Over 80,000 Israelis protest against Supreme Court reform

[Scott]

 

More than 80,000 Israeli protesters have rallied in Tel Aviv against plans by the new right-wing coalition government to overhaul the judiciary.

The reforms would make it easier for parliament to overturn Supreme Court rulings, among other things.

Protesters described Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposed changes as an attack on democratic rule.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64279349

[Pattaya Spotter]

These proposed changes are being proposed by the elected members of the Israeli Knesset...so basically these people are demonstrating against democracy. 

[stevenl]

Israel is hereby heading the same direction Hungary and Poland have gone.

[OneMoreFarang]

6 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

These proposed changes are being proposed by the elected members of the Israeli Knesset...so basically these people are demonstrating against democracy. 

Do you think the elected members of the Israeli Knesset should have all the power? 

There are good reasons for separation of powers.

 

IMHO Israeli politicians often get away with what they do because the world is too shy to criticize them. Because if anybody criticizes them then those persons are called best case antisemite and more likely Nazi.

And obviously the USA supports them no matter what. It's sad.

[Pattaya Spotter]

28 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you think the elected members of the Israeli Knesset should have all the power? 

There are good reasons for separation of powers.

 

IMHO Israeli politicians often get away with what they do because the world is too shy to criticize them. Because if anybody criticizes them then those persons are called best case antisemite and more likely Nazi.

And obviously the USA supports them no matter what. It's sad.

Israel's is a parliamentary system where "separation of power" isn't such a thing; in most such systems parliament (i.e. the people) are supreme. And the proposal as I understand it is the court is free to make its decision, which could only be over ridden by a vote of the Knesset. Why should unelected judges be able to thwart the will of the people?

[KhunBENQ]

44 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

in most such systems parliament (i.e. the people) are supreme.

Yes, but in such a system it requires more than a wafer-thin majority to override basic/fundamental rights and/or constitution.

Separation of powers is well proven concept for countries that call themselves democracies.

And it's more and more hard to name Israel as the "only democracy in the middle east".

Edited January 15, 2023 by KhunBENQ

[OneMoreFarang]

Some more details about Israel and democracy:

The Guardian view on democracy in Israel: under assault from the top | Editorial | The Guardian

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you think the elected members of the Israeli Knesset should have all the power? 

There are good reasons for separation of powers.

 

IMHO Israeli politicians often get away with what they do because the world is too shy to criticize them. Because if anybody criticizes them then those persons are called best case antisemite and more likely Nazi.

And obviously the USA supports them no matter what. It's sad.

You can actually criticise Israeli politicians and the actions of Israel without being called a Nazi or an anti Semite .

  You can openly disagree with the Israeli Govs attempts at judicial reform  .

   "I disagree with Israel's Govs attempts at Judicial reform"

What is your opinion on the story in the O.P ? 

[OneMoreFarang]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You can actually criticise Israeli politicians and the actions of Israel without being called a Nazi or an anti Semite .

  You can openly disagree with the Israeli Govs attempts at judicial reform  .

   "I disagree with Israel's Govs attempts at Judicial reform"

What is your opinion on the story in the O.P ? 

Is that the theory or real life?

IMHO in real life as soon as you/me/anybody criticizes Israel there are always lots of people who insist the person who criticizes must hate Jews. That happens in this forum and (almost?) everywhere else.

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

Is that the theory or real life?

IMHO in real life as soon as you/me/anybody criticizes Israel there are always lots of people who insist the person who criticizes must hate Jews. That happens in this forum and (almost?) everywhere else.

Try it out , what is your opinion about the Israeli Government attempting reform of the judiciary system ?

  (As long as you don't answer with  "Israel has no right to exist blah blah blah", then I doubt anyone will call you a Nazi)

   So, what is your opinion about the O.P ?

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you think the elected members of the Israeli Knesset should have all the power? 

There are good reasons for separation of powers.

 

IMHO Israeli politicians often get away with what they do because the world is too shy to criticize them. Because if anybody criticizes them then those persons are called best case antisemite and more likely Nazi.

