What happens when a country has to ask its citizens the unthinkable: What are you willing to die for?
It’s a question that feels so outside the current American experience. When was the last time you asked yourself, What would I do if I had to fight for my home, my family, my nation?
When the citizens of Israel were confronted with the worst disaster imaginable, what emerged was a level of civic obligation, duty, and sacrifice that they themselves didn’t think they were capable of.
Today, Part 1 of The Free Press in Israel: Running Toward Fire.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Comments
15
This first episode was really disappointing. Barri’s decision to only interview leftists and or westerners presents fairly sad one-sided tale.
She asks the young woman, whether it was paradoxical to protest the government, threaten to refuse reserved duty, but then unhesitatingly show up when war occurs. But she never stops to ask if these people regret their hyperbole and escalation, and whether their destabilization of the body politic contributed to the circumstances of 10/7.
The young man recounted that his closest approximation to a real world invasion was a zombie apocalypse movie. Here was someone who was not really mentally prepared for the duty that he voluntarily assumed. Yet he had also considered, threatening his reserve duty, and had been protesting the government using hyperbolic language.
Clearly, actions speak louder than words. These protesters were never going to ignore their duty to the security and safety of Israel. So why did they engage such a damaging game of brinksmanship?
if only there was a reporter who interviewed these people who could’ve asked!
I would like to also hear from the other side when it comes to the Israel court reform protests. All I hear is how evil it was and how they are trying to “kill democracy” but nothing in the way of specifics. What was Netanyahu actually trying to do and why?
I read in a WSJ editorial that they were trying to get rid of the “reasonableness” test that the court can use to throw out laws. As one of the interviewees here points out, Israel doesn’t have a constitution against which courts evaluate laws like in the US. “Reasonableness” isn’t defined by any objective standard, so this gives Israel’s judiciary enormous power to overturn laws based on vibes.
Also, aren’t courts inherently an UNdemocratic institution? They serve as a check on the democratically elected Knesset. So if the reforms would have reduced the power of the court, wouldn’t that technically make Israel MORE democratic? You can argue that the reforms were a bad idea, but to say it was “killing democracy” seems like catastrophizing and also factually incorrect.
Lastly, it’s ironic that here in the US, the left claims we must reduce the power of the judiciary to “save democracy”, while supporting lefties in Israel saying they need to PRESERVE the power of the judiciary to “save democracy.” Which is it, guys? It seems to me like people just want to get their way and if anyone disagrees well then they are a big meanie who hates democracy. The “saving democracy” shtick seems like a rhetorical flourish that has lost all meaning.