If Palestinians on the West Bank are into their 3^rd Intifada, have Israelis in 2023 started their 1st ‘Intifada’?

By David E. Kaplan

Today in Israel is ‘National Disruption Day’. People are taking to the streets en mass – it’s all about direction not of cars but the government! Never seen anything like it before. I have just returned from a huge demonstration at the busiest intersection in my hometown of Kfar Saba, 20 kilometres north of Tel Aviv that began at 8.00am. It did not matter the colour of the traffic lights as the cars, busses and trucks were not going anywhere! It seemed like a metaphor for the country not going anywhere either as if rooted at the no less metaphorical  ‘CROSSROAD’!

Posters, flags, blaring over the megaphone and the honking of car horns. At 10.30am the protest  in Kfar Saba officially ended with a rousing singing of the national anthem – Hatikva – the hope. It is a commodity that hangs precariously in the air – hope.

On the way walking home, I receive a text message from my Lay of the Land colleague, Rolene Marks, who was covering the demonstration in her hometown of Modi’in in the centre of the country. A large crowd had assembled outside the residence of the Minister of Justice, Yariv Levin – the architect of the judicial overhaul.  “Protesters were drumming on tambourines, blowing vuvuzelas, and chanting in Hebrew, “Yariv Levin you bring shame (“Busha”) to Modi’in,” reported Rolene. While the protests were mostly peaceful “It was very sad to see,” continued Rolene, “to see one religious extremist approach the protestors to spit on them. It was ugly.”

I am now back at my computer in my apartment in Kfar Saba and I can still hear motorists expressing their sentiment by honking their hooters. It is so loud you can’t fail to hear, but is the government hearing? Is it even bothering to listen?

The nation-wide protests were scheduled to send a collective message by outraged citizens as Benjamin Netanyahu’s  legislative committee votes to pass the second part of its ‘judicial reform’, a misnomer for its rather ‘injudicious overhaul’. Yes, it began over this issue but is it only over this issue 8 weeks later? There is a collective revulsion of this government whose priorities appear skewed. If the Arabs on the West Bank are engaged in a 3^rd Intifada, are Israelis engaged in their 1st Intifada?

As a former student of politics, the atmosphere in Israel reminds me of the protests of France1968, when in the beginning of May of that fateful and turbulent year, a period of civil unrest occurred throughout the French republic, lasting some seven weeks punctuated by protests, general strikes, and the occupation of universities and factories. At the height of those events, the French economy came to a halt. Attempts to quell those strikes by the de Gaulle administration only inflamed the situation further, leading to street battles with the police. And while de Gaul secretly fled to West Germany, it appears our Israeli leadership choses to play the proverbial fiddle, carrying on regardless with its hated legislation, while the country – now literally – burns! The images of revenge settler violence in the Palestinian village of Huwara of burning cars and homes adds to the visual image of a country whose leadership  has lost the plot but worse, lost its soul! 

Adding fuel to the fire, after the riot, chairman of the Knesset’s National Security Committee MK Zvika Fogel of the extreme-right Otzma Yehudit party was unequivocal in his backing for the settler rioters when he said:

 “A closed, burnt Huwara – that’s what I want to see. That’s the only way to achieve deterrence.…… we need burning villages when the IDF doesn’t act.”

We, who know about pogroms, should know better. Just how far low this country’s leadership has sunk, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich -who is also the head of the far-right Religious Zionism party and a minister with responsibility for civil affairs in the West Bank within the Defense Ministry – concurred with his equally disgusting coalition collogues at a financial conference that the Palestinian village of Huwara should be “wiped out’, but with one condition.

And what is that condition?

“I think the State of Israel should be the one to wipe it out, not, God forbid, private people.” So that is the only transgression the rioters settlers did on their murderous spree – they should instead have left it for the government’s ordered henchmen to do the hit!

This man should be in prison not parliament.

While at the demonstrations the common collective chant is ”Bibi Habayta” – “Bibi go home”,  there is an increasing belief, that if in the past people believed Bib always had the solution, now his persona personifies the opposite – dissolution. As the former Minister of Defence Benny Ganz said:

 “The problem isn’t Smotrich, and it’s not Ben Gvir and it’s not Fogel. The problem is Netanyahu. He’s letting the system fall apart. This is all Netanyahu’s responsibility and not his emissaries.”

The people’s revulsion for the Prime Minister was graphically reflected when only last week, when there are so many existential issues facing a nation of national crisis, the Knesset held a special session to approve state funding on both of Netanyahu’s private residences – one in the seaside luxurious town of Caesarea and the other in Jerusalem. Shouting matches broke out almost immediately as opposition MKs charged the committee for caring more of preserving Netanyahu’s millions than caring about the cost of living crisis faced by millions of Israelis.

