Judical Overhaul – דיויד סטברו

Is Israel on its way to the Middle Ages

The Swedish right should support courageous Israeli leaders who oppose the government’s reactionary impulses and fight for democratic values.

Published in Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet: https://www.svd.se/a/wr8JEM/netanyahu-tar-israel-mot-medeltiden

The ceasefire which has been in effect in Gaza for several months has given Israelis and Palestinians an opportunity to reflect on their next steps, and to begin rebuilding and recovering after two of the most difficult years in the region’s history. Although Israel is slowly disappearing from the international headlines, it remains important to examine what is actually taking place in its political arena. If there's anything to learn from recent history it's that what happens there will influence global politics for many years to come.

One of the war’s results is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently on trial for corruption, is doing everything he can to control the historical narrative of the war and avoid taking responsibility for Israel’s failure on October 7. Instead, he places the blame on the security services and his political opponents. He refuses to establish an independent official inquiry commission and is doing his utmost to replace Israel’s military and legal elite with loyal officials. These changes may help Netanyahu evade accountability for the charges against him. But for his coalition partners—far-right, fundamentalist, and ultranationalist parties—they are a means to a broader goal: undermining Israel’s liberal democracy.

For example, the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, is discussing a bill that would expand state control over the media. The proposal would replace existing regulatory bodies with a new authority whose members are appointed by the government—effectively enabling political control over broadcast content. The bill has drawn criticism from the government’s legal adviser, who warned that it threatens freedom of the press. It is hardly surprising that the same attorney general is among those the government is attempting to remove.

Because Israel is a democratic country, many Israelis are demonstrating against these proposals and other government measures. In recent months, however, many protesters have claimed that the police are acting in ways they did not previously. They report arbitrary arrests and increased use of force, including stun grenades and mounted riot police.

The minister responsible for this is Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right politician previously convicted of incitement and support for terrorism. While he is busy consolidating control over the police within Israel, another minister, Bezalel Smotrich, is consolidating control over the West Bank. Smotrich is laying the groundwork for potential annexation and is taking no action against the growing violence perpetrated by extremist settlers.

Netanyahu himself has recently reaffirmed his intention to continue pursuing the so-called judicial reform which many in Israel describe as a judicial overhaul, as it threatens the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, weakens the independence of the courts, and risks undermining democracy. The issue has now returned to the parliamentary agenda and in addition, efforts to limit the powers of the attorney general and the Supreme Court are being resumed. Another bill currently under discussion would introduce the death penalty for terrorist offenses—formally to prevent Hamas and other groups from taking Israelis hostage in order to exchange them for convicted terrorists, but there are also those motivated simply by revenge.

If the death penalty does not sound like a sufficiently reactionary reform, the Knesset has even discussed the conservative Jewish concept of shmirat negiah—the obligation for a man and a woman who are not married to each other to refrain from physical contact. It is not an official legislative proposal, at least not yet. But the mere fact that it is being discussed alarms liberal and secular Israelis—and rightly so.

Swedes have always had a deep interest in Israel. This can have both positive and negative effects. To understand whether Sweden’s voice can contribute something meaningful in this context, we should examine the country’s current discourse on Israel.

The political left in Sweden has unfortunately totaly lost its bearings. Many of its supporters have embraced Hamas’ narrative of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This does not necessarily mean they support terrorism, but the view of Israel as a settler-colonial project that should be boycotted and opposed regardless of its policies or leadership has spread from a radical minority into mainstream politics. Even established political parties have begun discussing the dangerous idea of a one-state solution.

A one-state solution would either mean the end of the Jewish state—which even the Swedish left previously supported—or plunge the entire region into an even worse bloodbath than what we have witnessed over the past two years.

Equally dangerous is the stance of Sweden’s populist right. Supporting Israel because its current leaders appear to use methods similar to those of authoritarian, illiberal regimes, or because they see Israel as a symbol of a struggle against Islam, is both misguided and harmful. It is also a betrayal of the Israelis who are fighting for a democratic, liberal, and peaceful future.

This year, both Swedes and Israelis are heading to the polls. If Sweden still wishes to exert a positive influence on Israel (and on the Palestinians, for that matter), Swedish supporters of the left should cooperate with Israeli artists, entrepreneurs, researchers, and academics who are independent and often in opposition to the government, rather than the easy and intellectually lazy solution of boycotting and margenelizing them.

