It is not possible for an apartheid system to be a democracy. It can't be a democracy when three quarters of Palestinians living under Israeli rule are not permitted to vote.
I've been following the situation in Israel, and I don't understand why the reasonability clause is something good to have in the first place. If a law is being passed, the SC could overrule it by simply saying that it is unreasonable. That sounds like an awful reason. Now the SC has to actually show which of the basic laws the proposed law contradicts. This is how it works in the US, and that makes sense to me. What am I missing?
This topic (and the submitted article) were discussed earlier today:
Israeli parliament passes law to limit judicial power (nytimes.com) | 43 points | by asimpletune 11 hours ago | 60 comments
I pretty sure that I read same article in Hebrew today and I am not sure what it's point. I think commenters in Hebrew were of same opinion
> It makes it very difficult to actually understand what's going on vs. the writer's agenda.
Speaking broadly, you can't have democracy without a balance of powers between the government and the judicial system. Therefore any emerging dictatorship must first limit the powers of the judicial system and/or undermine its independence by appointing their own corrupt puppets in place. When a clash happens between any government and its nation's courts, you can bet all horses that they're after taking absolute power.
Putin did it, Erdogan did it, Lukashenko did it, Orban did it, and at least in the EU other countries are working on it (Italy, Poland).
Translation to US terms: current supreme court should have a veto on next candidates to supreme court. It should be able to cancel any law or government decision, even constitutional amendments. Anything but that is not a democracy. (Yes, Yuval thinks you’re stupid.)
Ironic given Yuval's association with a multitude of anti-democratic organizations.
the fascist country... is fascist‽‽‽
For once, it would be nice to have one of these articles just explain the facts without the editorialization. It makes it very difficult to actually understand what's going on vs. the writer's agenda.
> Government members openly brag about their intentions. They explain that since they won Israel’s last elections, it means they can now do anything they want. Like other authoritarian forces, the Israeli government doesn’t understand what democracy means. It thinks it is a dictatorship of the majority, and that those who win democratic elections are thereby granted unlimited power.
What kind of writing is this? I'd expect better journalism from a high school newspaper... and this is from a journalism outfit that charges $70 monthly!
The way the article is written, it reads like a tantrum from someone not getting what they want.
The nuance is entirely lost, and the entire article is designed to have the reader come away with exactly one set of thoughts.