'Democratic' Racism: Parts 1 & 2

[Violet_Crumble]

An Israeli Knesset committee is currently formulating a constitution for Israel—the first such attempt in its 56 years. The task was abandoned early in the state’s history, after the country’s founding fathers feared that giving a precise definition to the state’s character would tear apart the fragile consensus between secular and religious Jews and that a Bill of Rights would enshrine in law rights it wanted to deny the Palestinians. Instead, the founding document of the state, the Declaration of Independence, made a promise: that Israel would “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race or sex”.


The Law, Justice and Constitution Committee is now holding regular sessions to establish a comprehensive set of Basic Laws which will comprise the constitution. The consensus among the Jewish committee members is that the preamble to the document will proclaim the state to be both “Jewish and democratic”. The assumption is that an overwhelming majority of Knesset members will back such a constitution if it is put to a general vote of the parliament. The sole Arab committee member, Azmi Bishara, is not participating in the deliberations because he believes that such a formulation is nonsensical: the state cannot be both Jewish and democratic at the same time. Instead he is demanding that Israel become a state of all its citizens.

So who is right? Let us consider Israel’s track record in fostering democracy. We will not test its record in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, where a military regime rules over a disenfranchised and occupied population of some 3.5 million people. Rather, let us restrict the judgement to its record in governing the population within its own borders, and in particular the one million Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship. How have they fared in what the Knesset wishes to call a Jewish and democratic state?

http://www.world-crisis.com/more/482_0_1_0_M/

[Jack Rabbit]

1. The possibility of a "Jewish and democratic" state

Yes, it sounds like an oxymoron, but it depends on how one defines "Jewish state".

First, let's pull out my standard, three-part definition of democracy. A democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

This definition is presented only as a device to spur a Socratic discussion about democracy; it is recognized from the outset that no perfect democracy exists, has ever existed or likely ever will.

Ideally, in a democratic state anybody can be the head of state and church and state are separate. However, if by head of state we mean a strictly ceremonial position, there seems little harm in passing this function by heredity to a crowned head. All he's going to do is accept the resignation of the head of government after his party has been defeated in elections and appoint the party leader whose party won the most seats as the new head of government. When such a position is not held by crowned head, it's usually given to a senior statesman gone to pasture. That the ceremonial head of state wear a crown and the office passes through heredity or the such a head of state must be of a particular religion (Anglican, for instance) is an offense against democratic principle, but a venial one.

Likewise, giving one church or religion a favored status may be nothing more than venial offense against democratic principle. The state may set aside some funds to give to a specific religious organization (the Anglican Church, for instance) that will use these funds to maintain schools and hospitals and the other things that religious institutions do well. A state religion is an offense against democratic principle, but again not a serious one.

It would be a more grave offense if the office of head of government, which wields real power, were restricted to an individual of a certain gender, social class, race or religion or if the franchise were restricted by law (Apartheid South Africa was not democratic) or less formally (the Jim Crow South was not democratic). We can see that by this definition, ancient Athens was less democracy in its infancy than it was democracy in embryo; it wasn't really democracy, but some of the ideas were there. The same could be said of South Africa under Apartheid, except that the enforcement of inequality was so rigid there that even a member of the favored class could find himself punished by law for expressing an unpopular point of view, namely, that Apartheid should be abolished.

As many of us have pointed out on this board, swallowing the Occupied Territories by either formal or informal annexation would be fatal to the concept of democracy. Mr. Begin's pronouncement in 1977 that the West Bank and Gaza were, taken together, "an integral part of Israel" was, unfortunately, an informal annexation that signaled the growth of settlement in Palestinian territory and the relegation of the Palestinian people to second-class status in their own land. As BTselem, the Israeli human rights organization, has said, this created a system "reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa." Clearly, there is nothing democratic about the way Israel is governing the Occupied Territories; for anyone to say that the West Bank and Gaza are an "integral part of Israel" and that governing them in this way is consistent with democracy is simply absurd.

The present article points out many of the problems that are presented to Israel in attempting to be a refuge for Jews while also being democratic, even without considering the more obvious offenses to democratic principle in the Palestinian territories. To the question is it enough that all citizens have the right to vote to call a state democratic? my answer is: No. It is not democratic if, based on such arbitrary factors as gender, race, religion, ethnic origin or social class, some people have more rights than others. It is not inherently undemocratic for the state to assume the ownership of land in order to redistribute it; it is inherently undemocratic for the state to expropriate land from individuals or to exclude individuals from owning or living on that land based on some arbitrary factor such as race or religion. It is certainly not democratic to hold what purports to be free and fair elections if certain candidates are excluded beforehand or banning certain political parties. Nor is it democratic to exclude voices from the media or close down newspapers.

