[Salon] Judicial Coup or Not, Netanyahu's Team Pushes Bills to Batter Palestinians and Arab Israelis - Israel News - Haaretz.com

[Todd Pierce <todd.e.pierce@icloud.com>]

Tom Pauken wrote this yesterday in regard to an exchange I had with Warren on “Freedom Conservatism” of which he declared supportive of: 

"You are not just making it about Warren, but about a great many conservatives who do not fit into your neat little characterization of all conservatives as Fascists and your blatant distortion of the political theory of leading American thinkers such as Willmoore Kendall and George Carey. Tom Pauken"

What brought this angry retort forth was that I denigrated the absurd notion that “Conservative” Republicans and people such as war addict/fanatic  Danielle Pletka of the equally addicted to war organization, AEI, and other war fanatics in “Freedom Conservatism,” like Karl (We’re an Empire now . . . ) Rove, the incessantly war inciting Heritage Foundation, and the other war fanatics on that list of signatories (I don’t have time to address each and every member but the names I listed I have some acquaintanceship with, and they all are war fanatics, as seen over the last 20+ years) of an organization which Warren said represents his “group.” 

I’m glad Tom chimed in as he is who I credit with opening my eyes (unintentional on his part) to the “Origins of American Fascism,” with he pointing me toward the anti-Constitutionalist fascists Willmoore Kendall and George Carey, with their hatred of the Enlightenment in the Fascist Tradition. Or, euphemistically, “Conservatism,” as what I will distinguish, as Peter Viereck did (cue: hiss “he’s a Liberal!, as Tom did previously), as “right-wing thought controllers.” As against Viereck’s own “Conservatism Revisited,” in a 1949 book of that name. It must have gotten a sufficiently positive response that the CIA "right-wing thought controllers” of Kendall, Burnham, and Buckley, et al., who founded the ideological “Conservative Movement” and National Review magazine, thought they would benefit by expropriating the name “Conservative” for their Movement instead of the more accurate “Fascist” for their name. “Fascist” in the way Mussolini defined his own Movement, equally applicable for the ideology which became known as ideological “Conservatism,” when subjected to a comparative political theory analysis of Kendall’s and Carey’s political/legal theory, and Carl Schmitt’s (see below).

I have frankly been appalled how quickly this email list succumbed to “Revolutionary right-wing extremism” and its authoritarian “legal principles,” and anti-Constitutionalism (and its Democratic Party Goldwaterite equivalent), beginning when Trump arrived on the political scene, and carried on as National Conservatism. As first articulated by Carl Schmitt (see below) as a political/legal theorist, and picked up on by Willmoore Kendall for importation to the U.S. beginning in the 1940s, and propagating Schmitt’s (and his friend Leo Strauss’s) “fascist theory.” 

Below is Viereck’s correct distinction of (small-c) conservatism, whether or not one agrees with that, and something entirely different from a conservative predisposition: "right-wing thought controllers.” By that he meant the same “Conservatives” I denounce as an American variety of fascism, with all the characteristics of fascism as hyper-militarism, authoritarianism, and denial of “rights,” as part of their hostility toward what Yoram Hazony denounces as “Enlightenment Liberalism,” as did Kendall/Carey with their denunciations of “Rights.” 

Attachment: The Philosophical New Conservatism (1962).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

In doing a search of Milton Friedman and “authoritarianism,” with many references to that with his support of Apartheid South Africa (and Israel’s post-1967, Begin-led Likud), Jim Crow South, and of course Pinochet, this article came up about Schmitt. With this excerpt 

Attachment: BonnJuego2018AuthoritarianNeoliberalismCarlSchmittGovernance.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

The Schmittian thought on state sovereignty is in the first instance oriented towards the most extreme possibility, and that has in the end the decisive power to

determine the exception. This basically reproduces the “absolutist” ideas of pre-Lockean, pre-modern political theory associated with Machiavelli, Bodin, and

Hobbes in the defense of the indivisibility and unity of state power. The central absolutist argument against liberalism rests on the latter’s imposition of limits on the state’s executive prerogative. Absolutism posits that a liberal constitutional order is unfit to maintain national unity, manage social conflicts, and secure state survival because of the constraints imposed on the sovereign’s decision-making power in critical situations. Such legal and political limitations are claimed to result in the weakening of the state’s power to govern effectively and assert its primacy during moments of crisis.

