Can a Jewish State be Democratic?

[TheNewTeddy]

A visual which shows how Palestinians in the occupied territories live in cantons, surrounded and separated by Israel controlled roads. This image is quite telling and explains why Israel is considered an apartheid state:

This is off topic. I'd ask that everyone please stay on topic, as I think the discussion has been wonderful so far, and I'd hate it to end.

[Hudson Jones]

This is off topic. I'd ask that everyone please stay on topic, as I think the discussion has been wonderful so far, and I'd hate it to end.

The practice of apartheid is undemocratic. So I feel the information is about the topic.

Whether it's being done inside the undefined (according to Israel) Israeli border, or in the occupied territories, it is undemocratic. A democratic state would not practice what Israel is practicing.

[TheNewTeddy]

There is no apartheid in Jewish Israel. Any "apartheid" is limited to the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Jewish Israel and this topic focuses on Jewish Israel. Within Jewish Israel, Arabs have full rights and thousands upon thousands of them used those rights to vote for one of 4 Arab based parties in the election on Tuesday, 3 of which won seats.

I'm willing to start a "Is there apartheid in the west bank" thread if that topic is of interest and willing to be discussed.

Edited January 26, 2013 by TheNewTeddy

[bud]

hudson makes a good point. for example, what's the status of east jerusalem in this discussion? is that part of israel? or do we look at it the way the world and international law do? what about other land that is cut off by the wall, which still have palestinian villages inside them? there are thousands of palestinians in east jerusalem who have no right to vote, yet, israel considers their land as israel's. you also have the illegal settlements on palestinian land and the settlers living on those lands, who are eligible to vote in israeli elections.

we can't have a talk about israel's so-called democracy, without acknowledging their treatment of palestinians and the undeclared border of israel, by israel. there are a lot of grey and overlapping issues involved.

[TheNewTeddy]

East Jerusalem is considered by Israel to be within the Jewish State, thus, it is open for discussion.

As well, there is no debating - given the election - that within the Jewish State (with the exception of East Jerusalem as you've outlined) - that Israel is a democracy.

I will open another thread about "Apartheid" in the West Bank and Gaza, as it seems that there is a will to discuss this.

[TheNewTeddy]

there are a lot of grey and overlapping issues involved.

This is the key reason why I want to discuss these individually. I find debates on Israel turn into silly things, where, for example, I say I want a McDonalds Cheeseburger, and you say you want a Burger King Hamburger, and I say "Burger King Sucks!" and you say "Cheeseburgers Suck!". We can keep saying these same things over and over again because I'm not willing to talk about McDonalds and you are not willing to talk about Hamburgers.

There are now threads on two of the main issues (prior to peace that is) and if the third comes up, I'll open a topic on that one too.

[Guest American Woman]

This is the key reason why I want to discuss these individually.

And he's saying that you can't discuss them individually because "there are a lot of grey and overlapping issues involved." In other words, some feel that they aren't "individual issues" as the issues that overlap are part of the issue being discussed.

I have a problem with an individual member trying to determine what is - or isn't - on topic. This is a public board, and as such, some are going to see things differently than you are, and they have a right to say what they feel is relevant - and it's not really your place to try to control that.

[TheNewTeddy]

Second paragraph first. A quote from my "rules"

1 - "How DARE you limit MY rights to FREE SPEECH with your rules"

A: I'm more concerned with a healthy debate than I am with your rights.

3 - "Well I'm going to post here JUST to stick it to you and ignore your rules!"

A: If you want to troll that is your business.

Responding to your first paragraph:

All the issues need to be taken into account to have a proper discussion on the issue. The problem I've seen with other threads on the Israel/Palestine situation is that people base their entire argument on only a single point, and thus, there is no healthy debate, just a feast of copypasta.

Israel as a Jewish State is a barrier to a one state solution. "Apartheid" in the West Bank and Gaza are barriers to Palestinians accepting a two state solution. Terrorism and the response to Terrorism are barriers for both sides, and, cause the entire world concern.

Saying "Aparthed!! one state!!" ignores the Jewish State issues. Saying "Terrorism!! Two states!!" ignores the "Apartheid" issues. Etc so on and so forth.

The discussion so far in this thread has been mostly calm, relaxed, non-personal, educated, and, healthy. I'd like to keep it that way, as I think that this is a good issue and a good topic for debate.