No one should doubt that there are some serious problems in Israel and that not all Israelis embraced democratic principles. Of course, not all Americans do, either; indeed, the greatest threat to American democracy comes not from terrorists like Osama bin Laden but from neoconservative ideologues like those in the Bush administration, who actually drafted legislation that would give the President or the Attorney General the right to strip an American of his citizenship and place him in indefinite detention without access to due process. While Israel faces a very real and much more urgent threat from terrorists than Americans, that threat should not be used to justify such outrages as the family unification law or other acts of official racism.

The overall question is: can Israel restrict its being a Jewish state to actively supporting Jewish religious institutions that provide social services? Is so, then Israel can be both a Jewish state and a democracy. However, some pieces of legislation imposed by the Israeli right go well beyond that and raise more serious questions not only of human rights in the Occupied Territories but of the commitment of the state of Israel to democracy within her own proper borders.

[Darranar]

2. An excellent post...

Israel, within its internationally-recognized borders, is probably best described as a democracy in trouble, like that of the US. In the US, the problems are mostly related to powerful pressures on the government by corporate institutions, restricting debate and forcing through policies detrimental to most Americans and most of humanity for increases in the wealth of a few extremely rich elite. In Israel, rather, the problems are due to an unfair bias against Muslims and Arabs in many sectors. While land reform is something necessary very often in this world, and I have no problem in principle with government ownership of the vast majority of land (as there is in Israel), when such ownership leads to bias against certain nationalities and religions, that bias should either be removed (my personal preference) or the system of government land ownership greatly reduced. In Israel, the existence of that sort of bias is rather evident to me, to at least some extent.

The restriction of political parties advocating an aid to the Jewish nature of the state is highly undemocratic, and should be eliminated, especially considering the negligible influence any such party would have on Israeli politics. The disproportionate influence of ultrareligious Jews on Israeli politics is also rather undemocratic (not to mention disliked by very many Israelis, both Jewish and Muslim), but unfortunately somewhat inherent to the coalition system.

Israel should stop claiming that it is a representative of all Jews, Israeli or not. This is innaccurate and helps spread anti-semitism. There is no need to aid the bigots equating Israeli policy with international Jewry.

Despite all of this, the only part of Israeli policy that can be accurately compared to Aparthied and similar highly bigoted systems throughout the centuries is the Occupation, specifically the racist treatment of the Palestinian inhabitants of the Occupied Territories.

[brainshrub]

3. As usual, another great post.

EOM

[JohnLocke]

4. Jewish government has less to do with the government than its citizens.

Great post, as usual, Jack.

The "Jewish character" of Israel is more important than a "Jewish government." The difficult thing to do is to define what makes a state have a "Jewish character" while being just and fair towards those of other religions or "non-Jewish" ethnic groups - or if that is even possible.

[Lithos]

5. I might add one minor piece to your excellent post

Democracy as an institute of government can only succeed where human dignity is not only protected, but respected and cherished.

L-

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. I'm nominating this thread because of THIS post -- no, 24 hour limit.

Waaah. :cry:

[Gimel]

7. One question

Could there be a Chinese democracy? Or a French one?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Why not?

There could even be a Palestinian democracy or an Iraqi democracy, although I don't see either on the horizon. Neither is a sovereign state and both are resisting foreign occupation; democratic elements, while present in both, dominate the resistance movement of neither.

France and China are nations dominated by people of a more-or-less common heritage. It gets to be a bit of a struggle when foreign elements enter the country, as has happened in both France and China owing to their respective imperial pasts (China's imperial history goes back 2200 years). The question becomes whether those people are afforded equal citizenship once they have become residents of the French or Chinese nation, either by immigration or annexation.

Israel's problem is partly how Israel is defined. As Israel proper, a state whose borders are more or less defined by the 1949 armistice, there is a state that is struggling to be democratic against some features that resemble the Jim Crow South. If defined as Greater Israel, then it looks more like Apartheid South Africa.

[Gimel]

9. Although

Israeli Arabs have had the right to vote from the beginning. The Palestinian areas, beyond the green line, where Israel has been building "illegal" settlements, can't be also territory that Israel is obliged to enfranchise with the right to vote. You can't have it two ways. You'll have to come to terms with that as well. The West Bank has been annexed? First I've heard of that.

Furthermore, it can't been a "oxymoron" to have a Jewish democracy. There is nothing in that combination of words which is any more of an oxymoron than a Chinese democracy, unless you view the Jewish part with suspicion.

[IA_Seth]

10. Qualifier

Putting ANY qualifier (such as ethnicity or religion) on the term "democracy" should be looked at with suspicion.

