Protestations and Revolutions

The fate of the Turkish republic hung in the balance as it held general elections on on May 14th. This general race determined not only the composition of the parliament but also the position of the presidency, which has been by direct popular vote since the 2007 constitutional referendum. The incumbent president, who has been a predominant figure in Turkish politics since 2003, is Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He runs the religious conservative Justice and Development party. History was made in the election as this was the first time ever that Erdogan failed to decisively win the first-round election for the presidency.

President Erdogan fell just shy of avoiding a runoff at about 49 percent of the vote while his party and its electoral allies won 323 seats in parliament out of 600. His main opponent Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu of the left wing secular Republican People’s Party managed to score an impressive performance at about 45 percent of the vote. Kılıçdaroğlu’s party, which was founded by Kemal Ataturk, the father of the Turkish republic, and its electoral allies only got 212 seats. An unprecedented presidential run off is scheduled for May 28th when the aforementioned frontrunners will face off again. In truth, despite this being Erdogan’s most lackluster presidential run, he outperformed expectations and is favored to win the runoff given that the third place candidate’s base ideologically leans toward Erdogan.

The election came amid a host of problems for Erdogan. The country, a major economic power, is suffering from a high, albeit declining, rate of inflation which is projected to be at 46 percent by year’s end. Furthermore, there was major criticism over his government’s conduct over how it prepared for and handled the recent major earthquake. The longevity of the Erdogan era has borne witness to major political changes in Turkish politics and this election partly reflected the ongoing transformation of Turkish identity.

To understand how much Turkey has changed, it behooves one to look back to the foundation of the republic. When Kemal Ataturk was proclaimed by the Turkish parliament as the first president of the Turkish republic in 1923, he wanted to build a secular and Westernized country whose territorial integrity was respected and who had no significant quarrel with any major foreign power. It was to achieve that end that he fought a war of independence against the old Ottoman Empire and its allied powers to safeguard what he regarded as Turkey’s full territorial sovereignty. He abrogated part of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, which had partitioned pieces of modern day Turkey between Greek, Italian, Armenian, and Kurdish powers, and replaced it with the more favorable 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Ataturk’s reforms were widespread and dramatic. He abolished the caliphate, the office of the religious head of the Islamic faith. He replaced religious laws with secular civil and criminal codes, banned religious symbols from government offices, and replaced the Arabic script with a Latin one for the Turkish language. Ataturk’s foreign policy can best be reduced to his famous adage: “peace at home, peace in the world”- which was a proclamation of neutrality in foreign affairs. This neutrality proved, however, to be tilted toward the West. This movement toward the West would be best exemplified in the fact that 14 years after Ataturk’s death, the country would join the American-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1952. Ataturk’s relationship with his country’s Kurdish population was a contentious one as demonstrated by the revolts by the Kurds in the 1920s and 1930s against his regime. This atmosphere of tension between the Kurds and Ankara has continued in one form or another to the present day.

While Ataturk professed a desire to democratize Turkey, the first free and fair elections for parliament were only held in 1950, which was after his death. It ought to be emphasized that the 1950 election was described by one Middle Eastern scholar, Bernard Lewis, as the first of its kind in the Middle East, where a government voluntarily ceded power after losing an election. However, Lewis caveated this by observing that the new leader “soon made it clear that he was determined not to leave by the same route [i.e. through elections] which he came [into power]". Turkish democracy would come in fits and starts throughout its history with military coups and accusations of civilian-driven authoritarianism disrupting the process. The latest attempt by segments of the Turkish military to drive an elected government from power was in 2016.

When Erdogan took power in 2003 (through democratic means), he inherited much of this legacy of laïcité and general policy of good neighborliness that was built up by Ataturk and his successors. Indeed, his own party’s foreign policy motto has been “zero problem with neighbors”, which followed in the belief that trade would enhance Turkish influence. Erdogan initially pursued a policy of greater political and social rights for Turkey’s Kurdish population, but this broke down in 2012 along with the peace process. His country has jailed the leader of a mainstream pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) since 2016, and his government sought to ban the pro-Kurdish party outright since 2021 over allegations of its connection to outlawed Kurdish militias. This has ironically caused the Kurdish voter base for the HDP to align themselves with the old Kemalist party.

