SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
law and order
The Straw Man City and the Architecture of Selective Small Government
Trump’s urban takeovers reveal a governing pattern that blends the language of small government with a readiness to deploy maximum state force when it serves political ends.
Aug 15, 2025
In August 2025, the president announced he was placing Washington, DC’s police department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to patrol the city. The move came without a request from local officials, despite crime being lower than the year before. Within days, troops in fatigues and federal agents in marked jackets were stationed in neighborhoods, helicopters circled overhead, and armored vehicles were parked near the Washington Monument. Mayor Muriel Bowser called it “unsettling and unprecedented,” a rupture in the norms that had governed relations between the capital’s elected leadership and the federal government for decades.
Two months earlier, a similar dynamic played out in Los Angeles. Following nationwide immigration raids that led to more than 2,000 arrests, protesters blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention vans and gathered outside federal buildings. The president responded by activating the National Guard. Helicopters circled overhead. Tear gas drifted across a Home Depot parking lot. The city’s leadership had not asked for help, nor was there evidence of a breakdown in public order.
These were not acts of emergency governance. They were deliberate assertions of federal power over political opponents, designed for maximum visual and emotional impact. They were meant to be seen far beyond the city limits—and they revealed a governing pattern that blends the language of small government with a readiness to deploy maximum state force when it serves political ends.
The intended audience for these deployments was not the people of DC or Los Angeles. It was voters in suburban Pennsylvania, rural Wisconsin, and the exurbs of Georgia—people who will never walk those streets but have been told for years that cities led by Democrats are dangerous, chaotic, and out of control. For them, the images of soldiers in intersections, helicopters circling landmarks, and armored vehicles rumbling past storefronts confirmed a story they had already been given.
The state was oppressive when enforcing environmental rules or civil rights, heroic when arresting migrants, deploying troops to cities, or cracking down on protest.
This is the “straw man city”: Chicago as shorthand for lawlessness, DC as the embodiment of disorder, Los Angeles as the symbol of unchecked protest. The facts on the ground—that Chicago’s violent crime has dropped this year, that the LA protests were contained—are irrelevant to the purpose of the spectacle. The story is already in circulation, reinforced nightly by cable news loops and social media clips showing the most dramatic moments and omitting the rest.
This selective version of small government is not new. In the early republic, Thomas Jefferson warned that centralized authority threatened liberty, yet expanded federal power for the Louisiana Purchase and infrastructure projects that benefited white settlers while excluding enslaved people and Indigenous nations. After the Civil War, “states’ rights” became a shield for Southern leaders opposing Reconstruction, decrying federal civil rights enforcement as tyranny while embracing federal subsidies that bolstered the white Southern economy.
The New Deal brought an unprecedented expansion of federal social provision, met by fierce opposition from those who accepted federal military spending and farm subsidies but rejected social insurance and labor protections. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan fused economic and cultural politics, cutting taxes and regulations while expanding defense spending and the war on drugs. After September 11, a vast domestic security apparatus was built in the name of crisis response, billed as temporary but made permanent.
US President Donald Trump’s first term inherited this scaffolding and made the selectivity explicit: The state was oppressive when enforcing environmental rules or civil rights, heroic when arresting migrants, deploying troops to cities, or cracking down on protest. In his second term, this logic is even more visible.
A Global Pattern
This model mirrors patterns in other nationalist and populist governments. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán has weakened independent regulators while expanding media control and policing powers. In India, Narendra Modi has combined privatization with an aggressive cultural enforcement capacity. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro paired environmental deregulation with military influence in civilian government. In each case, small-government rhetoric coexists with a large, intrusive state aimed at controlling political opponents and enforcing cultural norms.
Democrats’ Blind Spot
Privately, many Democrats will say the public is misinformed about crime, immigration, and the condition of American cities—and that racial bias shapes how many Americans interpret what they see, turning even modest disorder into proof of collapse if it involves people of color. But frustration at misinformation does not change the political reality: Voters respond to imagery and perceived safety. A suburban voter who sees troops in the streets is not thinking about the separation of powers; they are thinking something bad must be happening.