A "Chinese Democracy" or a "French Democracy" could indeed occur, but to be a true democracy it would require them to follow the same guidelines as Jack mentioned in his post above. Try substituting Chinese, French, Catholic, or whatever you would prefer in his post and it doesn't change the substance.

So far, in my opinion, Israel has not done what they need to do to become a true democracy.

As for the occupied territories, my first thought is that as long as a people are prohibited from creating a sovereign state the occupying power IS required to give them citizenship rights, except on temporary, and rare occasions. "You can't have it both ways", as you say above, is very fitting. You can not occupy a territory, deny the occupied basic rights, and then claim to be a democracy. It doesn't work that way.

[Gimel]

13. If there was peace

I would agree with that. Israel has been trying to establish peace before the state of Palestine is created. There was no government, only disparate terrorist groups running the show.

In some circumstances, there can be no democracy, unless the terrorists stop their rain of terror. The people have to be able to participate without coercion.

[IA_Seth]

16. Please Distinguish

As I said in another post, there ARE innocent Palestinians.

The actions of the IDF in the occupied territories is not excusable for a "democratic" government to permit.

I understand that there ARE a lot of terrorist groups in the occupied territories, but indiscriminate vioelence sure isn't going to solve the problem.

[IA_Seth]

17. 2nd Thought

This post is kind of hittin me as pretty freakin right-wing if ya ask me..

"there can be no democracy, unless the terrorists stop their rain of terror. The people have to be able to participate without coercion."

I can practically hear that coming out of the Bush's mouth. Violence can not be an excuse to prohibit people's rights.

[Gimel]

18. People vs the government

The "government" of Arafat is not really in charge. That's a major problem. However, as the only government here, Arafat should be the main person interested in insuring the rights of his people. Unfortunately, he is mainly interested in his reign of terror.

[IA_Seth]

19. You are losing me again....

Ok, so how does the above make it ok for the IDF to do what they do?

Arafat is not a good leader...good point. I don't think he is the best thing for the Palestinians either. But does that make it ok for a country that touts its democracy and gets money from our govt because we "share values" to occupy and deny a people?

Not in my mind.

[Gimel]

20. The situation

It was not chosen by Israel. the Jewish "yeshuv" as it was called, did want a state, a Jewish state, back in '47. They wanted a democracy, and they were quite idealistic. The continuing conflicts made the issue of defense a prominent one. If it had been an uninhabited island, say like the British state (Norman invasion in 1066- creating an Anglo-Saxon people)or an Australia ( the aboriginal population was docile) there would have been little problem. The land area mandated by the UN would have become the state.

The IDF, acting on orders to seek out terrorists, shoots when armed Palestinians are encountered. I read an article on this today. Usually, the situation is considered to dangerous to verify further the identities of the persons. Wanted terrorists are often killed in this manner, and sometimes innocent accomplices, those perhaps not known to be terrorists are often killed as well.

I'm sure the human rights groups, and the pro-Palestinians would demand that the IDF wait to gain a positive identification of those they encounter before shooting. It would mean significant rise in IDF casualties and a significant advantage for the Palestinians. You might be able to understand that, though I'm not sure.

If there is more calm, more chances can be taken, and more consideration for the possibility that unjustified harm could be done to innocent people.

[IA_Seth]

21. oh come now...

You said:

"You might be able to understand that, though I'm not sure."

That is pretty nice of you. Putting aside our different ideas on the I/P conflict, I assume that overall as Democrats our values are not that disparate. Personal attacks will get you no where, although my understanding of what I see as your sometimes veiled anti-arab sentiments isn't the best, you are right.

I have never disagreed on the need for Israeli security. I venture to say you will not find one post I have made that supports the denying of rights of Israelis.

However, I am still not sure that we are discussing the same topic even. We were originally discussing whether or not a "Jewish Democracy" was an oxymoron, I then made a reply that stated that qualifying democracy in ANY way should be view carefully.

You responded to that post saying that if there was peace you would agree with it (which is where I begin to be lost - violence/peace shouldn't change the meaning of democracy - one of my biggest issues with Bush and the Patriot Act).

Then it turns to the Palestinians and Arafat in your post...I guess I am confused still?

Now in this post you state that originally the yeshuv did not want a Jewish state. Well, ok, but the premise of this post was to discuss if a "Jewish Democracy" is feasible given the discussion of an Israeli constitution.

[Gimel]

23. Your summary

It is ok, and levels the playing board, except for one thing. You misread my previous statement. I said that the yeshuv DID want a state.

the Jewish "yeshuv" as it was called, did want a state, a Jewish state, back in '47. They wanted a democracy, and they were quite idealistic.