Erdogan has nevertheless fundamentally altered the character of the Turkish state. Whereas Ataturk was the great secularizer, Erdogan has proven to be the great traditionalist. Since the 1990s, Erdogan has belonged to political parties that advocated for a more permissive role of religion in the state. Erdogan has pushed for greater funding for Islamic schooling in Turkey, explaining that he wants to create “a pious generation.” He has also lifted the hijab ban on women in government jobs and said of the repeal that it ended “a dark time”. Whereas Ataturk looked to break from the Ottoman past, Erdogan embraces it. In that vein, the 21st century’s Turkish politico restored the teaching of the old Arabic-based script of the Turkish language. Erdogan has also reveled about the faded glory of the Ottoman past. In foreign policy too, Erdogan has sought to break from a reflexively pro-Western line and tries to act as a balancing power in the region and world. This would for instance explain his off and on again relationship with the State of Israel and his differing stances toward Russia. He has also taken a much more aggressive foreign policy stance: Turkey has engaged in military operations in Syria, Libya, and Iraq multiple times since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war. The Syrian and Iraqi operations were done based on Turkish fear of the Kurdish powerbase in northern Syria and northern Iraq alleging ties with Turkish Kurdish insurgent groups.

Would Erdogan’s main election rival from the Kemalist party break from his policies if elected? This depends on the issue. In terms of foreign policy, Kemal Kilicdaroglu promised that he would not seek to fundamentally upset friendly relations with Russia and would be open to serve as a mediator for peace between Russia and Ukraine. While a top opposition foreign adviser said that Kilicdaroglu, if elected, would pursue “dialogue and a non-interventionist approach” in regional affairs as opposed to Erdogan’s more aggressive approach, he like Erdogan plans to normalize relations with Syria. In terms of relations with Israel, there is little to suggest that Kilicdaroglu would pursue a more friendly path than Erdogan. When former president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Kilicdaroglu, then a member of parliament, remarked “If you [Erdogan] want to sever ties [with Israel], then go ahead. We are backing you.” He also repeated anti-Israel narratives about the Mavi Marmara affair as late as 2022 after Israeli president Herzog visited the country. Several of his major allies in parliament have decried the current détente between Turkey and Israel and accused Erdogan of betraying the Palestinian cause.

Erdogan has changed the Turkish republic through de-secularizing its character and making it more appreciative of its Ottoman and Islamic past. In some ways though Erdogan has carried on certain inheritances from the Kemalist past in terms of a tense relationship with the Kurds. While his main political rival for the president may be much more tilted toward the West and decrying the democratic deficit in the country (which does have rings of truth to it), even if Kemal Kilicdaroglu manages to achieve an electoral upset in the second round there are some items of consensus between the main parties. Erdogan’s era , however, is likely to continue as he is the favorite to win the second round of elections.

In just over one week, Ukrainian air defense systems accomplished what many thought was impossible. Twice. On Thursday, May 4th, and Monday, May 15th, recently delivered U.S. Patriot air defense batteries reportedly intercepted multiple hypersonic missiles over the skies of Kyiv. The initial intercept of one Kinzhal missile set off a buzz of excitement and controversy. However, when the second wave of six Kinzhals was downed before reaching their targets, it seemed that the record was written in stone. How is it that Cold War-era technology had bested a weapon that only entered service 6 years ago during a wave of modernization in the Russian military? Especially one that was touted by the Kremlin as an unstoppable weapon, capable of outpacing and outmaneuvering any existing air defense systems. Does this mean that the fear and excitement surrounding hypersonic weapons is misplaced?

In order to tease out an answer to these questions it is necessary to unpack the incidents from earlier this month and some of the mystique surrounding the Kinzhal missile. The Kinzhal (Russian for “dagger”) is one of Russia’s three hypersonic threats, that are either in service or development, and is claimed to have reached speeds of Mach 10. However, unlike the Avangard or Zircon, which are hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) and hypersonic cruise missiles respectively, the Kinzhal is neither. In reality, it is a modified Iskander ground-launched ballistic missile that is air-launched from a Mig-31. It uses the fuel saved from bypassing the ground launch to reach astronomical speeds as it approaches the target. This presents some key differences between true hypersonics like the Avangard or Zircon, and missiles that can simply reach hypersonic speeds.