And obviously the USA supports them no matter what. It's sad.

That is garbage.

The majority of American Jews oppose many policies of right wing Israeli governments and this one is the most right wing ever.

 

Good luck to the protesters.

At least they are still allowed to protest there.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Jingthing

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is garbage.

The majority of American Jews oppose many policies of right wing Israeli governments and this one is the most right wing ever.

 

Good luck to the protesters.

At least they are still allowed to protest there.

Disagreeing with part of the post doesn't make the whole post garbage.

There are good reasons for separation of powers. Giving all powers to one entity only to be controlled by itself is not a good idea.

Edited January 15, 2023 by stevenl

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Disagreeing with part of the post doesn't make the whole post garbage.

There are good reasons for separation of powers. Giving all powers to one entity only to be controlled by itself is not a good idea.

Come on man.

I was OBVIOUSLY referring to the inflammatory assertion that all criticism of the Israeli government is always shouted down with accusations of antisemitism.

Some criticisms of Israel are antisemitic and some are not.

It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference, but not always.

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Is that the theory or real life?

IMHO in real life as soon as you/me/anybody criticizes Israel there are always lots of people who insist the person who criticizes must hate Jews. That happens in this forum and (almost?) everywhere else.

The things is, when there's a story about Israel or an Israeli , quite often posters ignore the story and just mention Nazis, Holocausts, Palestinians , media control and a few other things .

  Your post above is a prime example . Not commenting on the story in the O.P and just going on about Nazis and falsly claiming that you cannot criticise the Israeli Government . 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Israel's is a parliamentary system where "separation of power" isn't such a thing; in most such systems parliament (i.e. the people) are supreme. And the proposal as I understand it is the court is free to make its decision, which could only be over ridden by a vote of the Knesset. Why should unelected judges be able to thwart the will of the people?

Surely you are aware by now elected representatives don’t always represent those who elect them.

 

The idea that protesting against the actions of an elected Government is somehow ‘anti-democratic’ is ludicrous.

 

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Surely you are aware by now elected representatives don’t always represent those who elect them.

 

The idea that protesting against the actions of an elected Government is somehow ‘anti-democratic’ is ludicrous.

 

 

In particular in the case of a coalition of parties with different political platforms. Was this reform in the program of all parties in the current majority (if any)?

[candide]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Surely you are aware by now elected representatives don’t always represent those who elect them.

 

The idea that protesting against the actions of an elected Government is somehow ‘anti-democratic’ is ludicrous.

 

 

In particular in the case of a coalition of parties with different political platforms. Was this reform in the program of all parties in the current majority (if any)?

[thaibeachlovers]

I hope the demonstrators succeed, but I fear they will not and we are in for worse news from the Palestinian areas in the future.

[RichardColeman]

Don't get it. If you are unhappy with what they do, then wait till the next election and throw them out in preference to a party that will commit to reversing them !

[Pattaya Spotter]

16 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

Yes, but in such a system it requires more than a wafer-thin majority to override basic/fundamental rights and/or constitution.

Separation of powers is well proven concept for countries that call themselves democracies.

And it's more and more hard to name Israel as the "only democracy in the middle east".

My understanding is the proposed legislation requires a super majority to overturn a Supreme Court ruling...not just a simple one.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Pattaya Spotter

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

My understanding is the proposed legislation requires a super majority to overturn a Supreme Court ruling...not just a simple one.

Apparently 80,000 people don't think that is sufficient.

[KhunBENQ]

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

My understanding is the proposed legislation requires a super majority to overturn a Supreme Court ruling...not just a simple one.

Do you have a quotable source for that?

Just browsed through some stuff.

Not much details found but a wording like "simple majority"?

Edited January 16, 2023 by KhunBENQ

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently 80,000 people don't think that is sufficient.

Over 9M people in Isreal...apparently this disgruntled lot is a tiny minority.

[Pattaya Spotter]

4 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

Do you have a quotable source for that?

Just browsed through some stuff.

Not much details found but a wording like "simple majority"?

