Israel was founded as a democracy and it is still a democracy, even though there are some that say Israel is not democractic enough to provide equal rights for Palestinians. Israel does provide equal right for Arabs who are Israelis. It does not provide citizen rights to non-citizens, but it does accord autonomy to Palestinians. Their structure is hardly democratic and Israel deals with them at arms length. Israel values enduring concepts of human worth, freedom, democracy, the rights of minorities, the right to be different. Zionism was democratic in all its institutions which were inherited by the new state. Democracy in Israel formed an integral part of the life of the new society before it even attained independent statehood. The Israel system of government conforms to the British continental model of parliamentary democracy. In spite of all the pronouncements to the contrary by propaganda from Arab purveyers of disinformation and their immature and spiteful left-wing followers, Israel is a dynamic and vital democracy.

"In so far as procedure is concerned, Israel is clearly a democracy, one which began as far back as 1897 with the first Zionist Congress. The nucleus of its population consists of the same 650,000 Jews who settled in Israel in the pre-independence period and who have gone through the school of democracy in the Zionist Movement and in the Jewish National Council in Palestine. There is no other training for democracy but democracy; there is no other school of self-government but self-government..."

Moshe Davis, "Israel:  
Its Role in Civilization" Harper, 1956

" Israel is, too, a democracy in the substantive sense of the word, and there are two factors which have contributed to this. The first is the British legal tradition, with its basic principle that if one has a grievance against the government, he may go to the high court of justice which administers the prerogative writs, outstanding among them the writs of habeas corpus, prohibition, and mandamus. These procedures have been inherited from the British Mandatory government; they are written in no book. There is even no special law which explicitly states that Israel has undertaken to respect this British legal tradition."

(ibid)

"The second factor assuring the protection of human rights is the Supreme Court. It is to the honor of the public and government of Israel alike that they have unhesitatingly accepted the idea of the Supreme Court's maintaining a certain degree of control over governmental action. Israel's Supreme Court is, moreover, one which is independent of the administration. It is a court to which have been appointed the best jurists in the land, each of whose appointments has been confirmed by the Knesset. It is a court which has behind it, first, the authority of knowledge and learning; second, the confidence of the government; and third, the public's confidence, expressed by the vote of the Knesset."

(ibid)

Israeli Settlements

Israel's detractors insist that the settlements are "the greatest Israeli obstacle to peace," (from recent New York Times editorial) but even if the settlements were not there, they would be no peace. The political influence of the Muslim clerics, especially Wahhabism, who all want a return to a pure Islam incite violence against Israel. Jewish conspiracy theories and governments moving away from traditional Islam guarantee this ongoing contempt for Israel and the peace process.

Settlements are...

"as the Times noted in the same editorial, are the size of large towns, and some are approaching small cities. Ma'aleh Adumim, in the Judean desert east of Jerusalem, has a population of 28,000; Ariel, in the foothills east of Tel Aviv, 18,000; Betar Illit, an ultra-Orthodox community south of Jerusalem, has passed 15,000. Standing in the center of such places, one has a view not of hostile Palestinians but of Jewish houses, streets, parks, shops and businesses as far as the eye can see.

(Hillel Halkin, - "Why the Settlements Should Stay: Making the West Bank
Judenrein is no way to bring peace" (May 29, 2002)

Some claim the settlements are illegal, but there is no clear legal precedence that would establish that they are illegal and while many of Israel's opponents speak of them as if their illegality was some universal accepted truth, that allegation is far from clear nor is it a credible truth. No international law has been abrogated.

"The case for the illegality of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank rests largely on a single source: article 49(6) in the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. This article states that an occupying military power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Yet, as several international jurists have pointed out, not only has Israel "deported" or "transferred" no one to the settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own free will, it is by no means clear that Israel was ever, legally, in the position of being an occupying power."

(Halkin)

"This is because, in 1967, Israel had as good a claim as anyone to the West Bank, which in effect belonged to no government. The Jordanian annexation of the area, while acquiesced in by the same Palestinian leadership that had rejected the 1947 U.N. partition resolution, was unrecognized by most of the world, and Jordan itself had refused to make peace with Israel or to consider their joint border more than a temporary cease-fire line. A reasonable case could thus be made that, as the sole sovereign state to have emerged from British-mandated Palestine, Israel had not only the right but the duty to act as the West Bank's civil administrator pending determination of the area's status."

