Israel is in tumult over an attempt by its current hard-right government to strip the Supreme Court of power. Former Likud prime minister Ehud Olmert, no one's idea of a dove, says Israel is facing an existential crisis:
This moment, he says, is different from previous political crises that Israel has faced. “If you love Israel, you have to spell it out in the bluntest possible manner against the government of Israel. I’ll tell you why: because the government of Israel is the enemy of the state of Israel,” he told Vox.
....For Olmert, American leadership is needed in response to the Netanyahu government’s efforts. He wishes that President “Joe Biden will step up, sooner than later, and will say he wants to reassess the relations between America and Israel on the basis of the changes which the Israelis took.”
Olmert is no dove, but he emphasized an element of the Israeli government’s radical policies that haven’t been a major focus of the protests: escalatory actions in the West Bank and the oppression of Palestinians.
Sadly, it's too late for Israel. Its doom was sealed years ago by the uncompromising mechanics of demography. In the 1990s Israel was hit with a surge of immigration from the former Soviet Union at the same time that exponential growth in the ultra-orthodox haredi community started to swell. Put together, it looks approximately like this:
Both of these groups strongly support hard-right politics, and the haredim in particular continue to grow. This base of ultraconservative voters is already too large to overcome and it's only going to get larger over time.
I don't know how this ends. Not well, I'd guess.
IIRC the initial rightward turn that put Begin and Likud in office was powered by the votes of Sephardi immigrants from the Muslim world. This road has been under construction for 50-some years.
Oh, good grief. We don't like it here when the Supreme Court is a contravariant force against the elected branches. Bibi won these elections. There's no hint of fraud or theft. I don't like where he's taking Israel, but asserting the supremacy of parliament is not undemocratic—it may be bad, but it's not undemocratic—or unique. Most Westminster-style systems have parliamentary supremacy.
Israel is having a political crisis. That happens in countries. It's often tied to the fundamentals of a country, just like the Civil War here.
None of this is fundamentally about Russians or Charedim or Sephardim. It's about internal security. You would be thinking about that first too if you lived under those circumstances. How do I know? The US freaks the fuck out every time there's some schizo with a water pistol claiming to be from ISIS.
Secondarily, maybe, it's that they are actually worried about Iran there. Should they be? Maybe not quite as much as they are.
Your views on those issues are a highly accurate sorter of whether you will vote for one of Bibi's partners or not. Internal factions may be along ethnic or sectarian lines, but the basic blocks are determined by what you think about the Palestinians and if you're old enough to remember the Second Intifada.
And none of this is because Israel is some fundamentally flawed institution. As countries go, even compared with ones without Constitutional crises, it's doing pretty good.
Visit the place, know some Israelis, and it will tell you more than that fucking chart.
Israel doesn't have a Constitution. Parliamentary supremacy, in the absence of a constitution, will absolutely lead to entrenched one-party rule. This is why so many people around the world, including many leading lights in Israel itself, are freaking out right now. If Bibi succeeds in getting the Supreme Court under parliament's thumb then the first thing he will do is rig election rules to guarantee Likud dominance in perpetuity. What's to stop him?
Isn’t there also the small matter of the criminal investigations into him?
Just like donnie.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution either, and has managed to go for about a couple hundred years as a parliamentary democracy without one political party becoming entrenched (yet!). It didn't even have a Supreme Court able to override parliament until like 2009, I think.
It's disrespect from the ruling party for the rule of law and that same ruling party using government institutions to undermine fair and free elections that generally leads to one party becoming entrenched for generations. (Also: laziness of the voting public to check such a ruling party before they get out of control, and how intensely a majority of that voting public want to use the state to punish minority populations living among them.)
"The UK doesn't have a written constitution either, and has managed to go for about a couple hundred years as a parliamentary democracy without one political party becoming entrenched (yet!). It didn't even have a Supreme Court able to override parliament until like 2009, I think."
UK has the House of Lords, which has similar role to high court in stopping the elected parliament from running amoc. The actual mechanics are different, obviously, but it is pretty effective.
