Tag Archives: trump

Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Absent from any discussion on the future of Iran is democratization, and with good reason. Iran, from ancient times until today, has no history of democracy or even democratic aspirations. Some Iranians may yearn for freedoms as Westerners understand them but democracy as “rule of the people” is utterly foreign to them. It is also because democracy is increasingly difficult to sustain, as we are today experiencing in Israel.

The struggling Washington Post publishes on its masthead the self-serving but hopeful phrase “democracy dies in darkness.” Maybe, but in Israel where we always strive to do better, democracy is dying in broad daylight. Israel’s claim to be the “only democracy in the Middle East” has become increasingly farcical. Sure, Israel has elections, like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan have, but true power is not wielded by the elected officials but by an unelected power structure that barely tolerates the government, humors the legislature, runs roughshod over people’s individual rights, and is beyond accountability. Oh, and all the while accusing the government of being a “threat to democracy.” Talk about people who need to buy a mirror and take a gander at themselves.

Let us count the ways that the instruments of the deep state – the Supreme Court, the police and prosecution, and elements of the media – undermine democracy, especially because they cannot win elections. Sadly, this is only a partial list.

The police and prosecution eavesdropped on thousands of Israel citizens not accused of any wrongdoing, and without any court approval. They gathered and still retain personal information on many of them in the hope of finding something incriminating that the authorities could use to blackmail them into framing PM Netanyahu for something, anything. Nothing will come of this.

Attempts by the government to investigate these crimes have been thwarted by the Supreme Court, which is attempting to cover up its involvement and that of the “fired-but-still-reigning” Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara. She, in a remarkable exercise of judicial malfeasance, has been granted 23 adjournments in order to delay appointment of a committee to investigate the mass eavesdropping, thus delaying the case to the point of meaninglessness. In this and other areas, the AG and the Court are hoping to run out the clock past the next elections where they pray (if they pray at all) that a friendly left-wing government will sweep away all these charges. The Supreme Court has protected her from rightful termination for misconduct in office, even though no statute gives it the authority to do that.

The legal establishment has waged lawfare against the prime minister for well over a decade, with evidence fabricated, witnesses threatened, prosecutors suborning perjury, and the witch hunt dragging on for years. It has perfected the system of neutering disfavored politicians, appointees, or bureaucrats by holding over their heads bogus investigations facilitated by tendentious and false leaks to the media.

Meanwhile, the AG’s son was credibly accused (it is caught on camera, after all) of shamelessly stealing another soldier’s bullet proof vest, even refusing to return it after no charges were filed against him because of collusion between the AG and the Military Prosecutor’s office. Who knew that her self-proclaimed immunity extends to her son as well?

The former Military Prosecutor was credibly accused of fabricating evidence and leaking it to the media, a video that besmirched our soldiers’ names across the world. She was forced to resign after accidentally being outed by an employee undergoing a routine polygraph, but this only happened after the Military Prosecutor informed the Court that the results of her investigation did not expose the leaker. This was quite understandable, as she was the leaker, and was granted the right to investigate herself, which the Court willfully permitted until she was otherwise exposed. Her case is now pending, but (as above) it is pending its way towards quiet disappearance in the mischievous murkiness of the deep state.

The AG and the Supreme Court have asserted powers unknown to comparable officials in any functioning democracy. They fabricate their own laws and simultaneously void or thwart laws passed by the Knesset, Israel’s elected legislature, which has been successfully marginalized as a substantive branch of government. They operate under the risible legal theory spawned by Aharon Barak that “everything is justiciable,” something also unprecedented in legal annals. The AG and Court have arrogated themselves the right to pass judgment on every legislation, every policy, every initiative, and every appointment, even when they run afoul of no law but simply reflect the priorities of the government elected by the people.

Thus, the Court functions without any limits on standing, allowing every malcontent to sue the government even when he has suffered no personal injury but simply because he doesn’t like the government’s policies – for which they, not he, were elected to promote. Judges routinely ignore conflicts of interest, sitting on cases involving relatives and occasionally even cases in which they have monetary interests. Apparently, there is no equivalent in Hebrew for the English concept of “judicial restraint.”