 (Halkin)

"The conventional wisdom is also wrong in asserting--a frequently made claim--that continued settlement activity on the part of Israel is a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords. The plain fact of the matter is that nowhere in that agreement was there any reference to the settlements, apart from a single paragraph stating that--along with Jerusalem, refugees, and "other issues of common interest"--their fate was to be settled in final-status negotiations. This was hardly an oversight. The Palestinians wanted a settlement freeze and fought for one at Oslo; if they did not get it, this is only because in the end they accepted the Israeli refusal to agree to one. In repeatedly demanding one anyway over the ensuing years, it is they, not the Israelis, who have gone back on the document they signed."

(Halkin)

At the Khartoom Conference in 1967 when ARABS stated emphatically their opposition to any reconciliation with Israel - to NO resolution of any peace accords with Irael. The THREE NOS were and still are:

NO to peace with Israel
No to recognition of Israel
No to negotiations with Israel

Neither has the PLO or the HAMAS Charter ever been changed which vows the destruction of the State of Israel... YET, Wolfowitz and George Bush (and Obama) also advocated for a hostile Palestinian state, the removal of the settlements and pressure on Israel to restrain it's response to terrorism. NONE of these conditions would be acceptable if it applied to America. America invades other sovereign nations, it ignores international accords when it suits us and America settled a territory belonging to Mexico and 1/3rd of it's size which was annexed by the United States.

ISRAEL, THE COLLECTIVE

The hallmark of contemporary democracy is individual rights. That is today's bourgeoisie reality. Individualism takes precedence over the collective. Socialism emphasizes collective security and equality. It is incongrouous in capitalism to expect others to sacrifice for the necessary good of the whole but since the necessary functioning of society requires that some give more than others, other terminology is used. We call it patriotism. It is sometimes difficult to sustain if the sacrifice is too great - unless of course it is someone else doing the sacrificing.

Now that America feels under threat from terrorism, it demands some reduction in civil rights which must be deferred in favor of the collective security. And we're going through a period like that now with the Patriot Act and incarceration without due process in some cases; talk about torture as a legitimate means of interrogation, etc. Many are willing to give up some things to insure their safety - but mostly they are willing for someone else to give up those things.

When government of Israel impinges on someone's rights, most Israelis realize it is necessary but outsiders are especially critical of the way Israel metes out justice and rights on an earned basis to Palestinians or takes precautions for the Israeli collective to insure safety for Israelis. People are especially critical of Israel anyway; even some Israelis, like Uri Avnery (and some who call themselves "New Historians"), who often does more irreparable harm to Israel's safety than good and is the type of prattle repeated and loved by the left, but that is democracy - and Israel is a democracy.

"Personal sacrifice, determination, and commitment were necessary qualities for the survival of the Jewish settlers in Palestine at the beginning of the twentieth century. These imperatives resulted in a tendency to minimize the importance of human rights, which the settlers viewed as narrow-minded and petty in comparison with the task before them. Both the political Right and Left, together with the religious groups, combined to mold the political and ideological culture of the prestate period in accordance with the principle that the collective and its goals took precedence over the individual. Perhaps at the time, when the revolutionary historical process was at its height, this approach was unavoidable. However, it was to have far-reaching implications for contemporary Israeli society."

(Daphna Sharfman, "Living without a Constitution: Civil Rights in Israel"
M. E. Sharpe 1993)

"The ideology of the supremacy of the collective had various dimensions: the asceticism of the immigrants of the second and third aliyot (waves of immigration), the principles of Gdud Haavoda (literally, "the Work Battalion," a utopian socialist communal movement), the living arrangements of the kibbutz family, and the life-style of the urban laborers. There was also the Revisionist movement, whose founders came from the bourgeoisie. The personal sacrifice they called for reached its height in the words of the Stern group anthem: "only death will release us from the ranks."