The way things are going, today’s Day of Outrage are set to lead to Days of Outrage. Sadly, we’re in for the duration as we have leaders not running but ruining our country.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Crazy coalition adds to PM Netanyahu’s woes – and ours!

By David E. Kaplan

When out-of-control wild fires are extinguished by the same crowd that started them, does beg the question:

 “What is going on here?”

It’s crazy, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister of Israel has had to do in his first month of office – put out fires started by his own coalition partners!  

With major threats and issues facing the country – from existential to economic –  look what the PM has had to waste time on:

• There was first the Religious Zionist Party (RZP) proposed law – championed by the party’s National Missions Minister Orit Strock – to enable businesses and service providers to REFUSE to provide services on the basis of “religious belief” such as a doctor declining to give treatment to a LGBT person. Denounced as discriminatory by politicians from the opposition and members of the medical profession, it was left to the PM to administer the coup de grâce by releasing a written statement and video recording assuring that all persons – irrespective of sexual orientation – would be treated equally.

• Next, and literally ‘off the rails’, was United Torah Judaism party chairman, Yitzhak Goldknopf demanding that Transportation Minister, Miri Regev order a halt to construction and maintenance work of Israel’s railways on Saturdays. He claimed that the work is a violation of Shabbat (the Sabbath). Never mind the people who need or want to travel on Saturdays or the vital urgency to complete the national rail electrification project for the betterment of the nation’s economy. In the meantime – although unclear on details – the PM stepped in and an interim compromise was reached that construction was ‘back on track’.

• Then, stepping onto the proverbial pitch was Micky Zohar, the new Culture and Sport Minister who declared  that his ministry would cease funding the previous government’s “Israeli Sabbath” initiative to provide free entrance to a large number of cultural institutions on Saturdays. The only free day in the week for many, it was left again for the Prime Minister to intervene and referee his sport’s minister and assure the public  that “the project would continue.”

• Next for the PM to face off was with his ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism (UTJ) coalition partner who sought to introduce a bill to separate men and women bathing at springs located in the country’s national parks. Drawing outrage from opposition lawmakers, calling the move a further step towards establishing “a religious state”, the natural spring issue was anything but ‘natural’, and the PM felt compelled to ‘spring’ into action assuring the country that there would be no change in policy.

With the PM having to neutralize the crazy urges of his coalition partners – assuring the nation as well as those observing anxiously from abroad that “I am the pilot; not the co-pilot” which is hardly an edorcement for democracy – is it hardly surprising that people across the country have taken to the streets in protest. These are not disgruntled voters who have not accepted the results of the past election. They accepted the election results because they accept DEMOCRACY. What they have NOT accepted is that the results would lead to a process that dismantles democracy.

One wakes up each day and wonder where or what cherished value or institution is this government going to attack next! Not satisfied with a full-on assault on the Supreme Court – the sole institution that provides an ultimate check and balance on a one-tier legislature (the Knesset) and the prime reason for the protests, next up in the crosshairs is a bill to restrict the striking rights of labour unions. Submitted by far-right Religious Zionism party member, Simcha Rothman, who has been a key player leading the government’s efforts to significantly restrict the power of the High Court of Justice, this bill would prevent the Histadrut  – the country’s largest trade union – from joining protests against judicial overhaul. Super serpentine is Rothman. Because the bill is so designed to strip protections from a labor union that strikes in solidarity with a cause that does not directly impact their line of work, this would prevent the national Histadrut labor federation from joining the nationwide protests against the government’s judicial overhaul plan.

Accepting none of this is Histadrut chairman Arnon Bar-David who issued a statement asserting that the bill would not pass.

“Exercising the right to strike is one of the main tools to protect economically vulnerable populations, and I will not allow any party to harm union workers.” Also blasting Rothman’s bill is his immediate predecessor in the Constitution Law and Justice Committee, Labour MK Gilad Kariv, who claimed it is “only phase one of a long-term plan” to place the conservative, right-wing Kohelet Forum think tank in control of the country, “where every man is for himself.”

“Every man for himself” is contrary to the ethos of the idea of Israel. As each Saturday night mass protests attests, with the soul of the country at stake, people are relying on the soles of their feet to make their message heard.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

A cautionary  tale from the South African experience

By former acting Judge, Lawrence Nowosenetz

Is it such a big deal that Knesset can overrule the Israel Supreme Court? That is the plan, it seems, of the new Likud government. The motives are cloaked under the mantle of judicial reform, but this may be a thinly veiled pretext for bringing to heel a judiciary which is an obstacle to the political machinations of the government of the day to protect or give immunity to elected politicians who actually have already crossed the line of the criminal law such as the new Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Health Aryeh  Deri a convicted fraudster  or newly elected Prime Minister Netanyahu who is  currently facing criminal  prosecution.  It remains to be seen whether by the time this is published, the unthinkable  has already have been done.

