'Jewish and Democratic'

biko

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on Abbas, didn't his mandate as president end in 2009? It seems PLO/Fatah is just extending his reign "until the conditions are right for a new election"? Are Fatah first hoping to kick out Hamas, then perhaps start an election?

The way I see it is that if the Palestinians now get full control they'll start a civil war, much like the period after the Brits leaving Ireland.
The brits could just sit back and watch from beyond the water, but a civil war between Fatah and Hamas will most certainly spill over into Israel and of course don't forget that they both have reason to hate Israel/jews.

A pretty good documentary from Vice on the Israel/Fatah/Hamas conflict.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWJFC98jPrQ

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on Abbas, didn't his mandate as president end in 2009? It seems PLO/Fatah is just extending his reign "until the conditions are right for a new election"? Are Fatah first hoping to kick out Hamas, then perhaps start an election?
,,,,,,,,

Considering the US won't tolerate any other regime, thats more than likely whats going to happen.

Still prefering to talk about the Palestinians than the illegal occupation.....

biko

You keep bringing it up aren't you, but this thread is about democracy. So let's talk about democracy.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

You keep bringing it up aren't you, but this thread is about democracy. So let's talk about democracy.

It's about "jewish democracy". Theres absolutely no incompatibility with Judaism and democracy, so its unfortunate that the one Jewish majority state on the planet chooses to inflict an undemocratic colonial regime on its nearest neighbours. Thus, the notion that Israel is the "only democracy in the middle east" fails any detailed scrutiny.

Dades

Let's TRY and keep this from becoming an Israel v Palestine thread, and keep it about *democracy* - whatever that is.

Sycopat

Isn't democracy just a system that chooses 'X' based on voting? (Where X can be pretty much anything) As far as I know there is no requirement for every citizen in a democracy to have a vote. IIRC historical democracies often had eligibility conditions, land ownership, class membership etc.

So jewish and democratic, where only jews have the right to vote, is still a democracy.

There's nothing inherent in democracy that guarantees suffrage for all.

Banbh

I think you're right there Syco. You can define democracy as just having a vote but then, for example, the US would claim that Cuba isn't a democracy because the candidates must all support one party - though it doesn't have the same difficulty with China (or at least isn't willing to put an embargo on China).
So, some countries define democracy differently.
Israel defines itself as a democracy which it probably is by Middle-Eastern standards.
Apart from the head-counting aspect of democracy, there are, by most definitions, other things required to fit the description, such as respect for human rights, equality before the law etc and here Israel clearly falls down.
I think it fair to say that by European standards, a country which declares itself to be a state of one religious group is not a democracy and no European country would give aid to an African country, for example, that declared itself to be the state of one religion.

recedite

Gerrymandering.
That's what jewish democracy is all about. As long as the jewish element maintains a majority over the arab element, Israel can be a jewish state and a democracy.
That is why they cannot incorporate the occupied territories into the state. That is why they must gradually build new settlements around the edges of their country, and then import "jews" from around the world to occupy the new houses. That is why they make life as uncomfortable as possible for the native palestinians; so they will feck off to some other country as refugees.
Still, the Israeli jews are closer to us "westerners"in their cultural attitudes than the Palestinian arabs, so we don't mind too much that their modus operandi is quite distasteful.

biko

Sycopat wrote: »

Isn't democracy just a system that chooses 'X' based on voting? (Where X can be pretty much anything) As far as I know there is no requirement for every citizen in a democracy to have a vote. IIRC historical democracies often had eligibility conditions, land ownership, class membership etc.

So jewish and democratic, where only jews have the right to vote, is still a democracy.

As Nodin pointed out before the concept of democracy (people rule) is from Athens at which time only free men could vote, women and slaves could not.
This is how many countries did it for hundreds of years and some still do, UAE I think.
New Zealand is said to be first to allow women to vote in 1893.
Ireland at the time of the Brits leaving, less than a hundred years ago...
Saudi Arabia very recently changed to allow women into politics.

The concept of democracy has evolved into what we today consider democracy, i.e. every citizen over 18 can vote.

In Israel as I pointed out about a fifth of the population are arab citizens and can vote, for national jewish or arab parties.
Palestinians born inside Israel borders can vote.
Palestinians born in West Bank or Gaza are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote.

Most of the arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967, were offered Israeli citizenship, but refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty. They became permanent residents. They are entitled to municipal services and have municipal voting rights.

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

Isn't democracy just a system that chooses 'X' based on voting?

As above, "democracy" is a system in which all members of a polity vote in all decisions taken by that polity. And, down through the years, various polities have implemented this in various ways, with, to say the very least, varying degrees of fairness and success.

