Everyday Matters

Politics, Policy, jobs and thoughts by Eti Shechtman

[etishechtman]

The Democratic Reversal of Israel’s Democracy

Controversial bills are being passed by the Israeli Knesset; controversial as they seem to trade-off democracy.

Over the last few years we have been witnessing a growing attention and criticism towards Israel in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The feeling of “the whole world is against us” seems to have led to the urgency to unify within Israel. A fight against the alleged slanders was declared; most importantly – from within. What can the legislators do?

Here’s an idea, subordinate the judicial authority to the legislative – so the government actions could have the judicial stamp of the high court of justice, because legitimacy can only help. What about these Leftists NGOs? They don’t really agree with the government, and that’s pretty annoying – dry them out of their finances. No money – no activity. And the media, all it does is to challenge the government. But... the publicity can help, so unless they are willing to serve as mouthpiece of the government, they should fear to publish.

Democracy – oh, it can wait when we have such bigger issues at stake? These are of course to keep the current government and its policies intact. No dissidents, no problems.

As bills of that kind pass one by one in the Israeli Knesset, the abovementioned picture begin to emerge and become reality.  

Great support is given to these laws, but somehow the public discourse fails to deliver that these laws would not determine who wins in the battle with the world and the Palestinians. These laws only promote one ideology and mute all others.

Mute the others do not only come in the form of “right” against the “Smolanim” (referring to the curse word to the “left” in Israel; aka סְמולָנִים). It also means that if an injustice of any kind (forget the conflict for a second) was done to a citizen, any citizen, by the authorities, he/she would have no place to turn to – not the court and not the media.

Castrate the Media

The law of Libel and Slander – the current law in Israel states the limit compensation given to a person negatively affected by libel at 50K NIS, without having to prove damage. According to the new bill, compensation will rise to 300K NIS and can even reach 1.5 million NIS if full response was not published, all without having to prove damage. The bill passed at first reading

Media, in its essence as the watchdog of democracy, has to challenge. This is a crucial aspect of keeping the systems accountable to the public and working FOR the public. Being a journalist, as many of you know, would not make you rich. It is neither some sort of sadistic hobby of attacking everyone. It is about working for the society, for the public. It is about bridging between every part of the society and government, corporations, authorities etc. It is about letting people know and sometimes suggest and present alternatives, because “knowledge is power”.

The bill makes it much easier to sue a journalist in addition to raising the sum of compensation. The law of libel and slander is essential to avoid a situation in which the media abuses its power. But it should not tie the media’s hands behind its back.  The new bill makes the risk and cost of reporting anything much higher, ultimately castrating the media, and ultimately tipping the scale in favour of those in power.

But it doesn’t stop at the media; it will also affect every person that publishes anything. And that includes Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and yes, also comments.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Yes, I agree, there is a trend of vast criticism towards Israel in the last few years. And some of it goes under the delegitimisation categories.

It is one (risky) thing to turn a blind eye to the world, but to mute significant parts of the Israeli society?!

Opposition, counter-views, media, courts – all required to keep the state democratic. Many think that because Israel is a democracy it is time that all of these will accept the majority’s view. But actually they ask for more, they ask everyone to slave themselves to the governance view. If these “dissidents” (NGOs, Media etc.) were not democratic, they would have acted against the law, something like the “price tag” actions. Yet, they don’t….

Indeed, Israel has gotten some horrible nicknames in the last few years. Yet, if we will accept this wave of controversial bills, we may give hand to become the state that delegitimisers think Israel is.

Paradox is that bloody protests flood the Middle East in search for democracy – and in Israel, many are ready to give it up. From the “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the recent bills… I guess we have to be different...

 --------------------------------

:: For further reading visit Black Flag Over Israel’s Democracy  @ http://www.haaretz.com/black-flag-over-israel-s-democracy.

:: For Bills in details read Jonathan Lis @ http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/democracy-under-attack/1.1569266 (run this page through google translate. Apologies if translation doesn’t always makes sense, I’ll try to translate the article in the next few days)

[etishechtman]

The Egyptian Hydra

Less than a year after Mubarak’s overthrown, the violence is back. – What went wrong?

November’s footages of protests in Egypt seemed familiar. Not just because of the masses asking to speak out load, not because of another demonstration of the social media power; but mainly because of the brutal military response towards the protestors.