(ibid)

"The religious and ultra-Orthodox elements also supported the idea of enhancing the collective at the expense of the individual, as it was part of their religious-cultural heritage. Belonging to a community and obeying its spiritual leaders were basic assumptions that opposed new tendencies toward individualism and equality, viewed as hostile and threatening to Jewish tradition."

(ibid)

"Politics should work from the top downward. Nevertheless, in the Jewish state no person will be enslaved, because every Jew will be able to rise, if he so wishes. Thus the spirit of great ambition will flourish in our people. Every individual will think of raising himself up, and the general level will be higher. This rise should be bound to moral ideas that are beneficial to the state and serve the idea of a nation."

Theodore Herzl
(From: Haaretz, September 16, 1991

"Modern nationalism also influenced the prestate political movements' attitudes toward the individual. The Labor movement emphasized the idea of "redeeming the land," while it split into various factions over the correct way to realize this end. The Poalei Zion movement preached Marxist socialism, while the Hapoel Hatzair advocated "service to the collective" without viewing itself as endorsing a socialist perspective."

 (ibid)

"On the personal dimension, the "pioneer image" affected the behavior of members of the Labor movement. The pioneer was a person who was ready to suffer privations for the sake of the present and future collective. The image of the pioneer encompassed both the individual and the group, and the goal was an elitist change in the individual under the influence of a new and better society in which he would make a significant contribution to the collective.

(ibid)

Israel is the collective and everyone is expected to contribute and sacrifice for the collective good. It required more idealism than seems to exist today. It has been essential for Israel's survival. And it is essential to think in these terms again to insure Israel's survival.

Collective Labor and Sacrifice

"In order to take advantage of the ideological resources at its disposal, the Labor movement in Palestine created a powerful apparatus for the encouragement of a workers' culture. Even at the dawn of its development, the movement insisted that "labor literature" serve an ideological function. Its promotion of the pioneer ethos and of the values of the Labor movement helped the latter to consolidate its position as the true repository of national symbols, thereby increasing its advantage in the political struggles that occurred within the Zionist movement."

 (ibid)

The Zionist Movement was successful exactly because Jewish pioneers understood that their nationalism and redemption of the land needed a collective spirit. It could not succeed without total dedication which only could come from sacrifice and their labor would be for the benefit of the collective which was Eretz Yisrael. The Arabs never had that same sense of nationalism. Their unity came from Islam and was organized around a single family and sometimes a tribe or clan.

Israel is a remarkable democracy. In spite of Arab hostility, Israel grants to Arabs greater civil and human rights than they can find in any Muslim country anywhere in the Middle East.

Israel is a remarkable democracy. The people who settled in Israel come from all over the globe and with them, they bring various aspects of different cultures and they have also influenced the development of the law in Israel. Israel's law was established during the Mandate period and predicated to a great extent on English Common Law, but in the years following the establishment of Israel the law evolved in not exactly the same ways as the English Law. A very wide range of social problems and political issues have fallen to the Supreme Court to adjudicate and determine what the law should be for Israelis and it has been left to the court to ensure principles of human dignity, freedom, and equality."

The Knesset (Israel's Parliament) enacts original laws. And the Supreme Court has actually been the main determinant of the prescribed rights. Matters of public concern can be placed before the court by anyone, Arabs or Jews; it doesn't matter.

".....it allows every person, without any personal interest, to bring to the Court matters of public concern pertaining to the rule of law; and it requires all public authorities to act fairly, avoiding a conflict of interest, personal or institutional, reasonably, and proportionally. For better or for worse, the Supreme Court has introduced, over the years, what has been described as a judge-made bill of rights and a system of high standards in public life."

(Itzhak Zamir, "Public Law in Israel" - Oxford University, 1996

"In 1992, the Knesset, in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly, enacted the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. These Basic Laws entrench some (though not all) fundamental rights, including the right to human dignity. Recently, the Supreme Court has held that it is empowered to review the legality of any new law, and invalidate a law which is inconsistent with these Basic Laws."