While some on the Israeli street may think this is not a big deal – indignantly claiming on social media that the legislature reflects the will of the voters and why should unelected judges undermine Knesset  laws – the answer lies of course elsewhere –  in the doctrine of democracy that is not simply based on rule by an elected majority. It is far more complex than simply crass majoritarianism!

Democracy is far more.

It has evolved into a system of checks and balances. This is the idea  which forms the separation of powers of a Government consisting of three elements – the legislature, executive and judiciary. Each has limits and no single part is all powerful or sovereign. This is the model of modern constitutional democracy. Parliament may not exceed its authority. It is bound by the founding laws and values of the State and universal human rights (natural law) . These norms are found in the constitution of the state but are not necessarily written. The US, and many Western states have written constitutions which empower the courts to pronounce on the validity of legislation. A notable exception is England which has an unwritten constitution developed over centuries. Although its parliament is sovereign, it was historically set on course  by the Magna Carta of 1215, which acknowledged the now firmly embedded concept that no man – not even the king – is above the law.

This evolved over time into the idea of the  rule of law.  England presents a unique example of a constitutional democracy with parliamentary sovereignty which is not abused. Israel has no formal constitution but its founding document – the Declaration of Independence – and the body of basic laws are its constitutional values and norms. This is a grey area which is  in danger of being misused. There is no Bill of Rights which gives courts testing powers over legislative excesses or human rights abuses. The courts should be the guardians of the rule of law and should be independent  of political interference. 

The depravity of parliamentary sovereignty is illustrated by the constitutional crisis which occurred during  the 1950’s in what was then the Union of South Africa. In 1910 the Union of South Africa was formed by the fusion of four provinces, the Cape and Natal being former English colonies with the Orange Free State and the Transvaal being former Boer republics. The Cape Colony was the only province in which a group of non-White people of mixed ancestry called  Coloured  had the franchise. The South Africa Act of 1910, being the constitution, contained a clause guaranteeing  the Coloured right to vote in parliament. This provision was called an entrenched clause. It could only be changed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Parliament  (a bicameral body consisting of the House of Assembly and the Senate) sitting in a joint session. The National Party, the Apartheid government of the day, viewed the Coloured vote as an obstacle to White rule and pushed through legislation called the Separate Representation of Voters Act which sought to remove Coloured voters in the Cape from the common voter’s role and provide a separate mechanism for the election of four representatives on a separate voters roll. The new law  did not however command a 2/3 majority in a joint sitting of  both houses.  Mr  Harris and a group of aggrieved Coloured voters in the Cape  challenged the validity of this law in court as Parliament had violated its own procedures. The Appellate Division, then the highest court, struck down the overriding legislation as illegal, being not in compliance with the constitution. The government  was most dissatisfied with this decision and then passed the High Court of Parliament  Act to constitute Parliament as a court and with the power to override the courts of law and of course the adverse judicial decision in the Harris case. However, Harris again approached the courts to remedy the  High Court of Parliament law. The Appellate Division again struck out the legislation as a sham as Parliament is not at all a court of law and has no judicial powers. A constitutional deadlock was reached. 

This stalemate was  overcome by the National Party government  enlarging the Senate with government supporters and also enlarging the Appellate Division with the appointment too, of government supporting judges. The whole sorry saga resulted in the Coloured people being disenfranchised until 1994 when South Africa enacted its democratic interim constitution. The franchise was restored to all South Africans.   

This constitutional gerrymandering  shows the moral depravity of a government armed with untrammelled parliamentary sovereignty, determined to use its powers to maintain power and trample on civil liberties. This approach was already implanted in South Africa by Paul Kruger, prior to the era of union when he  was president of the Boer Republic of the Transvaal. He took a dim view of judicial review, considering it the  work of the Devil introduced to challenge God’s law.  Such an absolutist view harks back to the divine right of kings. This worldview had already been discredited during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe centuries earlier.  

Democracy has been called a fragile flower. It is easily crushed, particularly by those whose intentions are less than honourable. There has always been a tension between the executive and the judiciary. A delicate balance needs to be maintained. Laws are of general application in most cases whereas a court decision is specific to the parties before it. When legislation is used to favour  an individual, such as a politician, it ceases to be legitimate and is an abuse of power.  In the Harris case, the parliamentary process was used to overturn an unfavourable court judgment. This is a red line which should be guarded against.

Israel is at the tipping point between a constitutional democracy and an unconstitutional pseudo democracy.

