Proposed 'Accused Law' Criticized as Morally Flawed and Politically Counterproductive
Translated & summarized from Davar by baba
A proposed "Accused Law" in Israel, designed to prevent indicted individuals like Benjamin Netanyahu from forming a government, is criticized as a morally and democratically flawed tactic. The author argues that using such a law would sacrifice core values and empower Netanyahu's narrative. Instead, the focus should be on achieving democratic outcomes within the existing system, even if it requires compromise and accepting less than ideal results.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- A proposed "Accused Law" aims to prevent indicted individuals from forming a government in Israel.
- Critics argue the law is a morally and democratically flawed tactic, akin to losing one's memory.
- The law would allegedly dissolve parliament and trigger new elections, barring the target from running.
- This approach is seen as fueling Israel's "culture war" and validating populist narratives.
- The article advocates for achieving democratic goals through existing frameworks, not anti-democratic means.
- Compromise and adaptation are urged for the "change bloc" to achieve the best possible outcome.
A proposed "Accused Law" that would prevent individuals facing indictment from forming a government is being criticized as a morally and democratically bankrupt solution to Israel's political deadlock. The author likens the temptation to use such a law to a magical artifact from "The NeverEnding Story 2," which grants wishes at the cost of losing precious memories. Similarly, proponents of the law, desperate to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from forming a government, risk sacrificing their own values and the principles of democracy.
The "Accused Law" proposal suggests an ad-hoc government would be formed solely to pass this legislation, potentially including a retroactive term limit, which would then dissolve the Knesset and trigger new elections. Netanyahu would be barred from running in these elections. The author argues this is a "targeted assassination" against the will of nearly half the public and would fuel the "culture war" in Israel, validating claims by Netanyahu's supporters that the "former hegemon" elite despises the public's choice.
This approach, the article contends, would mean succumbing to the very populist and anti-democratic political culture it aims to defeat. Drawing on Audre Lorde's assertion that "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," the piece emphasizes that populism cannot be fought with populist or anti-democratic means. The author suggests that the remaining time before the elections should focus on achieving victory within the existing democratic framework, rather than attempting to circumvent election results.
If a government composed solely of Netanyahu's opponents proves impossible, the focus should shift to achieving attainable goals based on acknowledging the election outcomes. The article concludes that the damage of a potential "Kahanist" interim government and further elections is too great, and that the "change bloc" must be willing to adapt and compromise, even if it means setting aside some important principles, to achieve the best possible outcome under the given circumstances.
