> You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government
Isn't that totally ordinary for parliamentary democracies? Don't they literally work by having the leader parliament wear the executive hat in addition to his legislative one?
The hard distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is (mostly) an Americanism.
> Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power.
It's kind of interesting to see how the liberal zeitgeist's view of "checks and balances" shifts radically based on the context. In the US, a lot of liberals have been fantasizing furiously for the past several years over parliamentary systems that lack them, because in the US the "checks" have recently been thwarting the liberal political agenda.
Honestly, I think a lot of liberals would actually prefer a "democracy" closer to Iran's system; where there are "elections," but ultimate power rests with a liberal "Guardian Council," so the outcome is liberal regardless of the election results.