abandoned the decades-long boycott of explicitly racist parties by mainstream political leaders, engineering the entry into the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) of Otzma Yehudit, a Jewish supremacist party."
It is strange to me to equate "explicitly racist" with "Jewish supremacist." Israel is a Jewish supremacist state by self-definition under its founding Basic Laws. Islam and Christianity are not placed on equal footing with Judaism. That is an observation, not a criticism.
Almost every country in the world has an official religion. Israel is not different from any other country in this way. Even secular France privileges secularism over religion. It is the United States that is unusual when it comes to religion.
Beyond just religion, Israel defines itself as the nation state of the Jewish people. One could argue that the French Republic defines itself as the nation state of the French people and is therefore "French supremacist." I don't say that pejoratively, it is pretty normal around the world. That is why I question why the writer equates it with "racist." It is now fashionable to act like ethno-nationalism is some kind of abomination when in fact it is the norm all around the world.
Almost every country defines itself in this way. It is absurd to call this "supremacist". It is the country's policies, the presence or lack of democracy, that are the difference.
It is just about the definition of supremacy. Perfectly reasonable to use the word.
No, it is not reasonable, and words matter. "Supremacy" has a negative connotation. And in the context of discussion about Israel, it feeds into an antisemitic trope that would deny to Jews what others demand for themselves.
I agree that words matter. That is why the author chose his words poorly. The fact of the matter is Jews are supreme in Israel. I think they have every right to be. The negative connotation of the word is what I am pushing back on.