Can a Jewish State be Democratic?

[TheNewTeddy]

And you would be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset

About a dozen of the people in the picture ... well a dozen if everyone had shown up for work, are members of Shas. Shas MP candidates are chosen by Rabbis and not voters.

[jbg]

About a dozen of the people in the picture ... well a dozen if everyone had shown up for work, are members of Shas. Shas MP candidates are chosen by Rabbis and not voters.

Shas is at most a coalition member.

[bud]

israel is democratic for jews but undemocratic for the arabs

Edited January 22, 2013 by bud

[Guest American Woman]

israel is democratic for jews but undemocratic for the arabs in israel.

Why? What rights are Arab Israelis denied?

[bud]

Why? What rights are Arab Israelis denied?

already mentioned one;

the ability to sponsor a spouse to immigrate to israel. why? because they're not jewish.

[bud]

how about what the u.s. government has concluded about israel:

Section 6 Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, marital status, political beliefs, disability, or age, and the government effectively enforced these prohibitions.

[TheNewTeddy]

I've decided to take the current Israeli election results and apply to it - as an addition of seats - the most recent Palestinian election. The results are as follows:

31 - Likud

19 - Lapid

16 - Hamas

15 - Fatah

15 - Labour

11 - Shas

11 - Jewish

7 - Torrah

6 - Liberal

6 - Meretz

5 - Islamist

4 - Communist

3 - Arabic

2 - Kadima

The 5 arab parties would have a total of 43 seats in this 151 seat assembly.

Edited January 23, 2013 by TheNewTeddy

[jbg]

how about what the u.s. government has concluded about israel:

Section 6 Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, marital status, political beliefs, disability, or age, and the government effectively enforced these prohibitions.

Do you read your own posts? The report says that the prohibitions on such discrimination are enforced.

I've decided to take the current Israeli election results and apply to it - as an addition of seats - the most recent Palestinian election. The results are as follows:

31 - Likud

19 - Lapid

16 - Hamas

15 - Fatah

15 - Labour

11 - Shas

11 - Jewish

7 - Torrah

6 - Liberal

6 - Meretz

5 - Islamist

4 - Communist

3 - Arabic

2 - Kadima

The 5 arab parties would have a total of 43 seats in this 151 seat assembly.

Where else in the Mideast would effectively enemy parties obtain such representation?

[Michael Hardner]

Is "Jewish" the "Jewish Home" party ? I read a lot of big predictions for them and they seemed to fall short.

[bud]

Do you read your own posts? The report says that the prohibitions on such discrimination are enforced.

Where else in the Mideast would effectively enemy parties obtain such representation?

wrong post. the following is what I meant to post. i hope you're as quick to respond to this:

The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices notes that:

• "Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth."
  
• "In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."
  
• "Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."
  
• "Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military. Those who did not serve in the army had less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and employment, especially government or security-related industrial employment. The Ivri Committee on National Service has issued official recommendations to the Government that Israel Arabs not be compelled to perform national or "civic" service, but be afforded an opportunity to perform such service".
  
• "According to a 2003 University of Haifa study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
  
• "The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report [...] stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
  

Edited January 24, 2013 by bud

[bud]

Where else in the Mideast would effectively enemy parties obtain such representation?

you should re-read what he's written. those arab parties are from the occupied territories and not from israel.

[jbg]

wrong post. the following is what I meant to post. i hope you're as quick to respond to this:

The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices notes that:

• "Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth."
  
• "In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."
  
• "Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."
  
• "Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military. Those who did not serve in the army had less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and employment, especially government or security-related industrial employment. The Ivri Committee on National Service has issued official recommendations to the Government that Israel Arabs not be compelled to perform national or "civic" service, but be afforded an opportunity to perform such service".
  
• "According to a 2003 University of Haifa study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
  
• "The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report [...] stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
  

At least no one in Israel got their head cut off for challenging alleged government policy. What you are posting is democracy in action; people disagreeing with their government's policy.

Was that fast enough?

[jbg]

you should re-read what he's written. those arab parties are from the occupied territories and not from israel.

Yet they voted in the Knesset elections. Pretty gentle "occupation."

[TheNewTeddy]

Yet they voted in the Knesset elections. Pretty gentle "occupation."

Hamas and Fatah did not win any seats in the Knesset.

[bud]

At least no one in Israel got their head cut off for challenging alleged government policy. What you are posting is democracy in action; people disagreeing with their government's policy.

Was that fast enough?

