Decline of democratic norms among Israelis

[Scurrilous]

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2004-daily/16-02-2004/world/w5.htm

<snip>

"Anyone who follows the news has no doubt come across the claim that "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East." Usually, this claim is followed by its logical inference: "As an Island of freedom located in a region controlled by (alleged) military dictators, feudal kings and religious leaders, Israel should receive unreserved support from Western liberal states interested in strengthening democratic values around the globe."

Over the years, some of the fallacies informing this line of argument have been exposed. Whereas many commentators have emphasised that foreign policy is determined by selfish interests rather than by moral dictates, few analysts have challenged the prevailing view that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

In order to examine this issue, one must first determine Israel’s international borders. Insofar as Israel’s borders extend from the Jordan Valley to the Mediterranean Sea — the de-facto situation for over 36 years — then the state of Israel currently consists of a population of over 9 million people, 3.5 million of whom cannot vote.

De-facto, then, Israel is not a democracy. One-third of the demos do not enjoy a series of basic rights, which make up the pillars of liberal democracies. The state of Israel has existed for 55 years and has controlled the Palestinian population in the occupied territories without giving them political rights for two-thirds of this period. Accordingly, the notion that the occupation is provisional or temporary should, by now, be considered an illusion concealing the reality on the ground."

[Violet_Crumble]

1. Link to the IDI findings...

http://www.idi.org.il/english/news.php?nid=29773543ee323b0d72ccc5763e07d294

I agree with Neve Gordon's conclusion that for those who believe that Israel's border is the Jordan River, Israel isn't a democracy, and that if Israel's border is the Green Line, then there's some cause for concern about Israelis views of democracy and how stable the democracy is...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. They make up their own rules to redefine the debate

How despicable. Even the Palestinians don't wish to be counted as Israelis, though this piece does just that.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Who's 'they'?

The only folk who made up some rules in this article was the IDI, who appear to be very well placed to define what democracy is and what questions to ask when finding out what views on democracy are. The article wasn't about whether or not the Palestinian people wish to be counted as Israelis, as it's very clear that their views wouldn't make an iota of difference to the situation....

Violet...

on edit: fixed a bit of shonky grammar....

[Djinn]

5. not "they're" not

this article makes a pretty simple statement.

If Israel's borders stop at Jordan then millions of people living within those borders can not vote of policies that effect their lives.

If Israel's borders end at the OT then stop the occupation

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Not everyone can even be represented in the U.S.

Again, people are seeking to apply a specific set of rules just for Israel. Who votes in the many Arab dictatorships? Nobody.

Israel remains a democracy that is the lone state in possession of disputed territory. If they declared that territory to be Israel tomorrow, there would be instant war across the Mideast and that is what you want?

No, one day, when the Palestinians decide to stop terror, they will have their own state and THEN they can vote.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. The problem is democracy, Muddle

True, the Palestinians don't wish to be counted as Israelis. Nor do they want their land to be counted as Israeli. At least that's consistant.

The Israeli right, however, doesn't want to count Palestinians as Israelis, either. The land on which they live is another matter.

The problem is that in a democratic society, one cannot go without the other. Either all born in and living in the state have equal rights or the state is not a democracy.

The IDI study is correct to conclude that if we are speaking of Greater Israel, then there is no democracy. That is, unless one consideres apartheid South Africa a democracy. I don't.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Not even vaguely the case

Here we are right in America and not everybody has the same voting rights now and those voting rights have changed a lot over the last few years.

Are the people of Guam, Puerto Rico, DC, American Somoa, etc. properly represented in Congress? Nope. Is the U.S. a democracy? Yep.

The land remains disputed, which means voting rights are equally disputed. If the land WERE part of Israel, then I would agree. Whatever lands eventually become part of Israel will also include Israeli citizenship for those who want it. But the border remains unsettled.

So that means, none of the people in the disputed territories WAS born in Israel or lives in it now until the situation is settled.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Not even vaguely the case is right

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza does not even vaguely resemble the US federal system to which you are trying to compare it.