The V-2 rockets used by the Nazi Reich at the end of WWII were themselves hypersonic missiles - in that they attained the generally agreed upon Mach-5 threshold (or about 1 mile per second). In fact, most ballistic missiles reach speeds above Mach-20 during reentry but rapidly decelerate as they plunge through the atmosphere from space. It is the predictable and parabolic path of ballistic missiles that makes them relatively easy to detect and calculate the path for an intercept. What makes the Zircon and Avangard (neither of which have seen any use in Ukraine, despite claims the Zircon has entered service) different from traditional missiles is their continuous speed and variable flight path.

On the one hand, Zircon uses a specialized engine known as a scramjet (which can only be ignited at speeds of around Mach-4) to travel the entire distance at a velocity and altitude that makes detection and interception nearly impossible, whereas the Kinzhal only boosts itself to hypersonic speeds shortly after launch. On the other hand, the Avangard is an HGV which means that it reaches ballistic missile speeds after descending from space, but does not follow a parabolic or predictable path. Moreover, its aerodynamic profile is designed to provide minimal air resistance and maximum maneuverability during its approach to the target. Contrariwise, the Kinzhal was never designed with such extreme maneuverability in mind.

Although it goes to show that the Kinzhal is not quite the unstoppable hypersonic marvel that it was unveiled as, this does not mean that the incident should be taken lightly. The shoot-down of not just one, but all 7 Kinzhal missiles demonstrates the Patriots system's nascent ability to take on legitimate hypersonic threats given proper detection and heads-up time. Despite some denials, the use of Kinzhals is at least somewhat corroborated by the Russian claim that during the May 15th strike it used Kinzhal missiles in the strike to “completely destroy” multiple components of a Patriot missile battery. These claims were countered by U.S. officials who indicated that the systems were only minorly damaged but remained fully operational. Considering that on Sunday, May 28th, Russia launched 59 Iranian-made Shahed kamikaze drones at Kyiv, of which 58 were reportedly shot down, and then mere hours later, on Monday morning they followed up with a bombardment of 11 Iskander missiles - all of which were reportedly shot down - it seems likely that the Patriot battery is indeed still operational, and likewise engaged multiple Kinzhal missiles in the preceding days.

As mentioned before, there has been some controversy over the veracity of the initial intercept on May 4th. This was exacerbated by the fact that the Ukrainian air force initially denied the intercept in the immediate aftermath of the barrage, downplaying an article by Defense Express from May 5th that speculated on the nature of an unusually loud explosion heard overhead on the night of May 4th. And just the next day, the Ukrainian Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk reported that a Kinzhal had been used on the night of May 4th and that it was the Patriot system which shot it down. In reference to the initial denials, the commander uttered a Ukrainian parable about keeping mum so as not to aid one’s enemy.

Additionally, many skeptics criticized footage of the missile’s debris which was first released by Kyiv Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko on May 10th. Cynics pointed to the similarity in shape between the purported missile components and another Russian bomb known as the Betab-500. However, there are a number of issues with this theory: firstly, the Betab-500 is an air-dropped bomb with no flight capabilities. It is a bunker-buster of the “dumb bomb” variety (i.e. it has no guidance systems) that would have required a bomber to be flown over Kyiv, and what’s more, the Kinzhal uses a nearly identical warhead (as seen in the source diagram) inside the body of the missile as the Betab-500. This similarity in appearance between the missile components seems to be the source of confusion and denial by the Russian side. And thanks to the meticulous work of open-source intelligence analysts we can rely on more than Ukrainian and American defense agencies' claims to verify the intercept.

As the war enters its second summer, the apparent Russian preference for expending vast quantities of its long-range and precision munitions on well-defended areas around Kyiv illustrates the more symbolic and shortsighted nature of the Russian Ministry of Defense’s (MOD) targeting priorities. While lobbing millions of dollars worth of munitions at your enemies’ capital may allow you to publish outlandish claims for domestic propaganda value, it does nothing to blunt the staging and execution of the much anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive. One that will be powered by an influx of international military aid that has finally been trained on by and reached service in the Ukrainian military.

As of early March, 31 percent of tanks and 76 percent of other armored fighting vehicles had been delivered to Ukraine for the planned counteroffensive, according to classified U.S. military documents that were part of the recent Discord Leaks, and American officials have indicated that far more has been delivered in the months since. In contrast, multiple analysts believe that the anticipated Russian Spring offensive began months ago, and the lack of intensity or movement of the front lines demonstrates the beleaguered and degraded state of the Russian forces. The expenditure of so many munitions on such a hardened target as Kyiv rather than Ukrainian defensive positions during their offensive is likewise a strange and tactically questionable choice.