"at least" has become a familiar response by you and many others who will go to any length to justify or brush aside israel's actions.

you know what the rapist said to the judge? "at least i didn't kill her".

we're talking about israel's undemocratic behaviour, especially when it comes to its arab citizens. you can either accept that it happens or try to brush it aside and try to take attention away from it by starting sentences with "at least..".

[Canuckistani]

Israel’s Fading Democracy

Israel arose as a secular, social democratic country inspired by Western European democracies. With time, however, its core values have become entirely different. Israel today is a religious, capitalist state. Its religiosity is defined by the most extreme Orthodox interpretations. Its capitalism has erased much of the social solidarity of the past, with the exception of a few remaining vestiges of a welfare state. Israel defines itself as a “Jewish and democratic state.” However, because Israel has never created a system of checks and balances between these two sources of authority, they are closer than ever to a terrible clash.

In the early years of statehood, the meaning of the term “Jewish” was national and secular. In the eyes of Israel’s founding fathers, to be a Jew was exactly like being an Italian, Frenchman or American. Over the years, this elusive concept has changed; today, the meaning of “Jewish” in Israel is mainly ethnic and religious. With the elevation of religious solidarity over and above democratic authority, Israel has become more fundamentalist and less modern, more separatist and less open to the outside world. I see the transformation in my own family. My father, one of the founders of the state of Israel and of the National Religious Party, was an enlightened rabbi and philosopher. Many of the younger generation are far less open, however; some are ultra-Orthodox or ultranationalist settlers....

BUT something went wrong in the operating system of Jewish democracy. We never gave much thought to the Palestinian Israeli citizens within the Jewish-democratic equation. We also never tried to separate the synagogue and the state. If anything, we did the opposite. Moreover, we never predicted the evil effects of brutally controlling another people against their will. Today, all the things that we neglected have returned and are chasing us like evil spirits....

If this trend continues, all vestiges of democracy will one day disappear, and Israel will become just another Middle Eastern theocracy. It will not be possible to define Israel as a democracy when a Jewish minority rules over a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — controlling millions of people without political rights or basic legal standing.

This Israel would be much more Jewish in the narrowest sense of the word, but such a nondemocratic Israel, hostile to its neighbors and isolated from the free world, wouldn’t be able to survive for long.

http://www.mapleleaf...89

Edited January 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[jbg]

http://www.mapleleaf...89

Your link led back to the top of the post. Who actually wrote that? Cite?

[Canuckistani]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/israels-fading-democracy.html?pagewanted=all

[DogOnPorch]

Avraham Burg. An interesting fellow. But, not what one would say is "at one" with the Israeli government. He certainly has a dog in the fight.

[Hudson Jones]

Avraham Burg. An interesting fellow. But, not what one would say is "at one" with the Israeli government. He certainly has a dog in the fight.

You have a dog in the fight?

Why are you trying to question his credibility because he is not "at one" with the Israeli government? To me, this type of debate is flawed.

[DogOnPorch]

I never said his "credibility" was suspect. But, he's not the fellow to ask if you want a neutral opinion of the situation. He doesn't want Israel as a Jewish state and seeks to "reform" the government. Yeah...thanks for your opinion, Mr Burg.

You have a dog in the fight?

I'm not a member of a larger group seeking to influence the situation like yourself, bud, naiomi, et-al are trying to do. Just li'l ol' me. All by my lonesome.

[Rue]

Thing is, especially if Israel annexes the West Bank and at some point non-Jews become the majority and vote to not have Israel a Jewish state, there's nothing the Jewish minority could do about it. If the non-Jewish majority decided to not give preference to Jewish immigrants, same deal. Hence, a Jewish state is not a democratic state. Or, alternatively, what does it mean to call Israel a Jewish state if the majority don't want it to be? In fact what does it mean now, if there are no preferences for Jews? Can't be done, can't be a full democracy and pick out one ethnicity or religion for special status.

I disagree with most everything you say but agree on this point and it is precisely why Israel will not and can not annex the West Bank as it has stated on public record pretty much what you did.

The paradox is that in a democratic state, if the majority of the population became Muslim those Muslims could or should be expected to want to dismantle the Jewishness of the state and turn it into another Muslim Sharia law state. That is precisely the agenda of Hamas and Mr. Abbas is on public record stating he won't recognize Israel ever as a Jewish state and will only recognize it as a state once the majority of its population is changed to Palestinians by allowing the return of up to 10 million Palestinians.