About the writer:

Lawrence Nowosenetz is a retired South African advocate at the Johannesburg Bar specialising in labour law; a former senior Commissioner of the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration) and  served as an Acting High Court Judge in Gauteng. He has served as Chairman of the Pretoria SA Jewish Board of Deputies and in 2019, he immigrated to Israel where he lives with his wife in Tel Aviv. He retains an interest in international law.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

A ‘changing of the guard’ is set on changing laws  – a fear for the future

By David E. Kaplan

Israel does not have a Constitution. Nor does it have a two-tier system of government like in the US (a House of Representatives and Senate) that protects “We the People” by providing structural checks and balances.

Israel has just one house – the Knesset – but what it also has – and cherishes – is an internationally respected and sometimes envied Supreme Court that boldly protects ALL its citizens equally.  The Israeli Supreme Court is not merely a magnificent building, it also provides a magnificent service. It is ‘designed’ not only to attract each year multitudes of tourists but to safeguard for all time –  the rule of law.

Now however there are ominous forces in play that want not only metaphorically but to literally ‘change the rules’ that will undermine our esteemed Supreme Court posing a threat to civil liberties and minority rights. They are plotting nothing less than an overhaul or more accurately, an overrule by the legislature of the Supreme Court.

Where will the checks be against a – hardly an impossibility these days – reckless legislature without the constraints of the country’s judicial watchdog – a robust Supreme Court?

Yes, Bibi and his new coalition cohorts are on the warpath against the Supreme Court and let us not be fooled by their pretentions of “protecting” democracy. If Israeli democracy needs protecting, it needs protecting from THEM – the Prime Minister and his Justice Minister – Yariv Levin! Under the facile façade of “judicial reform”, the new ultra-right Likud government want the freedom to pursue what could be reckless agendas without any judicial obstacles and to provide as well, protection and immunity to wayward politicians – starting at the top with the Prime Minister himself facing serious criminal charges and then moving down his list of ‘the usual suspects’ in his cabinet. This cabinet includes the Vice Prime Minister serving as well as the Minister of Health and Minister of the Interior and Periphery, Aryeh Deri. Deri has also served time for bribery, fraud and breach of trust, convicted in 1999. Are ‘we the Israeli people’ expected to place our trust and our futures with convicted fraudsters?

Is it any wonder the protests have begun against Prime Minister Netanyahu and Justice Minister, Yariv Levin.

These protests are not a case of the “left having lost an election that they can’t come to terms with it” as rightwing journalists daily jibe but of Israelis who love and respect democracy but now fear losing it.

The protests on Saturday night the 7 January 2023,  which drew more that 10,000 people to Habima Square in Tel Aviv – “is just one example,” writes the editor of The Jerusalem Report  in his November 9 editorial “of how a large segment of the Israeli public finds these reforms scary and dangerous. People are afraid of the loss of basic civil rights.” The editorial continues, stressing that “Combined with extreme remarks made by some members of the new government about the LGBT community for example, their concerns are not “, as the Prime Minister refutes, “baseless.”

It’s all very well that our smooth-talking Prime Minster is trying to reassure an anxious half of the Israeli population that the claims of his proposed judicial reforms will lead to “the end of democracy” are “baseless”. But are they? After all, he too was once in opposition to the very reforms he now champions.

Does Netanyahu – who boasts frequently of how “smart” Israelis are – really believe that Israelis will be duped by the self-interest assertions of a Prime Minister facing criminal charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in bed with cabinet ministers who some themselves are convicted felons or hold extreme positions? Noting the caliber of the characters Netanyahu has assembled in his governing coalition, are we really to expect that these reforms will be carried out as he asserts “responsibly” and in a “level-headed manner”?

Who is the Prime Mister kidding? Not any people I know.

And who is Netanyahu listening to? It appears only to himself, while at least one person who he should be listening to is his greatest supporter abroad, emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

“If I were in Israel I would be joining the protests,” Dershowitz told Israel’s Army Radio, referring to the protest attended by thousands in Tel Aviv on Saturday.

Asserting that “It would be a tragedy to see the Supreme Court weakened,” he cautioned that “It will make it much more difficult for people like me who try to defend Israel in the international court of public opinion to defend it effectively [in the future].”

It was a surprise awakening to hear Dershowitz – who has written bestselling books supporting Israeli policies and is close to Netanyahu – to so forcefully oppose the proposed judicial reforms. Dershowitz added he had informed Netanyahu of his “very strong” opposition to the reforms, warning they would also expose Israel to legal challenges by global bodies such as the International Criminal Court.

Even Israel’s president, a position largely ceremonial, has joined in the public outcry to Netanyahu’s judicial reforms. Breaking his silence on Tuesday, President Isaac Herzog  vowed to defend the country’s founding values expressing concern that the proposed reforms by Justice Minister Levin could violate the “moral compass of the country.”

Changes to Israel’s Supreme Court will be ‘supreme’ folly. At the moment the Prime Minister is not listening. It will be up to an awakening public to shout louder.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavors to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO) .