According to the Egyptian Health Ministry, 3 days of protests yielded at least 23 dead and over 1,500 wounded. Previously, Tahrir square came to be a global synonym to the victory of the people, those that seek change and freedom even when they face the strong arms of the authoritarian state (or another repressing system). The same place where not so long ago hope turned to reality was once again portraying oppression.

The Hydra is a Greek mythical beast. The mythology tells that the Hydra has multiple heads, when one cut-off, two would grow in its place.

Last February, the head, Mubarak was overthrown and promises were made to restructure the country and pursue elections. Yet, the interim governance of the state is in the hands of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces headed by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. It seems that the body that controls Egypt essentially did not change.

Mubarak’s Egypt, does not start with Mubarak’s tenure. It is Egypt of the Free Officers movement. The basic structure and foundations were laid with the military coup of 1952. The Egypt Mubarak represents was in the control of the armed forces since the days of Gamal Abd al-Nasser and the free officers coup. The supreme control over the state, the presidency, was not given by heritage or by elections; the 4 presidents came out of the military lines.

Before and during Mubrak presidency the structure was totalitarian and held by the military. Back to 2011, only the head-state, Mubarak, was taken down; and surprise, the structure stays totalitarian. The presidents, even if not often, changed but the strong grip of the military kept it all intact.

So the controlling body did not change, holds all authority, same people and the same structure – and they are responsible to re-structure the country. Why would they voluntarily want give up the power their organisation had for almost 60 years? Well, that is exactly the point – they do not. The draft of the new constitution was to guarantee the stability, strength and independence of the military from the civil state – what for? Perhaps another coup if the new regime is not satisfying?

This threat, of no change, was felt by the Egyptian people, and was increased with constitution draft. Just few days before the elections the Egyptians have been waiting for. It was only when the brutality re-appeared that we realise it all looks too familiar.

If The Egyptian system is to change treat the body, not just the heads. 

[etishechtman]

Shaky Grounds of the 1% and the Modern Trojan Horse

Voices of sympathy to the occupy protests rising among leading persona in the global economy. Maybe they can help - Prospects of change.

Only three years ago, when the crisis began reviling, Richard Branson stood in defence of the Capitalist system and wrote at the dailymail “I still know of no better way of increasing human wealth and happiness”. Fast forward to November 2011, Branson now believes that Capitalism “lost its way” and that its long term role in taking care of people and the planet has been forgotten.

Offering words of sympathy to the Occupy protestors, Branson joins a group of wealthy entrepreneurs and businessmen. It is not yet seems to be a vastly growing trend among those who benefited the most of the capitalist system, and yet it is there and growing.

“Rightly so, people all over the world are no longer accepting this” said Branson; “Actually I can understand their sentiment” said Billionaire financier George Soros; Ben Bernanke, the chairmen of the federal reserve, the same fed reserve the bailed out Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, regarded people’s dissatisfaction with the economic situation as with the policy response and said “at some level, I can’t blame them.” Voices were also heard by Warren Buffett’s son and Bill Clinton.

These sympathising voices were met with strong response from right, blaming the occupy movement to be the creation and secret motives of one billionaire capitalist or another. And even, God forbid, call these billionaires socialists. This sympathy is not to be confused with support to the anti-capitalist protests. They are cautious and do not stand in full coherence with the occupy protests’ aims. There are no loud voices coming out of the “1%” calling to change the system, maybe just adjust it. It is yet, nothing but sympathy.

The occupy protestors on their side were not eager, to say the least, to receive this sympathy, not from the “1%”.

But there might be an opportunity for a change with the slowly growing trend of sympathy. It was the nobility-born Vladimir Lenin who said that the bourgeoisie has a vital revolutionary role alongside the working class. This does not come to argue for the return of communism, bourgeoisie gave ground for liberalism and democracy.

Back to the current protests, the main difference is that those class lines were blurred, what used to be the middle class has come to collapse under the heavy burden of the capitalist system. It came to be known as the 99% against the 1%. Anger and differences existed also between working class and the middle class, but working together brought about change.  And if we apply these classes to nowadays, it is the involvement of some of those well-off (aka 1%) that can help. 

Despite the anger to the “1%”, welcoming the sympathy does not mean to give up to their dictations. It might mean that the protests are gaining power and momentum. Utilising these understanding words of Billionaires can mean strong political power on the side of the protests.

As for the Trojan horse, we have long learnt that having allies within can tip the scale. This time in favour of the occupy protest.