What i mean is that peace was being worked out with Oslo. The right wingers in Israel didn't like Oslo, but I was for it. Unfortunately, Oslo failed on many fronts. However, Arafat got ahold of the rudimentary works of a government, and some control of land areas. This was used to build a terrorist base and the launch attacks against Israel. ( I guess it would have been better according to international law, if Palestine were a state. Then Israel would have the right to subdue it and build a wall. )

[Djinn]

11. I don't have a problem with "jewish democracy"

per se - but it really depends what you mean by "jewish" and what you mean by "democracy" - a country could be Jewish in character, in that the majority of it's citizens are either Jewish or from a Jewish background. It's public holidays can reflect the dominant religion (much as in most western "democracies") etc It CAN NOT provide rights to certain people based on a religion and it should not support (financially or morally) extreme religious sects that the majority of the people of that country do not agree with.

Also Gimel to ask about whether a "French" democracy or a "Chinese" one is possible is forgetting that those terms would probably be applied to a democracy operating WITHIN the boundries of those nations so the comparison is apples and oranges, people who feel uncomfortable with the term "Jewish democracy" would (I imagine I can't speak for them all) have NO problem with "Israeli democracy". "Jewish democracy" is comparable to "Muslim democracy" or "CHristian democracy" and YES I would consider them problematic as well.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. My response

(I)t can't been a "oxymoron" to have a Jewish democracy.

If you read my first post on this thread, you will see that I am saying that Jewish democracy is not an oxymoron. I know some people who frequent this forum would say otherwise; they might also say the Presbyterian democracy is an oxymoron. Is it okay if I pick a bone with them? We're in agreement on this, at least in principle.

Israeli Arabs have had the right to vote from the beginning.

True. That's a good start. However, I would add that Israeli Arabs must also be allowed full participation in the political process. That means the ability to air their grievances and field their own candidates for the Knesset. When the government makes noise about banning an Israeli Arab political party, that is something about which to be concerned, to say the least.

The Palestinian areas, beyond the green line, where Israel has been building "illegal" settlements, can't be also territory that Israel is obliged to enfranchise with the right to vote.

In the territories, the Israeli government expropriates land to build housing in which the Palestinians cannot live; these settlements are accessed by roads on which Palestinians cannot travel. The Palestinians have little or nothing to say about this. If the land is Israeli enough for the government to promote Israeli settlements, then the people who live on that land should have rights under Israeli law.

You're right; the government of Israel can't have it both ways. That's why the Fourth Geneva Convention categorically prohibits an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population to the occupied territory, as the Israeli government is doing by promoting these illegal (no glitches necessary) settlements.

The West Bank has been annexed? First I've heard of that.

Mr. Begin did not think a formal annexation was necessary. He simply stated that the West Bank and Gaza were each an "integral part of Israel" and began the land rush. He should have learned how to read a map.

[Gimel]

14. Response to JR

Jewish is not a synonym for the religion of Judaism. A Jewish state is not by definition a religious state.

That means the ability to air their grievances and field their own candidates for the Knesset. When the government makes noise about banning an Israeli Arab political party, that is something about which to be concerned, to say the least.

The parties are not banned. One Arab Knesset member was for incitement when he went to Syria and spoke of attacking Israel. There are currently 3 Arab Israeli political parties with a total of 8 Knesset members serving in the government. There have been no "noises" made by the government to ban any of the parties. A political party has to get a significantly large number of votes to be eligible for a seat in the Knesset.

The Israeli Arabs have aired their grievances on a number of issues in the past four years at least, and if not previously, it is not a fault of the democratic system. They have become increasingly vocal, and that has been welcomed in the larger Israeli community. Listening to only the few radical voices is not taking a true measure of the democratic balance in the political system.

In the territories, the Israeli government expropriates land to build housing in which the Palestinians cannot live

That is another issue, and has no bearing on the democratic nature of the state of Israel. There are many places I cannot live either, not only in the territories, but in Israel. Those areas that belong to the Arab population do not welcome non-Muslims. The right to travel private roads is restricted in every country. It is not considered discriminatory in the US to have private roads leading to private property. The separation of major roads was developed as a security measure, and for very good reasons. Palestinians can't expect to have rights when they abuse them.

As for the rights and obligations of an "occupying power" under the Geneva Conventions, it cannot be applied to a state that never existed.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Counterpoint

Jewish is not a synonym for the religion of Judaism. A Jewish state is not by definition a religious state.

The point, ma'am, is that while Israel may be a democratic state, it is not necessarily a democratic state. I believe that Israel proper passes democratic muster, but with some concerns.