For example, the law is explicit that the State Comptroller can investigate anything and everything. Nothing is beyond his purview. Yet, the High Court illegally ordered the State Comptroller to halt his investigation of the failures of October 7, because, apparently, they did not like where his investigation was heading. (He allegedly was finding fault with their preferred heroes and little fault with their designated villains.) But no existing statute justifies this Court decision.

Similarly, Ronen Bar, the failed head of the Shin Bet who ruled out any possibility of a Hamas attack on October 7, also refused to be fired. And when even the Court could not prevent his dismissal, his successor, David Zini, appointed by the only body authorized by law to appoint the head of the Shin Bet – the government – had numerous obstacles placed in his way, had his assumption to office delayed for months on the most specious grounds, has been politically, journalistically, and legally harassed since assuming office, and the denizens of the Deep State are actively seeking to depose him even now.

Indeed, every government appointment is scrutinized not for legal disqualification but for crass political purposes: will this person advance or impede the interests of the deep state? If the latter, the appointment will be delayed indefinitely, to the point of meaninglessness.

The same pertains to government decisions. Consider, for example, the government’s ordered closure of Galei Tzahal, the Army radio station, announced months ago to occur next week. Not too long ago, a conservative Galatz director balanced the left-wing hosts with an equal number of right-wing hosts. Had he fired the left-wing hosts, the court would have overturned his decision as a “threat to free speech.” When he was replaced, a new director dismissed all the right-wing hosts, who were deemed a “threat to democracy.” But Israel is the only country in the world whose army runs a radio station, much less a partisan, anti-government, and too frequently anti-army radio station. No law prevents the defense minister from shuttering the station; it is a branch of the military like any other branch. But the Supreme Court, acting in its role as High Court of the Deep State and defender of the radical left, has now estopped it, hoping to drag out the proceedings past the next elections and rendering the decision moot. Safe prediction: Galei Tzahal will not be closed anytime soon.

Just as the Court insists that the government subsidize the left wing Galei Tzahal, it is even more undemocratic, if not unconscionable, that the public pays for Reshet Bet, a leftist radio station. Israel TV’s flagship Channel 12 is also government subsidized, and its leftist news division is relentlessly anti-government. Any attempt to reform it by balancing its commentators between right and left, or by letting it privatize and compete in the free market with other networks, is aborted as a “threat to free speech” and a “threat to democracy.” Even the non-astute citizen can grasp that any endeavor that weakens the leftist, secularist segment of society and strengthens the rightist, traditional segment of society, is immediately depicted as a “threat to free speech and democracy.”

To be sure, even a left-wing media has its place. But that place need not be eternally subsidized by the taxpayer, especially those who find its offerings and commentary repugnant. The government should get out of the media business, period. It should be obvious that these left-wing, government-subsidized outlets could not survive if they were forced to compete in the marketplace; that is why the Deep State protects them like an etrog. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize only leftist media is a travesty.

Similarly, two years ago, the Government cut off all ties with the radical left newspaper Haaretz and even ordered the cessation of its subsidized distribution to various government ministries. This is understandable, considering that its publisher has called Arab terrorists “freedom fighters” and one of its columnists recently termed the State of Israel “the greatest danger to world peace of any country.” (If all Tucker Carlson did every day was read the lies from Haaretz, he would not have to concoct his own lies.) Haaretz is one of the most anti-Israel, anti-Jewish publications in the world. Naturally, the Court ordered the Government to resume its subsidies.

This has nothing to do with free speech. Not a few public officials call for the closure of privately funded, right-wing Channel 14. Those who think that cannot happen should recall the closure of Arutz-7, the first popular right-wing organ. Those who think that the expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria by a leftwing government is impossible should recall Gush Katif. Those who think that the left does not still pine for a Palestinian state should recall the delusions of Oslo that are all alive and well in the febrile minds of the unrepentant dreamers of a secular, progressive, state of all its citizens, non-Jewish Israel. It is delusional to think that the Hamas invasion or the wars with Iran and Hezbollah has disabused the radical left of its fantasies are starry-eyed as it is to think that the legal establishment that investigates itself and mysteriously never finds any wrongdoing will ultimately be brought to justice.

