"king bibi"

after many months of non-stop protests, i've come to the conclusion that all of these protestors chanting "democracy" are missing something fundamental about the situation we're in and about what the word "democracy" actually means.

firstly, no matter how loud and how consistent the protests have been, no matter how many people in raw numbers may have shown up, at the end of the day it's still a very small percentage of the population. most of the population? either doesn't feel affected, isn't concerned, or is happy for the government to proceed as it is.

secondly, unless you're the elected government's constituency, the government really doesn't care about your protests. they're only going to care if the respond to something that they're doing indicates that they won't get voted in next election.

thirdly, i think that our election system is thoroughly corrupt and getting in its own way. in order to achieve stability, we're demanding coalitions and forcing someone like bibi to align himself with minorities that he doesn't necessarily agree with, all in the interests of forming a "strong government". these minorities, over the course of two decades, have changed our country for the worse.

and bibi has demonstrated, time and again, that he will stop at nothing to stay in power and out of prison.

let's put this all together: we have "king bibi". he's in charge, but he's bowing to fringe extremists to stay that way. if it wasn't for those fringe extremists, he would only be beholden to his own constituency, which is the likudnikim. who are (for the most part) relatively moderate in their views.

i think it's time to put this farce of a democracy to bed. let's let bibi wear the crown, whether for a two-to-four year term or for good. whatever. hand him his get-out-of-jail-free card. let him do his thing, without having to answer to the extremists. at least that. if he's not on the defensive, he might actually do something good for the country, and we could avoid becoming the next iran / failed state with a civil war on its hands.

he has the mandate of the majority anyway, so what difference does it make?