Under the US federal system, voting rights are defined at the state level with certain constitutional guidelines. Once the state is admitted to the Union, the state obtains congressional representation. Meanwhile, residents of the state have equal rights with each other. Thus, if I become a resident of Puerto Rico or Guam, I don't get any more or any fewer rights than other Puerto Ricans or Guamanians. They don't have representation in Congress; as a resident of the those places, neither would I. However, as a resident of Puerto Rico, I could vote in local and commonwealth-wide elections, just like other residents. That is not the case with Palestinians living on the West Bank. And, of course, if I go to buy a house in Puerto Rico, my money is just as good anybody else's. There are no "Californians only" settlements accessed by roads on which Puerto Ricans cannot drive. We owe that to the rule of law, specifically equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article Four in the body of the Constitution.

The West Bank and Gaza are not now nor have ever been part of the modern state of Israel. The only "dispute" about the occupied territories is in the minds of the Israeli right wing. Israel has no valid claim to one acre of it. Mr. Begin's misstatement about the West Bank and Gaza being an "integral part of Israel" made them no such thing. Under UN Resolution 242, borders may be adjusted through negotiations. Meanwhile, the Green Line is the starting point for negotiations. Otherwise, the Israelis may occupy the land until there is a peace agreement with somebody who credibly represents the Palestinian people. It is a hostile occupation; accordingly, under Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is prohibited from transferring parts of her own population to the occupied territory.

Would you please restate your last sentence? The way it is written, it almost suggests that Israel doesn't exist. I know that's not what you mean. Otherwise, I think Israel exists and that Haifa and Tel Aviv are in Israel. Anyone born in Haifa and Tel Aviv, whether Arab or Jew, is born in Israel. On the other hand, anyone born in Nablus or Hebron, whether Arab or Jew, is born in the Occupied West Bank.

Democracy is about citizenship. In a democratic state, citizenship is universal and equal. Anything else is not democratic. Consequently, unless one can say honestly that the Palestinian child born in Hebron has the same rights as a Jewish child born in the Israeli settlement nearby, then one cannot claim that West Bank is part of a democratic state.

Under present circumstances, a Palestinian child born in Hebron and a Jewish child born in the nearby settlement do not enjoy equal rights under the law. Were the West Bank a part of Israel under such conditions, the assertion that Israel is a democracy would be absurd.

[LeahMira]

39. Will Palestine be a democracy?

The problem is that in a democratic society, one cannot go without the other. Either all born in and living in the state have equal rights or the state is not a democracy.

In this country we have people who do not choose to apply for citizenship. I don't have a problem with their decision, but I do think that if they are unwilling to make a commitment to this country they shouldn't vote in our elections.

There are thousands of Israeli Arabs living within the pre-1967 borders that have made a commitment to the state of Israel. They have full rights of citizenship and representation in the Knesset.

Are there Arabs outside of the pre-1967 borders that wish to make a commitment to the state of Israel? If there are any, they are not identifying themselves.

Israel does not want the West Bank or Gaza at this point. Its pre-1967 borders are enough. The question is whether the pre-1967 borders of the Palestinian state are enough for the Palestinians. So far, the Palestinian leaders have not said that. Quite the opposite.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Response

In this country we have people who do not choose to apply for citizenship.

In order to be an American citizen, I had to do nothing more than to be born here. I don't even have to carry papers. If Israel considers the West Bank and Gaza to be part of a Greater Israel, as some Isrealis do and as the late Prime Minister Begin did, why aren't all those born there considered Israeli citizens with equal rights?

There are thousands of Israeli Arabs living within the pre-1967 borders that have made a commitment to the state of Israel. They have full rights of citizenship and representation in the Knesset.

Well and good, but this discussion is about the Palestinian Arabs living outside Israel's pre-1967 borders. It is their basic rights that are denied.

Are there Arabs outside of the pre-1967 borders that wish to make a commitment to the state of Israel? If there are any, they are not identifying themselves.

There are very few, one would think. Since the West Bank and Gaza are 92% Palestinian Arab, it would seem that any Israeli claims on the "disputed" territories are tenuous. In fact, it is absurd to call the territories disputed. They're Palestinian.

Israel does not want the West Bank or Gaza at this point. Its pre-1967 borders are enough.

Tell that to Benny Elon or even some Likudniks. There are still some powerful figures in Israel who want it all. They are trying to make Sharon's life miserable for even starting to sound reasonable.

And, if Israel's pre-1967 borders are enough, then why are the settlements not being evacuated and why is the wall being built inside Palestinian territory?

The question is whether the pre-1967 borders of the Palestinian state are enough for the Palestinians. So far, the Palestinian leaders have not said that. Quite the opposite.