 (ibid)

Britain, which is the model for parliamentary government, does not have a written constitution at all and neither does Israel. Islamic countries in the Middle East are not democracies but they do have constitutions, however they have dreadful human and civil rights records. (Only Turkey is a democracy. Lebanon was a democracy, but now it is merely a satellite of the Syrians) Israel and Britain have a highest developed legal system which provides protection for human rights and forms of redress when rights are violated. Israel's Supreme Court and all of it's courts defends the rule of law and basic liberties in the finest British (and Israeli) tradition.

"...the new Jewish State inherited more that just the British tradition of democracy. Democracy, as a way of conducting public affairs, has been a typical feature of Jewish communities in many countries, especially in Europe, for generations. Many of these communities, striving to maintain a Jewish way of life, established networks of institutions, not only religious, but of a cultural and social nature as well. As they had no formal authority or coercive power over their members, they had to rely on popular consent and voluntary co-operation. Consequently, their social institutions and political movements were organized on democratic principles. The Zionist movement was one such movement, and the Zionist Congress was a democratic assembly as much as any house of representatives in a democracy. This form of democracy, with its various institutions, including the system of elections, was transferred by the Zionist pioneers to Palestine about 100 years ago. Even before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Jewish population in Palestine was well organized as a democratic society under a non-democratic government. The State of Israel was established on this foundation. It inherited from the Zionist movement not only the tradition of democracy but also some of its institutions, including the proportional system of national elections. This tradition was undoubtedly the most effective guarantee of democracy in Israel."

(ibid)

Israel is a parliamentary republic and the parliament, called the Knesset, are the elected representatives of the people. The Knesset is the legislative, constituent assembly. There are 120 members in the Knesset. The elections are based on proportional representation and each voter votes for a list (faction) of candidates. Every list which receives 1.5% of the vote is entitled to a share of the seats proportionate to its share of votes. Arabs and Jews are elected to the Knesset and everyone has a voice in Israel's democracy but as with every democracy not everyone wins all the time and the will of the people, or in this case the faction determines specific legislative decisions which can be overturned or changed by the Supreme Court. Religious parties can have a voice just like anyone else, but no one can dictate the law. The law is always determined by debate and compromise.

Israel is a FREE people. Israel's detractors can say all they want about Israel, but they cannot say the people are not free. There is a vocal minority in Israel which opposes Sharon policy and it says so daily. This vocal minority voices its protests daily and freely in the Israeli media and that voice of protest is more widely quoted by Israel's detractors than anyone else, in spite of the fact that those who quote the dissenters in Israel do so because there is this freedom in Israel, even if those protestations are wrong. That is what freedom implies, the right to speak even if its wrong and the anti-Zionists will quote them as if they represent the only voice in Israel. Out this population of 6 million in Israel, about 1.5 million are Arabs and they have the right to say what they want also and they do. They have full civil rights and they have representation in the Israeli Knesset.

It is biased against Israel. The large representation of Arab countries insures that it is. And those who do not want to piss off oil producing countries will vote with them. There is a majoritarian power of Islamic culture in the United Nations. There are 11 Arab League members, 55 Organization of Islamic Conference members and many pro-Arab delegations in the 113-member Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Israel has more than its share of detractors. Arnold Beichman, of the Hoover Institute, says the United Nations and Israel "has turned a regional conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority into a global clash of civilizations and religions."

"Israel is in an unenviable position, one faced by few, if any, of the 190 members nations of the United Nations. Germany lost two world wars, but its continued existence as Germany was never in question. Spain lost to the U.S. in 1898 but its existence as a country wasn't affected. France lost in Algeria and the U.S. in Vietnam, but there was no question of France's and our continued existence. But if armed minorities subjugate Israel, that's the end of Israel. Let there be no misunderstanding of what's at stake."

 Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow writing in The Washington
Times April 23, 2002

Israelis have the right to dissent, to free assembly and speech which makes Israel both unique among nations, but also exceptional in the Middle East. All Israelis, Arabs, Jews, Christians, and everyone else - all of its citizens have civil and political rights. Israel has regular and free elections. Israel has an independent judiciary. Israel has impressive and extraordinary freedom of speech and association and rights to criticize the government and everything else and Jews generally do.

Hank Roth

Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Nu/DeM.shtml

Today is Friday May 18, 2012