I was wrong, apparently the initial reporting I read did say a simple majority to overturn a Supreme Court decision but I just misread or misremembered it. (See first article below.) However, the latest proposals apparently states that if the court’s decision is unanimous, it cannot be over-ridden by Parliament. Which seems like a reasonable compromise. (See second article below.)

 

The new justice minister, Mr. Levin, confirmed he would pursue his longstanding goal of limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to countermand laws made in Parliament...Mr. Levin has proposed legislation that would allow a simple majority of lawmakers to override the court’s decisions.

 

In Israel, a Hard-Right Agenda Gains Steam https://nyti.ms/3QyFyFo

 

Under the plan, a simple majority of lawmakers could override almost any revocation of parliamentary legislation by the Supreme Court, which can currently block laws on constitutional grounds. The court would only be able to prevent itself from being overruled by Parliament if all of its 15 judges unanimously agreed about the need to block a law.

 

Netanyahu Surges Ahead With Judicial Overhaul, Prompting Fury in Israel https://nyti.ms/3W5rDb0

 

 

[Scott Tracy]

6 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

My understanding is the proposed legislation requires a super majority to overturn a Supreme Court ruling...not just a simple one.

OK. What is supreme at this point? Is it parliament, by whatever name, or a Court of Law? A court of Law interprets laws as written, sometimes determines the spirit, as well as the letter. That is of course, if a law is written. In the UK, Parliament is supreme, it passes laws, based on the fact that the electorate elected them. No one elects judges in the UK. Parliament is accountable to the electorate, judiciary is not.

If the Knesset wants to reform the judiciary, good luck to them. 80,000 protesters is nothing in the scheme of things. That probably covers everyone in the judiciary. 

[Saanim]

20 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Is that the theory or real life?

IMHO in real life as soon as you/me/anybody criticizes Israel there are always lots of people who insist the person who criticizes must hate Jews. That happens in this forum and (almost?) everywhere else.

We see it when criticizing any authority. Then, if the outrage of the critics is quite strong and it could harm his/her career, an apology will be later issued, sorry I did not mean it. 

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

OK. What is supreme at this point? Is it parliament, by whatever name, or a Court of Law? A court of Law interprets laws as written, sometimes determines the spirit, as well as the letter. That is of course, if a law is written. In the UK, Parliament is supreme, it passes laws, based on the fact that the electorate elected them. No one elects judges in the UK. Parliament is accountable to the electorate, judiciary is not.

If the Knesset wants to reform the judiciary, good luck to them. 80,000 protesters is nothing in the scheme of things. That probably covers everyone in the judiciary. 

I was incorrect and the proposed law requires only a simple majority to overturn a ruling, unless it's unanimous, then it can't be overturned. Which branch is supreme varies by custom and the founding documents in different countries. In the US, the federal courts are a creation of Congress, and thus inferior to it. Congress also sets the funding and the jurisdictional limits of the courts. I don't know who it is in Isreal. 

 

 

[Saanim]

On 1/15/2023 at 3:04 PM, Pattaya Spotter said:

Israel's is a parliamentary system where "separation of power" isn't such a thing; in most such systems parliament (i.e. the people) are supreme. And the proposal as I understand it is the court is free to make its decision, which could only be over ridden by a vote of the Knesset. Why should unelected judges be able to thwart the will of the people?

Whether parliament (i.e. people) is supreme or a (supreme) court is supreme? As we can just see one seat in a parliament can decide completely differently than the previous parliament with different seats, e.g. in case of immigration, legal proceeding, to name just few. Whether it shows the changed will of the population?

 

And why we often read, e.g. Clinton appointed judge, Trump appointed judge? Aren't the justice independent no matter who appointed the judges?

 

So, who does pursue the democratic will of the population?

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

11 hours ago, Saanim said:

who does pursue the democratic will of the population?

The elected branches of government...generally the legislative body.

[Saanim]

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The elected branches of government...generally the legislative body.

So, do the elected branches of government follow the will of the population within few days to a complete U-turn? 

For instance in the matter of illegal immigration?