Elections have been rendered meaningless as real power is held by the courts and unelected bureaucrats who cannot be fired or replaced without permission of the elites. The only virtue of elections is that it enables a right-wing government to be a partial brake on the excesses of the Court, the exact opposite of how a democracy is supposed to function. A left-wing government buttressed by a left-wing Court would be catastrophic, an unchecked behemoth that will undoubtedly oppress right wing and religious Jews who will lack any recourse.

It goes on and on. The AG wants to cancel Itamar Ben Gvir – an act devoid of merit, legal precedent, or statutory authority. Surely, the Election Commission will find some way to ban him in the future. The Court is compelling the IDF to integrate women in combat into mixed units, which will inevitably result in yeshiva students refusing to serve in the tank or artillery corps, a suicidal triumph of rigid, radical feminist ideology over Halacha, efficiency, and battlefield success. The Court demanded years ago that Gazans be allowed to approach the border unhindered and unchallenged, itself one of the proximate causes of the colossal failure of October 7, and one which will also be covered up. And not content with its domestic and military interventions, the Court has ordered that mixed prayers be allowed at a sub-divided Kotel, a mockery of Jewish law and all that is holy. If they feel so strongly about it, maybe the Court should order the same at Al-Aksa.

And do not be surprised if the Deep State cooks up a way to disqualify PM Netanyahu from running in the next election, on some pretext, with the goal of so dispiriting the right wing that people see no purpose in voting, the only way the left can win in Israel. By the time it happens, it will be too late to respond, and the elites know whatever turmoil erupts will die down as soon as a left-wing government is in place.

The problem is that currently there is little hope of changing the system regardless of who is elected in the fall. The elites have carved out for themselves an infrastructure of power that is impregnable through ordinary democratic processes, short of a revolution. The judges cannot be impeached, essentially appoint their replacements, they shield corrupt bureaucrats who serve their purposes and harass honest ones who do not. There are no checks or balances on them. And in a fashion quite evocative of North Korea, the most undemocratic party in Israel – the one that aspires to deprive most of the citizenry of basic rights – calls itself the Democrats. It has no faith in the demos – the people who actually vote – but only in the crats, the ruling class.

Eventually, there will be a constitutional crisis, in which the government and the people who elected it – the majority of the country – simply refuse to enforce the Court’s arbitrary dictates or the AG’s capricious predilections. In a real sense, that crisis is already upon us, obscured only by the necessities of an existential war.

We should not be concerned with democracy in Iran, a pipedream even for optimists. We should be more concerned about the fate of democracy in Israel, dying a daily slow death before our eyes, in broad daylight. And we should pray for the day when “Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and her repentant ones with righteousness” (Yeshayahu 1: 27), may that day come soon.

Democracy’s Flaw

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

One of democracy’s great strengths is the people’s power to change its government with every election cycle. One of democracy’s flaws is that such power currently produces acute discontinuity in a nation’s policies and statecraft that alternately causes stagnation and upheaval.

There was a time when foreign policy was largely a bipartisan concern, with disputes relegated to the margins. American policy towards Communism and the Soviet Union was remarkably consistent for almost four decades, at least until Ronald Reagan rejected containment and ushered in the downfall of Communism in Europe. There was no significant anti-war movement in the United States during the two World Wars and until Vietnam, and even the anti-Vietnam War movement did not reshape the political system until years later. Recall that President Nixon in 1972 defeated the robustly anti-war George McGovern in a true, not Trumpian, landslide, winning 49 of 50 states, and almost 61% of the popular vote.

As the adage went, “politics stops at the waters’ edge,” but Jimmy Carter in his post-presidential global perambulations repudiated that with his frequent criticisms overseas of both Democratic and Republican administrations. And the wars in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab terrorist attacks of 9/11, as well as the bitter polarization of American politics, ruptured the consistency of American foreign policy.

Thus, Obama reversed Bush policies in Iraq and Israel, Trump reversed Obama policies on Iran and Israel, Biden reversed Trump’s policies in every conceivable sphere, and Trump II has returned the favor to Biden – on Israel, Iran, NATO, Europe, the US border, and a host of other areas. The next president, Republican or Democrat, is liable to overturn fundamental Trump foreign policies. The sense that American foreign policy can shift dramatically every four or eight years has led many countries to try to game the system, adjusting its policies and priorities depending on who is or who might be in power.