The Swedish right should support courageous Israeli leaders who oppose the government’s reactionary impulses and fight for democratic values, rather than backing corrupt leaders and extremist parties that are dragging Israel back toward the Middle Ages. Any other approach amounts to rewarding both Hamas and Jewish extremists and for those who live in the region, it is yet another step on the road to hell.

Israel's New Swedish Friends Are the Wrong Crowd

As Israelis are caught up in domestic politics, Likud activists are making far-right friends and changing the country’s foreign policy.

Published in "Haaretz": https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-09-24/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israels-new-swedish-friends-are-the-wrong-crowd/0000018a-c651-da14-a1eb-de5be0620000

STOCKHOLM – Instead of triggering a historic normalization with yet another Arab country, Israel’s announcement of Foreign Minister Eli Cohen’s meeting with his Libyan counterpart led to political embarrassment in Jerusalem, riots in Tripoli and the Libyan minister fleeing the country for her life. Some people claim that this was the result of opportunistic and amateurish behavior.

But if we divert our gaze from North Africa to Europe, we get suspicious that the problem lies not with the Foreign Ministry’s errors (if this indeed was an error) but with its successes.

Three months before Cohen met with the Libyan minister, he visited Stockholm. This wasn't a routine visit either. Cohen became the first Israeli foreign minister to visit Sweden in over 20 years. The trip lasted only 24 hours and included just a handful of meetings that were kept on a very low profile. Not that anyone expected a red carpet and marching bands, but the two countries held no public events, ceremonies or receptions, and the meeting between Cohen and his Swedish counterpart, Tobias Billström, was kept secret until it was over.

One reason for the uncharacteristic restraint is that the two governments are in an unprecedented situation. Jerusalem is advancing processes that are filling the streets with protesters, not only in Israel but anywhere in the world where a cabinet member visits. The Swedish government, meanwhile, is dependent on the Sweden Democrats party, which started out as a neo-Nazi party that up to 30 years ago was led by skinheads. Now this outfit defines itself as “nationalist and social-conservative,” and on the back of an agreement with parties such as Billström’s Moderate Party, it sets the country’s agenda.

Israel’s traditional policy is to refrain from any contact with such parties, not just because of their Nazi roots but because in recent years leaders and members of the Sweden Democrats and its counterparts across Europe have been disseminating conspiracy theories as well as racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic propaganda. Several of them have been implicated in violent incidents, not exactly the kind of thing Israel wants to be associated with.

But it's not so simple. If, as Cohen claims, he and his Swedish counterpart discussed the strengthening of political, economic and military ties, how could this happen when key positions in Sweden, including the leadership of parliament's foreign affairs and labor market committees, are held by a party that Israel is boycotting? Israel’s Foreign Ministry said that ties with the Sweden Democrats weren't addressed at the meetings in Stockholm. This may be true, but not because the issue is unimportant but because Israel seems to be well on its way to changing its policy in this area. Ties with Italy’s prime minister, despite her neofascist past, are stronger than ever, Hungary is considered an important ally, and Cohen recently instructed Israel’s ambassador in Romania to meet with the far-right AUR party, hitherto boycotted by Israel due to its antisemitic comments and Holocaust denial.

All this has been done to win support for Israel's settlements in the West Bank. Is there a connection between all these events? The answer can be found in another diplomatic visit. A few days after Cohen’s return from Stockholm, two senior members of the Sweden Democrats, Charlie Weimers and Richard Jomshof, landed in Israel. The visit was supposed to remain under the radar, but word got out that these Swedish far-rightists had met with Israeli lawmakers.

The daily Israel Hayom revealed that among them was Likud MK Amit Halevi, who spoke with his guests about suspending Israel’s boycott of their party. They even handed him a document that was passed higher up. Three months later, Halevi helped change Israel’s policy toward the Romanian AUR party. Another Likud member, former lawmaker Michael Kleiner, also met with the two Swedish legislators. Not surprisingly, Kleiner was a guest of the AUR in Bucharest last November.