Concerning the issue of who can and cannot run for a seat in the Knesset, I believe we are referring to this matter. As I said, it is a matter of concern. This particular matter was resolved and the KMs were allowed to run.

(Israel's conduct in the territories) is another issue, and has no bearing on the democratic nature of the state of Israel.

I agree with you. However, as you pointed out elsewhere, there are some Israelis who would take issue with the idea that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. From my understanding of the matter, it would seem that Mr. Begin was not of our mind, either.

If the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel, then Israel is not a democracy. Instead, one has a situation where some people living in the territories have the rights of citizens and 92% of those who live there do not.

Whether the territories are regarded as part of Israel or not, it is clear that the government of Israel is engaged in a systematic violation of the human rights of the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza.

The right to travel private roads is restricted in every country. It is not considered discriminatory in the US to have private roads leading to private property. The separation of major roads was developed as a security measure, and for very good reasons.

The roads are constructed by the Israeli government. These are not private roads. The Palestinian people have nothing to say about their construction. That is a violation of their rights.

That the roads are a security measure is a half-truth. They are there to secure Israeli settlements that should not have been built in the first place. If the exclusively Jewish settlements were not present, neither would the segregated roads. Here, too, the Palestinian had nothing to say about the way the Israelis are using their land. This is a violation of their human rights.

Palestinians can't expect to have rights when they abuse them.

And why not? How can anybody "abuse" rights? Rights are inalienable. One does not "earn" rights. One is born with them. They are not the gifts of foreign governments.

As for the rights and obligations of an "occupying power" under the Geneva Conventions, it cannot be applied to a state that never existed.

That is nonsense. The fact that Palestine was never organized into a state, but was occupied by Jordan and Egypt after the 1948 war and by Israel since 1967, is irrelevant. The Palestinian people are still entitled to have their human rights protected from an occupying power that would summarily removed them from their homes to make way for settlers from the occupying power.

The West Bank and Gaza are not now nor never have been part of the modern state of Israel. The land is occupied. The Geneva Conventions apply. The settlements are illegal.

I have no problem with Israel occupying the Palestinian territories for security. Once a credible Palestinian leadership emerges, declares a state and signs a non-aggression pact with Israel, the IDF may withdraw and we will for the two nations to enjoy many centuries of peace and prosperity.

I have a problem with Israel using the occupied territories for the benefit of Israelis at the expense of Palestinians. That is just wrong.

[Gimel]

22. Abuse of rights

If you think that all human rights are inalienable, then you probably don't agree to jails or prison sentences for anyone. Murderers don't have the right to be free and continue to murder. If the Palestinians want to honor the murderers of Israeli civilians, honor them as heroes, then there is a security problem for Israel. A strong barrier is needed.

Mr Bishara and Mr Tibi were disqualified two weeks ago on the grounds that they backed violence against Israel.

This is the controversy that I was referring to also. The speech in Syria has given by one of them actually encouraging attacks on Israel.

I don't know of any country without some human rights problems, including the USA. If the definition of democracy is that there will be forever after no prisons, no crime and no punishment, then it doesn't yet exist on earth.

The recent ICJ decision actually hinged on the status of Palestine, saying that because Palestine was not a state, and therefore Israel wasn't under attack by a foreign power it could not use a self-defense argument.

Self-defence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - Threat invoked to justify the construction of the wall originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control - Article 51 not relevant in the present case.

The ICJ has a serious human rights problem, if it relinquishes the human right to security because of this technicality. The world will write off the INALIENABLE right of the Israeli population to security within it's borders. Terrorists do not have inalienable rights, in any real democracy, or in any descent world, for that matter. The pandering to terrorism has resulted with the terrorists actually relishing in their anonymity, their ability to use innocent Palestinian lives for cover and defense. No one in the US minded as long as the terrorists stayed half a world away from them. Now it's Israel that is being blamed for the abuses that the terrorists are committing.


The settlements are not, therefore on foreign land. The ICJ ruled that Palestine is not in fact a foreign county, but part of Israel.

[IA_Seth]

24. Well then....

you say:
"The settlements are not, therefore on foreign land. The ICJ ruled that Palestine is not in fact a foreign county, but part of Israel."

So, then, by your definition of the borders of Israel, the Palestinian people should have voting rights in an Israeli democracy, right?

And I am speaking of those Palestinians not convicted of terrorism. It seems to me in your posts you sometimes mix the two a little to well. Not all Palestinians are murderers ya know:

"If you think that all human rights are inalienable, then you probably don't agree to jails or prison sentences for anyone. Murderers don't have the right to be free and continue to murder. If the Palestinians want to honor the murderers of Israeli civilians, honor them as heroes, then there is a security problem for Israel. A strong barrier is needed."

