I saw a clip of Harari’s HardTalk interview. He said democracy doesn’t imply the majority has the power to do whatever it wishes. This is correct. The Constitution makes sure laws passed in the parliament are not against the fundamental building blocks of the political structure of a country. In Poland, people voted to move away from populism. that was possible because the foundation of democracy in Poland was intact and populism could be rejected by vote. Netanyahu’s judicial reform is an attempt to change a foundational part of Israel’s political system. That’s why it is dangerous. In all countries, governments pass laws and some ignite social protest, some are blocked by the court and some are overturned by the next government. These are natural political battles. But trying to change the foundation of a country’s political structure is dangerous. If a society realizes that it needs foundational change there should be very detailed and cautious methods to achieve that.
A while ago I mentioned Un’s idea to ban jeans. This is a ridiculous idea in a country with a well-established constitution. However, it mustn’t be limited to the borders of a country. In the same way the majority cannot pass laws to deprive minorities of their basic rights, a country cannot randomly carry on land-grabbing plans for other territories, by means such as forcing locals to move away from their homes, etc. International laws are in place for this reason. Any country should abide by international laws.
UPDATE 1:
The negation of “all countries should abide by international laws” is “not all countries should abide by international laws”. The negation of Guterres’s statement is that “the incident occurred in a vacuum”. A statement and its negation cannot be true simultaneously. If one condemns Guterres’s statement it means they support the other version: not all countries should abide by international laws.