With the exception of Israel no democracy exists in the Middle East precisely because of the lack of seperation of religion (Islam) from state. Israel is the only nation who has a Supreme Court let alone a Supreme Court at non arm's length from its government. That rule of law is an essential component of what makes it a democracy.

For that matter the very pith and substance of Zionism recognizes the right of non Jews to have equal rights in a Jewish state unlike in reverse where Sharia law nations define Jews as inferiors who can be segregated in apartheid second class existences.

A Jew in a Sharia law nation is an inferior whose legal rights are necessarily defined as inferior because the Jew as a follower of Judaism necessarily is deemed an inferior.

In Israel the law does not impose Jewish religion on Muslims or Christians because both Judaism the religion and Zionism the political doctrine on which it is based prohibit such a thing and this is why Muslims and Christians have their own family and religious courts and the Supreme Court of Israel has upheld their property and other and they can elect representatives demanding the state of Israel be disbanded as a Jewish state.

Let's be clear. History has shown when Muslims become the majority in a state,they demand the state be a Sharia law state and they don't sit around worrying about non Muslims let alone Muslims of the perceived wrong sect. That track record does not suggest that if they became a majority in Israel they would allow the Jewishness of the state to continue. In fact Mr. Abbas denied the holocaust happened, Hamas calls for removing all Jews from Israel and the current leader of Egypt referred to Jews as vermins in need of extermination so let's not pretend there can be a democratic bi-national state as some suggest. Bullshit on that. Look at Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran then give it a rest suggesting democracy would prevail with this kind of track record.

Islamic states are by far failures as models of tolerance and co-existence. Provide me one Muslim nation that is democratic.

Israel on the other hand precisely because it is Zionist and therefore democratic because that is what Zionism requires, can not ignore itself being voted out of existence. It did not contemplate Jews as a minority in Israel. Zionism was predicated on a majority population always being Jewish and so that is why it could afford to be tolerant to non Jews and give them all the rights Jews have never had in Christian and Muslim states.

The practical reality is if Israel lost its Jewish majority it would cease being a Jewish state and it knows it and does not hide that fact and has said so repeatedly in the open and on public record.

Zionism is predicated on a Jewish identity which is part to do with religious views, but mostly a collective identity consisting of not just

religion but culture, ethnicity and the shared experience of having been persecuted and needing a state to protect this colective from

extinction.

Let's be real. If there were no Anglicans left in Britain, say hypothetically they all left-how would it retain its Anglican state characteristics? Why would it retain them and remain the Church of England if the majority of its remaining citizens were Muslims?

In fact all of Europe today fears assimilation by Muslims precisely because their fundamentalist democratic views preach tolerance of Islam in a manner that allows them to express themselves and be given equal rights. Once a majority who really thinks Muslims won't demand Sharia law imposed on the state? They already do.

Does anyone think without Anglicans in England there would be a church of England inter-linked to its government institutions? Of course not. Democracy is not really the issue-retainining a majoirity of collective identity is.

The real issue is not democracy but demography. Demography of course dictates governments and politics of the day. How could it not? Thousands of years of tribal wars by we humans have more than proven that point.

The cold hard reality is this-the majority view dictates the politics of the day. If you allow the majority of your people to believe in intolerant religious fundamentalist views there can be no democracy. Democracy requires the majority believe government should be neutral to religion. Democarcies require charter of rights and consitutions protecting as much individual as they do collective rights to be able to succeed. Its the balancing of the two that enables democracy. Either one without will not support democracy but would support totalitarianism.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Rue

[Canuckistani]

As the Jewish writer I linked to said, Israel seems poised to follow the Muslim states into theocracy. Different religion, same shyte.

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. Time to make some bold moves on the part of Israel. I say get back behind '67 borders, but can understand the reluctance to do so. That new centrist guy who just won a surprising number of seats wants to retain some of the largest settlements and not give up East Jerusalem, but otherwise let the Palestinians have a state. At least make some moves in that direction, stop all new settlements and close the less tenable ones. Basically declare the borders that this guy wants to be the border between Israel and the new state of Palestine. I might not like it too much, but I could live with it. I think there are a lot of people out there who share my opinion on this, including many Jews.

[DogOnPorch]

Until the Palestinian Arabs abide by their precious UN242, I doubt Israel will do anything but say 'meh' re: settlements in the WB.

[Hudson Jones]

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:

Edited January 25, 2013 by Hudson Jones