The man who lost his chief of staff
It happened on Holocaust Remembrance Day, 2016. It was years before 2023, which brought us the "full-on" government, the legal reform, October 7 and the events that followed. On that day, the Deputy Chief of Staff at the time, Yair Golan, gave a speech, and made a diagnosis that later occurred to him at the Chief of Staff.
Yair Golan:
"If there is something that scares me about the memory of the Holocaust, it is the identification of disturbing processes that took place in Europe in general and in Germany in particular, 70, 80 and 90 years ago - and finding evidence of them among us today"
paid a heavy price
Yair Golan paid a heavy price for this statement. It was a very politically incorrect statement, and to this day some see his words as incitement that comes from hatred. The processes that continued to unfold since then showed that this was not a baseless statement. Golan probably meant the strengthening of fascist currents in the State of Israel, and thus, he was probably right.
But there is a difference between the processes that raised dictators to absolute power and ignited Europe then, and the processes that can be identified today in certain democratic countries.
The difference is in the way.
The dictators of that time conducted themselves with lawless violence from the beginning in order to achieve their goal - power.
Today's rulers are much more sophisticated. They are, as Professor Kim Lane Shepley calls them, "dictators under the protection of the law".
The pathology of democracies
Kim Lane Scheppele is a professor of sociology and international relations at Princeton University. She is an expert on authoritarian regimes and erosion processes in democracies.
She is the sociological equivalent of a pathologist. It deals with the analysis of corpses of democracies that died prematurely.
In an article published in 2018 entitled "Autocratic Legalism", Shapeli presents the steps taken by the "tyrants on the way". These steps can be detected early, if you know what to look for. She points to A structured and deliberate process, the aim of which is to create an "anti-liberal democracy", which is actually a cover for tyranny.
"tyrants under the protection of the law"
Shapeli, who closely followed the processes that Hungary and Poland went through, claims that the "new dictators", as she calls them, learned the lesson from the terrible dictatorships of the 20th century.
The dictators of the 20th century used violent methods from the beginning to rise to power and establish their rule. The new tyrants do not base their tyranny on gunshots or severe violence. They prefer to be "tyrants under the protection of the law".
The teeth of the law and the democratic mechanisms
Shapeli claims that the new dictators are using the majority they won in the first place in fair elections, to change the law and the democratic mechanisms in a way that will work in their favor, and will allow them to do whatever they want.
In this way, the democracy that was originally liberal and enshrines human rights, becomes a hollow shell that may look like a democracy, but its laws guarantee the perpetuation of tyrannical rule and infringement of individual rights.
"Democracy" becomes illiberal, but it makes sure to operate within the framework of the law, which the dictator made sure to change to suit him.
In this way, the balance mechanisms and brakes inherent in democracy are destroyed. The review mechanisms disappear or are staffed by the dictator's people. Critical media channels are closed or starved to the point of bankruptcy and sold to tycoons who support the dictator.
The new, or renewed, media channels make sure to sing the praises of the dictator and his government, and stop fulfilling their role as the watchdog of democracy.
Hollow democracy
In all the regimes that followed this path, the dictators along the way presented their actions as if they were being done for the purpose of promoting democracy and the rule of law, thus succeeding in confusing a considerable portion of the citizens. In most cases, by the time the citizens realized what was happening, their democracy had become a hollow democracy.
Examples of such "democracies": Venezuela, Ecuador, Turkey, Russia, Hungary and Poland.
The steps towards tyranny under the protection of the law
Shepley observes the following steps in the process that leads to what she calls "tyranny under the protection of the law":
- The victory of the leader in fair and free elections.
- Dismantling the audit mechanisms that limit the executive authority.
- Taking over the House of Representatives or making it irrelevant.
- Subordinating the court to the executive branch through reforms and the appointment of trustees. In Hungary, for example, the law brought forward the retirement age of the judges, sent many of them to early retirement, and replaced them with the regime's doers of the word.
- Placement of trustees in key positions (prosecutor general, election committee, committee to select judges, etc.).
- Taking over the media and subjugating them to government messages.
- Delegitimization of civil society organizations and opposition parties.
- Changing the election laws in a way that guarantees victory in future elections.
Fallacy #8 - the attack on democracy in Israel
Shepley's article appeared לפני that we have won here in Israel in the "full-fledged" government (hereafter 'MMML').
