This piece is a tendentious misconstruction of both Israel's past and its present. It has become fashionable in both the US and Israel to accuse any politics with which one disagrees of being "undemocratic" when it's nothing of the sort. Some examples:
The Nation-State law doesn't "supersede" the Declaration of Independence (never mind …
This piece is a tendentious misconstruction of both Israel's past and its present. It has become fashionable in both the US and Israel to accuse any politics with which one disagrees of being "undemocratic" when it's nothing of the sort. Some examples:
The Nation-State law doesn't "supersede" the Declaration of Independence (never mind that the latter doesn't have statutory power).
The efforts to rein in the Supreme Court stem from the Court's shucking any semblance of the restraints typical to those of Western democracies, like the need for standing and the appointment of Justices by the other branches of government. Restoring some balance between the branches is seen as "undemocratic" only by people who are overwhelmingly satisfied with the Court's current ideological composition. Put a few more conservative Justices on it and those same people with be threatening them like Chuck Schumer threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Reading this is like watchin the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail yelling "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Re: the Nation-State Law, its framers - specfically then-Justice Minister Ayeklet Shaked and then-Tourism Minister Yariv Levin - were quite explicit that this was designed to be the preamble to a future constitution and would, in effect, replace the Declaration of Independence as the most authoritative document *defining* the State of Israel. What is instructive is that Shaked and Levin rejected compromises offered from center-left parties and from old-fashioned liberals in the Likud like Benny Begin, which included language about equality and minority rights. In other words, these nods towards liberal democratic values were consciously and deliberately ommitted.
Re: the Supreme Court - I'm well aware of the accusations about undue judicial activism by Israel's SC, but I don't agree as a matter of fact. It's hugely overstated; Israel's SC has struck down far less legislation than the Courts of other democracies, including the US. But even if it were a real problem, the fact thst the solution being proposed (and supported by Netanyahu) is an 'Override Law', allowing a bare majority of the Knesset to overturn a SC decision, betrays the real illiberal agenda. As I wrote in my piece, in the Israeli system, the SC is the ONLY check on majority power. If 61 out of 120 Knesset members can simply vote to ignore the Supreme Court you have an absolute tyranny of the majority.
First-of-all, thanks for replying so politely, given that I was fairly aggressive in my comment. I don't recant the comment, as it was a reasonable reaction to your essay, but I am happy to temper my initial impression.
Regarding the NS law, the authors explained why they opposed inclusion of the clauses you mention, essentially that those clauses are already covered by other basic laws, making their reiteration here seem to vitiate the thrust of this law. Given that nothing in the law contradicts any of the rights conferred on all citizens by the other basic laws, what other interpretation would one give to their including here?
I don't recall anyone saying it was meant to replace the Declaration of Independence. I'd be interested in the source, though I don't see that it makes a difference.
(As you may be aware, the late Ruth Gavison opposed the law, but without any vehemence or claims that it was a violation of democracy. More to the point, she stated strongly that there is no essential conflict between Israel being a specifically Jewish state, manifested in the types of details included in this law, and it being a liberal democracy with equal rights for minorities.)
Regarding the ‘Override Law’ (more properly a set of ‘Override Clauses’ in the Basic Laws), I don't think it's a proper solution to the SC's activism -- I'd much prefer legislation to shore up rules about standing and justiciability. Either way, though, the proposed law isn't part of some campaign to take anyone's rights away -- it's a response to a very real problem with the SC, which manifests itself overwhelmingly not in striking laws down but in preventing the government from doing its job, by voiding civil-service appointments, administrative rules, etc. and by making sure that many laws and executive actions never get off the ground, having signaled that they *will* be struck down. Claiming that the whole uproar is over the SC actually striking laws down is, it seems, either out-of-touch or disingenuous.
It’s also in line with what’s done in other Western democracies, some of which don’t allow the SC to strike laws down, others with their own versions of ‘Overrides’ and none, as far as I know, with such a complete absence of checks on the Judicial branch.
This piece is a tendentious misconstruction of both Israel's past and its present. It has become fashionable in both the US and Israel to accuse any politics with which one disagrees of being "undemocratic" when it's nothing of the sort. Some examples:
The Nation-State law doesn't "supersede" the Declaration of Independence (never mind that the latter doesn't have statutory power).
The efforts to rein in the Supreme Court stem from the Court's shucking any semblance of the restraints typical to those of Western democracies, like the need for standing and the appointment of Justices by the other branches of government. Restoring some balance between the branches is seen as "undemocratic" only by people who are overwhelmingly satisfied with the Court's current ideological composition. Put a few more conservative Justices on it and those same people with be threatening them like Chuck Schumer threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Reading this is like watchin the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail yelling "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Hi Michael,
Re: the Nation-State Law, its framers - specfically then-Justice Minister Ayeklet Shaked and then-Tourism Minister Yariv Levin - were quite explicit that this was designed to be the preamble to a future constitution and would, in effect, replace the Declaration of Independence as the most authoritative document *defining* the State of Israel. What is instructive is that Shaked and Levin rejected compromises offered from center-left parties and from old-fashioned liberals in the Likud like Benny Begin, which included language about equality and minority rights. In other words, these nods towards liberal democratic values were consciously and deliberately ommitted.
Re: the Supreme Court - I'm well aware of the accusations about undue judicial activism by Israel's SC, but I don't agree as a matter of fact. It's hugely overstated; Israel's SC has struck down far less legislation than the Courts of other democracies, including the US. But even if it were a real problem, the fact thst the solution being proposed (and supported by Netanyahu) is an 'Override Law', allowing a bare majority of the Knesset to overturn a SC decision, betrays the real illiberal agenda. As I wrote in my piece, in the Israeli system, the SC is the ONLY check on majority power. If 61 out of 120 Knesset members can simply vote to ignore the Supreme Court you have an absolute tyranny of the majority.
First-of-all, thanks for replying so politely, given that I was fairly aggressive in my comment. I don't recant the comment, as it was a reasonable reaction to your essay, but I am happy to temper my initial impression.
Regarding the NS law, the authors explained why they opposed inclusion of the clauses you mention, essentially that those clauses are already covered by other basic laws, making their reiteration here seem to vitiate the thrust of this law. Given that nothing in the law contradicts any of the rights conferred on all citizens by the other basic laws, what other interpretation would one give to their including here?
I don't recall anyone saying it was meant to replace the Declaration of Independence. I'd be interested in the source, though I don't see that it makes a difference.
(As you may be aware, the late Ruth Gavison opposed the law, but without any vehemence or claims that it was a violation of democracy. More to the point, she stated strongly that there is no essential conflict between Israel being a specifically Jewish state, manifested in the types of details included in this law, and it being a liberal democracy with equal rights for minorities.)
Regarding the ‘Override Law’ (more properly a set of ‘Override Clauses’ in the Basic Laws), I don't think it's a proper solution to the SC's activism -- I'd much prefer legislation to shore up rules about standing and justiciability. Either way, though, the proposed law isn't part of some campaign to take anyone's rights away -- it's a response to a very real problem with the SC, which manifests itself overwhelmingly not in striking laws down but in preventing the government from doing its job, by voiding civil-service appointments, administrative rules, etc. and by making sure that many laws and executive actions never get off the ground, having signaled that they *will* be struck down. Claiming that the whole uproar is over the SC actually striking laws down is, it seems, either out-of-touch or disingenuous.
It’s also in line with what’s done in other Western democracies, some of which don’t allow the SC to strike laws down, others with their own versions of ‘Overrides’ and none, as far as I know, with such a complete absence of checks on the Judicial branch.