The debate over whether to codify or uncodify is an interesting one. The UK, of course, has no codified constitution and they have, for the most part, been able to avoid tyranny through parliamentary sovereignty (Venn Dicey), so one doesn't necessarily need a court to strike down legislation to preserve liberty. But if one gives too much power to parliament, individual rights might be destroyed by the tyranny of the majority. I still believe the U.S. Republic, as outlined in the Federalist Papers, is the greatest theoretical construction of good governance ever created.
The issue is a conflation of "liberalism" with "democracy". We've been using the phrase "liberal democracy" for so long that we've forgotten it's an oxymoron. Democracy = the law should generally reflect the will of the people. Liberalism = the law must reflect universal abstract principles of maximal freedom regardless of the will of the people. The riots in Israel are over this precise issue. The Netanyahu coalition are democrats first; the rioters are liberals first.
This divide is hardly unique to Israel. The EU regularly conflates the two terms wrt Hungary and Poland and Greece and Italy... actually with anyone whose policies the Brussels bureaucrats disagree with. When you hear President Biden declare that MAGA Republicans are a "threat to democracy", he's doing the same thing. The National Front is supposedly a far-right, anti-democracy party even though it has 25-30% of the public, perhaps the largest single party in the entire French democracy.
So has Israel's judicial reform become internationalized, or has the existing international divide between "liberalism" and "democracy" merely found a foothold in Israel over this issue? I suspect the latter.
While not religiously affiliated with Israel, which may render my opinion of no real value, it was established as a unique entity, a country created by an international compendium with no rights, title or interest in the real estate being gifted, if such action is deemed to be “legal” the international community then it really is of no concern to exogenous persons other than those granted Israeli citizenship by that country’s constitution.
For what my opinion is worth, Israel should have declared Martial Law over all territory it captured or controlled & ejected all of the terrorist, & all others to who refused to be governed by its constitution & laws. The title of “Palestinian” is a fiction in, & of itself, as they are a tribal entity, claiming governance of an amorphous territory, essentially a non sequitur. That they are even being granted the use of a tribal name is an anomaly.
If my memory as it pertains to the informal rules of the landscape and territorial governance throughout that region tribal entities, e.g. the Bedouin society that claimed no titular ownership of lad but moreso they claimed the right of a nomadic peoples to transit the otherwise ungovernable lands, although certain “Sheiks”(so?) exercised governance by possession & defenses thereof claimed ownership of water resource locations e.g. Oasis.
You are right that elections should be the final word and it is elections that brought about this change in the court system. Democracy mandates that it be recognized as legitimate, at least until the results of the next election.
How do you deal with democracy when the government is made up of 2 sectors which do not believe in democracy and use it to destroy itself? See my comment below.
Israel is widely known as the most pragmatically-effective country in the world. They do what they have to do to survive. HST, it's long past time for Israel to fill this non-existing-constitution void. Write a constitution, Israel.
In the USA the executive is independent & serves as a check on the Legislature. In Israel there is no independent executive since the PM is part of the Knesset. Thus, a strong, independent judicial is needed to check both the PM and the Knesset. Can't compare with the USA. Another serious problem in Israel. 2 ruling sectors in the Knesset literally do not believe in democracy - the Haridim and the messianic Jews. They use democracy to destroy itself. It's not the first time in history. Democracy is more than elections. Israel needs a constitution and to separate religion from state.
But you can compare it with England, another country that has no elected executive, who's primary leader is PM, and has no written constitution. For 800 years since the Magna Carta, England had no Supreme Court. The House of Lords fulfilled that role, and only rarely. English Common Law is quite robust.
I agree with you. Israel needs a written constitution. If it had one, there would be something for a Supreme Court to interpret. As it is, the Supreme Court can overrule anything it deems "unreasonable", which makes it, in practice, an unelected, super-legislature. There is nothing democratic about such a structure.
Thanks for your response. I believe that England does not have religious parties or messianic even racist parties in a coalition government trying to obtain full power without checks and balances.
You don't get to plead democracy when it produces policies you want and then claim outcomes you disagree with are undemocratic. The parties you're talking about were elected. You may think they're terrible, but this is who the Israelis voted for. In 2027, Marine LePen will probably be Prime Minister of France. Will she also be illegitimate and a threat to democracy? According to the powers that be in the EU, she's a Nazi.
We've been using the term "liberal democracy" to describe Western-like governmental systems for so long that we've forgotten it's an oxymoron. See my comment above.