I'm sorry, this is a naked power grab by Netanyahu and his allies to essentially neuter the judicial branch and make themselves completely unaccountable. He was getting prosecuted for corruption and didn't like it and decided to take are of it by eliminating all that pesky "rule of law" stuff from the political system. Like Kevin, Netanyahu has also done the demographic math and figures that right-wing power is now so entrenched in Israel that he can get away with this and never be held accountable at the ballot box.
Religious ethno-states are fundamentally flawed in the modern world.
"Everything is fine. They're just, you know, having a little kerfuffle like the American Civil War."
Visit the place, know some Arabs who live under occupation, and it will tell you more than that chart as well.
Russia and Israel. It's like an interfaith axis of evil. I hope Biden stays out of it. It is impossible to reason with religious fanatics.
Sadly, it's too late for Israel. Its doom was sealed years ago by the uncompromising mechanics of demography.
Kevin: there's a different demographic crisis that in my view is even more ominous* for Israel: according to most sources I've checked, an absolute majority of the population living under Israel's writ between the Mediterranean and the Jordan is now Arab.
https://plus61j.net.au/featured/jews-now-a-47-minority-between-mediterranean-sea-and-jordan-river-demographer/
*It's possible to leave the Ultra-Orthodox community, after all, and many Israeli Jews have done just that. It's also possible for children to vote to the left of their parents.
Interestingly, Kevin mentions that broad aspect a decade or so ago: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/peace-middle-east-now-officially-impossible/
"It's also possible for children to vote to the left of their parents."
Sure it's possible but it's not the reality in Israel.
"A joint poll published by the Israel Democracy Institute last month found that 73 percent of Jewish Israelis between ages 18 and 24 identify as right-wing, compared with only 46 percent of Jewish Israelis over 65."
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/2/23/23609584/israel-right-wing-young-voters-palestine
"according to most sources I've checked, an absolute majority of the population living under Israel's writ between the Mediterranean and the Jordan is now Arab."
that is indeed a problem with ethnostates: in the long run, you might have to choose between the ethno and the state parts.
Israel is our future on an accelerated scale. The rw religious nuts are gonna destroy the US. And there is nothing we can do to stop it. Oh, slow it down, yes. Stop? No. Not the way the electoral college is. By 2040 30 percent of the population will control 70 percent. Not good.
No, Israel's problem is nothing like the electoral college / Senate issue in the US. The US problem is that rural areas are somewhat overrepresented in Congress and the EC. While those areas vote R today, there's no reason that has to stay true -- the Republican have done nothing to help anyone there.
Israel's problem is that soon, if not now, more than 50% of the population living under the control of the government aren't Jewish, in a country that affords special rights to Jews. And a significant number, the Palestinians in the OT, have no political rights at all.
This is a truly tragic situation. The launching of the second intifada in late 2000, after Arafat rejected the Camp David 2000 peace offer, convinced most Israelis that they had no partner on the Palestinian side who would ever negotiate a settlement. The other side of the coin, though, is that Israel can not rule over an ever increasing majority of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs forever.
One of my favorite "economics" rules applies here: if something can't go on forever, it will stop.
At this point, I have no idea what "it will stop" will look like in Israel, but my guess is that it will be ugly.
This is just about backwards. What we are seeing in the US is a freakout by a shrinking demographic group that understands that their views will be even less popular in the future, and so is trying to undermine democracy. The Republicans benefit from the electoral college and gerrymandering, plus the small state edge in the South. But none of these things are getting worse. At the presidential level the Republicans seem to be losing Georgia and Arizona, and what states do they have the potential to pick up? Their margins in rural states are increasing, but that doesn't help in the electoral college.
In Israel, the protesters from the left (although most of them are at best centrist since the left is largely dead as a political force) seem to be the shrinking demographic group that has to find a way to fend off irrelevance. In the US the Republicans only have an edge with people over 60. In Israel it is people over 60 who still support democracy.
Actually, the "small states" that lean Republican are mostly in the Northern Great Plains: the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska. Among them they control 24% of the Senate with a population percentage of 2.16% of the total US population among them. Yes, there are a few other small states scattered in among these close neighbors, but none are as clustered geographically as these.
Most of the "Red States" in the Old Confederacy actually have fairly robust populations. The smallest is Mississippi at 0.88% of the total population of the country. And Texas and Florida are numbers 2 and 3, so there's that.
