Ben Shapiro Breaks Down The Real Impact Of Israel’s Judicial Reforms | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Daily Wire.

    Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro said the media was overhyping the protests in Israel over judicial reform measures, saying that the protests were not indicative of an upcoming societal collapse.

    Shapiro made the comments on his Wednesday podcast, saying that it was wrong for financial analysts to downgrade Israel over the judicial reform debate, and that some were exploiting the situation to make Israel look weak.

    "The media are blowing up the situation in Israel, so the country's about to collapse. It is not. It is really stupid. And people who are taking advantage of the situation in order to exacerbate perceived global weakness in the state of Israel. I only comment on this because, again, it's being treated as top of news for everyone," he said.

    He said that media coverage of protests over the judicial reform measures has outpaced media coverage of other hot topic issues in Israel. Shapiro also criticized Moody's, a firm that does financial risk analysis, saying that it was "foolish" to lower Israel's credit rating because "there are people who don't agree with the thing the government did."

    "So all I'm here to say when it comes to this particular issue is, give it time, it will calm down. Just [like] there are massive riots in France and they didn't get this sort of attention. And the riots in France are much more indicative of bleeding social decay in France than the current conflict in Israel is indicative of some sort of internal collapse," he said.

    Shapiro had previously discussed the reform measure on his Tuesday podcast, explaining that Israel had effectively just moved to limit powers of the country's Supreme Court. According to Shapiro, the bill passed in Israeli parliament means that "the Supreme Court of Israel cannot simply overturn any executive or administrative action on the basis of quote-unquote reasonableness."

    "So imagine that the President of the United States issued [an] executive order and the Supreme Court didn't determine whether it was inside the authority of the president. They just determined whether it was, quote-unquote, reasonable," he added. "You see how this would be a problem, because this means that the Supreme Court is basically a dictatorship. They now get to use their own judgment of what is reasonable to substitute for an elected person or an elected body's judgment for what is reasonable, which makes them not a court, it makes them an actual legislature, just not elected."