As Israel moves toward one of the most impactful elections in its history, radical groups and voices are again using their oversized influence in what I have long argued is a flawed parliamentary system. The current elections and fragile coalitions, in my opinion, highlight the system’s inherent vulnerabilities. Some of my Israeli friends disagree with me on the parliamentary system and point to our own tensions. It is certainly true that both our major parties can be captive to the more extreme groups due to the need for candidates to win primaries. However, I believe structural problems remain in the Israeli system.
The results of this election will select 120 members of the 26th Knesset, which in turn will have a critical influence in selecting the Prime Minister and leadership of the critical ministries. The Israeli system has many admirable qualities, but there remain concerns over the ability to address extreme factional interests.
The news in the nation this week is deeply troubling. Extremists are attacking Muslims in unlawful actions that have alarmed both governments and human rights organizations. U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee condemned settlers as “terrorists” after they besieged Palestinian homes on the outskirts of the village of Qusra on Sunday.
Huckabee’s condemnation is an important and needed voice after the alarming actions targeting Palestinians. The actions were reportedly carried out by individuals affiliated with the West Bank’s Tel Talpiot outpost. News reports detail how cables connecting the homes to the electricity grid and solar panels were cut, and water pipes were damaged, disrupting food and power.
Huckabee wrote on X on Thursday that these individuals were “Israeli terrorists.” He has insisted that the Israeli government has responded to the complaint and taken its own actions to counter these measures.
In the meantime, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir is under fire for a statement made on the podcast of former Gaza-held hostage, Rom Braslavski. He stated, “It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister. I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat — there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”
These actions and statements are undermining U.S. efforts to disarm Hamas and restore governing systems in Gaza.
Most Israelis oppose such groups and views. However, the election is again infusing radical groups with power that far exceeds their actual political support. I have long expressed criticism of the Israeli system created under its “Basic Laws,” which requires endless and unstable coalitions for prime ministers to secure office.
I admit that I have a bias in favor of the Madisonian system. However, Israel is a prime example of how these systems can be dysfunctional, requiring the maintenance of “confidence” in prime ministers through shifting coalitions. The result is unwarranted power for small parties that dictate policy despite representing a small fraction of the population.
Both Madison and Hamilton wrote about the inevitable role of factions in any democratic system.
In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned about “the mischiefs of faction,” which he defined as “a number of citizens…united and actuated by some common impulse of passion.”
In Federalist No. 9, Hamilton wrote that “A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”
The protection of minority groups and voices is a difficult balancing act for any system. We achieve that through a bicameral government and federalist system as well as constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights. The Electoral College and the Senate are structural elements designed to protect smaller states from being overwhelmed by high-population states such as California, Florida, and New York.
The Israeli parliamentary system also uses a unicameral legislature that exacerbates those problems, as does a judicial system that engages in reviews that often seem more like legislative or policy judgments.
Israel remains the rare democratic system in the region, but the system itself renders the country most vulnerable to the most extreme elements of its society.
For all that, it’s the voters. They could reject extremism and elect moderate candidates. They do not.
“The Left” left a long time ago. Except for a few multimillionaire leaches like Ms. P and Doctor Chuckles Schumer of abort now and 4ever fame. “The Left” is done.
Today, we have the genius mouth of the know nothing, it’s All Over for Capitalism, AOC, who can’t describe a split infinitive to a drunken sailor.
My Country Was of Thee
“It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister. I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat — there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”
The Israeli Knesset is fine, he problem is that people keep voting for the extremists. That is democracy at work, and Israel will suffer the negative consequences of what it’s voters decide.
Having observed how a former mayor of a northern English town could maneuver himself into a parliamentary seat in a jurisdiction in which he has no connection, and then his Labour Party can name him Prime Minister without any sort of popular vote, I rejoice at the wisdom of our Founders. Our Constitutional system, of a bicameral legislature in which the larger population states can’t overwhelm the more sparsely populated ones, of a chief executive elected by an Electoral College rather than by the masses in a popular vote, and a Supreme Court judiciary appointed for life, has preserved our Republic. May it continue to withstand the battering of the jacobins.
You can tell a lot of regulars are not supportive of this take by Turley given the low number of comments. The one time Turley accurately points out Israel has its own terrorists and acknowledges the wanton violence and atrocities committed by Israeli settlers is when he’s literally pointing out exactly what students were protesting about last summer. The irony is as thick as a stick of butter.