Not only are Kinzhals being used in a less effective manner by the Russian MOD, but their recent interceptions also illustrate that they are not the decisive weapon the Kremlin made them out to be. The biggest takeaway from these incidents is that given ample detection, interception with existing systems is feasible. As it currently stands, the U.S. no longer relies on ground-based systems to detect missile launches, which are the most vulnerable to hypersonic weapons. The U.S. Space Command operates the world's most advanced Space Domain Awareness (SDA) system through a comprehensive array of detection satellites, air radar systems, and international commercial partnerships that augment the old-school ground-based platforms. For the fiscal year of 2023, the U.S. Space Force has requested $584 million for developing and operating SDA missions. As these programs reach maturity, the nascent yet proven ability of the Patriot and other platforms like the Aegis ship-based interceptors to take on hypersonic threats will only improve.

Back in 2021, when Platform Mag covered the Chinese tests of a hypersonic glide vehicle, we concluded that the development of hypersonics was not necessarily a strategic game changer. This premise rested on the fact that both nations already have large enough arsenals of nuclear weapons to merely swamp air defenses and demolish unacceptably large swaths of each others’ territory in a time of war. Thus, adding a new weapon that can evade air defenses (but is too costly to be made en-masse) does not change the strategic parity between the United States and China. However, Russia is already at war with Ukraine, and Ukraine has already received Patriot batteries. Therefore, the development that Patriots can neutralize a weapon that the Ukrainians previously had no answer to is a game changer. It will limit the effectiveness of incessant Russian attacks on critical infrastructure, perhaps alter Russian targeting choices, and allow the Ukrainians to protect key elements of their war effort. In summary - the ability to intercept hypersonics has more of an impact than the development of the weapons themselves.

In an age defined by technological breakthroughs, few innovations have captured our collective imagination as profoundly as Artificial Intelligence (AI). This transformative technology, once relegated to the realm of science fiction, has now permeated every aspect of our lives, thus reshaping industries, challenging societal norms, and heralding a new era of human-machine collaboration. If there is any hope of successfully harnessing the power of AI, society must collectively work to understand its multifaceted impact. In order to illuminate the perils and prospects of AI, one must explore its influence on the job market, the evolving role of humans, and the remarkable strides made in recent years, while also unearthing emerging challenges that lie ahead.

As AI continues to evolve, it sparks discussions about the future of employment. While concerns about widespread job displacement exist, it is crucial to recognize that technological advancements have historically created new opportunities, through a process known to economists as creative destruction. Rather than replacing entire occupations, AI is poised to transform specific tasks within jobs. According to a study by McKinsey & Company, around 50% of work activities across the global workforce can be automated, leading to a restructuring of job roles and skill requirements. The impact of AI on the shifting employment landscape goes beyond job displacement. It also presents the necessity for workers to upskill and transition into roles that leverage their uniquely human qualities, such as creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence.

To gain deeper insights into the changing employment landscape, let us explore the sectors most likely to experience the earliest waves of automation. Industries such as transportation, manufacturing, and customer service are already witnessing significant integration of AI technologies. Self-driving vehicles, for instance, offer the potential to revolutionize logistics and transportation, with estimates suggesting that autonomous trucks alone could displace millions of driving jobs in the coming years. Additionally, many jobs that require a large amount of analysis, such as in consulting and finance sectors, are more prone to being taken over by AI. In manufacturing, AI-powered robots and automation systems streamline production processes, enhance efficiency, and reduce costs. Customer service is being transformed by the advent of sophisticated chatbots and virtual assistants, capable of handling routine inquiries, resolving issues, and improving overall customer experience.

The recent advancements in AI have been nothing short of extraordinary. Breakthroughs in machine learning and deep neural networks have enabled AI systems to achieve unprecedented feats. Today, machines can process vast amounts of data, recognize complex patterns, and learn from experience, surpassing human performance in specific domains. For instance, deep learning algorithms have revolutionized image recognition, enabling applications such as self-driving cars and automated surveillance systems. Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms have reached new heights, allowing chatbots to engage in seamless conversations, closely mimicking human interaction. Such advancements have led to significant improvements in various sectors, including healthcare, finance, and entertainment. In healthcare, AI-driven technologies are transforming diagnostics, treatment planning, and drug discovery. Machine learning algorithms analyze massive volumes of medical data, aiding physicians in making accurate diagnoses and recommending personalized treatment plans. The potential impact of AI in healthcare is substantial, with studies suggesting that AI applications could potentially save up to $150 billion by 2026.