If someone recognizes here something familiar from our places, it is not by chance. The MML in Israel has already taken significant steps corresponding to sections 1-7 above, and in some of them it was even successful.
The MML has completed the destruction of the legislative authority, the Knesset, as an influential and balancing body. Today's Knesset has become a rubber stamp of the government.
From there, the MML concentrated its efforts in an attempt to take over the judiciary, the last body capable of effectively criticizing it.
Under the title "legal reform" the government carried out (and is still carrying out) an assault on the court and the institution of the legal advisor. The goal: eliminating the last wall before tyranny.
Here too, according to the methodology identified by Shapeli, terms like "reform" and "strengthening democracy" are used to confuse the citizens.
Many citizens would agree that our justice system would benefit from reform, and most of us are interested in strengthening democracy. But, when we got to know Shepley's model for eliminating democracy, it is easy to see that what the MML proposed is something completely different. This is not a "reform to strengthen democracy", but another step according to Shepley's recipe, on the way to emptying democracy of its content.
Countries like Turkey, Hungary and, to a large extent, Poland, have already gone all the way and today they are dictatorships under the protection of the law.
As if to sharpen this issue, I recently came across a story that appeared in one of the newspapers. The author claimed that this was an event that happened, but since this is a single source, I prefer to quote it as a parable:
Years ago, an influential member of the ruling party in Israel was approached by a confused and uncharismatic young man who asked to advance in the ranks of the party. The young man asked to present to the man a proposal he had come up with for dealing with the legal system.
After hearing the offer, the man said to that young man:
"What you are proposing is a dictatorship. The people will not accept it and will immediately oust us in the next election."
"No," replied the promising young man, "it won't happen, because with the method I propose we will always remain in power."
Where does this lead us?
Until October 7th, the only factor that stopped MMLML from going all the way to empty democracy of its content, was the protest movement. We can say with full confidence that if it weren't for the protest movement, we would be a democracy today, in roughly the same way that Hungary or Poland are democracies.
The place the current government has brought us is branding Israel, gradually, with a bunch of countries that every western country would like to distance itself from. This can be seen already today.
Who exactly would we want to join hands with, when we look like Turkey?
If we fail to preserve the values of liberal democracy, we will fall into the abyss, the best of our children will leave, and the road to the destruction of a third house will be short.
Anyone who claims that the legal reform is a "coup" or harms democracy is out of their mind. Here is a comprehensive, accurate, concise, and 100% objective comparison free of personal opinion, which I prepared during the reform period:
Checks and checks on the government authorities before and after the legal reform:
(1) Balances on the government: before the reform: the High Court of Justice; the ombudsman; the knesset After the reform: the High Court (in a reduced form); the Knesset.
(2) Balances on the Knesset: before the reform: the High Court; coalition (coalition agreements, coalition majority, etc.); ballot elections. After the reform: the High Court (in a reduced form); coalition; Ballot elections.
(3) Balances on the Supreme Court/High Court: Before the reform: (There are no checks and balances.) After the reform: Knesset (on High Court rulings); the coalition (on the appointment of judges through the Committee for the Appointment of Judges).
(4) Canceling the elections at the ballot box is possible by... before the reform: the High Court of Justice. After the reform: the Knesset. (This section also expresses which authority is able to pass final decisions (after the bureaucratic process with checks and balances, of course, if there are any) that no other authority can cancel. Before the reform, it is the Supreme Court that has zero checks on it; after the reform, it will be the Knesset, which can to alternate elections by ballot, which ensures that the people are the ones who have the final say and are able to update the government's decisions, always.)
Additional effects of the reform: There are no direct effects other than those indicated above (the four parts of the reform do not deal with anything other than those related to the government authorities as I mentioned above, that is, if the reform has an effect on the functioning of the state beyond that, it means that the effect is an indirect effect as a result of the changes in balances and brakes and not a result directness of the content of the reform which does not at all deal with the functioning of the state); The economy will be harmed by the blame of the reform only if the reform harms democracy.
My comparison can be verified if you look at the current situation and apply to it the four parts that were supposed to be in the reform (you can check the four parts on Wikipedia)—the ombudsman, the committee for appointing judges, the aggravation clause, and the reason for reasonableness—and then you arrive at the situation I describe in "after The reform".
