Battle over Flags reflect deep societal rifts, and what Britain can learn from Israel before its flag becomes a tool of internal destruction enabling far right rise to fascism. As Israel’s delay deepened the divide; in Britain, early action could prevent it.

Imagine this: you’re standing in a bustling square, the national flag flying high above. Does it warm your heart as a symbol of unity, or has it been turned into a political weapon by extremists? This isn’t a fantasy - it’s the reality in Britain and Israel in 2025. In Israel, the far-right co-opted the flag, only for liberals to fight to reclaim it; in Britain, the right is seizing the St George’s Cross and Union Jack against pro-Palestinian protesters and immigrants.

This op-ed aims to expose how battles over symbols reflect deep societal rifts and what Britain can learn from Israel before its flag becomes a tool of internal destruction. An answer to a question raised on the "New Statesman" Podcast "Has the English flag been co-opted by the far-right?" with @Anoosh Chakelian and @HarryClrke.

Read, share, and join the conversation - Because silence hands victory to extremism.

On the Gap Between Substance and Process in Democracy and Law, in Light of the Regime Change and the Protest Movement of 2023.

A short intro - On Gap Between Substance & Process

Discussion* surrounding the regime change and the protest is not purely legal, because engaging solely with strictly legal dimension is tantamount to agreeing that procedure (process) prevails over content (substance). Focusing exclusively on process renders the protest redundant and grants approval and legitimization for the regime change to proceed into a technical discussion concerned with details rather than essence.
The implication is collapse of the democratic system of governance and, subsequently, of the State of Israel.

The confrontation between procedure and substance - and which of the two constitutes an indicator of the existence of democracy has long stood at the core of political science, and originates in the confusion between legitimacy (constitutionality - procedure and process; legitimate) and legitimization (authorization / endorsement - substance; Legitimization: process of making legal).

Where legitimacy is derived from the letter of the law, any discussion of it is confined to the technical aspect of the process (procedure). Legitimization, by contrast, is derived from the substance of the process and from whether public involvement grants it social and normative authorization. Moreover, without legitimization at the level of the regime - which is the clear and immediate outcome of the judicial overhaul - the state will collapse, losing the unifying ethos that defines it as sovereign over its territory.