That is a question of immediate concern, just as whether Israeli leaders are really willing to give up the concept of Greater Israel is a matter of concern. Although there is currently only one state, there are two nations west of the Jordan, divided more or less geographically by the West Bank at the Green Line and the Gaza Strip. It should not be too difficult to negotiate borders between two states using the Green Line as a starting point.

One thing the Geneva process proved, renegade though it was, is that there are Israelis and Palestinians willing to negotiate peace on that basis. We should hope that the people of both nations will bring the reasonable men to power.

[sushi]

37. Say what you want, Muddle

this piece says it is the reality on the ground. You can't deny that!

[mobuto]

4. Two thirds of those in land controlled by Israel can vote

Well, that's two-thirds more than can vote in any Arab country.

[Djinn]

6. so a third of all people

are disenfranchised then, that's not a democracy - it is certainly better than in Saudi or Syria or many other places, but then again I've never heard Saudi claiming to be a democratic state

[Forkboy]

7. Does that make it ok?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. That still flunks the democracy test

In a democracy, citizenship is universal and equal. If Israel means Greater Israel and rights are aportioned by nationality, it is not a democracy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. I guess you never lived in D.C.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Again, you attempt to compare the occupation to US federalism is absurd

At least one resident of the District of Columbia has the same rights as every other resident of DC, even if neither has represtaion in Congress as I have as a resident of California. Within DC, citizenship is universal.

A Palestinian child born in the West Bank does not have the same rights as an Israeli child born in a settlement. That is undemocratic. The only thing that will make it otherwise is the granting of equal rights.

[Djinn]

15. eloquently and succintly put Jack Rabbit

A Palestinian child born in the West Bank does not have the same rights as an Israeli child born in a settlement

yet they may only live metres apart

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. But they don't have the same rights as you and I

So the comparison is valid.

We both know that the Palestinians are in a transitional situation -- made longer and worse by their own actions in support of terror (funding, embracing, sending their young ones to die, etc.) When that transition time is over, THEN they will have the right to vote in their own state.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. There have been attempts at peace

Arafat rejected the last one without even a counteroffer.

[Les Claypool]

22. Israel has rejected numerous overtures to peace as well.

What does Arafat's rejection have to do with a "transition" period anyway?

You still haven't answered my question. Do you advocate for greater Israel or not?

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. What question?

I don't see any question.

Define Greater Israel.

[Les Claypool]

30. Obviously you knew what question.

You wouldn't be asking me to define "Greater Israel."

Something also tells me that you know the definition.

So tell me, do you advocate for Greater Israel or not?

Simple question, really.

YES___ NO___

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Actually, no, I hadn't seen your question

The way it fell in the posts, it was far removed from mine, hence my response.

Again, I won't answer without you defining the term.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. If you want to make that comparison . . .

. . . then you would be better off arguing that the US is not a democracy because the people of the District of Columbia do not have representation in Congress. Instead, you are arguing that Israel is a democracy in spite of the fact Palestinians do not enjoy the same legal rights as citizens as Israelis born in the occupied territories and, since Americans in DC do not have the same rights as those in California (fact) and America is a democracy (at least according to what you recited by rote in school) then equal rights obviously has nothing to do with democracy.

Everybody denies rights to some citizens, therefore it's okay to do it and still have the right to be called democratic. That's another tu quoque, Muddle. It's just a fallacious as the others.

Israel does not govern the occupied territories as a democratic state. Israelis born in settlements have rights that Palestinians born beyond the boundaries of the settlements do not. No matter how you twist and turn, that is not democracy. Democracy is a state where citizenship is universal, each citizen has an equal right and opportunity to participate and influence civic affairs and no citizen may be punished for expressing a point of view, no matter how unpopular. Within the Palestinian Territories, Israel fails this standard.

Within Israel proper, democratic institutions are strong. While Israeli Arabs face discrimination, this can be remedied without resorting to a radical upheaval. In the occupied territories, this is another matter.

I would conclude by asserting that democratic rights are endowed by nature. The equality of man is a natural state. Talk of a "transitional" state is condescending nonsense. If the system of government imposed on the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying authorities is unjust and contrary to their democratic rights, then they have, as our Declaration of Independence puts it, the right to alter or abolish it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. So only a perfect democracy counts?

Then I doubt ANY nation is truly a democracy in your book, Jack. As a former editor, I can find flaws in just about any organization or institution. Does that invalidate them all?