It seems to me that the one who performs the act in question is you.
(1) Balances on the government: The point is that the government has turned the Knesset into an arm empty of content, which the government controls with an automatic coalition majority.
The members of this coalition have become a rubber stamp of the government (this is a problem with the system that allows this, but we will not deal with it here). The legislative authority today has no desire or effective ability to control/balance the government.
The possibility of criticizing the government today is only through the High Court (which is usually very cautious) and the gatekeepers, both of which you propose to harm.
(2) Balances on the Knesset: It is no longer that interesting for the reasons I listed above, but here too the criticism is only through the High Court (which is usually very careful) and the gatekeepers, both of whom you propose to harm.
(3) Balances on the Supreme Court/High Court: There are definitely balances in the committee for selecting judges, you probably don't know the material.
In terms of power, I agree that there is a need for an amendment that would allow the Knesset to review the High Court, but this can only be done within the framework of the Legislative Arrangement Law, which would determine the required balances (for example, the Knesset could reject the High Court's decision with a very privileged majority).
What you are proposing is that the Knesset, which is completely controlled by the government, will fully control the High Court through a coalition majority. This is unacceptable, and indicates a lack of understanding of the idea of separation of powers.
I agree that it is necessary to defend against the situation in which there will be a disturbed High Court that stops a rational government (this already happens from time to time in the USA), but the situation today is that we have a disturbed government, which a rational High Court stops it from time to time.
Yoram Katz, you prove that you are unable to use critical thinking and basic logic, and you admit in your words that you are a hypocrite (see section 10). Below is the evidence for this from your response and my explanation that backs it up (note - there is no numerical correspondence between the sections in this response of mine and yours):
(1) "The point is that the government has turned the Knesset into an arm empty of content, which the government controls with an automatic coalition majority."
I didn't talk at all about what the government does or doesn't do, it's not relevant at all. I made a comparison between the situation before the reform and the situation after the reform, because that is the choice you have in real life - to support the reform or oppose it. There is no change in the coalition majority games/coalition agreements before and after the reform, this can also be seen from the comparison I made. On top of that, "turned the Knesset into an empty arm" is a vague phrase because there are only two ways to understand it: (a) the dry objective meaning, that the Knesset has no power. But the Knesset enacts laws both before and after the reform, so it has power, and this meaning is incorrect. (b) Your subjective meaning that you are not satisfied with how the Knesset will look/function after the reform. okay? In this sense, there is no argument backed by dry facts for the question of why you would not be satisfied with the Knesset after the reform. You could have written "The Knesset will have to go through less bureaucracy to enact laws after the reform" for example, but instead you only wrote an opinion disguised as a fact, that the Knesset will be "empty of content", with no factual backing for it.
(2) "The members of this coalition have become a rubber stamp of the government"
same as above
(3) "The legislative authority today has no desire or effective ability to control/balance the government"
As I showed in the comparison I made, the reform does not at all change the ability of the Knesset to criticize the government, so this argument is not relevant at all. We choose between the situation before the reform and the situation after. If there is no difference in a certain aspect/detail when comparing it before and after, then it is not interesting for the matter of support or opposition to the reform.
In addition to that, if I ignore for a moment the word "desire" (I will not respond to the desire of members of the Knesset, I do not speak on their behalf) and the word "effective" (which you stated without giving any factual backing for it), this is also a lie, as you can clearly see from the comparison I did that the Knesset criticizes the government. The Knesset appoints the government, is able to overthrow the government with a vote of no confidence, and the government is obliged to report to the Knesset on its activities. This is basic material of a citizenship lesson.
(4) "The possibility of criticizing the government today is only through the High Court (which is usually very careful) and the gatekeepers"
(where "gatekeepers" means law enforcement/legal counsel plus a subjective positive connotation)
lie. I showed all the checks and balances on the government in the comparison I made above. Both before and after the reform, there are additional checks on the government besides the High Court and the law enforcement/legal advice system.
"which is usually very careful"
Caution is a subjective matter, and this phrase lacks factual backing, so it is irrelevant. On top of that, this phrase describes a subjective description of the activity/actions of the High Court apparently, compared to the reform - the subject of our debate - which deals with the abilities, not the activity/actions, of the High Court, so again, it is not relevant at all.