Looking ahead, the potential of AI appears limitless. Rapid advancements in robotics, quantum computing, and neuro-inspired AI (which is AI inspired by the way our brain's neural networks operate) hold the promise of reshaping the technological landscape. Personalized education empowered by AI could revolutionize the way we learn, providing tailored educational experiences to individuals based on their unique needs and preferences. Autonomous drones equipped with AI capabilities can play a vital role in disaster response, delivering supplies to remote areas, conducting search and rescue missions, and assessing damage. Moreover, AI-driven drug discovery has the potential to accelerate the development of life-saving treatments and therapies thereby significantly impacting global healthcare outcomes.

However, while the advancements in AI hold great promise, it is essential to acknowledge and address the potential downsides and dangers that accompany this transformative technology. One concern revolves around the ethical implications of AI. As AI systems become more sophisticated, there is a risk of them perpetuating discrimination and reinforcing existing societal inequalities based on pattern recognition. The reliance on large datasets for training AI models can inadvertently amplify present biases or create new ones in the data, leading to biased decision-making and discriminatory outcomes. Recognizing and addressing these biases is crucial to ensure fairness and equity in AI applications. Additionally, issues such as privacy, transparency and accountability require comprehensive and responsible solutions. While AI systems excel at data analysis and pattern recognition, human creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence remain irreplaceable, for now. As we navigate the intricacies of AI's future, it is essential to foster a collaborative relationship between humans and machines.

Moreover, there are concerns about the negative impact of AI on employment. While new jobs may be created as a result of AI advancements, there is a possibility of significant job displacement in certain sectors. According to a report by McKinsey, between 400 and 800 million jobs could be displaced worldwide due to automation by 2030. This shift requires proactive measures to mitigate the impact on workers and ensure a smooth transition. Governments, organizations, and educational institutions must invest in reskilling and upskilling programs to equip individuals with the skills needed in an AI-driven economy. It is crucial to foster a lifelong learning culture and support affected workers to adapt to the changing job market, otherwise, unemployment and economic fallout will be the result.

Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the misuse and weaponization of AI. As this technology becomes more sophisticated, there is a risk that malicious actors may exploit it for nefarious purposes, such as creating realistic deepfakes for deception or developing autonomous weapons systems. Strong ethical guidelines, regulations, and international collaborations are necessary to ensure the responsible development and use of AI, safeguarding against misuse, and minimizing potential risks.

While recognizing the potential negatives and dangers, it is crucial to approach AI with a balanced perspective that takes into account the broader context and the positive aspects it brings. AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, increase productivity, and drive economic growth. A report by the company Goldman Sachs estimates that generative AI alone could add $7 trillion to the global economy over the next 10 years. AI-powered technologies can enhance healthcare, accelerate scientific research, improve transportation systems, and optimize energy consumption, among other applications. By leveraging the power of AI, we can tackle complex societal challenges, make more informed decisions, and create a better future.

To navigate the path ahead, it is imperative for AI development companies to invest in research and development that promotes the ethical and responsible use of AI, which could even be regulated by governments, as it is such an impactful technology. Collaboration among governments, industry leaders, researchers, and civil society is essential to establish robust frameworks and regulations that address the potential risks while maximizing the benefits of AI. By prioritizing transparency, accountability, and fairness, we can shape AI to serve humanity's best interests.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns regarding the potential downsides and dangers of AI, it is important to approach the topic with an informed and balanced perspective. By proactively addressing ethical implications, investing in upskilling and reskilling programs, and regulating responsible AI development, we can unlock the vast potential of AI to create a more prosperous and inclusive future. With careful consideration and thoughtful action, we can navigate the challenges and harness the transformative power of AI for the betterment of society.