Edited January 26, 2013 by TheNewTeddy

[Guest American Woman]

Second paragraph first. A quote from my "rules"

Responding to your first paragraph:

All the issues need to be taken into account to have a proper discussion on the issue. The problem I've seen with other threads on the Israel/Palestine situation is that people base their entire argument on only a single point, and thus, there is no healthy debate, just a feast of copypasta.

You don't get to make - or enforce - rules on this board; that's my point. If someone is breaking the admin's rules, report it - and they will deal with it. I see you've started another thread quoting the post you disapproved of - so the post in question will be discussed in two threads now.

My only point is that members don't get to make the rules or tell someone else whether or not their post is "on topic." If someone feels that their point is relevant to the discussion, they have the right to make that point. Hudson had every right to make his post.

[TheNewTeddy]

You contradict yourself, regardless, your posts are off the desired topic, and I will stop responding to them. If you wish to weigh in on the democracy in a jewish state issue, please feel free.

[Guest American Woman]

You contradict yourself, regardless, your posts are off the desired topic, and I will stop responding to them. If you wish to weigh in on the democracy in a jewish state issue, please feel free.

No, I'm not contradicting myself - and my posts are in direct response to yours.

[TheNewTeddy]

New question:

Does the recent election impact your view on a Jewish State and if it can or can not be Democratic?

[Rue]

No not at all. Why would it. How is it different then any other election? Israel has perportional representation. This necessarily means it

must form coalitions between disparate groups or different political parties to form a ruling government.

In fact some would argue its system like Italy's and other democratic countries that embrace perportional representation is MORE

democractic in that it assures parties that would not get cabinet seats in the traditional Canadian/British parliamentary system get them

because of the need to form coalitions.

I myself think Israel and Italian parliamentary systems which are very pretty much the same are examples of why I prefer Canada's system. In the systems like Israel and Italy there is a perpetual

crisis coalition situation. However it is designed to assure everyone gets a say.

In Israel the right wing religious groups try get into the coalition to influence family law and religious law. The other right wing groups

vary in ideology from extreme intolerant racist to moderate indistinguishable from centre and left wing parties.

The centre and left wing mostly differ with religious views of the religious parties. There is a schism between centre and left represented

by a new party led by a news anchor but the schism is not that big. It differs over how to restart dialogue.

Israeli parties are unified as to security.All agree the current civil war in Syria and Muslim brotherhood government in Egypt plus Hamas,

Hezbollah, instability in Iraq,Jordan and the ever present threat of Iran have to be dealt with as they are.

There may be a difference as to whether Israel should make a first strike in Iran but there is probably no difference in the belief that if

Hezbollah, Hamas or rebel forces got their hands on nerve gas weapons in Syria it would force Israel to engage in a pre-emptive strike.

The politics of Israel can not be taken literally. Israelis are cynical,existential and pragmatic. Security is always the first issue and beneath the

rhetoric is unanimity.The genuine disagreement is over whether to pull people out of the West Bank, how to deal with political coruption, how to

define what a Jew is, taxes, issues 99.99% of people on this forum are oblivious to.

Netanyahu uses couched references when his speeches are directed not so subtley at Iran or Syria, etc. You and I won't know the couched or coded words. Or they send indirect messages.

The biggest threat to Israel democracy right now is the same threat it has always faced, surrounding hostile nations full of fundamentalist terrorists who want to use violence to eradicate it and have chased out their moderate fellow citizens forced to leave their nations for fear of persecution leaving no moderates behind for Israel to reach out to.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

New question:

Does the recent election impact your view on a Jewish State and if it can or can not be Democratic?

A couple of questions for you:

Does it impact your view on a Jewish state if it can be Democratic?

And regarding your answer: why?

I can't help but note that our countries were considered "democracies" even before women/Native Americans/First Nations/Blacks/18 year olds got the vote.

[jbg]

If Israel won't annex the West Bank, the current situation is also untenable. Does Israel really want to be an occupying power for ever, slowly taking more and more of the prime land in the West Bank, until they have achieved de facto annexation but without those pesky Palestinians to worry about, who are basically shoved into gulags.

Maybe some thought should have been given to the chance Israel might win what became the 1967 War.

Time to make some bold moves on the part of Israel.

Would you call a flying leap off a cliff a "bold move?"

[TheNewTeddy]

Does it impact your view on a Jewish state if it can be Democratic?

And regarding your answer: why?