I agree with every word of this article and I'd be all for compromise but later. At this time compromise would be giving in to extortionate threats from the opposition, not a good precedent to set. Dersh was right to call out the left for internationalizing the conflict, the months of civil disobedience and the threats regarding the IDF and IAF but maybe it's because of his liberal bias he straddles the fence without giving concrete examples like he did with the left and called on both sides to step back. I'm a moderate. I might agree with you Alan but you need to elucidate with examples what the coalition has said or done that would make the case for them to step back.
Israel, by Rules of Conquest, or by International Law (which appears to me is moreso a “contractual agreement between some of the nations of the world) in that most nations, or prevailing governments at a specific point in time have agreed to be governed by the parts thereof that they wish to impose upon others, and to assert their right of sovereignty to ignore those of which they choose to ignore.
There really is no means of enforcement except that which may be imposed upon others by one or a conglomeration of such nations if they posses the military, moral or some other form of what is essentially transient entities at that specific point in time authority to impose their will on another.
Social scientists might call that by any number of terms, e.g. rule of law, mob rule, bullying, etc.
Much b exists primarily in the “eye of the beholder”.
Israel’s Knesset is the designated entity of governance for whatever boundaries that it and its allies say they govern by virtue of treaty, will or warfare.
A cynic might argue that even the country was taken or given (again a matter of perspective) might say that it’s existence might contend that it’s existence was essentially a land grant (or grab, again perspective may control the linguistics of the day) of that which was essentially a “Protectorate” rather than the territory of the U.K., given to a religious group to assuage the collective conscience of the group of nations who in the course of World War Two (WWII) that failed to act in a more timely manner to prevent their annihilation at the hands of another national consortium that no longer existed, because they lost their particular regional portion of WWII.
For better, or worse Israel shall remain a nation, with a sovereign government & self-governance for as long as they can either individually or with the concurrence of a sufficiently military or political consortium of nations to enforce its will to assure that it shall continue to exist.
For the present time, and realistically for the foreseeable future it shall be so governed and the rest of us should leave it to govern as its people shall choose,
Bravo Sir! Although"not religiously affiliated" with Israel, you seem to have a better grasp of its situation than most external pundits & meddlers, especially the those in the US Administration & State Department, & the EU.
The debate over whether to codify or uncodify is an interesting one. The UK, of course, has no codified constitution and they have, for the most part, been able to avoid tyranny through parliamentary sovereignty (Venn Dicey), so one doesn't necessarily need a court to strike down legislation to preserve liberty. But if one gives too much power to parliament, individual rights might be destroyed by the tyranny of the majority. I still believe the U.S. Republic, as outlined in the Federalist Papers, is the greatest theoretical construction of good governance ever created.
The issue is a conflation of "liberalism" with "democracy". We've been using the phrase "liberal democracy" for so long that we've forgotten it's an oxymoron. Democracy = the law should generally reflect the will of the people. Liberalism = the law must reflect universal abstract principles of maximal freedom regardless of the will of the people. The riots in Israel are over this precise issue. The Netanyahu coalition are democrats first; the rioters are liberals first.
This divide is hardly unique to Israel. The EU regularly conflates the two terms wrt Hungary and Poland and Greece and Italy... actually with anyone whose policies the Brussels bureaucrats disagree with. When you hear President Biden declare that MAGA Republicans are a "threat to democracy", he's doing the same thing. The National Front is supposedly a far-right, anti-democracy party even though it has 25-30% of the public, perhaps the largest single party in the entire French democracy.
So has Israel's judicial reform become internationalized, or has the existing international divide between "liberalism" and "democracy" merely found a foothold in Israel over this issue? I suspect the latter.
While not religiously affiliated with Israel, which may render my opinion of no real value, it was established as a unique entity, a country created by an international compendium with no rights, title or interest in the real estate being gifted, if such action is deemed to be “legal” the international community then it really is of no concern to exogenous persons other than those granted Israeli citizenship by that country’s constitution.
For what my opinion is worth, Israel should have declared Martial Law over all territory it captured or controlled & ejected all of the terrorist, & all others to who refused to be governed by its constitution & laws. The title of “Palestinian” is a fiction in, & of itself, as they are a tribal entity, claiming governance of an amorphous territory, essentially a non sequitur. That they are even being granted the use of a tribal name is an anomaly.
If my memory as it pertains to the informal rules of the landscape and territorial governance throughout that region tribal entities, e.g. the Bedouin society that claimed no titular ownership of lad but moreso they claimed the right of a nomadic peoples to transit the otherwise ungovernable lands, although certain “Sheiks”(so?) exercised governance by possession & defenses thereof claimed ownership of water resource locations e.g. Oasis.