The more things change? https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/israels-demographic-challenge/
Note also that Israel's religious nuts are supported by the State, don't work, and don't serve in the military. A clear case of parasitism. If they continue to use their electoral power to run things, while multiplying like rabbits (according to biblical decree) and thus increasing their voting strength, will the "parasites" ultimately destroy the viability of the country?
Or will the United States continue to pour in enough "aid" to further the status quo? Remember, it's anti-semitic to not support Israel to the fullest, right or wrong. And if anyone thinks it's "wrong", they're an anti-semite.
"Or will the United States continue to pour in enough "aid" to further the status quo?"
It's not just money though. The US could be sending trillions to Israel, but if nobody is sending them people... and if growing numbers of Israelis aren't actually working... and if Israel still opposes welcoming non-Jews in on respectful terms to do the jobs Jews won't do but need to be done... eventually the country still will fail. (Island resorts and the like catering to the wealthy also have this problem. Even if all the guests have billions of dollars, they still need a minimum guest-to-staff ratio to function. Those billionaires aren't going to wash their own toilets, cook their own food, tend to their own medical needs, etc...)
All good points! The long term prospects, if this continues, don't look good.
Feel free to call me antisemite. I do not support Israel, Bibi, or the religious leaches. Time to turn off the tap of money from the US.
I have supported Israel in the past. Even when Netanyahu showed fascist tendencies I still supported Israel because 20+ years ago the Palestinians were offered an independent state and their response was just to shrug. Complete control over their borders, they could pass any law, a real country. To this day, there has never been any large Palestinian protests about the failure to accept the deal. If it is ever brought up it is usually to denigrate the offer of an independent state - let me repeat that: independent state. Decades of violence would have been avoided simply by saying “Yes.”
I might hate the way Palestinians are treated, but it could all have been avoided simply by saying Yes to the agreement that was actually negotiated between the parties. Anyone claiming this was a trick or an unfair agreement simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. They really don’t.
But if Netanyahu gets this passed, then screw Israel. If they want to turn away from liberal democracy and embrace fascism, then their great allies can be Russia and China. I’m sure that will work out for everybody. If they want to act like they miss the days when kings ruled and portioned out the spoils, just like their neighbors, then we shouldn’t support them. Cut all funding and diplomatic cover.
You have been misled about the various Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Moreover, it has been Israel that has never lived up to its side of the bargain ... but due to unconditional US support, has never faced the consequences.
You apparently don't know what the topic even is. There was no bargain to live up to. You should really learn about it.
Maybe you are serious and not a troll. If that is the case then all this happened in the months before and after the 2000 American election. Arafat decided it was better to keep skimming money instead of actually giving his people an actual state. An independent country. His for the taking. Just didn't bother.
"Arafat decided it was better to keep skimming money instead of actually giving his people an actual state. An independent country. His for the taking. Just didn't bother."
Yeah, that makes sense. One guy who was out of office four years later "didn't bother" to sign an agreement, so plainly nobody else in the ensuing two decades could possibly have reached the same or similar deal. After all, once one leader rejects something, no matter how great a bargain it apparently was for both sides, it's simply off the table forever.
As you say, anyone claiming that it's an incredibly difficult problem with no clear solutions that has stymied resolution for the better part of a bloody century and for which the causes and blame are deeply contextualized, multifaceted, emotional, and nearly intractable for both outsiders and insiders is clearly not serious and a troll.
It's obvious that the whole affair can be safely laid at the feet of a dead Arafat and therefore we can tut-tut at the way an occupied people has been treated but feel alright about it because after all it's really their own fault.
You know most people, if they know nothing about an issue, don’t proudly share their opinions about it. Most people don’t assume that the vague ideas they have, combined with a complete lack of historical information is just as good as actually knowing something about the issue.
It is nice that you don’t know what happened in 2000, or what happened in the years after that, or what happened to the political parties that had staked everything on peace, but to every single person in Israel who does know what happened it is obvious why there was no repeat of what happened. It is nice that you think the issue is “an incredibly difficult problem with no clear solutions that has stymied resolution for the better part of a bloody century and for which the causes and blame are deeply contextualized, multifaceted, emotional, and nearly intractable for both outsiders and insiders”, but in fact everyone who has studied the issue has known since the 1970s what the final peace treaty would look like. And lo and behold, the 2000 treaty looked exactly like everyone thought it would. Exactly. You don’t know what a peace treaty would look like, but people who actually know about the issue do (and did).
Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel because he wanted it to happen. Arafat didn’t sign because he didn’t want one - no one could have disagreed with his decision no matter what it was. And who in Palestine today is saying that had they been in charge instead of Arafat, they would have signed it? Many Palestinians will protest Israeli treatment, but where are the ones who will stand up to their government and demand a final peace treaty that looks like the one that was already negotiated over 20 years ago?
Hey, what's with all the agression? I'm *agreeing* with you! Nearly a quarter-century ago, Arafat didn't accept a deal that you and I presume--based on rumors told by interested partisans of what was proposed--he should have, and as a result, all those awful Palestinians are just getting what they deserve!
And all the proof we need is that you and I are apparently personally unaware of any Palestinians blaming their plight not on the Israelis who are currently harming them but on the failure of a prior leader to finalize some deal of dubious relevance that was partially negotiated four years before the median Palestinian was even born.
If only those Palestinians, living in Palestine and daily experiencing the reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict, had the wisdom and trenchant historical understanding of someone like you, Gilgit, they'd of course immediately be able to secure wonderful peaceful, prosperous lives for everybody involved!
But, as you say, despite the fact that "everyone who has studied the issue has known since the 1970s what the final peace treaty would look like" those foolish Palestinians just won't get on board! Presumably they must just not have "studied the issue" because the solution is otherwise quite obvious. Or maybe they just don't like what you and I think they ought to like. I guess there's just no pleasing some people, but that's colonialism for you!
Hey buddy, why you being so hostile? I’m only stating rather obvious points. True, they are different then the ones you are blindly repeating and have obviously never investigated, but hey, come on, you can be civil. I will say that the natural way to interpret, “based on rumors told by interested partisans of what was proposed,” is that you don’t know anything about this, but since you suspect the facts undercut what you want to believe you are declaring that no one can ever know what happened. Tucker Carlson would be proud of your reasoning.
It has been over 20 years and not one piece of information has come out that contradicts what was known in 2000. The American mediators have not said, oh, I forgot to mention that none of that was true. The parties spent months hammering this thing out and then, after playing the string as long as he could, Arafat finally said no and went home. He actually said no to a completely independent state. That still amazes me. I think of the Uyghurs in China or Tibet or Hong Kong getting an offer like this and just walking away. It would never have happened.
I like that you act like this is all in the past so who cares. Except, that was the moment. That was when peace was there for the taking. No battles to be won. Just had to accept the agreement that was negotiated right in front of you. Acting like the timing doesn’t matter is like saying Lincoln should have done nothing in 1861 and then being shocked that 20 years later the Union was busted. You often have one shot at things and after that point there is nothing you can do. Munich 1938 is a good example of missing the timing. There isn’t anything you can do after that but suffer the consequences.
I could talk more about it, but I’m just going to cut and paste: It is nice that you don’t know what happened in 2000, or what happened in the years after that, or what happened to the political parties that had staked everything on peace, but to every single person in Israel who does know what happened it is obvious why there was no repeat of what happened.
Of course, no matter what I type your response is going to be to just accuse me of hating Palestinians or thinking killing civilians is good or I’m racist or whatever. But I’m still going to present intelligent arguments that you will refuse to consider. I’d actually compare Israel-Palestine to the Russia-Ukraine situation. And not just because one of the leaders could have avoided everything by simply choosing peace. I’m instead going to talk about negotiating with Putin. Since Putin will break any agreement he makes there is no point negotiating with him. It doesn’t matter if Zelensky is replaced by a hawk or dove. Unless there is a reliable partner, negotiations don’t matter. Everyone in Israel stopped believing they had a reliable partner to negotiate with. I have yet to hear any Palestinian leader today say that obviously the final peace plan will look basically like the 2000 agreement. If they won’t admit that, then what are they going to negotiate? I know you won’t answer this because you literally know nothing about this issue, but I really want to know what you think they would negotiate if it wasn’t just an exact rehash of 2000?