Too often, Democrats respond as if these are policy disputes, countering with statistics and program histories. Facts matter for governing, but they rarely break through emotionally. And too often, they aim their rebuttals at local residents while the president is speaking to a national audience. This leaves the “straw man city” narrative uncontested in the very places where it is most politically effective.
Fighting on Two Fronts
Closing this gap requires fighting on two fronts at once. Locally, leaders must acknowledge residents’ concerns without dismissing them and pair that recognition with visible improvements: safer transit, better lighting, more detectives to solve violent crimes, strong youth programs, affordable housing, and mental health crisis teams. These are not abstract promises but concrete actions people can see.
Nationally, they must dismantle the straw man before it becomes the only picture in voters’ minds. That means showing images of neighborhoods where safety has improved, community programs that work, and city officials acting decisively. It means refusing to let fear-based stagecraft dominate the screen.
If residents believe their leaders cannot keep them safe, they will accept safety however it comes—even in the form of an occupying force.
Some Democrats will resist this, worrying it concedes too much to false frames. But history shows that avoiding the frame does not erase it—Richard Nixon’s “law and order” and Reagan’s “welfare queen” became “conventional wisdom” when left uncontested.
Authoritarianism thrives in the gap between what leaders say and what people feel. If residents believe their leaders cannot keep them safe, they will accept safety however it comes—even in the form of an occupying force. The interventions in DC and Los Angeles were not exceptions. They were demonstrations of how perception can be weaponized, how small-government rhetoric can mask a big and intrusive state, and how the straw man city can be used to justify that intrusion again and again.
The fight ahead is not over whether government should be big or small. It is over whom it serves, how it acts, and whether liberty remains a shared guarantee or becomes a conditional privilege. If Democrats do not claim that story now, they will discover the straw man city already built for them—ready to be deployed in the next manufactured emergency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Enforce the Law: Trigger the Leahy Review Now Over IDF Abuses in Gaza
No foreign military, no matter how close the alliance, should receive blank checks from the U.S. government when there is credible evidence they are violating international humanitarian norms and committing war crimes.
Jul 26, 2025
The Leahy Law is not a fringe idea. It is settled United States law, enshrined in bipartisan legislation that prohibits American tax dollars from funding foreign military units that commit gross violations of human rights. Its purpose is simple and resonates across political lines: accountability.
That is why we are launching the Leahy Review Now campaign, calling on Congress to immediately initiate a formal Leahy Law review of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) based on overwhelming evidence of systematic abuses in Gaza.
This is not a left or right issue. It is a matter of law and order, fiscal responsibility, and American integrity. No foreign military, no matter how close the alliance, should receive blank checks from the U.S. government when there is credible evidence they are violating international humanitarian norms and committing war crimes. That is exactly what the Leahy Law was written to prevent. And right now, it is being ignored.
I am not writing this as a politician or a pundit. I’m writing this as a physician who just returned from Gaza, where I served at Nasser Hospital during one of the largest mass casualty events of the war. On June 17, I crawled and knelt on the blood-covered floors of the trauma bay, surrounded by infants, children, and teenagers with gunshot wounds to the head, traumatic amputations, and shrapnel wounds carved deep into their torsos and faces. The scale and precision of the injuries made clear that these were not accidents. They were the result of deliberate military policy.
The children dying in Gaza are not abstractions. They are real. They are beautiful. And they are being erased with the help of American-made bombs and bullets.
One young girl wore a red sweater with the word “Love” across the front. Her left arm was severed off mid arm. I hesitated before cutting off her clothes because they were the only warm and beautiful thing left on her tiny frame. She was barely conscious, but she was still alive. Across from her were the bodies of five young boys, all lined up, all with single gunshots to the head. Their skulls were opened, and their brains spilled into their hair. Some had just finished hiding small bags of flour under their clothing just before they were shot.