Subject to correction by Prof. Dershowitz
You are right that elections should be the final word and it is elections that brought about this change in the court system. Democracy mandates that it be recognized as legitimate, at least until the results of the next election.
How do you deal with democracy when the government is made up of 2 sectors which do not believe in democracy and use it to destroy itself? See my comment below.
Israel is widely known as the most pragmatically-effective country in the world. They do what they have to do to survive. HST, it's long past time for Israel to fill this non-existing-constitution void. Write a constitution, Israel.
In the USA the executive is independent & serves as a check on the Legislature. In Israel there is no independent executive since the PM is part of the Knesset. Thus, a strong, independent judicial is needed to check both the PM and the Knesset. Can't compare with the USA. Another serious problem in Israel. 2 ruling sectors in the Knesset literally do not believe in democracy - the Haridim and the messianic Jews. They use democracy to destroy itself. It's not the first time in history. Democracy is more than elections. Israel needs a constitution and to separate religion from state.
But you can compare it with England, another country that has no elected executive, who's primary leader is PM, and has no written constitution. For 800 years since the Magna Carta, England had no Supreme Court. The House of Lords fulfilled that role, and only rarely. English Common Law is quite robust.
I agree with you. Israel needs a written constitution. If it had one, there would be something for a Supreme Court to interpret. As it is, the Supreme Court can overrule anything it deems "unreasonable", which makes it, in practice, an unelected, super-legislature. There is nothing democratic about such a structure.
Thanks for your response. I believe that England does not have religious parties or messianic even racist parties in a coalition government trying to obtain full power without checks and balances.
You don't get to plead democracy when it produces policies you want and then claim outcomes you disagree with are undemocratic. The parties you're talking about were elected. You may think they're terrible, but this is who the Israelis voted for. In 2027, Marine LePen will probably be Prime Minister of France. Will she also be illegitimate and a threat to democracy? According to the powers that be in the EU, she's a Nazi.
We've been using the term "liberal democracy" to describe Western-like governmental systems for so long that we've forgotten it's an oxymoron. See my comment above.
I agree with every word of this article and I'd be all for compromise but later. At this time compromise would be giving in to extortionate threats from the opposition, not a good precedent to set. Dersh was right to call out the left for internationalizing the conflict, the months of civil disobedience and the threats regarding the IDF and IAF but maybe it's because of his liberal bias he straddles the fence without giving concrete examples like he did with the left and called on both sides to step back. I'm a moderate. I might agree with you Alan but you need to elucidate with examples what the coalition has said or done that would make the case for them to step back.
PROPOSED CHANGE SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. CAN ISREAL DEVLOP A CONSTITUTION.
Israel, by Rules of Conquest, or by International Law (which appears to me is moreso a “contractual agreement between some of the nations of the world) in that most nations, or prevailing governments at a specific point in time have agreed to be governed by the parts thereof that they wish to impose upon others, and to assert their right of sovereignty to ignore those of which they choose to ignore.
There really is no means of enforcement except that which may be imposed upon others by one or a conglomeration of such nations if they posses the military, moral or some other form of what is essentially transient entities at that specific point in time authority to impose their will on another.
Social scientists might call that by any number of terms, e.g. rule of law, mob rule, bullying, etc.
Much b exists primarily in the “eye of the beholder”.
Israel’s Knesset is the designated entity of governance for whatever boundaries that it and its allies say they govern by virtue of treaty, will or warfare.
A cynic might argue that even the country was taken or given (again a matter of perspective) might say that it’s existence might contend that it’s existence was essentially a land grant (or grab, again perspective may control the linguistics of the day) of that which was essentially a “Protectorate” rather than the territory of the U.K., given to a religious group to assuage the collective conscience of the group of nations who in the course of World War Two (WWII) that failed to act in a more timely manner to prevent their annihilation at the hands of another national consortium that no longer existed, because they lost their particular regional portion of WWII.
For better, or worse Israel shall remain a nation, with a sovereign government & self-governance for as long as they can either individually or with the concurrence of a sufficiently military or political consortium of nations to enforce its will to assure that it shall continue to exist.
For the present time, and realistically for the foreseeable future it shall be so governed and the rest of us should leave it to govern as its people shall choose,
Bravo Sir! Although"not religiously affiliated" with Israel, you seem to have a better grasp of its situation than most external pundits & meddlers, especially the those in the US Administration & State Department, & the EU.
Almost impossible. Remember, where are two Jews, there are three opinions.
In Israel about 8 million Jews => 12 million opinions.!!!