Yes

a Democracy gets it's legitimacy from popular support, and a country gets it's legitimacy from other countries allowing it to continue to exist.

Some random Canadian may not be much on the grand scale of legitimacy, but it does matter.

As an American, however, your view would matter "more" if that helps.

[g_bambino]

I argue that Israel can only be as democratic as a state that is designed for only one-religion will allow.

How is Israel designed for only one religion, any more than, say, the UK?

That is, after all, more democratic than most of it's neighbours - frankly ALL of it's neighbours, even after their revolutions have been or will be completed.

You seem to have forgotten about Jordan.

[TheNewTeddy]

The crux of my argument is that nothing can be both ___ and Democratic.

If 99.999% of the people can vote and decide that they want to change the ___, then you do not have a ___ state to start with.

Lets say Israel decides to go for a one state solution, with Israel as a Jewish State. Clearly, somewhere in the constitution, it'd need to refer to Israel as a Jewish State. Any truly Democratic constitution needs an amendment procedure. So what happens if/when someone is able to meet those requirements? Israel would stop being a Jewish state. Saying it is one now is just saying it is temporarily one, because you never know when someone will meet those requirements.

The only way to subvert that is to write the requirements as to be undemocratic. For example: only Jews get to vote on it. Or worse: If you disagree, you don't get to vote; IE that by disagreeing, you are opposed to Israel as a Jewish State, and thus, disqualified for being allowed to vote on if it is one or not. This is not Democracy.

Democracy can not have any attachments or qualifiers on it.

[jbg]

You seem to have forgotten about Jordan.

Are you saying Jordan is more democratic than Israel?

[Bonam]

Lets say Israel decides to go for a one state solution, with Israel as a Jewish State. Clearly, somewhere in the constitution, it'd need to refer to Israel as a Jewish State. Any truly Democratic constitution needs an amendment procedure. So what happens if/when someone is able to meet those requirements? Israel would stop being a Jewish state. Saying it is one now is just saying it is temporarily one, because you never know when someone will meet those requirements.

The only way to subvert that is to write the requirements as to be undemocratic. For example: only Jews get to vote on it. Or worse: If you disagree, you don't get to vote; IE that by disagreeing, you are opposed to Israel as a Jewish State, and thus, disqualified for being allowed to vote on if it is one or not. This is not Democracy.

Democracy can not have any attachments or qualifiers on it.

Of course democracy can have attachments to it. It is not just the will of the majority. If the majority of Canadians voted that they wanted to exterminate the first nations people (just as a random example), would that be in accordance with the principles of a civilized democracy? No, the will of the majority purposefully has its limits, so that the principles of a state and its society can be safeguarded. The whole point of Israel's existence is to be a safe harbor and homeland for the world's Jews. If it is made an Arab-majority state, then that purpose would no longer be fulfilled, and so the clause of being a Jewish state is as integral to Israel being Israel as not committing genocide is integral to Canada being Canada.

[TheNewTeddy]

Just because 50%+1 can't do something does not disqualify it from being a democracy.

If 50%+1 of Canadians in all 10 provinces voted to exterminate the first nations (what kind of situation would ever bring this about is beyond me) then we could do so.

[Bonam]

Just because 50%+1 can't do something does not disqualify it from being a democracy.

If 50%+1 of Canadians in all 10 provinces voted to exterminate the first nations (what kind of situation would ever bring this about is beyond me) then we could do so.

We could, but then we'd be a genocidal tyranny, not a freedom loving Western country that upholds fundamental human rights. I'd much rather take a country where the democratic will of the majority is limited and bounded to not violate certain fundamental principles. The point being that democracy need not be (and in most nations is not) absolute, there are many impediments to a democratic majority deciding to do something that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the state and its society. In Israel, those principles happen to include being a safe harbor and a homeland for Jews. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Bonam

[bud]

In Israel, those principles happen to include being a safe harbor and a homeland for Jews. And there is nothing wrong with that.

there is something wrong when it is trumping equality for all, which is the cornerstone of what a democracy is supposed to be.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying Jordan is more democratic than Israel?

Oh... More democratic? Probably not. About the same.

[g_bambino]

there is something wrong when it is trumping equality for all, which is the cornerstone of what a democracy is supposed to be.

Well, no; it's the principle that each person governed has an equal say in how they're governed. But, even then, what we consider democracies don't adhere to that in totality, since there is almost universally a limitation on who can and can't vote.