I believe he was referring to the rights of the innocent. No one would argue that jails and prison sentences aren't needed, and for you to suggest it is silly.

[Gimel]

25. The ICJ decision

So, then, by your definition of the borders of Israel, the Palestinian people should have voting rights in an Israeli democracy, right?

The facts on the ground are not as the ICJ sees it. They don't write history, but are supposed to give legal opinions. The Palestinians dis vote Arafat into office 10 years ago, and they nave a legislative council and even a Prime Minister. With their own government, for over 10 years, why should they also have voting rights in Israel. Anyway, Israel doesn't see them as Israeli citizens.

Also, BTW, US citizens have the right to vote when out of the country, so letting Israelis who live in the territories vote in Israeli elections is not a defining factor for democracy or inclusion of the territories as a part of Israel.

[IA_Seth]

26. Next Question...

The facts on the ground are not as the ICJ sees it. They don't write history, but are supposed to give legal opinions. The Palestinians dis vote Arafat into office 10 years ago, and they nave a legislative council and even a Prime Minister. With their own government, for over 10 years, why should they also have voting rights in Israel.

Let me understand...

The West Bank and Gaza...are they or are they not a part of Israel?

If they are not, then they are occupied foreign territories, which require Israel to act within the Geneva conventions, correct?

If they are, then as a democracy, the Palestinian people should have the same rights as all Israeli citizens, right?

Anyway, Israel doesn't see them as Israeli citizens.

That is the heart of the matter. Palestinians are not looked at as citizens. If they are not citizens then they should not be forced to endure the IDF's brutality in THEIR territory. If it is not THEIR territory, than they are Israeli citizens. Treating them as neither of the above equates them with non-people.

[Gimel]

28. Operation began in April '02

If they are not citizens then they should not be forced to endure the IDF's brutality in THEIR territory.

It was a legitimate response to the suicide attacks which killed over 100 Israeli civilians in 5 weeks time.

[IA_Seth]

30. You avoid the question n/t

[Gimel]

31. The legal issue

of a state that isn't a state, is not altogether clear. The status of the PA was supposed to develop into a state, but it never reached that stage. Are they territories or independent state? The ambiguity helps them avoid responsibility, but when attacked, Israel has the right to respond.

Bin Laden isn't the ruler of Afghanistan, but the US military attacked bin Ladin and al Qaeda, not the people of Afghanistan or it's government.

[IA_Seth]

38. So...

The West Bank and Gaza, they are a state that isn't a state? What does that exactly mean?

You state that the ambiguity helps them avoid responsibility, can it also be said then that the ambiguity helps the Israeli's avoid The Geneva Conventions, the ICJ rulings, the UN Mandates, etc.?

Israel's right to respond is not questioned here. The question remains however, are the disputed territories part of Israel or are they not? I guess I don't find any ambiguity to the situation, and to use that as a cop out (especially by a US ally) is disturbing.

Let me note that it is entirely frustrating to debate someone who avoids the question repeatedly. BUT, in response to your Afghan tangent, the war was in fact on the Afghan govt, the Taliban, in addition to our search for Bin Laden. What that has to due with the status of the disputed territories, I don't know.

[Djinn]

39. no-one asked whether the OT constituted a state

what we want to know Gimel is whether YOU believe that they are PART OF ISRAEL or not. If they are then everyone there NEEDS to be able to vote in Israeli elections or Israel is demonstrably not a democracy or you have to admit the settlements are illegal and that Israel is supporting the illegal theft of land?

[Gimel]

46. I'm not

getting into my personal belief system here. The issues of the political arena and the current events of the articles are to be discussed, not the posters participating.

I never said they were an integral part of Israel. The settlers cast absentee votes, as do many citizens who live abroad both US citizens and Israeli citizens. Voting is done at the embassies.

[Djinn]

48. what total crap

everyone here posts their own opinions/beliefs and interpretations here, you are simply trying to avoid the question of whether or not the OT are part of Israel or not - if they are not then the settlers living there need to be either actively removed by the Israeli government or at the very least no longer supported by Israeli taxpayers.

Atleast have the courage of stating your beliefs outright.

[Gimel]

49. There has not been

a satisfactory resolution to this question, and will not be until the conflict is settled. You can't blame me for the legal ambiguity that exists. There is a valid claim to the residency of Jews living there. Whether it is within the boundaries of Israel as a modern state, and it appears that it will not be, has to be decided legal governments involved, not by the terrorists.

I am not avoiding a question that doesn't have a real answer. Your maintaining civility here would be appreciated.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Response

All human rights are inalienable. Yes, I believe that. Jumping to the conclusion that I therefore do not believe in prisons is absurd. I am a democrat, not a utopian. Having said that, the state should not punish any individual without due process of law.