The so-called “aid drop zones” are not safe. They are kill boxes. More than once, I treated children whose last act of hope was running toward a flour sack. Some died with food still in their hands. The IDF has repeatedly struck civilians at aid distribution points, evacuation corridors, hospitals, ambulances, schools, and United Nations shelters. None of this is speculation. These facts are backed by credible documentation from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations agencies, and most importantly, by the firsthand testimony of those of us who were there.
The Leahy Law explicitly prohibits U.S. military aid to units that commit gross violations of human rights. That includes extrajudicial killings, torture, targeting civilians, and violations of the Geneva Conventions. The conduct of the IDF in Gaza is not in a gray area. It qualifies.
Yet despite this mountain of evidence, the United States continues to send billions in weapons and military support. Congress continues to write blank checks. And most American taxpayers have no idea that they are funding the systematic destruction of a civilian population.
The Leahy Review Now campaign demands a change. We are calling on members of Congress, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, to immediately trigger a formal review of the IDF under the Leahy Law. The process must be transparent, independent, and thorough. If the law is applied honestly, the outcome will be clear.
To be silent now is to be complicit. And to be complicit is to be culpable.
Some will say this is about geopolitics. It is not. This is about law. This is about children. This is about the fundamental principle that no one is above accountability. Not even our allies.
Former Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) himself has stated clearly that the law bearing his name must apply to Israel just as it applies to every other nation. To carve out an exception now would be to gut the law entirely. That would send a chilling message to the world: The rules-based order is optional, and America plays favorites.
We cannot let that happen. The law must mean something. The deaths must mean something. The future depends on our ability to stop this cycle of impunity.
As a physician, I took an oath to do no harm. That oath doesn’t end at our borders. It extends to all people, everywhere, especially when they are being harmed with our money and our weapons.
That’s why I am asking you to sign the petition at https://sign.moveon.org/p/LeahyReviewNow. For more information on the petition go to www.LeahyReviewNow.org. Share it. Talk about it. Pressure your elected officials. Demand a review. Demand accountability. And demand it now.
This campaign is not symbolic. It is legal. It is grounded. And it is urgent. The children dying in Gaza are not abstractions. They are real. They are beautiful. And they are being erased with the help of American-made bombs and bullets. We can no longer say we didn’t know.
We know.
Now it’s time to act.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite 4 Indictments, Trump Will Still Be the GOP Nominee
His ability to campaign may be limited by his legal woes, but his supporters will vote for him anyway.
Aug 25, 2023
It’s election season, and the leading candidates for president are barnstorming from state to state on the stump-speech circuit. Or, in the case of former president Donald Trump, to keep court dates.
As they say: priorities.
Trump was indicted last week, along with 18 other defendants, in Fulton County, Georgia. That makes the fourth jurisdiction in which the former president is facing criminal penalties, following the cases in Washington, D.C., where he was charged in federal court with conspiracy to overturn the election (four counts), and in Florida for illegally possessing classified documents (40 counts, including superseding indictments, for obstructing the government’s efforts to get them back), and in New York for paying off an adult film star to cover up an affair (34 counts of falsifying business records).
In Georgia, Trump himself faces 13 counts in the latest indictment, out of 41 total charges that also target 18 co-defendants. Trump’s charges include violating Georgia’s racketeering laws, and several that stem from the conspiracy to submit a false slate of electors to the Electoral College—and which also include the “absolutely perfect phone call” to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to “find 11,780 votes” to change the outcome of the election.
If four indictments seem excessive, it’s because Donald Trump was excessive in committing crimes in multiple jurisdictions.
Among the flurry of indictments and addenda and superseding indictments, it’s hard to keep track of which ones are important. The answer is that all of them are vitally important. If four indictments seem excessive, it’s because Donald Trump was excessive in committing crimes in multiple jurisdictions.
In the words of another former president, Trump is in deep doo-doo. But that doesn’t mean we can let down our guard.
We need to come to terms with an uncomfortable truth: the fact that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president. His ability to campaign may be limited by his legal woes, but his supporters will vote for him anyway. We’re entering a presidential election phase where the Biden-vs.-Trump rematch is 99% certain, and that 1% hedge has only to do with both candidates being decades older than the average American president.