Schmitt’s political philosophy gives intellectual justification for the state’s exercise of exceptional executive power in the name of public order and unity, allowing for the suspension of civil and political rights even if these rights are protected in the constitution, and activating the use of coercive police and military forces during critical situations. This Schmittian regime of exception provides far-reaching powers to the state not only by suspending normal political and legal processes, but also by enabling the reorganization and centralization of its apparatuses for coercion. At the same time, by guaranteeing its unconstrained power of discretion, there is a tendency for the state to make declarations of national emergency the norm, rather than exceptional and time-bound.

The political rationale of Schmitt extends to his hostility to pluralism, which is a cornerstone of liberalism. His antagonistic attitude towards political pluralism is not only based on its perceived threat to social unity and order, but on a particular notion of citizenship defined by the friend-enemy distinction. Citizens are viewed as “friends”, with shared fundamental values and goals toward a common state. The state is seen as the political unity of the people; it is the entity upon which the association or dissociation with the political community is founded. Thus, the only legitimate, let alone constitutional, political project of the state is to create homoge-

Bonn Juego

112

neity by shaping the will of the people through “antiliberal but not necessarily antidemocratic” methods (Schmitt 1926, 16). Here then lies Schmitt’s critique of liberalism’s state theory under conditions of the “social contract” and also his doublespeak on “democracy”, where:

The people exist only in the sphere of publicity. The unanimous opinion of one hundred million private persons is neither the will of the people nor

public opinion. The will of the people can be expressed just as well and perhaps better through acclamation, through something taken for granted, an

obvious and unchallenged presence, than through the statistical apparatus that has been constructed with such meticulousness … The stronger the

power of democratic feeling, the more certain is the awareness that democracy is something other than a registration system for secret ballots.

Compared to a democracy that is direct, not only in the technical sense but also in a vital sense, parliament appears an artificial machinery, produced by

liberal reasoning, while dictatorial and Caesaristic methods not only can produce the acclamation of the people but can also be a direct _expression_ of

democratic substance and power (ibid., 16-17).

In sum, Schmitt’s concept of the political is an anti-political stance on politics. It is “a politics of anti politics”, in which political pluralism is easily dismissed as disruptive to the state’s presumed political unity (Jayasuriya 2001, 8). Firstly, Schmitt’s concept of politics recognizes no legitimate opposition, and thereby insulating key political  institutions from criticisms. Any dissent and opposition is treated as disloyalty to the state and, at worst, enemies of the state. Secondly, Schmitt redefines the notion of citizenship between the individual and the state in terms of duties and responsibilities, rather than rights. Lastly, Schmitt rationalizes politics as the exclusive practice and monopoly of the state. This includes the important process of collective will-formation in constitution-making. While Schmitt addressed this vexing issue and asserted that “everything depends on how the will of the people is formed”, his proposal for collective-will formation was telling of his stance in favor of a monopolizing state that shapes the will of the people – rather than the former being the embodiment of the latter. He laid out the determining question: “who has control over the means with which the will of the people is to be constructed?” Then he proceeded to enumerate: “military and political force, propaganda, control of public opinion, through the press, party organizations, assemblies, popular education,

and schools” – in short, the apparatuses and institutions identified with, and especially within the coercive arm of, the state (Schmitt 1926, 27-29; cf. Kalyvas

1999). Hence, Schmitt’s concept of the political is profoundly a manifesto for antidemocracy and an ideology of anti-politics.”

I attended the political theory seminar of Prof. Kalyvas at The New School in 2018 for an M.A. in Politics which covered "the “absolutist” ideas of pre-Lockean, pre-modern political theory associated with Machiavelli, Bodin, and Hobbes in the defense of the indivisibility and unity of state power.” And Carl Schmitt. He was my thesis advisor as well. My interest in this field of political theory came directly from observing first hand U.S. fascism at Guantanamo, with justification for that coming right out of Carl Schmitt, for our “state of emergency,” as fascist law (martial law) per what the Bush administration claimed as Unitary Executive Theory, as first articulated by Barry Goldwater in the Senate during Iran Contra, as did Cheney in the House. 

Call it what you want, but Mussolini would immediately recognize “American Conservatism” (as first defined by Kendall, et al.), as "American Fascism,” regardless of which “Unitary Executive” presides over it. 

Friedman’s “Freedom for Me, but not for Thee” ideology: 

https://newrepublic.com/article/172441/milton-friedman-met-pinochet

BLUF: "Critics have pointed out that it is not quite correct to describe neoliberalism as “unregulated” capitalism—what is regulated is the ability of politics to shape capitalism. The dictatorship did that work while repressing dissent, allowing a particularly extreme version to be put in place with few protections and regulations, and many Chileans suffered as a result."