For example, it is invariably true that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine on Trump’s watch but exploited a feckless Biden presidency. Iran manipulated that same administration to ramp up its nuclear program soon after Biden became president even while Iran benefited from the relaxation of sanctions. Iran knew that it could buy time through endless negotiations and that – whatever the provocation – Obama or Biden, unlike Trump, would never militarily attack Iranian facilities.

Similarly, Israel played a waiting game throughout 2024, waiting out a Biden presidency and its vacillations towards Israel (providing some needed weapons and much diplomatic support coupled with occasional threats as well as limitations on Israel’s freedom of action) and hoping for a Trump victory in the fall elections. A nation’s pursuit of even vital interests can progress or languish depending on who sits in the Oval Office.

Compounding the disjointedness of American foreign policy in recent decades is Trump’s trademark unpredictability. The world today is witness to a new and unprecedented phenomenon – thunderous declarations of peace, details to follow, and contraindications of peace ignored or wished away. While Trump’s hatred of war, love for peace, and detestation of American casualties anywhere seems genuine, it leaves countries threatened by real enemies who will not be mollified grasping for coherent strategies.

For example, Trump prefers that his “Board of Peace” designed to create a pacified, peaceful, and prosperous Gaza include such rogue anti-Israel countries as Turkey and Qatar. Such is not only risible and guaranteed to fail, like putting Mexico, Guatemala, and Venezuela in charge of security at the USA’s southern border. It also endangers Israel, empowers our enemies, and mocks the sacrifices of our soldiers who will have died not to conquer and transform Gaza but just to recreate the same old Gaza that inevitably will lead to the same old terror and violence.

There is something awry when a nation’s foreign policy must be evaluated in units of four years. That essentially means that Trump can focus his sights on the next three years without concern for what happens in three years and a day. It explains why Trump declares he made “peace in the Middle East” even though no one who lives here thinks that. If relative peace is sustained until January 20, 2029, it does not matter what cataclysm befalls us the very next day. And some of his policies if enacted – for example, rehabilitating Gaza without rehabilitating the Gazans – will inevitably explode in an even greater rage of hatred and violence than October 7 when Trump leaves office. Israel is being asked to indulge Trump’s quixotic quest of a “Board of Peace” that has a shelf life of three years or less and thus can ignore longer term Israeli interests. We accommodate that at our peril.

A foreign policy for the short term helps explain why Trump loves strongmen, like Putin, Erdogan, Xi, Kim, and others who can serve for years and present consistent, unwavering policies (moral or not) while scorning leaders of democracies who, like him, will be gone soon enough and cannot guarantee stability. The autocrats can, and so only they win Trump’s highest accolade, as leaders who are “strong.”

Where does that leave Israel? It is unlikely that a President Vance or a President Newsome (or any future Democratic president in the near term) will be as viscerally pro-Israel as is President Trump. The world today is so volatile – the Middle East, Iran, Russia and Ukraine, the decline of Europe, the aggressiveness of Turkey and Qatar, Central and South America, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea – that it is impossible to predict the state of the world three years from now and how the next president will deal with them. Papering over crises with vacuous rhetoric looks good in daily headlines and sounds good in press conferences but plays poorly in the real world. And Trump has been known to yield when countries he has threatened push back and he realizes there is no risk-free method of achieving his goals.

As such, it behooves Israel to identify its national interests and pursue them now, and not just rhetorically for campaign purposes as has long been practiced. Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is a forceful declaration that the creation of a Palestinian state is inimical to Israel’s existence and a non-starter. Such would end the strategic vacuum in Israel’s heartland that has existed for almost six decades. Jerusalem must be expanded, its undeveloped areas designated for new housing, and its indivisibility reaffirmed. The presence of hostile foreign entities in Gaza, such as Turkey or Qatar, should be off the table and resettlement of Jews in Gaza advanced.

Moreover, Israel must firmly assert that the policy has officially ended of enduring attacks, conquering the bases from which those attacks were launched (such as Gaza or South Lebanon), abandoning them under pressure to the attackers only to have to fight there again in several years.

Presidencies come and go but Israel’s interests transcend any particular presidency and the vagaries and predilections of who holds the office during any particular four-year term. Such is democracy’s flaw. We cannot count on consistency from our allies – but we can demand it from our government.