Palestinians, much like Germans, Indonesians or Mexicans ARE NOT Israeli citizens. That lack of citizenship also includes the lack of the ability to vote.

Israelis born ANYWHERE have rights the Palestinians don't. The same goes for Americans and a host of other nations. Being in the territories does NOT invalidate those rights for Israelis.

The system of government imposed on the Palestinians is one open to negotiation. The last offer they had, they rejected out of hand.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. No perfect democracy exists, ever has or ever will

However, when people born within the boundaries of the state are denied the rights of citizenship on the basis of nationality, it isn't democracy, not even considering what other imperfections may exist.

No, Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. It is my understanding that is because they don't live in Israel and weren't born in Israel. Neither do Israeli settlers, yet they are afforded rights in the territories themselves that Palestinians do not have.

Meanwhile, we have Israelis, including a past Prime Minister, asserting that the territories are an integral part of Israel. If that is so, then why don't the Palestinians have equal rights as citizens? They were born there, after all.

The question is whether the territories are part of Israel. I say they are not. In that case, the territories are occupied and the settlements are illegal. Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from settling occupied territory for just this reason: the rights of the settlers are taking precedence over the rights of the natives. That's when military occupation becomes colonialism.

On the other hand, if you want to argue from the viewpoint of Mr. Begin and his political descendants that the West Bank and Gaza are an "integral part of Israel", then the question of citizenship for the Palestinian arises quite legitimately. In that case, the Palestinians about whom we are speaking live in Israel and were born there. If Israel is democratic, then these people are citizens. If they have equal rights, then fine and well: Greater Israel is a democracy. Since they are denied equal rights and citizenship, it is not. In fact, calling such a state an apartheid state becomes justifiable. Finally, if the majority (92%) of the people in the West Bank and Gaza don't want to be Israeli citizens but desire their own state, then we must conclude that Greater Israel is an idea that simply cannot work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. You said it yourself and thanks

"People born within the boundaries of the state." The disputed territories are NOT within the boundaries of the state and that says it all.

Sure, a few Israelis wish the concept of Greater Israel. It is not law, it is simple desire and has no legal force.

I say and continue to say that the territories remain disputed territories until such time as the Palestinians and Israelis can come to an agreement. Even the recent Geneva plan included yet more exchange of territory, so the territory issue remains fluid.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. There is no real dispute

Again, the "dispute" is in the minds of the Israeli right wing and has, as you say, no legal force. Nevertheless, that leaves the situation where Israeli settlers are afforded more rights living in occupied territory beyond Israel's borders than the native inhabitants of that land. Again, that is why international law makes such settlements illegal.

As for the Geneva Accord, as you know, I heartily approve of it. One of the reasons it merits support is that it provides for an exchange of territory in which most of the largest settlements are uncorporated into Israel. While I believe the construction of the settlements was wrong, they are a reality and this is perhaps the best and easiest way to deal with them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Of course there is a dispute

No state other than Israel has any involvement in that area, so Israel remains responsible for it. The FINAl boundaries will NOT be the Green Line, but will probably use them as a point of departure.

Again, you cite international law, which is sort of like citing the TV schedule, except the latter is much more reliable.

Yes, I think there is potential in the Accord, but I have some disagreements with it. The corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, for instance.

[Les Claypool]

18. Let's be clear Muddle. Are you advocating Greater Israel?

If not, then why so defensive?

Seems like you are arguing a losing point.

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Care to define that?

[Les Claypool]

31. I believe you know what I mean.

However, I'm asking if you advocate for the land that is now the West Bank and Gaza being part of Greater Israel.

Yes___ No___

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Some

Not all. I personally consider Jerusalem to be the indivisible capital of Israel (as does the U.S. Senate). Other than that, it is open to negotiation.

[Les Claypool]

34. It's not open to negotiation.

It's occupied territory. It is illegal under international law. Nothing really to negotiate really.

:shrug:

As for Jerusalem, most of the sane world doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. It's Israel, it's not open to negotiation

International law is less of a concrete concept and more of a desire. In the meantime, Jerusalem used to be and is again the capital of Israel.

[Les Claypool]

36. Ummm...only to Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. In ANY Arab country?

Really? So no-one can vote in Jordan?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2995718.stm

Of course even if the claim was correct, why should what another state does in any way mitigate what Israel does?


Violet...

[sushi]

38. The subject is Israel

Israel claims to be a democracy, so don't compare it to undemocratic Arab states.