(Examples of phrases with a similar meaning, which have factual content: the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan invalidated 83 of the 145 bills introduced in the Uzbek Parliament; 5 of the 7 judges of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan who participated in the panel that rendered the verdict in the Stan N. Uzbek 2024 trial took in a neutral position while citing difficulties in the factual evidence brought by the prosecution)
(5) "and the gatekeepers"
(where "gatekeepers" means law enforcement/legal counsel plus a subjective positive connotation)
You prove that you are not able to speak and analyze things objectively without personal opinion like I am able to.
"In both of which you propose to harm"
(where "hurt" means to weaken plus a subjective negative connotation)
As above.
The fact that I support a reform that weakens the excessive power of the High Court and law enforcement/legal counsel (a power that the High Court gave itself in the reform made by Chief Justice Aharon Barak in 1992) is not a hidden fact - it is visible in every comparison I made. Admittedly, I am also able to make a separation between objective facts and concepts, and subjective connotations that are built on top of them.
(6) "Balances on the Knesset: It is no longer that interesting for the reasons I listed above..."
You did not state reasons backed by logic or facts, but only your subjective assertions, which you have the right to think, but they are not an objective argument.
"...but even here the criticism is only through the High Court (which is usually very careful) and the gatekeepers, both of whom you propose to harm."
As above.
(7) "There are definitely balances in the committee for selecting judges, you probably don't know the material."
Familiar Familiar: Judges have the right of veto in this committee. The High Court can also (because (before the reform) the High Court can do anything without limitation) force the Minister of Justice to convene the committee. We saw this in recent weeks when the High Court of Justice demanded that Rival Lavin convene the committee.
(8) "In terms of power, I agree that there is a need for an amendment that would allow the Knesset to review the High Court, but this can only be done within the framework of the Legislative Arrangement Law that will establish the required balances (for example, the Knesset will be able to reject the High Court's determination with a very privileged majority). "
(I interpret the parentheses "for example" as a hypothetical proposal for the purpose of your rhetoric towards me, and not necessarily as if you are proposing it as it is; I ignore the fact that you called the particular law the "Legislative Order Law" because the name of the law does not matter, but its content. Therefore, I will refer to the argument This one of yours is as if you are proposing a law (no matter what its name is) that allows the Knesset in some way (the way is important, but we both leave it out of the question, in this particular argument at least) to criticize/stop (not necessarily definitively after a bureaucratic procedure) the High Court)
See the overcoming paragraph in the reform you are so opposed to.
(9) "What you are proposing is that the Knesset, which is completely controlled by the government..."
(When "the government" means the coalition in the Knesset (the legislative branch), because the government (the executive branch) does not control the Knesset in any way, neither before nor after the reform, as you can see in the comparison I made above, and the coalition is the closest thing in meaning that I can replace the word "the government" in your argument, otherwise your argument is incorrect and I would have had to ignore it if it was incorrect)
lie. I showed all the balances and brakes on the Knesset in the comparison I made above. Both before and after the reform, there are additional balances on the Knesset other than the coalition.
"...will fully control the High Court..."
(where "full" means that the High Court has zero power/authorities after the reform)
lie. The reform does not prevent the High Court from issuing rulings.
"...through a coalition majority..."
Same lie again. Both before and after the reform, there are additional balances on the Knesset other than the coalition.
"...this is unacceptable, and indicates a lack of understanding of the idea of separation of powers."
It is acceptable and how else. The current situation is that there is an authority (the judiciary) that has unlimited power and zero checks and balances and is not subject to criticism by the public/the people (this is the meaning of democracy! that the people have the possibility to govern themselves - in a representative democracy like ours, that the people have the power to update the decisions the government, which does not exist in the current situation). Any reform that changes the current situation so that every authority has checks and balances, and that the authority that has the sole right to determine final decisions after a bureaucratic process of checks and balances (if there are any) will be an authority that the public/people have the ability to update/replace, is a reform that is objectively certain Absolute better for democracy than the current situation. And as you can see from the comparison I made above, that is exactly what the legal reform of Lavin's opponent did, but you oppose it. Note that I am not saying that the reform is good in general, I am saying that it is good for democracy. If you prefer to associate yourself with a group of people who oppose reform that is good for democracy, and you prefer to be dictators in this country or support a dictatorship, that is another matter. But you also lie that you are in favor of democracy when you are actually in favor of a dictatorship. This is the height of hypocrisy, audacity, and nastiness. In addition, it is all three of these things and it is also a criminal offense to call the most popular elected official in the country, Benjamin Netanyahu, a "tyrant" as you call him.
