Benjamin Netanyahu

You can just feed slogans and get into people's minds. I'm sure you don't think I exaggerate because you can tell me more about that. And you can create mass mobilization based on these absurd slogans. So here's where I come from and what we're doing, what we're trying to do, and what we've changed in what we're trying to do. I'm a 19th century Democrat in my, small d, yes, in my views.

You can just feed slogans and get into people's minds. I'm sure you don't think I exaggerate because you can tell me more about that. And you can create mass mobilization based on these absurd slogans. So here's where I come from and what we're doing, what we're trying to do, and what we've changed in what we're trying to do. I'm a 19th century Democrat in my, small d, yes, in my views.

That is, I view, I ask the question, what is democracy, okay? So democracy is the will of the majority and the protection of the rights of, they call it the rights of the minority, but I say the rights of the individual, okay? So how do you balance the two? How do you avoid mobocracy? And how do you avoid dictatorship, the opposite side?

That is, I view, I ask the question, what is democracy, okay? So democracy is the will of the majority and the protection of the rights of, they call it the rights of the minority, but I say the rights of the individual, okay? So how do you balance the two? How do you avoid mobocracy? And how do you avoid dictatorship, the opposite side?

That is, I view, I ask the question, what is democracy, okay? So democracy is the will of the majority and the protection of the rights of, they call it the rights of the minority, but I say the rights of the individual, okay? So how do you balance the two? How do you avoid mobocracy? And how do you avoid dictatorship, the opposite side?

The way you avoid it is something that was built essentially by British philosophers and French philosophers, but was encapsulated by the founding fathers of the United States. you create a balance between the three branches of government, okay? The legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. And this balance is what assures the balance between majority rights and individual rights.

The way you avoid it is something that was built essentially by British philosophers and French philosophers, but was encapsulated by the founding fathers of the United States. you create a balance between the three branches of government, okay? The legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. And this balance is what assures the balance between majority rights and individual rights.

The way you avoid it is something that was built essentially by British philosophers and French philosophers, but was encapsulated by the founding fathers of the United States. you create a balance between the three branches of government, okay? The legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. And this balance is what assures the balance between majority rights and individual rights.

And you have to balance all of them, okay? That balance was established maintained in Israel in its first 50 years and was gradually overtaken and basically broken by the most activist judicial court on the planet. That's what happened here. And gradually over the last two, three decades, the court arrogated for itself the powers of the parliament and the executive.

And you have to balance all of them, okay? That balance was established maintained in Israel in its first 50 years and was gradually overtaken and basically broken by the most activist judicial court on the planet. That's what happened here. And gradually over the last two, three decades, the court arrogated for itself the powers of the parliament and the executive.

And you have to balance all of them, okay? That balance was established maintained in Israel in its first 50 years and was gradually overtaken and basically broken by the most activist judicial court on the planet. That's what happened here. And gradually over the last two, three decades, the court arrogated for itself the powers of the parliament and the executive.

So we're trying to bring it back into line, bringing it back into line into what is common in Israel. all parliamentary democracies and in the United States, doesn't mean taking the pendulum from one side and bringing it to the other side. We want checks and balances, not unrivaled power. Just as we said, we want an independent judiciary, but not an all-powerful judiciary.

So we're trying to bring it back into line, bringing it back into line into what is common in Israel. all parliamentary democracies and in the United States, doesn't mean taking the pendulum from one side and bringing it to the other side. We want checks and balances, not unrivaled power. Just as we said, we want an independent judiciary, but not an all-powerful judiciary.

So we're trying to bring it back into line, bringing it back into line into what is common in Israel. all parliamentary democracies and in the United States, doesn't mean taking the pendulum from one side and bringing it to the other side. We want checks and balances, not unrivaled power. Just as we said, we want an independent judiciary, but not an all-powerful judiciary.

That balance does not mean bringing it back into line doesn't mean that you can have the Parliament, our Knesset override any decision that the Supreme Court does. So I pretty much early on said after the judicial reform was introduced, get rid of the idea of a sweeping override clause that would have with 61 votes, that's majority of one, you can just nullify any Supreme Court decision.

That balance does not mean bringing it back into line doesn't mean that you can have the Parliament, our Knesset override any decision that the Supreme Court does. So I pretty much early on said after the judicial reform was introduced, get rid of the idea of a sweeping override clause that would have with 61 votes, that's majority of one, you can just nullify any Supreme Court decision.

That balance does not mean bringing it back into line doesn't mean that you can have the Parliament, our Knesset override any decision that the Supreme Court does. So I pretty much early on said after the judicial reform was introduced, get rid of the idea of a sweeping override clause that would have with 61 votes, that's majority of one, you can just nullify any Supreme Court decision.

So let's move it back into the center. So that's gone. And most of the criticism on the judicial reform was based on an unlimited override clause, which I've said is simply not going to happen. People are discussing something that already for six months does not exist. The second point that we received criticism on was the the structure of how do you choose Supreme Court judges?

So let's move it back into the center. So that's gone. And most of the criticism on the judicial reform was based on an unlimited override clause, which I've said is simply not going to happen. People are discussing something that already for six months does not exist. The second point that we received criticism on was the the structure of how do you choose Supreme Court judges?

So let's move it back into the center. So that's gone. And most of the criticism on the judicial reform was based on an unlimited override clause, which I've said is simply not going to happen. People are discussing something that already for six months does not exist. The second point that we received criticism on was the the structure of how do you choose Supreme Court judges?