No viable candidate is going to emerge on the Democratic side to challenge an incumbent president with a largely successful term in office under his belt. First, we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a new darling of the right whose dangerous anti-vaccine crusade has been shown to be just the surface of his conspiracy-mongering and transphobia. Second, we have Marianne Williamson, whose “politics of love” nonetheless failed to win over American hearts in 2020, and whose own views on vaccines are likewise suspect, even if they’ve since been eclipsed by those of RFK Jr.
And it’s been obvious from day one that the Republican Party is setting itself up to repeat the 2015 primary race, where Trump picks off, one by one, a large number of third-tier politicians too cowardly to challenge him directly. Just as in 2015, he won’t even need a majority of the Republican vote, because he’s the only candidate who will have more than 20% to begin with.
(The one possible exception to this is former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he’s in the race specifically to try to take Trump down. More power to him if he does, because no one can defeat Trump by ignoring him—he has to be confronted head-on and destroyed. Maybe Christie is the one to do that, but I’m still waiting for evidence.)
In 2023 though, Trump’s already polling well above 50% among Republicans, despite the indictments. That’s because the GOP since 2015 has largely purged itself of its establishment wing, leaving the extremists in control. (Meanwhile, 53% of Americans actually approve of the indictments, and they may be hurting Trump’s overall favorability as the campaign season begins.)
And, while the indictments seem to be fueling a modest dip in Trump’s national polling numbers, the indictments are boosting his polling numbers within the Republican primary. That’s because his followers believe, with all the fervent religiosity of cult members, that the Big Bad Woke Government is persecuting loyal, patriotic Republicans. The charges only feed their persecution complex, which is what feeds the hand-wringing commentators urging us not to prosecute Trump, out of fear of what his supporters will do. As if his supporters haven’t already tried to violently overthrow the government.
Let’s disabuse ourselves of another fantasy. Even if Trump goes to prison because he’s found guilty, or he’s put in jail for contempt by a judge who refuses to tolerate his taunts and threats, he will continue running for president, he will win the GOP nomination, and he could indeed be reelected. There ought to be a law, but there isn’t. The narrowly divided Congress has been unable to do the sensible thing and pass legislation barring him under the 14th Amendment from holding public office, or even just in response to his two impeachments.
I wouldn’t put much stock in the recent “conservative argument for barring Trump” articles either. They’re interesting arguments, and the law professors making the case are perhaps even correct that the 14th Amendment prohibition is automatic, with no Congressional action needed. But most state GOP officials who have the power to boot Trump from the ballot aren’t going to do that without a court order, and this is a party that has increasingly shown its willingness to ignore the law entirely.
This doesn’t mean Trump won’t eventually go to prison. But it’s very unlikely to happen before the next election, given the inevitable appeals and Trump’s expertise in delay tactics and avoiding accountability. After all, he still insists he won the 2020 election. This could go on for a long time.
But there are signs we will see some major results before the election.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who brought both the classified documents case in Florida and the election interference case in Washington, D.C., has indicated he isn’t going to accommodate Trump’s usual tactics and requested January 2 as a date for Trump’s election interference trial. Smith even indicated he’d allow the documents trial to be postponed to accommodate this one.
That’s important for two reasons. One, voters have a right to know if Trump is guilty or not guilty before casting their votes. More importantly, if Trump wins, he can, and will, simply dismiss any federal cases that are still pending. Maybe he’ll even settle the cases with a payout from the government to himself to cover his (likely inflated) legal fees. He may pardon himself if he’s both found guilty and wins the election, because his handpicked, subservient attorney general won’t stop him—and that’s even more of an argument to make sure Trump never again obtains power.
Speaking personally as someone who grew up on the East Coast in the 1970s and ’80s, it was pretty obvious back then that Trump was, at best, a tawdry huckster with a long line of shady deals and business failures to his name, both his own and others’.
Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan also appears to be resistant to Trumpian antics, granting Smith’s early request to prevent Trump from sharing trial evidence publicly, as he is almost certainly going to do. She’s also issued a warning to Trump, indicating that she will take any necessary measures to stop Trump from intimidating witnesses or tainting the jury pool with his trial-by-tantrum strategy.
In 2016, someone who hadn’t been paying attention might be forgiven for not expecting the rampancy of criminal behavior once Trump ascended to national office. But the mass media can’t be forgiven, since it’s their job to be paying attention. And, speaking personally as someone who grew up on the East Coast in the 1970s and ’80s, it was pretty obvious back then that Trump was, at best, a tawdry huckster with a long line of shady deals and business failures to his name, both his own and others’. He was a regular of the New York Post’s “Page Six” gossip column and grocery store checkout-line magazines. By extension, the “serious” media should have done a better job warning American voters about someone they only knew from highly scripted appearances on The Apprentice.
In 2023, mass media no longer have an excuse, and largely they’ve been fairly good. But they’re still acting as if the Republican nomination isn’t a foregone conclusion. And the possibilities of more Trumpian violence, let alone another January 6-style insurrection, can’t be understated.
The United States is quite imperfect in living up to its ideals, but the general trend has been to get better at it. Allowing someone to escape justice just because he’s a former president, or because we’re afraid of his followers, undermines our commitment to have justice for all.
Fortunately, it appears we aren’t going to allow justice to be denied in this case. Prosecuting (and convicting) Trump won’t change the minds of his loyal base, and it may indeed push some of them over the edge. But it will show that the rest of the nation is willing to live up to its principles.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Legal System Punishes Defendants and Their Relatives—Before They’re Found Guilty
Many hardships are forced on defendants and their families pre-trial, including the heavy pre-trial financial burdens imposed by the bail system and attorneys.
May 28, 2023
I still remember hearing the words—“He shot her!” These words would soon change my life and completely upend my perspective on a role model I once idealized. He helped me learn to play piano, showed me what a computer looks like behind all those screws and plastic, and taught me to calculate the area of a square. His encouragement was an early stepping-stone on my journey to a PhD in mathematics.
When I received a phone call telling me that he had been arrested for violence, I was first in denial and did not have a strong reaction; though hours later, I would feel both anger and sadness, and I would question whether he truly committed this awful crime. That questioning is important because as of yet, he is still awaiting a final verdict regarding his case. If we are to truly provide justice, our legal system should not punish this defendant or any other individuals prior to the receipt of a “guilty” verdict.
Yet our judicial system often inadvertently creates other “victims” beyond those of the crime itself. Despite the call of our legal system to presume the innocence of a defendant until and unless found guilty, many hardships are forced on defendants and their families pre-trial, including the heavy pre-trial financial burdens imposed by the bail system and attorneys. Research has shown that, in comparison to costly attorneys paid for by the defendants themselves, free court-appointed attorneys obtain worse sentences for the accused, indicating that people who are poor may be unable to appropriately defend themselves, while the rich are able to overturn or significantly reduce their sentences.
Why should I have been held accountable and put in this position? I did not commit any crime, but because my relative had no one else to turn to, his bills became a punishment inflicted on me by the bail system.
I have direct experience with the large financial punishment imposed on defendants and their families pre-trial. My relative’s bail bond was set at $50,000—an amount that I could not even begin to imagine being held accountable for, with only about one year of full-time work experience after my graduate studies.
Yet despite having never committed a crime myself, it soon became clear that the burden of this alleged crime was my responsibility. I received multiple calls in the coming days regarding bail bond agents—from agents themselves as well as my relative. They all explained to me that the accused could not assume responsibility for the bond himself; I would need to take responsibility for the bond. As the only non-minor kin that the defendant maintained regular contact with, the financial liability fell on me for the bail bond as well as all of his other affairs. I soon found myself paying his internet, electricity, water, and other bills. Why should I have been held accountable and put in this position? I did not commit any crime, but because my relative had no one else to turn to, his bills became a punishment inflicted on me by the bail system.
