Ministers voted unanimously not to recognize actions by the Second Authority council restored by the court, including possible approval of Reshet 13’s sale, drawing warnings from legal officials and journalists’ groups
It doesn’t have a “document constitution” it has a political constitution that is based upon precedence. That precedence being set by the high court.
So when the High Court decided that self determination in Israel is reserved only for the Jewish population, thereby enshrining the right to settler colonialism and they’ve enshrined apartheid into their Political Constitution.
Israel’s founders didn’t sit down one day and come up with a new form of non-constitutional democracy.
They convened an assembly back in 1949 to draft the constitution; and that assembly simply failed to do so. The plan was to establish the Knesset (parliament), and kick the can of writing a constitution to them. The Knesset also never finished the job, instead passing a patchwork set of basic laws. It wasn’t until 1995, that their Supreme Court unilaterally asserted that basic laws formed a quasi constitution (a position that they did not start entertaining until the early 90s).
It is true that Israel is not the only country that has stumbled into this system. However, it is a small club. Within that club, what sets Israel apart is how young it is. This is not merely a historical curiosity yet. The tensions that prevented them from forming a constitution in the first place are still alive and well. And, they do not have the generations of precedent needed to provide the clarity that a real constitution can.
You’re applying a USA understanding of government to a completely different government structure because you want there to be an actual document called “The Constitution”.
But that’s not the case here. Either way, we can also take your point further, because a “Constitutional Crisis” can also apply to different branches of government getting into institutional conflict with each other. Since, as we know, legalese likes to use Latin etymology.
The word “constitution” comes from Latin “constitutio,” meaning a regulation or order, via Old French “constitucion,” and originally referred to laws or customs established by authority. It entered English in the 14th century with meanings including laws, physical makeup, and the structure of a state.
Either way, it’s still a Constitutional Crisis and very valid terminology to use.
You’re doing the “torture” here. A constitution is a set of rules or precedents which establish the legal basis for a state. It can be a set of rules in a document like the French constitution, or it can be the sum total of legal precedent and convention like the British constitution. Historically, most constitutions have been the latter.
That’s a very layered statement to respond to and depends on personal weighted values that I can’t adequately answer.
Not in the defense of Iran’s theocracy because there’s no defending it and they openly say that they’re a theocracy, but more about perspective:
Israel claims to be secular and equal, yet -
marriages can only go through religious council (to maintain apartheid and “blood purity” as literally described by their politicians).
requests to open schools, civil societies, non-profits, etc. by anyone who isn’t Jewish Israeli are rejected (so effectively there’s reliance on Israeli Jewish institutions for many things from jobs to education to civil support)
if you’re in an Arab neighborhood or town it is heavily under-served and the police purposefully turn a blind eye towards criminal activity (sometimes catch and release when they discover what neighborhoods the criminal is active in)
religious minorities experience violence and hate (both subtle and obvious) and have little to no recourse for justice.
their expansionism and colonialism is heavily fueled by religious zealots - so the supposedly secular state is enacting genocide for religious zealots but also claims to be secular.
So it’s hard to determine if it’s a little bit better. Some might argue it’s worse.
Nonetheless, it’s essentially a theocracy. Iran vs Israel is allegorically like Abel and Cain, sharing the same root source but with enough differences to want to kill each other.
I think framing it in religious terms is a bit too dismissive and lacking in depth. It’s the exact framing that Israel has perpetuated on purpose so western audiences could be dismissive or find it too complicated to care about.
It doesn’t have a “document constitution” it has a political constitution that is based upon precedence. That precedence being set by the high court.
So when the High Court decided that self determination in Israel is reserved only for the Jewish population, thereby enshrining the right to settler colonialism and they’ve enshrined apartheid into their Political Constitution.
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-27/israel-supreme-court-affirms-constitutionality-of-basic-law-israel-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people/?__cf_chl_f_tk=0MP_7BrWw3SqwpsimgtRVku71L0qxGunHaAQL7rtVHs-1783304970-1.0.1.1-ueujDHnBqCJSUwC3Zc176Q7zFcR6zkAhIBzY7ohLGnc
Israel’s founders didn’t sit down one day and come up with a new form of non-constitutional democracy.
They convened an assembly back in 1949 to draft the constitution; and that assembly simply failed to do so. The plan was to establish the Knesset (parliament), and kick the can of writing a constitution to them. The Knesset also never finished the job, instead passing a patchwork set of basic laws. It wasn’t until 1995, that their Supreme Court unilaterally asserted that basic laws formed a quasi constitution (a position that they did not start entertaining until the early 90s).
It is true that Israel is not the only country that has stumbled into this system. However, it is a small club. Within that club, what sets Israel apart is how young it is. This is not merely a historical curiosity yet. The tensions that prevented them from forming a constitution in the first place are still alive and well. And, they do not have the generations of precedent needed to provide the clarity that a real constitution can.
There are other ways to talk about this. We don’t have to torture these words into pretending to be something they are not.
High court precedents are not the the same thing as a constitution because they are not above all branches of government. They are of one branch.
You’re applying a USA understanding of government to a completely different government structure because you want there to be an actual document called “The Constitution”.
But that’s not the case here. Either way, we can also take your point further, because a “Constitutional Crisis” can also apply to different branches of government getting into institutional conflict with each other. Since, as we know, legalese likes to use Latin etymology.
Either way, it’s still a Constitutional Crisis and very valid terminology to use.
You’re doing the “torture” here. A constitution is a set of rules or precedents which establish the legal basis for a state. It can be a set of rules in a document like the French constitution, or it can be the sum total of legal precedent and convention like the British constitution. Historically, most constitutions have been the latter.
So they’re actually only a little better than a religious theocracy like Iran. Different processes and paths but similar results.
That’s a very layered statement to respond to and depends on personal weighted values that I can’t adequately answer.
Not in the defense of Iran’s theocracy because there’s no defending it and they openly say that they’re a theocracy, but more about perspective:
Israel claims to be secular and equal, yet -
So it’s hard to determine if it’s a little bit better. Some might argue it’s worse.
Nonetheless, it’s essentially a theocracy. Iran vs Israel is allegorically like Abel and Cain, sharing the same root source but with enough differences to want to kill each other.
I think framing it in religious terms is a bit too dismissive and lacking in depth. It’s the exact framing that Israel has perpetuated on purpose so western audiences could be dismissive or find it too complicated to care about.