 . . .

"One former minister of Pinochet, speaking to the Hoover Institution in 1992, said as much: The economic plan “could be so revolutionary because we had a very authoritarian regime.” And the ties to Chicago economics were entwined with the dictatorship’s project in many ways. Milton Friedman’s PBS specials were, for example, shown on Chilean state television in advance of a referendum of Pinochet’s constitution held in 1980. The idea that capitalism was the highest form of freedom was used by the dictatorship to claim that its authoritarian project was advancing freedom—the freedoms embedded in the market—rather than denying political freedoms. Friedman always thought that he (and Chile) were treated unfairly. But whenever Edwards tried to talk to him about the country, he was evasive. It made him uncomfortable, and it should have.”

Below are Tom’s favored right-winger’s, Trump/DeSantis, allied fascists!

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-02/ty-article/.premium/judicial-coup-or-not-israeli-govt-pushes-bills-to-batter-palestinians-and-arab-israelis/00000189-b6b8-db5d-a5fd-b6b952090000

Judicial Coup or Not, Netanyahu's Team Pushes Bills to Batter Palestinians and Arab Israelis - Israel News - Haaretz.com

Noa ShpigelAug 2, 2023 10:01 pm IDT

The hard-right government's judicial overhaul has sent Israel into turmoil, but the 25th Knesset that started its summer recess last week is also pushing legislation that would erode the rights of the Palestinians and the Arab Israeli community.

Among these initiatives are efforts to annex land in the West Bank, weaken the Palestinian Authority and further undermine the Palestinians' finances.

In March, the Knesset passed an amendment to the Disengagement Law that allowed Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The new law paves the way for the reestablishment of the four settlements in the northern West Bank that were evacuated along with the Gaza settlements.

Although the March law did not legalize the outpost at one of these sites, Homesh, the government has informed the Supreme Court – serving as the High Court of Justice – that it intends to authorize the settlers' return.

Legislation is also on tap that could weaken the PA financially. On the last day of the summer session, a bill passed in its first of three required votes that would allow Israeli terror victims to seek compensation from the PA.

The bill was signed by MK Yitzhak Pindrus of United Torah Judaism and 30 other lawmakers, including opposition legislators. The bill would let Israelis sue “those who sponsor terrorism, including the Palestinian Authority,” though it does not set a ceiling for damages.

Yeshiva students at Homesh in March.Credit: Avishag Shaar-Yashuv

The head of civilian affairs at the Defense Ministry's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, Col. Elad Goren, has warned about the bill. At the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, where the bill was approved for a first vote in parliament, Goren said it was difficult to square the legislation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision – approved by the security cabinet – that Israel will act to prevent the PA's collapse.

“[The bill] has far-reaching consequences and we have to consider how terror victims can be compensated while still adhering to the cabinet’s decision,” Goren said. His opinion was supported by the legal advisers of the National Security Council and the Shin Bet security service.

• Israeli colonialism, now on WhatsApp
• This is poetic revenge on Israelis silent about the occupation
• With Saudi talks ongoing, Netanyahu’s policy on Palestinians shows signs of shift

The mastermind of the bill is Sander Gerber, a Jewish American hedge fund manager and Republican donor. In 2017, Gerber played a key role in Congress' approval of the Taylor Force Act, named after the American who was killed in a terror attack on the Jaffa beachfront in 2016. Under the 2018 law, the U.S. government cuts funding to the PA as long as it continues to provide financial aid to terrorists and/or the families of deceased terrorists.

Similar legislation has been submitted in the form of a private member's bill by the Religious Zionism party's Ohad Tal. That bill passed in a preliminary vote last month.

Under the legislation, compensation for families will come from “salaries and other benefits paid by the Palestinian Authority to [Palestinian] prisoners convicted of terrorism, which can amount to millions of shekels during their imprisonment in Israel.” The compensation would be at least 10 million shekels ($2.8 million).

Benjamin Netanyahu at a Knesset committee meeting in June. Critics say certain legislation is hard to square with his claims that Israel will act to prevent the PA’s collapse.Credit: Olivier Fitoussi

Two opposition lawmakers, Sharren Haskel of Benny Gantz's National Unity Party and Sharon Nir of Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu, are promoting a bill under which terror victims will be compensated by both the PA and Israel's National Insurance Institute. This would set a precedent, as today Israelis must return any compensation they receive from the NII if they wish to sue the Palestinian Authority.