Now let’s look at the people of Russia. Many people think the average Russian is as much a victim as the Ukrainians. They’d never want to invade Ukraine on their own. Without the misinformation most would never support the war. Plus they will be punished for speaking out. Others point out that the average Russian is still fighting and providing a lot of support. I don’t want any Russians to be killed, but if that is the only way to free Ukraine then a lot of them are going to die. And if people are willing to risk their lives fighting in Ukraine then they can risk their lives in a revolution. It is one thing not to rebel when things are just status quo. It is another when lives are already at risk. I’m actually curious if you think the Russian people are victims or perpetrators?
At some point the average Palestinian is responsible for their government. If your government isn’t willing to take risks in the name of peace, then you have to change it. And I don’t even mean by force of arms. I don’t remember any protests in 2000 against Arafat just saying no. Maybe there were, but you obviously wouldn’t know about them because you know nothing about this issue. You just know throw around words like “colonialism” because you don’t know how to reason.
The Russian people just blindly blame Ukraine, and NATO, and the West for all their problems. The Palestinians just blame Israel, the West, and the US for all its problems. And you, let’s face it, if Arafat had said yes and there was an independent Palestine today and you saw a film of civilians being mistreated by other Palestinians, you’d shrug and then go back to mocking people by blindly repeating phrases you don’t know how to apply.
You seem to have learned a revisionist history of the Barak-Arafat negotiations. It is a common one from the Israeli side, but not accurate. Barak never offered the Palestinians control of its borders. He later "bragged" that the West Bank would only be fully bisected in one place (although partially disrupted throughout.
What Barak did was to make a fair offer on Jerusalem, while keeping fundamental control of the West Bank. The Clinton plan was that Arafat would respond to the concession with an actual peace offer which Barak would naturally agree to. But it is far from clear that Barak would have agreed to it. (For one thing he later denied that he would have done so). But Clinton's advisors, mostly American Jews who desperately wanted peace took for granted that if Arafat made a concession on the right to return, Barak would make the kind of offer that you falsely claim he actually made.
Note that 8 years later Abbas did make the concession on the right to return in his negotiations with Olmert, and Olmert did not make the kind of offer that the Clinton people believed Israel would do. That is why a couple of Clinton's negotiators have since come to reevaluate what happened in those negotiations.
You can see this in the Clinton Parameters (so called as a recognition that it was not a peace deal) which was meant to bank the concession on Jerusalem and a concession on the right of return, while leaving for later whether the Palestinians would actually control the West Bank rather than having to pass through Israeli checkpoints to get from town to town in the West Bank. (Barak's point about complete bisection is that one could avoid the checkpoints in the West Bank by going hours out of one's way to avoid Israeli settlements in the West Bank).
Israel had spent decades following a settlement policy that only makes sense if Israel had no interest in peace. The difference between the Palestinians and the Clinton advisors is that the former took this as evidence that Israel had no interest in peace, while the latter (like most American Jews) found nonsensical ways to rationalize away the settlement policy and so assume that if offered peace Israel would simply do a U-turn and remove the settlements. This view was naive in 2000, it seems simply ludicrous today.
I had started reading your response with interest. I’m always looking for more information. I’ve never read a 1000 page book on the subject or anything, so maybe I had something wrong. Unfortunately I became less and less enthusiastic as I read.
You start with, “learned a revisionist history”. I guess you’re trying to convince people that I’ve just picked up some random information and should be ignored. This was only 20+ years ago. It isn’t like I have to be 80 to remember it. There were lots of reports, articles, interviews, and debates about this. Lots of reporters and shows tried very hard to get to the bottom of what happened. Lots of sources from both sides. Interviews with the American mediators. None of the reported information supports any of the points you made.
I’d also add that if a source of information lies to me I don’t just shrug and say they got me. I stop using that source. Do you? Cause some of your statements are so wrong, even a propagandist would think twice about using them. You say things like, “The Clinton plan was that Arafat would respond to the concession with an actual peace offer which Barak would naturally agree to.” This isn’t how you negotiate. What do you think the negotiators were doing for all those months? And this was the final negotiations. There were no other negotiations after this. This was the hammering out of the treaty. This was endless hours of negotiating borders, agreements, and procedures. I think the number of Palestinians allowed to return was capped at 6,000. Any refugee or anyone else could return to the new Palestine. Troops would stay at the border with Jordan for 9 years - I have no idea how you thought Israel would control that border without troops. Again, what did you think they were negotiating? You don’t even seem aware that negotiations were happening. Instead believing that someone would make some vague offer followed days or weeks later by another vague offer.