(10) "I agree that it is necessary to defend against the situation in which there will be a disturbed High Court that stops a rational government (this already happens from time to time in the USA), but the situation today is that we have a disturbed government, which a rational High Court stops it from time to time."
This whole argument talks about the acts/activities, apparently, of the government authorities, and not about the power/abilities of the government authorities and the balance between them, so it is not an argument relevant to the question of whether one should support the reform or oppose it, and I am forced to ignore this argument. I also want the government to operate in a rational and undisturbed manner, but that's what the ballot is for, and there needs to be democracy for my ballot to have meaning. And again, you continue to add to your argument descriptions of the government authorities that you determine subjectively, and pass your subjective descriptions as if they were a fait accompli - even if they were true, you did not provide factual support for the fact that the government is allegedly "disturbed" and the High Court is apparently "rational" What happens in the US is also not related to the content of the reform/what was before and after the reform here in Israel, so I ignore that as well. This argument exposes your hypocrisy, which you actually admit to yourself in twisted words: the balance of power between the governing authorities, and the manner in which the principle of democracy - the rule of the people - is realized by said balance of one kind or another, do not interest you. What does interest you, according to this argument of yours, is that the government will implement decisions that are in line with your political opinion (what you think is "rational" means anything you apparently want/like (and it is your full right to think anything you want that is actually rational, That's what the ballot paper is for), compared to what you call "disturbed" meaning anything you apparently don't want/don't like (as above)) (whatever your political opinion is, it doesn't interest me at all if you're right-wing or left-wing or You admit that the balance between the governing authorities interests you until you find out that you are the minority among the electorate, and the seemingly rational things you wish for do not materialize, and that is the moment you turn around and want to impose your political opinion through a dictatorship. And you still dare to preach morality to other people, to disguise the imposition of your opinion under the false guise of "democracy" while you criminally delegitimize elected officials, of the current government, of the voters of the said elected/government, and Supporters of the reform, and use a public stage to criminally revolt against them and disgust the readers.
Signed,
Mr. "Reform Now!",
A right-wing Likudnik is proud to have voted for Likud also for reform,
Secular and supports the separation of religion from the state and the operation of religious services on Shabbat,
A true democrat (but God forbid does not support the "Democrats" party in the USA or the Yair Golan administration in Israel),
grandson of a Holocaust survivor who was in the ghetto,
Graduated from the gifted class at the Leo Buck Education Center (90 France Road, Haifa).
I found a mistake. In section 9, in response to the following quote:
"...through a coalition majority..."
I responded the following:
Same lie again. Both before and after the reform, there are additional balances on the Knesset other than the coalition.
I want to fix and replace with the following instead:
As you can see from the comparison I made, after the reform there will be two balances/brakes on the High Court: A. The Knesset (on High Court rulings, through the superseding clause); on. The coalition (on the appointment of High Court judges, by changing the composition of the Committee for the Appointment of Judges). So, apart from the coalition, Knesset factions and individual (individual) Knesset members will have the ability to vote for or against or refrain from voting on decisions that overturn a High Court ruling, no only for the coalition; In addition to that, the comparison I made is, as I mentioned at the beginning, concise, because it only reviews the balances and brakes in a useful list but does not specify them - indeed, each of the four parts of the reform, including the strengthening paragraph, has reservations and requirements. To the best of my recollection, there were also several drafts/ideas raised regarding the exact operation of the override clause. The thing I remember right now is that the Knesset will be able to overturn rulings of the High Court by a majority of 61, then the High Court will be able by a majority of 12 out of the full composition of 15 supreme judges to return the decision, and then the Knesset (in its next composition after elections) will again be able to overturn the ruling of the High Court by a special majority with four readings. This is to the best of my memory, and it could be that the order is reversed or something, but the exclusive right to make a determination that the other authorities cannot cancel (after a bureaucratic procedure) is transferred to the Knesset, which is controlled by ballot elections, and its extreme decisions will have to go through the bureaucracy Extreme (yes, including the High Court). In addition, and this is the most important thing: before the reform, there is an authority that is not controlled by the people and has the exclusive right to pass decisions that the other authorities cannot cancel after a bureaucratic procedure; After the reform, all the authorities (not only the High Court) will have checks and balances, and the authority that has the aforementioned exclusive right will be under the control of the people through ballot elections. That is to say, when choosing between the current situation (before the reform) and the situation that will be after the reform, Even in terms of the checks and balances on the High Court that you point out negatively in this quote, the reform is objectively better for democracy, and there is no logical reason to oppose it. It is easy to prove this, because the current situation I described in "before the reform" is a situation of absolute dictatorship of the High Court, so whatever the reform would have changed, it cannot be worse for democracy than it is now, it can (at best) to help or (in the worst case) not to change anything very simply.
