Over 1,000 Air Reservists Threaten to Stop Serving, as Israel’s Political Crisis Grows
In a move that experts say could significantly hurt Israel’s military readiness, pilots and other personnel issued a warning after Benjamin Netanyahu pressed ahead with a plan to limit judicial power.
More than a thousand pilots and other personnel in the Israeli Air Force reserve said on Friday that they would stop reporting for duty if the government pushes through a contentious plan next week to reduce judicial power without broader consensus.
In a joint letter released Friday, 1,142 Air Force reservists — including 235 fighter pilots, 98 transport plane pilots, 89 helicopter pilots and 173 drone operators — said they would not serve if the government proceeded with its plan to reduce the ways in which the Supreme Court can overrule the government.
It’s seems every country has had a fascist turn this century. It’s ridiculous how little we as a species learned from the past.
Nationalism begets nationalism begets fascism. People underestimate how much certain countries have been putting their fingers on the scale.
Absolutely, I'm gobsmacked nobody seems to read history.
Although, a lot of these nowadays fascist leaders are being supported by very large swathes of their own populations, as much as 48%, which is the truly shocking thing.
Reading history ... that tends to be how it works. Fascism is good at getting popular support for it's ideas, without overtly being fascism to the people who support it. Fascism's gateway drug is populism, and populism works best when the 'common' population is under strain too complex to address as a single issue.
The worlds ongoing climate crises, economic issues, and political instability within developing economies are all placing unusual and complicated strains on the common populations of developed nations - which in turn opens the door for populist rhetoric and leaders to thrive and gain a foothold on the political discourses in their nations. The biggest single pro/con of populist rhetoric is that it is at its strongest as challenger or as opposition - much like armchair quarterbacking, it's very easy to criticize what has been done, and even easier to sound like you could do it better, but very hard to deliver on promises from the drivers' seat. As a result, populism is good for getting elected, but is not good for staying there - or getting re-elected later.
So given that many populist talking points in current economies are fascist-adjacent, pivoting towards fascism makes for an easy and natural segue in the event that they gain power or hold sufficient security of position and supporter base that populism alone cannot serve to maintain.
I like everything you wrote, thank you, but perhaps disagree with your last part about not remaining in power. It seems to me that the current crop of neo-fascist (or fascist-adjacent as you call them) leaders have remained in power for a very long time, even with more or less fair elections. Erdogan in Turkey, Netenyahu in Israel, and Orban in Hungary come to mine. I guess with each of those, they don't even have to deliver any meaningful policy just so long as they keep hurting the people their voters want hurt, they'll keep being re-elected.
I think maybe some of that is on me; I've been using "in power" somewhat colloquially and to me there's a gap between 'gaining power' in a soft sense referring to achieving a station that possesses power - and complete seizure of power. The latter is always the goal of the former, but the former is generally a necessary intermediary step.
Those three for sure have held power quite a while - just that they've held power long enough I don't really consider them representative of modern neo-fascism so much as inspirations for it. In the sense I was thinking of when I wrote the above, I was thinking more of the factions and leaders that exist within states that are not clearly semi- or pseudo-fascist in their structure. The ways that Erdogan, Netenyahu, and Orban maintain their power are not yet in place in those other states, but implementing some forms of them are goals within those movements.
The neo-fascists' I was talking about have to win elections and hold legitimate power within the current structure of the state before they can alter that structure enough to fix elections or bypass them. And in getting that initial foot in door, creating the opportunity to hijack the state, benefits strongly from using populist rhetoric - as genuinely pro-fascist voters are relatively rare, those factions and leaders need to use other causes to win over voters who wouldn't support their "real" goals directly.
Ah okay, fair enough, I understand.
I'm very keen to see what happens with the newly elected leader of Italy, as she and her party are openly very far right with real fascist ties/history. Will be interesting to see if she and her government remain in power for long.
Also curious to see what will happen with the AfD in Germany. Each election they get closer and closer to holding real power.
Thank you. I enjoyed your writing.
Israel is an apartheid regime built on the graves of Palestinians, how could have it possibly turned fascist?! /sarcasm
Species don't learn; that's the trouble. It's just a relatively small number of individuals that learn.
Has it ever been the courts before this though. Thats whats wierd. I can't think of any historical context for courts to the be factor in this manner. I mean there has always been rhetoric about judicial overreach but never before have I seen it try to prop up minority rule in such a manner before.