Have you spent a single nanosecond investigating what the merits of the Jewish settler case might be? To put it into perspective, one should note that Palestinian violence against Jews in the disputed territories is ten times higher than the reverse, and has been going on since 1967. The recent uproar about Israeli settler violence is based on statistics compiled by the UN, and 90% of those stats have nothing – zero! – to do with violence, Israeli settlers, or the disputed territories. See for yourself: https://www.regavim.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/RegavimSilufEng0406digital.pdf
And this has absolutely nothing to do with student protests last summer, as if college students have any significant objective knowledge of what the conflict is about in the first place.
Roger Lambert, that’s a weak argument. Video evidence of settler violence is undisputed. Heck, even the settlers openly admit they are attacking Palestinian villages and taking land with the support of local police and IDF.
Relying on data going as far back as 1967 which clearly conflates the PLO with the current Israeli attempts to portray Palestinians as terrorists because they are simply Palestinian is disingenuous.
The students protests are directly related to that issue. Supporters of Israeli occupation are always the first to make excuses for the atrocities and injustices committed by extremist settlers. The more emboldened they get the more visible their true intent becomes and that is what is happening. They are undermining their long careful image into the very thing they have always been accused of. Genocide.
Up early eh George. Just itching to spew your daily dose of BS and nonsense.
Question. Are you literate in Hebrew? Do you live in Israel? Do you have friends in the Israeli government or the media? Answer all is a resounding NO.
So where do you get those facts?
Learn to punctuate.
Good one Anon.
The ignorance and hypocrisy of Turley’s comments here is self-evident.
He decries the Israeli system where small factions can have undue representation and power in the government. He then praises the US system where small states are “protected” from being “overwhelmed” by larger states.
How is this different from the Israeli system?
It is not !!
When states like Wyoming with a population of less than 600,000 have the same representation in the Senate as California with a population of 40,000,000, then that is no different from small factions in Israel having disproportionate influence in Parliament.
The absurdity of Turley’s comments can be seen in his belief that somehow the entities of the “states” should have equal representation, rather than the PEOPLE living in the states. This is plainly absurd. It is the very influence of “factions” that he simultaneously decries. The actual PEOPLE living in the states with high populations are effectively deprived of equal representation, which is plainly unconstitutional.
You are VERY mistaken in comparing the Israeli system to our own. I speak as a fervent Zionist but the Knesset’s electoral system is as disastrous as the USA primary elections system which is destroying our methods of electing anyone sane. The Knesset is both too small and too wedded to a pure party list system of PR which invites small factions to decide majority policy…..much like the lovable DSA. The US Senate, which I guess you never heard of, was created to allow the Constitution to be ratified. No wonder you are anonymous……I would be too. Shalom.
Firstly, criticizing me for being Anonymous, while you are also Anonymous is the very definition of hypocrisy.
It pretty much discounts anything you have to say as being relevant.
Where do you get this bizarre notion that the Senate was created to allow ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by individual state conventions. Final ratification was achieved on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire ratified to provide the necessary majority. The first Senators were not chosen until September 30, 1788. The Constitution was ratified 3 months before the Senate even existed.
Turley explicitly and correctly states that the Senate was created “to protect smaller states from being overwhelmed by high-population states”. This is effectively no different from the Israeli system where small factions can achieve undue influence compared to their numbers.
Sounds to me what you’re advocating for is proportional equality, aka mob rule.
Mob rule by a majority density of a single state versus a Democratic Republic, that’s what is so outstanding of our Constitutional Republic. Apply the same concept to the demographic makeup of our country. Would you want all people equal under the law or just certain people based upon their ethnicity and/or density?
8ball
Yes, I absolutely want all PEOPLE equal under the law.
Yes, I want every single PERSON to have an EQUAL voice in government.
That is simply not possible in the US system.
Explain to me why 600,000 people living in Wyoming should have a voice equal to that of 40,000,000 people living in California.
Why should 40,000,000 Californians have only 15% of the voice of people living in Wyoming.
I believe PEOPLE should get equal representation, not states.
So why would the remainder of States be subject to the mob rule of say California or New York?
