Letters: A Victory for Freedom of Speech

3

It seems that Jonathan Tobin believes in two things (“A Resistance Coup Just Defeated Israeli Democracy,” March 30). One is that a person should only be permitted to express his/her opinion on Election Day under the cover of curtains. Another is that lawmakers should have unlimited power.

It’s important to know that it was the German Parliament that gave Hitler absolute power.
What if the lawmakers in the United States had absolute power? Schools could be segregated. States could prohibit interracial and same-sex marriage. Lawmakers could restrict what’s being sent over the internet. Schools could limit freedom of speech.
In Israel, people exercised their freedom of speech. Conservatives could have had counter-demonstrations but chose not to do so.

What happened in Israel is a victory for freedom of speech and the preservation of democracy.

Charles Wolfsfeld, Philadelphia

3 COMMENTS

  1. Charles, democracy is defined as the will of the people as declared in the electoral process being actuated by the government which was just seated, not through mobs overriding it through attacks on the police and security services. These demonstrations were organized by the leftist parties in Israel who haven’t won an election in forty years, and the the majority of the voting public wanted the High Court’s” unlimited powers curtailed.Those powers were grabbed in the early nineties by the High Court, not through negotiation, not through a constitution since there is none, but rather through an undemocratic confiscation. They include the right of the Court to negate any law passed by the Knesset which they declare unreasonable, the court’s right to refuse to seat members of the Knesset and the cabinet that they declare extreme and the right to determine who will or will not replace these justices on the court. Does that sound like democracy to you because it sounds like tyranny to me.
    As far as these demonstrations which were little more than massive riots organized by the left, which are still going on even after negotiations have been started, the charge of destroying Israeli democracy was falsely hurled at the new government. The opposite is the reality with the left paying rioters to show up to hinder, if not destroy the Netanyahu government from exercising it’s rightful duty to govern by using violence to replace negotiations. The “High Court” is not democratically elected, serves for life and never faces the Israeli voters as feedback for their imperial dictates. Lets stop the Hitler analogies since they’re not only silly but also appeal only to the emotional segment of the mind. Hitler is long gone, he’s not coming back and using him to win an argument which you can’t win otherwise is insulting to both you and those who have to respond to it. The “High Court has an important role in Israeli society but it must be constrained and limited in its powers just as it is here.

  2. Having read your response carefully, I agree in principle with your conclusions. As you state, the protest movement was designed as much for the disruption of the Netanyahu government as opposed to action against judicial reform. “Judicial Reform” became the vehicle allowing MK Lapid and the Left to attack the government which had defeated the Left in the election.

    That said, it should be noted that, in proposing judicial reform (much needed), the government put forth a plan which substituted one ill, undemocratic actions of the High Court, for legislative pronouncements, which equally went to far. I refer specifically to the 61 vote rule to override a High Court ruling which, in reality, would eliminate the purpose and need of the existence of a supreme court, period. That number, 61, has since been increased as discussion proceeds in the President’s residence. The severe defect was its proposal, at the outset, which also served as a substantial reason for the resulting conflagration.

    Arthur Solomon Safir, Esq.
    Deputy Attorney General (NJ)(Ret.)
    Warwick

  3. Your point is well taken, and I agree with that 61 number as being too low. There has to be negotiation and some limits on the Court and the Knesset.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here