In recent weeks, many of us have undoubtedly heard about the thousands of Israelis protesting the judicial reforms of Israel’s new coalition government. Crowds protesting against the proposed changes to Israel's judicial system have exceeded the hundreds of thousands. The protests were spurred on by dire warnings from Israel's leading left wing politicians. Lapid warned the government that history would judge them and implored the coalition to “stop this insane legislation”. Former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz warned in January that the government’s plans for judicial reform risked being responsible for civil war in Israeli society. He also urged the Israeli public “to demonstrate” against “the demolition of democracy”. The crisis escalated further, when reports surfaced in the media that many IDF reservists, including IAF pilots, refused to report for training and some even refused to report for service and the reserves. There were also a number of corporations that announced plans to leave Israel because of the judicial reform bill.

The coalition's plans have also sparked opposition abroad. At a joint press conference between Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen and Germany’s Foreign Minister Analina Baerbock, the German minister hinted at her country’s concern with the legislation saying that "we abroad are concerned about some of the legislative plans in Israel." Aside from the criticism given by the German government, Israel’s closest ally, the United States has actively pushed back against the deal as well. US Ambassador Thomas Nides cautioned Israel about the move saying it needed to “pump the brakes" on the proposed reforms. Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs, Amichai Chikli, responded to Ambassador Nides by telling him to “put the brakes on yourself and mind your own business.” In response, Nides countered that "most Israelis do not want America to stay out of their business”. President Biden also weighed in saying that he was “very concerned” about the reforms, that Israel “cannot continue down this road”, and that he had “made this clear” to the Israeli government.

One thing is certain; key members of the US government have dropped any pretense that they will not be actively involved with backing the demands of the protestors and, according to some, even funding them. This public confrontation between key political figures in the American and Israeli governments and the tone of the rhetoric used illustrates the level of frustration in the White House over the coalition's judicial reform efforts. It also doesn't help that the Biden Administration is filled with old members of the Obama administration, such as Secretary of State Tony Blinken, Ashton Carter and Jake Sullivan. Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu’s often-adversarial relationship with the Obama administration may have complicated his efforts to work with key members of Biden’s cabinet to ease American pressure over the reforms.

Another key obstacle for Netanyahu in gaining American sympathy for his reforms is the respect that many Americans have for the role of the Supreme Court and its importance in maintaining the balance of power between the three branches of government. Aside from the fact that the US and Israel share a common bond as democratic countries, the overlap between both the structures of both governments stops there. Since the early days of Israel’s statehood, the country's legal structure was created through a series of basic laws, a process that unquestionably played a role in increasing the confusion and debate over the proper legal role of the Supreme Court, since many of Israel’s basic laws can easily be overridden with a Knesset vote of a simple majority of 61 members. The homepage for the Knesset website even agrees that “Israel has no constitution.”

In contrast, deference for the Constitution has been one of the founding bedrocks of America’s political culture and laws. The US constitution is also quite difficult to change since amendments require either the support of a ⅔ majority in both houses of Congress or the passage of ⅔ of all state legislatures. Even if a proposed amendment would manage to get to this level of support, it would still need to be ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures.

The role and rules for the Supreme Court in the US and Israel are also quite different. The current status quo in Israel gives Israel’s judiciary far more power and leverage to nullify legislation arbitrarily. This stands in contrast to the US where its judicial branch shares power with the executive and legislative branches much more equitably. The 9 justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) are nominated by the President and then approved by a majority of senators. The US constitution gives the executive branch a level of control over judicial appointments that makes Israel's judicial selection process look tame by comparison. SCOTUS judges must also explain how their rulings uphold the Constitution, which in theory at least limits the level of space for judges to make arbitrary rulings created from a place of political bias. This is a far more stringent judicial standard relative to Israel’s Supreme Court, where judges have used their own “reasonability” standards, to nullify Knesset legislation.

The proposed changes to the role of Israel's Supreme Court would alter the balance of the nine member committee that appoints its 15 judges. Currently, the Supreme Court’s committee is composed of 3 Supreme Court Judges, 2 members of the Israel Bar Association and 4 members of the Knesset (2 Ministers and 2 regular MK’s). The current bill would replace the 2 members of the Israel Bar Association with 2 additional Knesset Members, giving the Knesset a 6-3 majority in selecting justices. It would also remove the Supreme Court’s power to prevent the passage of Knesset legislation, including its ability to prohibit Knesset bills on the grounds of “reasonability”. The “reasonability” charge was used this past January, to disqualify Aryeh Deri from serving as either the Minister of Interior or Health, on grounds that it was “highly unreasonable” to allow him to serve as a minister. The judicial ministry also appoints mandatory advisors in each government ministry that are able to prevent the implementation of legislation on legal grounds. This effectively gives a small number of advisors an inappropriate level of power to prohibit legislation. The judicial reforms would overcome this problem by allowing government ministers to appoint their own legal advisors.