As I paid the defendant’s bills, my credit score began to drop with the extra charges, ultimately falling more than 50 points. This story is not only my own, but the story of many who are unable to afford a bond.
While in jail because he was unable to post bail, my relative informed me of illegal activity a witness had engaged in—activity that I thought was relevant to his case. In response, I called the inmate’s free court-appointed attorney. However, after hearing only a small parcel of explanation, the lawyer told me that he was done listening to me, as he felt the discussion was irrelevant to my relative’s case.
Because the court-assigned lawyer would not listen to me, I began the process of holding consultations with other attorneys, trying to find well-suited representation. My relative said he was only provided a couple minutes on the phone each day—simply not enough time to have these consultations himself, and definitely not enough to successfully find an attorney on his own.
After I selected an attorney and paid an initial retainer, my relative was afforded a bond reduction hearing, at which multiple witnesses appeared. It was the intention of the one aforementioned witness, in particular, to fight the bond reduction and try to keep my relative in jail. In response to this, my attorney informed this witness that he was aware of her illegal activity. This simple yet effective warning convinced the witness to forgo the pushback against the bond reduction, allowing the defendant’s bond to be reduced down to $10,000. The very same information that the court-appointed attorney refused to hear allowed the inmate’s bond to be extensively reduced to an amount that I could afford.
The outcome of my relative’s bond reduction is not unique. Studies indicate that sentences are often harsher when free court-appointed attorneys are utilized. While some believe that poverty is not the only factor contributing to this disparity, the fact still remains: Had the court-appointed counsel been the legal representative, my relative’s bond would not have been as easily and readily reduced. For my relative, the acquisition of our attorney afforded him the ability to be released from jail on bond. If I had not been able to retain this attorney, my relative may very well have stayed in jail, and I would have continued to be punished as well—despite having never been even charged with a crime—through the necessity of handling his affairs and continuing to pay legal fees for a decent attorney who actually listens to their clients.
The reality is that with wealth comes options—the option to have an attorney of your own choosing, the option to secure release from jail through payment of a bond, etc. Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds cannot afford these options and are subjected to severe disadvantages in our justice system. Due to racial disparities in wealth, these individuals are often people of color.
This systemic problem has persisted far too long. It is time for us to work to end this disparity and provide more resources for individuals in our judicial system. Indigent defendants can be provided with more and better options for legal counsel. The cash bail system can also be largely eliminated, as Illinois is currently considering. With our current technology, there are alternatives to cash bail that we can consider—such as providing non-violent offenders who can’t afford bail the option to be released with an ankle bracelet for tracking purposes.
While some may oppose Illinois’s proposed legislation, saying that it should be reworded, altered, or revoked, a driving motivation behind the measure is engrained in our court system—the idea that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In its current form, the bonding system often imposes pre-trial punishment despite “presumed innocence.” This punishment is felt not only by defendants, but also by their innocent family and relatives. This was most certainly the case in my experience, and I hope to one day see a world where no other innocent individual is forced to face this hardship—a world where our legal system is much more equitable and just, with proper resources and options for people who are indigent as well as minorities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Perhaps Protests Will Help People Recognize That Israel Is Not a Country of Law and Order
On mass demonstrations, false hope, and why Israel's Supreme Court is no friend of the Palestinian people.
Mar 16, 2023
As hundreds of thousands, throughout Israel, joined anti-government protests, questions began to arise regarding how this movement would affect, or possibly merge, into the wider struggle against the Israeli military occupation and apartheid in Palestine.
Pro-Palestine media outlets shared, with obvious excitement, news about statements made by Hollywood celebrities, the likes of Mark Ruffalo, about the need to “sanction the new hard right-wing government of (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu”.
Netanyahu, who sits at the heart of the current controversy and mass protests, struggled to find a single pilot for the flight carrying him to Rome on March 9 for a three-day visit with the Italian government. The reception for the Israeli leader in Italy was equally cold. Italian translator, Olga Dalia Padoa, reportedly refused to interpret Netanyahu’s speech, scheduled for March 9 at a Rome synagogue.