You jump from the general concept of human rights to the specific questions about Israel's security barrier. I have not mentioned the security barrier on this thread, and I don't consider it entirely relevant to the matter. I will say that contrary to what you state, the ICJ in no way ruled that the occupied territories are part of Israel. In fact, the Court ruled the West Bank and Gaza to be occupied territory (paragraph 78). The Court further ruled that Fourth Geneva Conventions apply (paragraph 101).

The settlements are, therefore, on foreign land under a hostile military occupation. Their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In any event, throughout the post you refer to "terrorists" and "murderers." However, this issue doesn't involve simply those Palestinians who are terrorists and murderers, but the vast majority of Palestinians who are not. In post number 1, I again made reference to and linked the BTselem report concerning Israel's settlement program in the occupied territories. The report outlines how what legal rights the Palestinians have are systematically violated and how the judicial system is manipulated to transfer title from Palestinians residents of the West Bank to the Israeli state, which in turn builds settlements for the purpose of moving citizens and residents of Israel proper to the occupied territories.

Do you really see no violations of human rights here? Do you really see this as consistent with a democratic process? Do you really even see this as just? It is a system where, based on nationality, some people have more rights than others. It is a system where some people are subject to having their property confiscated based on their nationality in order that it can be used by those of a favored nationality. Does that really sound like equality to you?

As I have said, if the West Bank and Gaza were to be considered part of Israel, then we would have to regard Israel as something akin to an Apartheid state and in no way a democracy. Since it is not the case that the territories are part of Israel, then the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. Either way, the human right of the Palestinian residents of the West Bank are systematically violated by the Israeli government.

It is true that Israel has an urgent security problem that should be addressed. It is also a problematic proposition that if Israel were to cease her injustices in the occupied territories that the security problem would dissipate. However, building Jewish-only settlements in Hebron will not make Israelis safer in Haifa. Security is not a rationale for this behavior. There is no excuse for it.

While there is no excuse for the construction of settlements or segregated roads to access them, the security barrier would seem to have a better rationale. However, were there no settlements and assuming that would not make the slightest difference in the levels of terrorist attacks inside Israel, then the question arises: would Israel's security barrier be where it is? Probably not. The barrier is designed to protect as many Israelis as possible, whether they live in Israel or in a settlement on occupied land. Were there no settlements, then, the security barrier would be constructed on or closer to the 1949 armistice line, the internationally recognized boundary between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. Such a boundary would disrupt the live of few, if any, residents of the occupied territories. More importantly, it would be by no stretch of the imagination a de facto annexation of occupied land, as the ICJ correctly ruled that it is.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. You probably get sick of hearing this...

...but I think it's well-deserved anytime anyone says it. That was an excellent post, and I'm not prone to giving praise much. And yr fifth paragraph contained questions that everyone should ask themselves honestly as far as I'm concerned...

Violet...

[Jordan_R]

32. This is an oxymoron

Well, illegal settlements in a democracy is an oxymoron as well.

If there are illegal settlements by Israel, even in the past, they are not a democracy unless they give back that land to its real people.

In this case, Palestinians should at least have equal rights across Israel for Israel to be a democracy.

[Gimel]

33. As I've pointed out

"democracy' is a form of government. It doesn't guarantee that the world will accept everything it and/or its citizens do.

[Jordan_R]

34. What I said has nothing to do with this

I agree that it doesn't matter per se what the world thinks of a country's foreign policy, for that country to be a democracy. Only, perhaps, if the government has a deceptive system can its democracy be invalidated.

But the form of government of democracy assumes lawful citizenship of its members.

Since illegal citizenship does occur in Israel, and valid members of the land are rejected citizenship, it can't be a democracy.

[Gimel]

35. Illegal citizenship?

I didn't know there was such an entity. What about people who refuse to be citizens of the Jewish state even if their parents were born in Jerusalem?

[Jordan_R]

36. Ofcourse there's such a thing

Illegal citizenship is citizenship granted to someone who is occupying land illegally.

And legal citizenship applies to all people who are valid occupiers of a land.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Huh?

Legally, the people who are living the occupied land illegally are citizens of Israel.

I don't have a problem with their being Israeli citizens. I have a problem with their government expropriating occupied land beyond Israel's borders for them to build housing.

[Jordan_R]

40. Contradictory

"Legally, the people who are living the occupied land illegally are citizens of Israel."

How can you be a legal citizen living on illegal land? If it's illegal land, its not part of Israel.

For example, someone who illegally occupies a part of Mexico for instance. He/she cannot allege to be legally living in a part of the US.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. If I were to illegally enter Mexico

I would be in Mexico illegally. I would still be an American citizen. It wouldn't matter whether I entered Mexico illegal with the US government's approaval and assistance.