Looming in the background of the proposed changes to the role of Israel’s judiciary is the question of Netanyahu’s legal immunity and whether the courts would or should be able to remove him from office. Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister has long been the bane of the left, both in Israel and the US. At home, Netanyahu's 15 plus years of leadership have testified to his remarkable political resilience and superior resume in comparison to his political opponents. The approximately 11 year period between March of 2009- May 2020, marked the longest duration of time that Netanyahu served (without being replaced) as PM. It also set a record in Israeli history for the longest time that any person held continuous control of the Prime Minister's Office.

This fact is even more remarkable when viewed in the historical context of Israeli politics. For decades, Israel’s left-wing had dominated Israel’s political arena and government institutions. It only finally lost its monopoly on power in 1977 when Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister. Aside from a brief two year stint when Shimon Peres served as premier, the right governed Israel until Yitzhak Rabin was elected Prime Minister in 1992. Netanyahu’s emergence in the late 90’s as a rising political star coincided with a major shift for Israel towards the right in the last half decade. The Times of Israel reported on an analysis from the Israel Democracy institute, which found 62% of Israelis self-identified as right-wing, compared to only 46% in 2019.

However, Netanyahu's consistent dominance of Israeli politics had the adverse effect of producing a backlash and negative consequences that are still being seen today. Many key political figures that had once worked for or with him in the past, now refused to even consider cooperating with him and began to speak of working together at all costs to replace him. In 2021 an anti-Netanyahu alliance that included Avigdor Liberman, Naftali Bennet, Gideon Sa’ar, Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid managed to form a governing coalition. They managed to oust Netanyahu from power despite his Likud party winning the most seats in the last election. The tenure of the Bennet-Lapid-led government was short-lived as it was brought down after a wave of defections from coalition MKs. This forced Bennet to hand over power to Lapid and announce a new election yet again.

Netanyahu has also had to face a spate of criminal accusations designed to besmirch his reputation and remove him from Israel’s political scene for good. His legal woes began in 2016 with Case 1000, an investigation that looked into accusations that he accepted gifts of cigars and champagne from billionaire Arnon Milchan as a quid pro quo for Netanyahu pressuring the Finance Ministry to undertake measures that were favorable to Mr. Milchan. Case 2000 and 4000 (Netanyahu was cleared of charges for Case 3000) feature accusations that Netanyahu used his political influence to assist Yediot Ahronot (an Israeli newspaper) and Bezek (the corporation that owns the newsite Walla), in exchange for both news sites agreeing to represent Netanyahu more favorably. Despite the impending ongoing cases against him and the point-blank refusal of many Israeli politicians to enter into any agreement with Netanyahu, to the horror of progressives, Israelis decided to provide him with a governing mandate of 64 seats in the Knesset in the 2022 November elections.

While there are some critics of the bill that are legitimately concerned that its passage would weaken legal protections against abuse of power, others are protesting because they want to see Netanyahu removed from power despite the fact that he was democratically elected. After more than a decade and a half of Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel’s left-wing has run out of patience for negotiation, compromise, or reason, and will use any means necessary to remove and block Netanyahu’s agenda. They will do so all the while hypocritically insisting that they are representing democracy. However, it is the legislative branch (the Knesset), not the judicial, where power is determined through a democratic process. Increasing the Knesset’s ability to craft and implement legislation makes the Israeli government more reflective of the will of Israel’s voters and not less.

Despite outraged protesters dramatically wringing their hands and warning of the end of Israel as a democracy, the fact is that Netanyahu has lost elections before without any serious issues over a peaceful transfer of power. Israel’s democratic nature is threatened by providing the judiciary branch a blank cheque to block the creation and implementation of public policy for partisan motivations. It is also threatened when large segments of the population adopt an uncompromising stance and refuse to abide by or accept the outcome of an election. While these same protestors complain that Netanyahu places his own interests before the nation's, they are willing to risk the security and prosperity of Israel’s future to oust him. These actions create the kind of economic pressure on Israel that might make the founders of BDS proud. If those opposing the reforms genuinely want to protect Israel’s security and future as a Jewish and democratic state, they must also be willing to honor the consequences that democracy brings or Israel will edge ever closer to a point of no return.