All this is confusing: While Israel is officially boycotting the Sweden Democrats, politicians from the party are secretly meeting with members of Israel’s ruling party and undermining its official policy. Of course, the policy on Europe's far right should be weighed carefully, and it may be time to change it, but the impression is that what happened in Romania and is happening in Sweden isn't a result of deliberations by Foreign Ministry professionals but is a snap political move.

And so, it seems that as Israelis are caught up in domestic politics, a small number of Likud activists are changing Israel’s foreign policy. Israel’s democratic and liberal allies are being replaced with nationalist movements, including populist and racist ones, in a move that's a European parallel to what Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is doing with Israeli-U.S relations. His statements about America’s “preaching” may not have been off the cuff but a reflection of a new policy: exchanging America's traditional bipartisan support and the backing of mainstream forces in Europe for the support of the populist-evangelical camp in the United States and the nationalist-xenophobic wing in Europe.

Beyond the ideological considerations, political and business interests are at play here. In contrast to leaders such as U.S. President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who openly protested Israel's judicial overhaul, Swedish Foreign Minister Billström had nothing to say about it. A country that used to see itself as a “humanitarian superpower” and global peacemaker is remaining silent when it comes to Israel’s democracy. This was probably refreshing for Cohen.

Meanwhile, sales of Israeli weapons to Sweden have spiked during the war in Ukraine and the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO. The governments in Stockholm and Helsinki, both supported by far-right parties, are much more interested in drones, rocket launchers and cyberwarfare than human rights, settlements and judicial overhauls. Even if parts of the Israeli left don't consider this a problem, we should recognize a corollary of this new approach: Israel’s new partners won't save Israel from itself. They are part of governments that are morally blind, deaf and mute.

Maybe the Libyan incident was no mistake. Instead of pursuing a policy of building bridges to Arab states – a way of avoiding the Palestinian issue – Israel is adopting a new international stance and seeking support based on arms deals, natural gas and its cyber prowess, not shared values. This seems logical, because what common values are there anyway? Human rights? Peace? Social justice? That stuff is so '90s.

It’s still not clear if and when Billström will visit Israel, but when this happens, we can be sure that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dangers to Israeli (and Swedish) democracy won't be on the agenda. Instead, when the ministers finish talking business, they can always talk about the weather, the Eurovision Song Contest and the pros and cons in the battle of Swedish meatballs vs. falafel.

Israel Is Learning How Quickly Democracy Gives Way to Dictatorship

in a global context, the demonstrations in Israel are not only about the reasonableness standard, the standing of the attorney general, or legal advisers in government ministries. They’re an eruption triggered by the actual grave dangers: ignorance, racism, ultranationalism, and unfettered governmental power. They’re about liberalism and solidarity, education and culture, and the Israeli Declaration of Independence’s “freedom, justice and peace” and “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants.”

Published in Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-08-01/ty-article-opinion/.premium/how-quickly-democracy-gives-way-to-dictatorship/00000189-ada1-db6d-ad9b-fdf91c740000

Over the past several months, numerous essays comparing Israel with other countries have appeared in this newspaper. It started with the obvious comparison to the illiberal democracies in Europe, voicing fears that the country is turning into Hungary or Poland. The comparisons then moved on to Turkey; some interesting exegeses followed about similarities to Afghanistan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and even Margaret Atwood’s fictional Republic of Gilead. Comparing Israel to other countries always leads to criticism because there is not – and cannot be – absolute congruity. It is a valuable thought experiment, however. Even if Israel doesn’t become a dictatorship, looking outward broadens and expands the debate.

I’ve written in recent years about human rights violations, murderous dictatorships, and ethnic cleansing contain good examples of countries for comparison. They illustrate what can happen in countries without a separation of powers, freedom of the press, and independent courts. I had one conversation with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who challenged Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in the country’s last election. Our talk showed that the mere existence of elections does not guarantee democracy.

Although Lukashenko officially defeated her, the world knew the election was fraudulent. After Tsikhanouskaya filed a complaint with the country’s central election commission, the authorities detained her for several hours. She told me the security services then escorted her to the Lithuanian border. After she crossed it, footage reminiscent of a hostage video was released, in which she asked Belarusians to stop demonstrating and accept Lukashenko’s victory.