The thing is, at the time all sides of the debate agreed on the above points. No one on either side tried to claim any of these points were different. Some people just said it was fine that Arafat turned it down because who needs your own independent country?
You bring up subdividing the West Bank. I recall an interview with the head American mediator. He mentioned that he was very disappointed with the initial Israeli offer. It divided the West Bank into cantons and they had to pressure the Israelis to make concessions which they did. Now, what a propagandist would do is repeat the first part of the statement and just leave off the rest. After all, the first part was true, even though it had no connection to the truth. Maybe the propagandist would add a few quotes that may or may not be true and, of course, not say when they were made so you have no way of knowing what they connect to. Or even add something unrelated that happened 8 years later to confuse the issue.
Another thing a propagandist would do is say things like, “You can see this in the Clinton Parameters (so called as a recognition that it was not a peace deal).” The idea is you bring up some name and say that this means something, but there isn’t any reason why it would mean that. Again, at no point did anyone at any time claim these weren’t the final negotiations.
Now, the way you know you want a peace treaty is that, after spending months negotiating it, you then agree to sign it. And if you don’t want one, you spend months negotiating it and then just say no and walk away. If for some unexplained reason you want to obscure this fact you just bring up some other point and claim it is the real way you tell if someone wants peace. For instance, “a settlement policy that only makes sense if Israel had no interest in peace.” The thing is, if you want to stop Israel creating settlements you agree to a peace treaty that fixes the borders. Problem solved for good. Again, they spent months negotiating those borders. No idea what you think they were doing all that time.
You could obscure things even more by saying Israel would never “do a U-turn and remove the settlements.” The thing is Israel used force to remove settlements when they withdrew from the Sinai. And removed more in 2005 from Gaza. But hey, maybe no one else remembers that. Of course, you never mention that the treaty they spent months negotiating didn’t include removing settlements. Instead, they agreed that the Palestinians would get parts of Israel in return. Again, no idea what you thought they were doing for all those months, but they negotiated a lot of things.
Well there’s 90 minutes I won’t get back.
Demographics, but also appeasement. Namely after the assassination of Rabin by a far-right nationalist, when Israeli society seemed to fear civil war and to prevent it, gave the settler movement all it wanted. Which when it comes to the far right is a fool's errand because it will demand ever more, and more, and more.
Lessons for everyone there, I think.
Gee, an unbiased observer might even conclude that perhaps opening up a country to substantial immigration by people of a very different political culture could result in substantial changes to that country...
This is a stupid comment. There's a pretty big difference between a unique surge of right-wing immigrants into a country diluting its liberal nature and an ongoing multicultural influx diluting other countries' conversative natures.
Kevin won't be around, but the future of Israel looks increasingly like what the worst-case scenario future of South Africa looked like in the 1980s: an increasingly smaller minority in control over a larger population with no political power and no way to make this happen but via fascistic terror. Their global pariah status is a question of when, not if.
Israel has been expanding settlements and marginalizing its Arab population for years, and the US government has continued to support the Israeli government. But American Jews and Evangelical Christians, who are the political base for that support, can change. It will just take a disastrous move by the Israeli government for that to happen. I give it five years or so, if Bibi, et al remain in power.
I note with interest that immigration to Israel is perceived to be contributing to the threat against its stability. No surprise, since rapid demographic change (with attendant cultural discordance) often leads to strife.
Maybe if you wanted to acknowledge the details (a one-time surge of immigration after the fall of the Soviet Union, taking in culturally conservative immigrants) you'd arrive at a different conclusion than the one you're hungry to insinuate.
Pingback: Die Bundeswehr führt auf Schulhöfen ein Tempolimit ein und löst so ein Wirtschaftswunder in der Gaming-Branche aus - Vermischtes 22.03.2023 - Deliberation Daily