Think of it as assuring each State has equal say over their federal rights and elections.
Again, what you’re describing is mob rule.
States do not have rights.
Only people living in states have rights.
The current situation is the very definition of mob rule. A small “mob” of 600,000 people in Wyoming has an equal voice in the Senate as the 40,000,000 people living in California. A “mob” does not have to be a large number of people. A “mob” is simply a group of people of any size whose influence is greater than their actual numbers.
That is the current situation. The mob of 600,000 people who elected 2 Republican senators in Wyoming can effectively neutralize the influence of 40,000,000 Californians
I learned in high school, 50 years ago, that the House of Representatives was designed to proportionally represent the people and that the Senate was designed to represent the interest of individual States and whose Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution provided for direct election of U.S. senators by the people of each state was ratified in 1913 in response to bribery of some senators and state legislators, and electoral deadlocks in some state legislatures. Despite these risks, the system as designed, where the House was to be the voice of the people and the Senate was to be the voice of the individual states, was indeed genius. The 17th Amendment just shifted the bribery risk to political parties, deal makers, and lobbyists from state legislators, although it did nothing to prevent incumbent U.S. senators from being “influenced” (aka, bribed) by outside interests. Repeal of the 17th Amendment should be seriously considered in order to return the federal government to its original design.
How exactly does a STATE have a voice????
How does one strike up a conversation with California???
How can a state have an “interest” supposedly protected by Senators that is separate from the “interests” of people who live in the state, who are supposedly represented by their House representatives??
How can the state exist as an entity unto itself that exists separately from its people???
The answer is that STATES do not, and cannot possibly have a voice. Any voice that a state has is simply the voice of the people expressed through their elected representatives. If a state of 600,000 people such as Wyoming has a voice equal to the 40,000,000 Californians in the Senate, then that is inherently unequal and inequitable. When the voice of 600,000 people in Wyoming can drown out and cancel the voice of 40,000,000 Californians, then that is mob rule.
You are simply playing with words and using semantics to try to rationalize an obvious absurdity.
Words have meanings, and your use of words and your argument is absurd.
So, the settlers are terrorists–now? They’ve always been terrorists. They were expected to be terrorists; expected to generate expulsive pressure but not headlines. It was one of Israel’s dirty little secrets.
Except it wasn’t a secret. It was, instead, one of the many truths about that country that must not be said. Forty years ago California Congressman Pete McCloskey, a major player in the Democratic Party, dared to say it and promptly saw his career cauterized by the Lobby. The very same thing happened to Governor Charles Percy (Illinois), who’d previously been considered a presidential contender.
That settler violence has gotten so bad that an Evangelical zealot, Israeli-firster like Mike Huckabee would resort to the T-word should not be treated as insignificant.
Palestinian violence against Jews in the disputed territories is TEN times higher than the reverse, and has been going on for 60 years. Who are the terrorists, again? (Hint – it’s the people with the official governmental policy of paying annual stipends to terrorists who murder Jewish civilians).
“disputed territories”
The international community, the United Nations, and the International Court of Justice designate the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip collectively as the “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
The UN makes all sorts of meaningless proclamations. Based on International law, Israel is sovereign over those territories. Palestinian refers to a location, not a people. In fact, post WW2 when the news reported on the Palestinian farmers, they were talking about the Jewish Farmers in Israel
I would forget about the UN; they permitted Hamas to fire rockets at Israel from right next to a UN headquarters so Israel couldn’t fight back. Some UN members assigned to Gaza were terrorists.
Someone lied to S. Meyer.
Dr. Morris Jastrow Jr., whom The NY Times identified as “one of the foremost Semitic authorities in the world,” wrote in his 1920 book, “The Eastern Question and Its Solution,” of his concern for that the interests of the natives be safeguarded. The natives of his description were the “Armenians, Syrians, and Palestinians.”
@ Old School Fool,
Do you know the name Alfred Dreyfus? He was a Jewish Captain in the French army convicted of treason. Of course, he was set up and later found innocent. Robert Harris wrote a book of historical fiction on this affair, though with tremendous detail after reading the official Dreyfus documents and diaries of his imprisonment.