The stories of three demonstrators who managed to leave reflect what happened to those who defied the request. Valery was viciously beaten, his wrists restrained so tightly he couldn’t feel his hands. Vyacheslav was stripped to his underwear, stuffed into a holding cell with dozens of people, and starved for four days until his trial, which lasted six minutes. Alexey saw people with broken ribs and guards beating a man to death. None of the three men was a political activist. They were a software engineer, an art professor, and the owner of a technology company. They never imagined that they would end up in this kind of situation.

The brutality of the Belarusian police is one example of what happens when the criminal justice system is not answerable to an independent civil authority committed to protecting human rights. There are some citizens in China whom its government wants to eliminate. A network of “psychiatric prisons” has been established for this purpose, where people without mental illness are forcibly admitted after being abducted and having their phones confiscated.

They’re locked in rooms with mentally ill patients, where they’re given psychiatric drugs and electroshock “therapy” while fully conscious. If they resist, they’re tied to a bed, sometimes for an entire night. This is nothing compared to what’s happening in the remote northwestern Xinjiang region, where various ethnic minorities live. Reeducation camps established there combine indoctrination, torture, and medical experiments.

I haven’t mentioned these examples because of any similarity to Israel. I’ve mentioned them because conversations with people who survived and escaped these hells reveal a notable point: how quickly things turned upside down. The survivors were once teachers, physicians, and civil servants who lived entirely everyday lives. Then began the riots, terror attacks, and “lack of governance” – and with them, accusations of extremism, factionalism, and terrorism. Next came the arrival of someone who could “create order,” and order was indeed created.

First, the textbooks were replaced, and newspapers were closed. Afterward came the checkpoints, the facial recognition cameras, and restrictions on technology. Finally, passports were seized, and the borders were closed. The camps appeared then, too. Solely for reeducation, of course. It’s unlikely that Israel would act with such determination and efficiency even against the Palestinians, but this is an important lesson about a government with no oversight – and how quickly the water heats around unaware frogs.

There’s another element that must be considered: dehumanization. Last year, a young Yazidi woman named Leila told me about how she was bought and sold several times by members of ISIS, who abused her for months. She was just one victim of the trafficking of women and organized rape that became a feature of the Syrian Civil War. A few months before that, a young Kurdish man named Bejan told me about a Turkish attack on civilians in northern Syria, the product of decades of dehumanizing the Kurds.

He said he saw many dead and wounded, most full of shrapnel or missing limbs. “The thing that’s hardest to forget,” he said, “was a girl, about 8 years old, who was sitting by her dead brother, trying to wake him up.” Testimonies from Ethiopia’s Tigray Province and the mass slaughter of the Rohingya in Myanmar show to what depths it’s possible to descend: gang rape, execution by gunfire or machete, drowning babies, setting villages on fire along with their inhabitants. These occurred in the second decade of the 21st century. Nothing even close is happening in Israel, but the processes of dehumanization begin long before the overt violence in those countries.

Horrifically enough, the murderers in Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Syria don’t see themselves as grim reapers. On the contrary: in many cases, they’re ordinary people who have convinced themselves they’re the victims. Society disintegrated and descended into violent chaos with the help of racist and ultranationalist ideologies, narratives based on political interests, and social media algorithms.

Some will argue that these are examples from countries that lack a democratic tradition, and no comparison can be made – but the truth is that Israel also lacks a centuries-old parliament or generations of a democratic culture. While it’s neither a Soviet republic nor a failed state in Africa, it’s a young and vulnerable democracy possessing a formidable military, a significant minority population, and the occupation of another nation. These are not starting conditions that provide strong resilience.

That’s why, when looking at the demonstrations in Israel in a global context, you can see that they’re not about the reasonableness standard, the standing of the attorney general, or legal advisers in government ministries. They’re an eruption triggered by the actual grave dangers: ignorance, racism, ultranationalism, and unfettered governmental power. They’re about liberalism and solidarity, education and culture, and the Israeli Declaration of Independence’s “freedom, justice and peace” and “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants.” The demonstrations are against a choice to break from the enlightened world and walk with eyes wide shut toward countries to which only Israel is willing to sell arms, cyber technology, and “security consulting.” If Israel doesn’t come to its senses, it could follow in their footsteps very soon.