The Israeli settlements are contrary to internatinal law (specifically Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). The people who live in the settlement are still Israeli citizens.

[Jordan_R]

42. Good point

but you didn't read my post.

Ofcourse you would still be an American citizen. But you would not be legally living in the US. You could not claim that you and your land are part of the US. The laws of American citizenship would not apply to the way you live on that land.

On the contrary, Israel extends citizenship to people also living on illegal land, and in that way making the land "legal." That is illegal citizenship.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. OK, I see your point now

But I don't quite agree with it.

Let me see if I understand your your point: If a person immigrates in order to become an Israeli citizen, then he should reside in Israel, not one of the settlements in occupied territory.

Israel grants citizenship automatically to all Jews. Since Jews have been among the most persecuted people on the earth for centuries, it makes sense to provide them a refuge.

It makes little difference to me on what basis Israel grants citizenship. It's still wrong and a violation of international law to expropriate occupied land for the benefit of the occupying power. That's not occupying land for security in lieu of a peace accord; that's colonialism.

[Jordan_R]

44. Well yeah

But that violation constitutes illegal citizenship.

You understood my comment: that "If a person immigrates in order to become an Israeli citizen, then he/she should reside in Israel, not one of the settlements in occupied territory." If that person is allowed to gain land for Israel, he/she is an illegal citizen. Thus, Israel is only in some senses a democracy. Her current nature on the whole is not democratic. Ultimately, my point is that Israel cannot be a democracy unless she does not have illegal land. To abide by the laws of democracy, only a one-state partnership solution makes sense. In practice this can be an ultimate rather than immediate goal. Otherwise, its not a democracy. I'm assuming we want to work for actual democracy. I've noticed that all people want democracy, and that it is in principle the only political goal.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Response

But that violation constitutes illegal citizenship.

You understood my comment: that "If a person immigrates in order to become an Israeli citizen, then he/she should reside in Israel, not one of the settlements in occupied territory." If that person is allowed to gain land for Israel, he/she is an illegal citizen. Thus, Israel is only in some senses a democracy.

Here we disagree. It is perfectly legal for Israel to grant citizenship to whomever swears allegiance to the the state. The crime is expropriating occupied land, which has nothing to do with to whom Israel grants citizenship.

Her current nature on the whole is not democratic. Ultimately, my point is that Israel cannot be a democracy unless she does not have illegal land. To abide by the laws of democracy, only a one-state partnership solution makes sense. In practice this can be an ultimate rather than immediate goal. Otherwise, its not a democracy.

Here again, we disagree, although here you're partly right. Israel cannot remain a democracy after swallowing the occupied territories. As I said above, Israel can be a Jewish democracy. However, the concept of a Jewish democracy would require two states, one of which is predominately Jewish. Were Israel to swallow the occupied territories, that would mean either extending citizenship to Palestinian Arabs, who don't appear to relish the idea of being Israeli citizens, or gyrating toward an Apartheid state. A third option would be expelling the Palestinians from what is now the occupied territories. That would be an unmentionable crime which we shall consider no further. Otherwise, in the first option Israel would remain a democracy, just not a Jewish one. In the second, Israel would remain Jewish, but not a democracy.

A bi-national democratic state has the attractive virtue that no one would have to be concerned about what to do about the settlements (they could remain, although they would be open to Arab residents) or about the right of Palestinians to return to property lost in what is now Israel proper in 1948 (they could return). It's a great idea, if it could work.

Nevertheless, I have expressed my doubts in the past that such an arrangement would work. Both sides are infested with extremists who will fight to the last drop of blood over the last acre of land. A separate two-state solution is called for.

I'm assuming we want to work for actual democracy. I've noticed that all people want democracy, and that it is in principle the only political goal.

Actually, I'll settle for a simple end to the conflict. Once people can live in peace, then we'll talk about democracy.

[Jordan_R]

47. Just a note

I think its hard to move forward however when Israel and us keep alleging that Israel is a democracy when it is not. It simply slows down reform.

[Jim Sagle]

50. Once again Israel is put under an electron microscope by everybody and his

uncle, along with their dog and cat.

Every other nation on Earth gets to define itself. Somehow the world has decided that Israel has no such right.

[Gimel]

51. Has to be

All the rules were mad the day before it was born, and applies retroactively.

[Jim Sagle]

52. Longer ago than that, I suspect. Those rules are as old as the hills

[Gimel]

53. Oh those rules

They become updated with every new century. They apply to all of Israel's wars without question.

[Darranar]

54. Defining itself and enforcing its definition are different things. n/t