Theodore Herzl, widely considered the founder of modern Zionism, was a reporter and covered the Dreyfus trial. He was not a Zionist but a secular Jew who opposed Jewish nationalism, believing Jews should assimilate and join other religions. Observing the trial and the mobs chanting Death to the Jews he realized antisemitism was not a remnant of older times but a permanent feature of European society. That happened at the turn of the century. I guess one could say there weren’t many political Zionists at the time.
In some fashion, you heard of Morris Jastrow, so I hope you heard of Theodore Herzl as well and why he was promoting political Zionism. Many Jews of the time were anti-Zionists, including Jastrow, whom you mentioned, who argued that Judaism was strictly a religious identity and not a national one. For many not having the epiphany of Herzl’s thought that made sense.
Jastrow died shortly after WWI and never experienced the following years and the Holocaust. Many other anti-Zionists of the time didn’t either.
Jastrow wasn’t incorrect in his description and calling a people living in that area Palestinians, which referred to a location, not an ethnicity. That is what many forget or do not know; Muslims and Jews on their birth certificates had Palestinian stamped on the form. The ethnicity of many of the Muslims was Jordanian, Egyptian, North African, as they didn’t originate in the area. The only religious group to be able to claim to be indigenous was the Jews.
Jastrow didn’t live to see the Holocaust; he died a quarter of a century before. Jastrow also didn’t live to see Lebanon, a Christian nation, turn Muslim violently. He didn’t live to see the growth of over 20 Arab Muslim nations with only one Jewish nation that swelled not only from European Jews but from those Jews forced to leave without their property from all these Arab Muslim nations at the point of a gun; The number of Jews thrown out of the Arab nations exceeded the number of Palestinians who left Israel, mostly voluntarily.
We will never know if Jastrow, like so many others, would have changed his position.
“Palestinian refers to a location, not a people.” I’m going to remember this line, just like I remember, “A land without people for a people without a land.”
And I promise, in the future, to find a way to use something from history to justify everything Israelis do.
@ Old School Fool,
That, if I didn’t misinterpret your words, sounds like a type of threat. Why? What did I say that wasn’t factually true?
You took one opinion from another time, Jastrow Jr., which I placed in its proper light, and now it appears you are looking for other things that could smear Israel. If I have that correct, why? What do you have against a Democratic nation trying to survive?
A type of threat? Get some therapy.
As for what you refer to “one opinion from another time,” it wasn’t an opinion (nor was it a smear). A learned man, at a time inconvenient for Zionist revisionists, referred to a people as they were then and now widely known. No different than today referring to Mr. Turley as an American, despite his DNA. Denying Palestinians their identity is useful for no purpose other than ethnic cleansing.
“A type of threat? Get some therapy.”
You said, “And I promise, in the future, to find a way to use something from history to justify everything Israelis do.”
I responded civilly, trying not to draw the wrong conclusions from your comment.
I said, “That, if I didn’t misinterpret your words, sounds like a type of threat. Why?”
Why are you acting uncivilly and telling me, “Get some therapy?” What is wrong with you?
Earlier you said, “Someone lied to S. Meyer.” That sounded like another nasty comment, so I provided some history and context. Do you have a problem with history? No one called what Jastrow said a smear, and my words agreed with him, but not what I perceived to be the context of all your comments on the thread and elsewhere.
” A learned man, at a time inconvenient for Zionist revisionists”
What revisions? Jastrow was a learned man from a learned family. Herzl was of his time as well and only turned Zionist after he recognized that antisemitism wasn’t going away. I provided three realities that turned the minds of many people who then became Zionists themselves; There are many more instances, but these are easily recognizable: 1. the Holocaust, 2. the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands, ~800,000, and 3. the Christian nation of Lebanon violently becoming Muslim.
“Denying Palestinians their identity”
I do not deny those who lived in Palestine an identity. They are multiethnic with multiple religions. There is or was no Palestinian ethnicity since Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others lived in Palestine, many of whom came from Jordan, Egypt, North Africa, and other places. Let’s try to be accurate and skip the fantasy.
A lot of people, due to ignorance, willful or otherwise, do not understand this. Thank you for the piece, you have some stones, Professor.
AMEN.
It won’t be long before Turley is accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel. Yet, he is just now waking up to a reality university students have been protesting about last summer.
