Here is an explanation from a Jewish publication:
Israel, famously, is a nation without a constitution. ...The Israel parliament has unanimous voted for some modest reforms, and hysterical protesters are trying to shut down the govt. What goes?The judicial revolution began in the 1980s, when the court unilaterally abolished two key restrictions on its power to hear cases: standing, meaning who is entitled to petition the court, and justiciability, meaning what issues are within the court’s purview. The accepted norms until then — as is still the case today in many countries, including America—were that only someone directly affected by a given executive-branch decision had standing to go to court, and that most political issues were nonjusticiable, meaning the court could not rule on them because they were properly the province of the elected branches of government. The new policy allowed anyone at all, including organizations or individuals who weren’t directly affected by a policy but disliked it, to petition the court on any issue whatsoever. The result, as the revolution’s chief ideologue, former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, famously said, is that today “everything is justiciable.” Virtually every controversial policy question, and a great many trivial ones as well, now reach the court, and the court rules on all of them. (For more on Barak’s motivations for this and subsequent stages of the judicial revolution, see this essay from back in 1998 or this one from 2016.) Rather than merely judging whether policies comply with existing law, the court also asserted that government decisions could be “so unreasonable as to be illegal ” — even if they violated no law.
But rather than merely judging whether policies comply with existing law, the court also asserted that government decisions could be “so unreasonable as to be illegal ” even if they violated no law. This was the second crucial part of the revolution. Reasonability was originally a standard used to protect individual rights by determining whether a given official’s or agency’s handling of a particular case was a reasonable interpretation of their legally mandated authority. But overturning general policies rather than individual decisions on the grounds that they are “unreasonable” was a novel interpretation of this doctrine; courts in other democracies generally confine themselves to determining whether policies violate existing laws or the constitution.
Since then, the court has used this expanded reasonability doctrine to overturn policies on a wide range of issues at the very heart of the government’s responsibilities.
Meanwhile, Jews like US AG Merrick Garland are often lecturing us on democracy and rule of law, while they force they leftist politics on us.
I am coming to the conclusion that most Jews believe that the ideal government is a Communist Politburo.
Judaism teaches leftist authoritarianism. It has no foundational principles. The way they do things is that a bunch of rabbis engage in some heated arguments. When and if they reach a consensus, everyone else is expected to go along with it.
Jorday B Peterson posts a new interview of Gad Saad of Israel. They discuss research connecting leftist authoritarian with malignant narcissism.
2 comments:
Interesting theory although I wonder how it helps explain the nature and program of the current Israeli government.
Israel is a state constantly under siege within and without surrounded on all sides by those who wish to wipe them from the face of the earth. That said, Israel can't really become like what would expect a normal (if that word even means anything in this context) westernized country, any more than the United States or England during the Civil War, WWI, or WWII. During our own major conflicts, how many of what we would normally call our own unalienable rights were curtailed even against the standards of our own constitution? The United States could simply not exist in it's present form under a perpetual state of siege and war. Our own Civil War as brief as it was nearly destroyed us, what will being involved in Israel's endless conflict do to us?
My problem with the whole ball of wax, is that Israel in essence will be at war with a wartime footing forever, (or logically until either the Jews are all dead, OR the Palestinians are all dead, OR they both are all dead) thus they will never normalize into a non-war like footing or mode of civilization. The calculus of the entire situation is only down hill for Judaism if it wishes to adhere like glue to the postage stamp sized promised land where they think God has a geographical preference.
It's entirely a numbers game. Jewish families are being left in the dust demographically within their own country. Palestinians reproduce a LOT more than typical Jewish families do, and in a representational society, numbers equate voting power. Do the math. The Jews are going to be eventually crowded out, out-populated, and out-voted in their own country if things continue. There really is no way around this, short of some VERY drastic measures which I think would make even the most hard line Israeli war hawk blanche.
These observations lead to a horrible conclusion we really can not afford to gloss over. If the United States is going to be an ally of Israel, we are going to be (by association) at war or involved with one forever in the Middle East, and Israel will do everything in their power (by hook or by crook) to keep us there alongside them, as they will have a snow cone's chance in hell of surviving in a sea of angry Muslims without the financial might and military hardware of a superpower behind them. America has already wasted enough blood and treasure in the Middle East to almost zero effect except body bags and wealthy military contractors, and our fortunes are fast depleting. We can not prop this hopeless game up for much longer.
Post a Comment