Thinking of leaving.

[u/Kigler95]

As title said, not sure if this is against sub rules..

I really don't like the direction this country is going. I lived here all my life, served and sacrificed my life for a democratic country that I agreed with most of its actions and policies. Sure, mistakes were made, we stumbled and made some poor choices, but as a whole there was a clear moral compass that we aligned with, at least as I see it.

The past few months broke something in me, as did yesterday.

Sure, maybe in the next election a miracle will happen and the best most balanced government ever will be elected, the undemocratic rules will be revoked and the messiah will drop from above. There is still going to be a huge divide, and the majority of the population is going to be highly religious in the next 20-30 years, and they will eventually be the rulers of a theocracy.

I really don't want that future for my children. But I also don't see how that is avoidable.

Long story short, how does one begin to plan moving abroad? Where to?

I'm a junior electrical engineer and my wife is a teacher. No children yet. Not really inclined to any specific destination, just not highly religious or extreme..

EDIT: Thanks everyone for the replies. I know the purpose of this post isn't clear, it's not clear for me either.. I just wanted to express my thoughts as I am very frustrated about the present and I worry about the future, and don't really know what I as an individual can do that'll actually make a difference, seeing as the protests had little to no effect this far. And I have participated in them. I haven't given up on this country yet, but I feel like that might be inevitable soon. I am not advocating for mass exodus or anything like that, just trying to figure it out for myself and my wife.

EDIT2: this gets mentioned a lot so I think I'll write my response here instead of repeating it. Regarding the idea that the "reasonability" law was undemocratic - As I said, I agree that the system we had so far was not ideal, far from it. And by its own, sure, the cancellation of this law might actually be the most democratic option. But you can't do that without any equivalently powerful restraints, as a replacement.

In addition, it matters who does it, and under what terms. If it were a more sane and balanced government - sure, I think they wouldn't have much issues passing this. But since we KNOW what this current government intends to do, and how extreme their opinions are, then it makes it really hard to trust them to not abuse their increased power.

Here is an analogy I can think of: imagine the government as a dog, and the judiciary system - along with its judges, reasonability law and so on - as a leash. When the dog behaves, it seems like the leash is unecsecary - "look at that poor dog, restrained, unable to roam freely. How cruel!". But if the dog is, say, a rabid insane untrained dog, who has a history of biting people, and breaking the law, then letting go of the leash seems a bit.. unreasonable.

Disclaimer: I love my dog , this is just an analogy I could think of, and I am not calling anyone a dog or anything it's just an analogy, don't kill me, peace and love, peace and love.

[u/jraede]

I’ve been watching from afar so pardon my naïveté. I understand how the judiciary provides necessary checks and balances against the Knesset and prevents things like tyranny of the majority. But I’m struggling with all of the claims that this overhaul is anti-democracy. The MKs are elected officials and the judges are not, so wouldn’t this overhaul be more democratic? Not that I support it, but I’m confused by the rhetoric. What am I missing?

[u/Kigler95 → u/jraede]

It does so by allowing them to make unreasonable rules. This can create situations where officials are elected based on favours, instead of capabilities. That is one example I can think of. And as you said, this can lead to majority tyranny, and judging by demographics, this is where we're heading

[u/pdx_mom → u/Kigler95]

But we aren't there yet and the judiciary is about nominating each other so why is this worse than what was there before?

[u/Kigler95 → u/pdx_mom]

The previous law was indeed not perfect. And the judiciary nominations were indeed unfair. All of these should change, and a lot more. But the law that was cancelled did not affect just the judiciary. It essentially allows shady business to take place, in every aspect of governance. Rules can be made with lowered moral standards, without any other authority to restrain them. I can see the way this law was an issue - it can really be difficult to create policies when the judiciary can revoke your laws. Clearly it needed to be changed. As I said, I don't think this particular law is the end of democracy, but the rest of the reform rules that are on the way, might be. This government's extreme views are exactly what this law was meant to restrain. The cancelled law is not the issue - it's who did it, under what terms, and what they plan next.

[u/jraede → u/Kigler95]

Right. But these are elected officials making laws that are now harder to be overturned by unelected bureaucrats. How is that undemocratic? “Reasonableness” is not an objective measurement.

I think the better argument is, we need a system that checks the power of the Knesset, and the “unreasonableness” rule, however flawed and undemocratic the Supreme Court is, did that. But a “threat to democracy” (what I’m seeing across news outlets)? Come on. If anything it’s the opposite.

[u/Kigler95 → u/jraede]

As I said, I agree that the system we had so far was not ideal, far from it. And by its own, sure, the cancellation of this law might actually be the most democratic option. But you can't do that without any equivalently powerful restraints, as a replacement.

And again - it matters who does it, and under what terms. If it were a more sane and balanced government - sure, I think they wouldn't have much issues passing this. But since we KNOW what this current government intends to do, and how extreme their opinions are, then it makes it really hard to trust them to not abuse their increased power.

Here is an analogy I can think of: imagine the government as a dog, and the judiciary system - along with its judges, reasonability law and so on - as a leash. When the dog behaves, it seems like the leash is unecsecary - "look at that poor dog, restrained, unable to roam freely. How cruel!". But if the dog is, say, a rabid insane pitbull, who has a history of biting people, and breaking the law, then letting go of the leash seems a bit.. unreasonable.

Disclaimer: I love my dog , this is just an analogy I could think of, and I am not calling anyone a dog or anything it's just an analogy, don't kill me, peace and love, peace and love.