Extremists in Netanyahu’s cabinet, like Itamar Ben-Gvir, have long emboldened radical settlers to attack Palestinian villages under IDF protection. Turley conveniently leaves out why this suddenly matters to the U.S. establishment: these zealots recently attacked a compound belonging to Americans.
Israel’s elections threaten to hand these violent extremists factions even more power. By legitimizing these extremists, Israel strengthens Iran’s justification for developing nuclear weapons—especially when no one can guarantee these ultra-Israeli extremists wouldn’t use such weapons themselves.
Many are already trying to dismiss this incident caused by a “small minority” of settlers which in fact are still being supported by the IDF.
Nonsense. There is no Israeli governmental policy, or IDF policy, to encourage or protect Israeli Jews to attack innocent Palestinians. Even IF Gvir said such a thing (I notice you did not provide documentation), that does not mean there is such a policy. In fact, I have read pieces that say the IDF is antagonistic to Jewish settlers.
That you try to stretch this into a rationalization for Iranian nuclear weapon development, tells us all quite clearly what a lunatic you are.
Not only is X a lunatic, but a liar.
You have to hand it to Israeli Citizens for making their Social Contract work despite the flaws. Parliamentarian or Constitutional social contracts alike are meant to metamorphosize toward the betterment of the Society they serve (at least that’s the idea – Enlightenment of Society).
It’s apparent that this metamorphosis has stalled (by the two party systems or overriding controls). When will We get there?, What will it take?, the World is waiting more and more impatiently.
Andrew P is correct. The Israeli’s were supposed to write a constitution within 5 years after statehood was achieved but never did. Their present system is loosely based on the UK but without the centuries of precedent and tradition.
They should still try to do it but it will be immeasurably harder to do. The British also have the advantage of each member of parliament having a constituency that elects him/her and that the MP represents rather than the proportional representation that the Knesset presently has.
Personally I hate proportional representation because It fosters minor parties that result in excessive influence as noted above and unstable coalitions. Better the radicals get suffocated in a larger party with greater stability. Not a guarantee but more likely to be stable.
Ours is not perfect but relatively stable.
I noticed the article was stealth edited. It originally referred to a “constitutional system”, but that has since been changed.
“Their present system is loosely based on the UK but without the centuries of precedent and tradition.” That makes no sense. If its based on the UK constiution, then those traditions and precedent are baked into the Israeli constitution. Or whatever you want to call it.
The UK hasn’t got a single constitutional document; it is a loose affiliation of a large number of accepted practices.
One way to limit radicalism that arises through thin primary elections would be to require that if one wants to vote in the general election one must first have voted in the preceding primary election. Impossible to enact, I know, but a solution to insane factions seizeing power.
By the way Mr Turley, you need to work on your commenting system. I have commented for years and yet it NEVER saves my info. Just a small irritation but it could be solved.
Or do what Australia does, and make voting compulsory.
Failure to vote carries a $20 fine and refusal to pay or repeat offending can lead to court appearances and thousands of dollars in fines.
Quote: “The protection of minority groups and voices is a difficult balancing act for any system.”
Israel solves this problem neatly, though, by simply slaughtering anyone it doesn’t like. And its control of the USA ensures it will never be held to account.
Mike: Check your meds. You’re making delusional statements.
Wait a minute – Israel does not have a Constitution. They have a parliamentary System that is effectively a continuation of a provisional government from the founding. They were never able to write down and ratify a Constitution.
They do have a Judiciary (who have expanded their own powers WAY beyond what we have in the US) who make rulings on legislation and appointments according to The Basic Laws – quasi-Constitutional guidelines. They really do need a formal Constitution that has real checks and balances.
The parliamentary system exchanges stability for responsiveness. The Left prefers the parliamentary system because it permits sudden and sometimes irreversible change. The British avoided the problem of instability for centuries by governing through a rigid class system. This changed after WWII, though, and, with the loss of empire, created a system where incompetent elites attempt to oversee managed decline.
The Israeli parliamentary system worked well enough as long as the founding elites—European, secular, socialist—were in firm control. With the advent of large populations fleeing the Soviet Union and other oppressive regimes, however, the former elites lost their dominance, producing an Israel that the NYT no longer loves. Demographics is destiny, but often not the destiny designed by the elites.
Demographic change is also producing instability in both Europe and the US. The full story remains to be written, but the trajectory is manifest.
Isten áldja
Heil Hitler!