At the last session of the Knesset Labor, Welfare and Health Committee, which prepared the bill for its first vote, the Justice Ministry's Tamar Kalhora said the law would allow family members and surviving victims to be compensated by both sides in certain cases.

Regarding annexation, bills are being promoted that give Israeli institutions a wider foothold in the West Bank. For example, a bill put forward by Likud's Avihai Boaron states that the Israeli civilian authorities will be able to collect compensation decided on by military courts. This legislation was passed in a preliminary vote.

Another bill, which has been debated a number of times at the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, applies to sites in the West Bank. According to the proposal, submitted by Likud's Danny Danon, the interior minister will be authorized to declare West Bank sites as national sites, not the defense minister. The current defense minister, Likud's Yoav Gallant, is one of the coalition's more liberal members.

Sharren Haskel is promoting a bill under which terror victims will be compensated by both the PA and Israel’s National Insurance Institute.Credit: Ohad Zwigenberg

Vandalism at such sites would get the offender three years in prison, a stipulation apparently targeting Palestinians. The bill is seen as a stage in the annexation of West Bank land.

The coalition is also promoting legislation designed to curb the independence of the Arab education system in East Jerusalem. One bill aims to deny budgets to “educational institutions that teach the Palestinian curriculum, which includes incitement to terrorism,” even though the textbooks are monitored and censored by the Jerusalem municipality. Such a bill would end the financing of most schools in East Jerusalem.

This legislation is sponsored by Likud and its two far-right partners, Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism. It was passed in a preliminary vote a month ago.

In May, a senior Jerusalem official criticized the bill, saying it would slow the efforts of the Education Ministry and the city to teach the Israeli curriculum in East Jerusalem, thus worsening the problem that the bill professes to solve.

Likud’s Danny Danon, right, wants the the interior minister to be authorized to declare West Bank sites as national sites, not the defense minister.Credit: Emil Salman

At the end of May, the Knesset advanced two bills that would widen the Shin Bet's scope to do background checks of staff at Arab schools. It would also be easier to fire teachers who “identify with a terror organization.”

Submitted by MK Amit Halevi and other Likud lawmakers, the bills would make the licensing of schools contingent on their “accommodating the fundamental requirements of the Israeli school system,” while also setting stricter criteria for obtaining a teaching license.

Another bill, submitted by Otzma Yehudit's Tzvika Foghel, envisions a committee authorized to fire teachers who support terror or belong to a terror group. Several members of the committee would be appointed by the education minister, joining representatives of the police, the Shin Bet and local government.

Meanwhile, on Sunday the Knesset passed a law imposing stricter penalties for sex crimes that were “nationalistically” motivated – legislation designed to target sex offenses by Arabs against Jews. Technically, the law adds sexual harassment to the list of “offenses motivated by racism or hostility to the public.”

When the legislation passed in its first vote, Otzma Yehudit's Limor Son Har-Melech said: “It’s not possible that the dignity of Israeli women will be violated by the sons of Belial [a biblical term meaning “sons of lawlessness”], who will get away with it or end up with ridiculous punishments. It’s ridiculous that a woman whose body and soul is trampled based on a nationalist motive won't receive the attention and recognition of the seriousness of the event she experienced.”

Limor Son Har-Melech, the co-sponsor of the law imposing stricter penalties for sex crimes that are “nationalistically” motivated.Credit: Sraya Diamant

Also, under a bill sponsored by Likud's Eliyahu Revivo, the waving of a flag of a terror group will be a criminal offense, as will identifying with a terror act or praising a terrorist.

Another bill aiming to restrict Arab Israeli society was submitted by Otzma Yehudit's Limor Son Har-Melech. If enacted, it will force academic institutions to suspend students who display the Palestinian flag or express support for terrorism. Any student group that did the same would be dissolved.

In July, the Knesset’s National Security Committee debated a bill drafted by coalition lawmakers to outlaw the Arab community's Higher Arab Monitoring Committee and investigate its leaders over suspicions of support for terror. So far the bill is still at the declarative stage; it has not yet been pushed through the legislative process.

The head of the committee, Foghel, said that the debate was “significant by its very existence” and that the heads of the monitoring committee should be investigated.

“I was questioned for more than six hours ... for much less than what they're saying,” Foghel said, referring to the police investigation after he declared he wanted to see the Palestinian town of Hawara “shuttered and burned down.” Settlers rampaged there in February after two Jewish Israelis were shot dead in Hawara.

Concluding the discussion at the Knesset National Security Committee, Foghel said that “the actions by the monitoring committee’s members harm Israel and its very existence as a Jewish and democratic state.”