I just want to add something more to your subjective description of law enforcement/legal counsel as "gatekeepers": those "gatekeepers" hacked into the phones of thousands of Israeli citizens and installed spies on them, without legal authority to do so and with the "approval" of warrants legal of judges, including for political purposes to spy on close associates of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (because he does not have a phone himself), including hacking even people who are not accused of anything (for example, the wife of all kinds). Before the elections in November 2022, Ayala Hasson covered these things on Channel 13 every Friday night every week. On top of that, there are no people to criticize law enforcement/legal counsel, to file charges against them if they break the law themselves. There is no body that supervises the state attorney's office. The legal adviser to the government, Gali Behara Miara, to this day objects to the investigative committee for the rogues investigating the conduct of the prosecutor's office/Mahsh, especially in "standing cases" (that is, the crimes committed to incriminate Benjamin Netanyahu with false accusations in order to steal votes/steal the elections). These spies are the mother of the dictatorship - they can infect your phone remotely with "zero click" and use unknown security holes (zero days), they gain full control over the phone, leave no traces, are able to destroy themselves and delete the evidence of infection, and they may receive a software/setting update that also allows them to mess with information found on your phone and plant fabricated forensic evidence that will incriminate you on the phone, and not just passively extract information from your phone (or they already have such an option (intentionally or accidentally! See a small note at the end) and we don't know, it's impossible to know) It is also possible to point out that Sub-Superintendent Yoav Talem gave false testimony in court when he said there were only 4 or 6 cases of infection - giving false testimony in court is a serious criminal offense. The people you read To them the "gatekeepers" are criminal offenders who have committed the most serious crimes imaginable, and it doesn't stop you from using a public platform to whitewash these people and the crimes they committed. By the way, the High Court also, on January 1, 2024, for the first time in the country's history, invalidated a basic law enacted by the Knesset, this after the High Court declared the basic laws as a de facto substitute for the constitution, which can be used to invalidate other laws. In addition to this, in the aforementioned ruling, the then-serving President of the Supreme Court, Esther Hayut, claimed in the ruling that the coalition passed the law with a "casual narrow majority" of 64 mandates (the current coalition, out of 120 Knesset members in total). But this ruling was passed by a majority vote of 8 supreme judges out of 15 (the full composition) present - 8 out of 15 is *exactly* the same mathematical ratio as 64 out of 120, exactly the same "narrow majority" that Hayat pointed to - and this (if I remember correctly) ) after one of the top judges left/retired a few weeks earlier that allowed this majority of 8 out of 15 to happen, and one more judge who was supposed to retire a little after the verdict. There is no end to irony, no end to hypocrisy, no end to lies, and no end to serious criminal offenses. These "gatekeepers" are people who want to preserve their own unlimited power to impose a dictatorship in this country, and you are trying to protect them under the false guise of "democracy" and lofty words like "gatekeepers".
(Note: the security holes that spies use to take over phones are caused by bugs—errors in the software code on your phone. Also, spies, especially complicated ones with such advanced capabilities, can contain bugs, and therefore also security holes themselves. It's debatable that if the spy accidentally uses the phone to take control of it, and the spy contains a bug that allows the person operating the spy additional intrusive abilities beyond what it is supposed to give him, that in fact there is no significant difference because the operator of the spy needs to find a bug in the spy to do it, and he could equally have found the The bug in the software that infects your phone doesn't exactly work like that: the bug in the rogue can be much easier to exploit than the bug that the rogue exploits to take over your phone—in that sense, the rogue increases your vulnerability to attack There are advanced capabilities beyond what it is described as capable of, not to mention the fact that other people may take control of the phone spy and take it from the operator for themselves (for example, hackers from Iran). as vulnerable with serious security holes that compromised the security of users.)