One can appreciate the need to strategically use the upheaval against Netanyahu’s far-right government to expose Israel’s fraudulent claim to true democracy, supposedly ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. However, one has to be equally careful not to validate Israel’s inherently racist institutions that have been in existence for decades before Netanyahu arrived in power.
The Israeli Prime Minister has been embroiled in corruption cases for years. Though he remained popular, Netanyahu lost his position at the helm of Israeli politics in June 2021, following three bitterly-contested elections. Yet, he returned on December 29, 2022, this time with even more corrupt - even by Israel’s own definition - characters such as Aryeh Deri, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, the latter two currently serving as the ministers of finance and national security, respectively.
Each one of these characters had a different reason for joining the coalition. Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s agenda ranged from the annexation of illegal West Bank settlements to the deportation of Arab politicians considered ‘disloyal’ to the state.
Netanyahu, though a rightwing ideologue, is more concerned with personal ambitions: maintaining power as long as possible, while shielding himself and his family from legal problems. He simply wants to stay out of prison. To do so, he also needs to satisfy the dangerous demands of his allies, who have been given free rein to unleash army and settler violence against Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank, as has been the case in Huwwara, Nablus, Jenin and elsewhere.
But Netanyahu’s government, the most stable in years, has bigger goals than just “wiping out” Palestinian towns off the map. They want to alter the very judicial system that would allow them to transform Israeli society itself. The reform would grant the government control over judicial appointments by limiting the Israeli Supreme Court’s power to exercise judicial review.
The protests in Israel have very little to do with the Israeli occupation and apartheid, and are hardly concerned with Palestinian rights. They are led by many former Israeli leaders, the likes of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former minister Tzipi Livni and former prime minister and leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid. During the Naftali Bennett-Yair Lapid stint in power, between June 2021 and December 2022, hundreds of Palestinians were killed in the West Bank. 2022 was described by UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Tor Wennesland, as the “deadliest” in the West Bank since 2005. During that time, illegal Jewish settlements expanded rapidly, while Gaza was routinely bombed.
Yet, the Bennett-Lapid government faced little backlash from Israeli society for its bloody and illegal actions in Palestine. The Israeli Supreme Court, which has approved most of the government actions in Occupied Palestine, also faced little or no protests for certifying apartheid and validating the supposed legality of the Jewish colonies, all illegal under international law. The stamp of approval by the Supreme Court was also granted when Israel passed the Nation-State Law, identifying itself exclusively as a Jewish state, thus casting off the entirety of the Arab Muslim and Christian population which shares the same mass of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Rarely did the Israeli judicial system take the side of Palestinians, and when little ‘victories’ were recorded now and then, they hardly altered the overall reality. Though one can understand the desperation of those trying to fight against Israeli injustices using the country’s own ‘justice system’, such language has contributed to the confusion regarding what Israel’s ongoing protests mean for Palestinians.
In fact, this is not the first time that Israelis have gone out on the streets in large numbers. In August 2011, Israel experienced what some referred to as Israel’s own ‘Arab Spring’. But that, too, was a class struggle within clearly defined ideological boundaries and political interests that rarely overlapped with a parallel struggle for equality, justice and human rights.
Dual socio-economic struggles exist in many societies around the world, and conflating between them is not unprecedented. In the case of Israel, however, such confusion can be dangerous because the outcome of Israel’s protests, be it a success or failure, could spur unfounded optimism or demoralize those fighting for Palestinian freedom.
Though stark violations of international law, the arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions and the everyday violence meted out against Palestinians, mostly take place within Israel’s legal framework. All of these acts are fully sanctioned by Israeli courts, including the country’s Supreme Court. This means that, even if Netanyahu fails to hegemonize the judicial system, Palestinian civilians will continue to be tried in military courts, which will carry out the routine of approving home demolition, illegal land seizure and the construction of settlements.
A proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country’s legal framework.
Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu’s attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law. Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy