I agree with most of this, although the last question is very much from a perspective of taking the USA as a political norm to which other countries must conform. There are other Western countries with no term limits e.g. here in the UK.
I agree completely, it is a US-based question. However, IMO term limits are a necessity in Israel for the same reason that they became necessary after FDR was elected four times (and served 13 years until he died during his fourth term). I don't mean that question as a challenge, as in, "How dare you not have term limits," but instead as a genuine inquiry to ask why he thinks they are not a good idea.
Term limits make sense in a presidential system where the people elect the president. Makes much less sense in a parliamentary system where the prime minister is not directly elected. The fact is that most parliamentary systems don’t have term limits for the prime minister. In Western Europe, no parliamentary system currently has formal legal term limits on how long a prime minister can serve. So you want Israel to be the exception? Why?
Because I believe that Bibi has become, for much of his constituency, the indispensable man. I recall with displeaure that not only the entire Likud refused to challenge his primacy, but even members of other right wing parties, such as Betzalel Smotrich, insisted before the last elections that only Bibi can lead the Likud. I am a strong believer that no one is indispensable, and that the US has the right idea by limiting the time that a person can be chief executive. Obviously Israel would not be able to have "term limits" per se (as a term can last a day, in theory), but there could be a law where a person who has been prime minister for, say, eight years is not allowed to run again. Does that mean that a prime minister might call elections just before that time is up? Very possibly, and that's fine. The point is that he can't end up being the endless leader. I have much more to say about this, as well, particularly as it relates to Israel's very imperfect system of voting and representation.
So you want to make a law against one man Bibi, making Israel the exception in all of the western parliamentary democracies. It is always a bad idea to make laws aimed at one person and generally a bad idea to be the exception. There is a reason why the other parliamentary democracies haven’t done this. It doesn’t make sense in a parliamentary democracy. One additional point is that there are always unforeseen effects of these kinds of laws that can be worse then the problem. Just look at what happened after they changed the law to directly elect the PM. How did that work out? Very badly, so badly that it was quickly abolished.
That's not what I meant. In the same way that FDR was seen to be too strong, which indicated that things needed to change, Bibi has shown me and other Israelis the same. It is not aimed at one man at all; it is precipitated by his extended term in office, and of course would apply to any future PM as well.
I don’t see why people are so down on the “conceptsia.” While it was mostly wrong, the issue was not the intelligence assessment. It was having a deployment that relied on that assessment being right. Also, Israeli discourse is way too focused on individual responsibility. That’s not how institutions work. Replacing individuals won’t do anything, there needs to be an understanding of what organizational structures and incentives created the issue.
Most of these questions are unfair. Do you want him to announce his strategies and red lines all over the media? Is that how negotiations are done? Even if he will ameliorate his demands of Hamas, he should certainly not announce it. That is not how things are, or should be, done.
I wouldn't take the writer literally. He is not suggesting this ever would be an actual interview and he clearly states his understanding that nothing that aids the enemy should be revealed. It's just a good framework/structure to put forth the 'Bibi Problem'
I agree with most of this, although the last question is very much from a perspective of taking the USA as a political norm to which other countries must conform. There are other Western countries with no term limits e.g. here in the UK.
I agree completely, it is a US-based question. However, IMO term limits are a necessity in Israel for the same reason that they became necessary after FDR was elected four times (and served 13 years until he died during his fourth term). I don't mean that question as a challenge, as in, "How dare you not have term limits," but instead as a genuine inquiry to ask why he thinks they are not a good idea.
Term limits make sense in a presidential system where the people elect the president. Makes much less sense in a parliamentary system where the prime minister is not directly elected. The fact is that most parliamentary systems don’t have term limits for the prime minister. In Western Europe, no parliamentary system currently has formal legal term limits on how long a prime minister can serve. So you want Israel to be the exception? Why?
Because I believe that Bibi has become, for much of his constituency, the indispensable man. I recall with displeaure that not only the entire Likud refused to challenge his primacy, but even members of other right wing parties, such as Betzalel Smotrich, insisted before the last elections that only Bibi can lead the Likud. I am a strong believer that no one is indispensable, and that the US has the right idea by limiting the time that a person can be chief executive. Obviously Israel would not be able to have "term limits" per se (as a term can last a day, in theory), but there could be a law where a person who has been prime minister for, say, eight years is not allowed to run again. Does that mean that a prime minister might call elections just before that time is up? Very possibly, and that's fine. The point is that he can't end up being the endless leader. I have much more to say about this, as well, particularly as it relates to Israel's very imperfect system of voting and representation.
So you want to make a law against one man Bibi, making Israel the exception in all of the western parliamentary democracies. It is always a bad idea to make laws aimed at one person and generally a bad idea to be the exception. There is a reason why the other parliamentary democracies haven’t done this. It doesn’t make sense in a parliamentary democracy. One additional point is that there are always unforeseen effects of these kinds of laws that can be worse then the problem. Just look at what happened after they changed the law to directly elect the PM. How did that work out? Very badly, so badly that it was quickly abolished.
That's not what I meant. In the same way that FDR was seen to be too strong, which indicated that things needed to change, Bibi has shown me and other Israelis the same. It is not aimed at one man at all; it is precipitated by his extended term in office, and of course would apply to any future PM as well.
You haven’t addressed the other concerns. There is no question the system here is very broken. But what you are proposing would not solve anything. See https://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2006/01/electoral-system-in-israel-is-broken.html
I don’t see why people are so down on the “conceptsia.” While it was mostly wrong, the issue was not the intelligence assessment. It was having a deployment that relied on that assessment being right. Also, Israeli discourse is way too focused on individual responsibility. That’s not how institutions work. Replacing individuals won’t do anything, there needs to be an understanding of what organizational structures and incentives created the issue.
Most of these questions are unfair. Do you want him to announce his strategies and red lines all over the media? Is that how negotiations are done? Even if he will ameliorate his demands of Hamas, he should certainly not announce it. That is not how things are, or should be, done.
I wouldn't take the writer literally. He is not suggesting this ever would be an actual interview and he clearly states his understanding that nothing that aids the enemy should be revealed. It's just a good framework/structure to put forth the 'Bibi Problem'