The bibists and the old generation who told them what to vote for do not understand what we understood a long time ago.
Everything collapses and our children are killed
And no one cares. Crying for generations. They imprisoned us without being able to do anything. Unfortunately for us. 😭
The upper left-wing elitists from the outposts of the University of Law and Medicine in Haifa who shut themselves up in Carmel in the houses of the lynchings of wall guards and issue gun licenses out of fear after 7.10/64 who celebrated the destruction of Gush Katif for the promotion of 'peace in Gaza' and we accepted twenty years of terror in rounds of massacres and wars - take the foreign passports and your overflowing hatred To the 'Bibbists' or 60 mandates who don't think like you and fly you to Portugal and your Baden Baden and wait there for the next trains. You are tired of cowardly defeatists and especially racists. Yelling all day bibists bibists the real flute player from Mellin the new horn and the XNUMX year old judges who come to dance samba and zamber their brains with empty slogans.
Israel is not a democracy. There is no separation of powers. There is a High Court dictatorship. The Knesset is paralyzed and the people are not sovereign.
The High Court intervenes in ideological and political questions where the decision should be in the Knesset, the people are the sovereign in a democracy. The judges are elected by elected officials and the government.
In Israel, judges are elected by a committee in which the judges have a majority through the bar association guild and supreme judges who promote their friends, and do not change for the rest of their lives.
They control the Knesset and the government through gross interference through legal advisers and the opposition's high courts, which has turned a servant in their hands into a neuter of governance not only in the government, but in the police, Shin Bet, the IDF, and the local government. Transverse paralysis. Everything is under the control of legal advisors. Pchar, etc.
This situation is dangerous. This situation created a paralysis of systems, including the lynching of the wall guards and also led to threats of shaking the country and the politicization of letters of refusal in the army for the 7.10 massacre.
This is the truth that the whole nation knows about the failures of the security system - not the government, not the fictions and propaganda in the texts and articles on behalf of it.
Eyal,
I won't try to explain to you here what separation of powers is, but try to read about it yourself.
Other than that, you're right. The High Court of Justice prevents the Israeli government from exhausting its wonderful abilities:
* The High Court is guilty of the fact that the Minister of Finance is destroying the economy
* The High Court is guilty of the fact that the Minister of Education is harming education
* The High Court of Justice is guilty of cutting education, health, mental health, treatment of the displaced, and only the Yeshiva have money
* The High Court of Justice is responsible for perpetuating ultra-Orthodox evasion from work, recruiting and learning life skills
* The High Court of Justice is responsible for the looting of the public treasury, the drop in credit rating and the steep price increases
* The High Court is guilty of the fact that the Israeli government saw Hamas as a national asset and financed it with billions
* The High Court is guilty of the fact that the Israeli government contained the strengthening of Hamas and Hezbollah for more than 15 years
* The High Court is to blame for the unprecedented political low Israel is in
* The High Court is to blame for the loss of deterrence by the State of Israel
* The High Court is guilty of turning the Likud into a wretched collection of worthless, talentless types, and scumbags
* The High Court is guilty of the warning strategy that led Iran to become a nuclear threshold state
There is no doubt that there are many other things that the High Court can be accused of.
Nice that you came up with it.
Hello Yoram:
* In the previous government, the non-security minister Gantz looted the public coffers with 5 billion shekels for laundering the Chief of Staff's allowances for his party sector, the Security Sector Party. This is what he urgently needed to deal with throughout 2022 in 50 meetings with the Treasury.
* In the previous government, a prime minister transferred maritime areas to the terrorist organization Hezbollah without a discussion in the Knesset, without the approval of the Knesset, contrary to the position of the legal advisor to the government that he himself appointed, in a transitional government and without authority (both the appointment and the defeatist agreement)
* In the previous government, the Minister of Transportation, lacking any previous public or parliamentary experience, dealt with language barriers in transportation and painting campaigns purple to match the color of her campaign at work. It was the labor ministers in the past who caused the destruction of public transportation in Israel and we needed the Netanyahu government to rescue the line that had been stuck for 12 years or the train in Tel Aviv that had been stuck for 40..
* The ministers of education from the progressive extreme left like Yuli Tamir introduced incendiary poets who called Jews crusaders into the education system, harmed spiritual studies and introduced endless politicization to the Ministry of Education
* The person who founded the education network of Shas al-Ha'Mein was Yitzhak Rabin, who bribed Shas to support the political destruction he created with the Oslo disaster. But as the Knight of Democracy he also bribed 3 members of the Knesset from an intersection with the positions of minister without portfolio and deputy minister to Alex Goldfarb to vote for Oslo (out of 61 only)
* Bennett, the knight of the left ('use and throw away' as they wrote in Haaretz newspaper) lied to 6 mandates in the elections when he explicitly said that he would never sit in a minority government of the left which often relies on an anti-Zionist majority.
I can go on and on and on.
On the madness of Olmert and Barak who established Hamastan and Hezbollah in unilateral withdrawals, who abandoned the captives in Lebanon after the Second Lebanon War and abandoned Gilad Shalit for 3 years in captivity and after cast lead,
who turned a blind eye to the smuggling tunnels of Hamastan (2006-2009) and created for us the events of October 2000 and another intifada after the escape from Lebanon and the second Lebanon, and the massacre and the Gaza war - cast lead and the second Gaza war (iron swords) and in the middle of about 20 years of missiles and terrorism from Hamastan, on We won't talk about it at all because it requires whole books about their corruption. These are your heroes in the Mochash protests.
The hypocrisy is already erupting from your every sentence like waterfalls...
Every word is true, a hollow democracy on the way to a full dictatorship. I will break down the arguments into clear sections that will suit anyone who thinks that there is no such thing as Bibi, the opaque Bibiists
Atoms and more how their outstanding talent is to repeat like parrots 'treacherous leftists'
An interesting and instructive article. By the way, in 2023, ties were established between the Israeli government and the ruling parties in Hungary and Poland. The main topic was to learn how to deal with the protests against the legal "reform" in Israel.
You gave a so-called negative example of 2 countries whose personal security data is worth checking in relation to other Western European countries - which are drowning in the demographic mud because of submissive immigration policies and "democracy".
In my opinion, Israel has a lot to envy from the 2 countries you mentioned.
Although let's face it our security problems are even more complex.
If there is some kind of dictatorship here, it is the fault of those who elected Likud, Ben Gvir the fanatic and the boy from the hills Smotritz
These three will lead the country to destruction
To commenter Yaron - I will not fall off my chair if your argument turns out to be correct by the competent authorities.
At the same time, it is necessary to wait for an orderly state commission of inquiry before drawing any conclusions.
Let's hope that such a committee will do a thorough job and check not only the official positions in the army and the government, but all the influences in those days, including former journalists, broadcasters, reporters, and media bodies that, to put it mildly, flooded the criticism and coverage and protests against the government on legal issues, some of which are usually negligible Were they of any interest to the public at all?
Yair Golan, a dangerous man, should sit in prison along with all Kaplan captains and now the explanation why. Yair Golan, Bogi Ya'alon, Dan Halutz, Ami Ayalon and led by Ehud Barak paid a huge fortune to senior officials in the security system to hide information from Netanyahu, knowing that a massacre was about to occur in Otaf, according to their perception, a disaster on such a scale would lead to the fall of the government led by Netanyahu and evidence why the air force planes did not start operating a few minutes after Did the initial news arrive? Tanks that were on patrol noticed what was happening and drove away. Why? Because they received a clear order to do everything to overthrow Benjamin Netanyahu's government.
These are nonsense.
It was a huge blunder and a terrible intelligence failure. The intelligence units have become more of a means to pass information on rather than to analyze.
But from here to wild speculations the distance is great.
Reminds me of the delusions of the anti-vaccines at the time.
It's a shame they didn't succeed in overthrowing the delusional government led by the traitor and the crazy
oh oh oh Poor Netanyahu. Everyone deceives him and withholds information from him. Someone who can be manipulated so easily all the time does not deserve to be prime minister so even according to Yaron's conspiracy theory he should be removed for incompetence.
to gold
It's because there are too many Likud voters, brainless bibists and far-right fanatics