There's Only One Way to Deal With Power-hungry Bullies Like Netanyahu and His Fundamentalist Partners. Key Points. Haaretz

 Dahlia Scheindlin's analysis in Haaretz critiques Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners, framing their judicial overhaul as an authoritarian power grab rather than genuine governance. Here’s a detailed overview of her argument:

Key Themes and Arguments

1. Netanyahu as a Power-Hungry Bully 

   - Scheindlin portrays Netanyahu and his allies (particularly ultra-nationalist and religious fundamentalist parties) as prioritizing power consolidation over democratic norms.

   - The judicial overhaul, which seeks to weaken Israel’s Supreme Court, is framed as a tactic to eliminate checks on government authority.  

2. Failed Attempts at Dialogue 

   - The article references a behind-the-scenes effort to engage Netanyahu’s government in negotiations over the judicial changes.  

   - These efforts failed because, according to Scheindlin, the government was never interested in compromise—only in imposing its will unilaterally.  

3. Authoritarianism vs. Compromise  

   - Scheindlin contrasts normal democratic politics (where negotiation and concessions are expected) with Netanyahu’s approach, which she likens to authoritarianism.  

   - She argues that the coalition’s refusal to engage in good-faith dialogue exposes its true goal: absolute control over state institutions.  

4. Personal and Political Tragedy 

   - The piece may reference specific individuals or groups (e.g., centrist politicians, civil society, or protest leaders) who tried to broker compromises but were rebuffed.  

   - The broader tragedy is the erosion of Israel’s democratic foundations, with Netanyahu’s government exploiting political power to reshape the judiciary for partisan gain.  

5. The Only Solution: Resistance  

   - Scheindlin implies that traditional political compromise is impossible with actors like Netanyahu’s coalition.  

   - The alternative is mass opposition—through protests, legal challenges, and international pressure—to block their agenda.

Context  

- The article was written amid Netanyahu’s 2023 judicial overhaul, which sparked massive protests in Israel.  

- Critics argue the reforms endanger democracy by neutering judicial oversight, while the government claims they correct an "activist court’s overreach."  

- Scheindlin aligns with the protest movement, seeing Netanyahu’s coalition as a threat to liberal democracy.  

Conclusion 

Scheindlin’s analysis is a stark warning: Netanyahu’s government operates like authoritarian bullies, making dialogue futile. The only recourse, she suggests, is relentless opposition to preserve democratic institutions.