Israel is a country of paradoxes. Whereas on the one hand we take good care of the elderly, if any of them, even in their 60’s, would like to take a remunerated job to keep active, they will come up against an ageist attitude. There seems to be either young or old, just black or white, but there is no gray area, where the young could learn something from the experienced, and the older could gain knowledge of the new technology in their respective fields and be an asset to the economy.
It actually happened to me. Admittedly, I was 80 at the time when the state radio station Kol Yisrael’s English Department turned me down because it said I was too old. Now it’s almost 20 years later, and I am still broadcasting [on Arutz Sheva – Israel National News] hopefully still with clarity.
This paradox permeates everything in Israeli society, from personal interaction, where private conversation is virtual and conducted through social media, but where political discourse is acted out physically.
So much is happening in our domestic politics, that it is often difficult to keep up.
What constitutes democracy in judicial reform legislation?
On Monday, July 24, one of the most controversial and consequential laws for the political future of our country was enacted by the Knesset. It was the day on which once again more than 100,000 of our citizens demonstrated in the streets of our cities to show their concern of that law’s effect on the maintenance of democracy.
But what constitutes democracy in the context of decision-making? And on this, the country is divided. Those almost daily demonstrations were designed to prevent – what is now a fait accompli – the government’s policy to curb the Supreme Court’s powers to reverse any legislation that it considers unreasonable; and this is the bone of contention.
Half the country supports the present government’s position, and as the demonstrations show, hundreds of thousands sincerely believe that the government’s policies usurp democracy. It is not clear, however, who or what group organizes their demonstrations.
I shall briefly examine the pros and cons of that new legislation which has aroused the passions of our mainly younger and impressionable generation. The bill limits the ability of Israel’s Supreme Court to review the “reasonableness” of government decisions.
The High Court, as it is called when it is hearing petitions rather than appeals, is made up of 15 unelected judges who had the ability to overturn legislation passed by the majority of our 120 members of Knesset if they considered it unreasonable.
Admittedly, the law in question was voted 64 to 0 only because the opposition collectively absented themselves from the chamber, and by this protest action effectively registered their opposition. Like in ancient times, the current baseless hatred between our politicians cannot lead to a pleasant outcome.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “unreasonable” as “not governed by or acting according to reason.” This is, of course, highly subjective. Some will consider it as child abuse if I slap my child; others would call it parental privilege.
In its decisions on legislation, the Supreme Court has applied inductive reasoning, taking observations that are specific and limited in scope and proceeded to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain in light of accumulated evidence, and so moving from the specific to the general.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logically arrived at, and no amount of inductive evidence guarantees a conclusion free from imperfections. This is because there is no way that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further unobserved item of evidence that might invalidate the arrived at hypothesis.
While the supporters and the media might report the conclusions as absolutes, more cautious language is required for inductively reached probable conclusions.
All this philosophical language simply means that the concept of reasonableness as was used by the Supreme Court is imprecise and not safe on which to base conclusions. All that, quite apart from the accepted practice of separation of the three constituents of democratic government.
The argument for the necessity of a body to exercise checks and balances is a fair one, but that cannot be left to 15 unelected lawyers. Unfortunately, Israel does not have a written constitution, just a hotchpotch of Basic Laws that can be amended by a 61 majority in Knesset. Not a situation that ensures stable government.
Dealing with the anti-government demonstrators first, it is apparent that different interest groups have welcomed the opportunity to infiltrate and sway these highly emotional and therefore easily influenced masses into what can only be described as hysteria, making many of the opponents of government policy devoid of critical judgment.
Why else would someone who is demonstrating for a legitimate cause burn tires in city centers, block main traffic arteries and highways that causes damage to the economy and inconvenience to ordinary citizens going about their daily business?
I respect anyone who peacefully takes part in anti-government demonstrations, regardless of politics, faith or sexual orientation; but by waving rainbow flags, they demonstrate that they are intent to promote the LGBT agenda rather than their sincere view about the legislation. There are, of course, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens on both sides of the divide who want to protest peacefully to express their view without malice.
That was beautifully demonstrated at the Yitzhak Navon railway station in Jerusalem. While the down escalator carried noisy anti-government demonstrators with their flags traveling to Tel Aviv, the up escalator brought flag-carrying boisterous government supporters to Jerusalem. You might wonder what’s so unusual. Well, as they passed each other at the point of being level, many of the opponents reached across for that brief handshake, proving that political disagreement of ordinary people can be conducted in a friendly and peaceful atmosphere because in the last resort, except for the anarchists and trouble makers, we are all one people, expressing what we believe is in the interest of our one and only Jewish country, as is so aptly expressed in the song “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” (I have no other country).
Now some comments about the vociferous and equally noisy government supporters. I believe that they are purer in their composition, without professional troublemakers, anarchists, or extraneous interest groups. Unlike their opponents, they publicly declare that their demonstrations are organized by the Sovereignty Movement, an NGO that advocates for this government’s policy and campaigns that the promised legislation about the extension of Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and Area C of Judea and Samaria should now be enacted. It has been reported that in light of the possible normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to again delay such sovereignty for another four years.
It is significant that the international mainstream media concentrate and comment only on the anti-government protests with close-up footage of clashes between demonstrators and police. It is the communications media – the press, TV and radio – that by their biased reporting encourage unruly behavior. Gone are the days of honest reporting of facts.
As a seasoned journalist, I deeply regret that these conditions force me to express an opinion to counteract what I consider to be distorted presentations. ■
The writer, who was born in Germany and made aliyah from the UK in 2004, is in his 100th year of life. He holds Guinness records for being the world’s oldest working journalist and the oldest active talk show host.