The variables in any voting system are the choices on offer, the action resulting from the vote and the voting protocol used.

On that last one -- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

-- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Historian Nerdvana .

Thank you Robin.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

On that last one -- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

it frustrates me I get through about 5 pages of Iain M Banks a night before I pass out - interesting and all as that may be I can't see myself getting past paragraph one before blacking out. :pac:

Sycopat

Banbh wrote: »

I think you're right there Syco. You can define democracy as just having a vote but then, for example, the US would claim that Cuba isn't a democracy because the candidates must all support one party - though it doesn't have the same difficulty with China (or at least isn't willing to put an embargo on China).
So, some countries define democracy differently.
Israel defines itself as a democracy which it probably is by Middle-Eastern standards.
Apart from the head-counting aspect of democracy, there are, by most definitions, other things required to fit the description, such as respect for human rights, equality before the law etc and here Israel clearly falls down.
I think it fair to say that by European standards, a country which declares itself to be a state of one religious group is not a democracy and no European country would give aid to an African country, for example, that declared itself to be the state of one religion.

recedite wrote: »

Gerrymandering.
That's what jewish democracy is all about. As long as the jewish element maintains a majority over the arab element, Israel can be a jewish state and a democracy.
That is why they cannot incorporate the occupied territories into the state. That is why they must gradually build new settlements around the edges of their country, and then import "jews" from around the world to occupy the new houses. That is why they make life as uncomfortable as possible for the native palestinians; so they will feck off to some other country as refugees.
Still, the Israeli jews are closer to us "westerners"in their cultural attitudes than the Palestinian arabs, so we don't mind too much that their modus operandi is quite distasteful.

I don't disagree with either of you that the situation in Isreal is certainly not what I consider ideal, I'm just used to the democracy being 'voting systems' and 'republic' being the involvement of the citizenship in governance. I don't know if Isreal considers itself a republic or not.

That we in western europe and various democratic republics around the world conflate the two and throw in other idea's along with it doesn't mean we should, because it means that countries which are not culturally similar to ours can make themselves appear to be more so.

To make an analogy(aka 'Because my knowledge on this field is woefully lacking, I need to supplement it with hitchhikers references.'), by calling themselves a democracy, Isreal are letting us know they know where their towel is, and we assumes this means they are hoopy froods. Redefining the towel to also be everything else we assumed goes along with it doesn't resolve the issue, which is putting too much emphasis on towels.


I've probably just confused things more, I'm certainly confused (Although that may be due in part to being in belgium and drinking heavily) and not really equipped for this topic but isn't redefining 'democracy' to be a 'western liberal, humanist, republican democracy' (or democracy plus all the other bits) in order to declare Isreal not a democracy a bit of a no true scotsman?

robindch wrote: »

As above, "democracy" is a system in which all members of a polity vote in all decisions taken by that polity. And, down through the years, various polities have implemented this in various ways, with, to say the very least, varying degrees of fairness and success.

The variables in any voting system are the choices on offer, the action resulting from the vote and the voting protocol used.

On that last one -- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Cheers for that, it's going to take me a while to wrap my head around that voting system though.

Links234

biko wrote: »

Let me know when a transsexual man can represent an Arab nation as Dana International did for Israel in Eurovision 1998, 14 years ago.

She's a transsexual woman! Just for comparison, this guy is a transsexual man. Sorry, pedant in me couldn't let that one go!

biko

Oops my mistake, thanks for setting me straight on that.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

The west bank is run as a democracy, in as much as is possible, given the occupation.

Gaza was being run as a democracy, until certain parties didn't like the result....
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

Em, I remember when Hamas won the election of 2006 they then decided to use their 'mandate' to round up Fatah oppositon members and started to exectute them in cold blood, thus strengthing their position.
Yeap, very democratic, dont you think? :rolleyes:

Israel is by no means perfect, far from it but given the status of its neighbours and their views on 'democracy' (see Egypt, Syria, Tunisia) then one can do far worse. The problem of course is the people compare Israel or any other country to some utopian democratic country that doesnt exist in the real world.

Banbh

I like the argument that Israel is a democracy because an Arab country isn't.
The Irish are kind to animals because the French eat horses.

And seriously, the problem lies with the term 'Israel' as it is an unknown entity.
De facto it includes areas under military occupation where the people don't have votes, are subject to arbitrary laws and regulations based on a religion not their own and where they cannot even use the roads.

Before anyone could make the claim that Israel is a democracy, they would first have to explain where it is as with the ethnic cleansing, it is changing almost daily. To suggest that if the additional territory is cleared of inhabitants and planted with immigrants at a rate that ensures a majority will be Jews is to make a nonsense of any definition of the word democracy.

recedite

Banbh wrote: »

To suggest that if the additional territory is cleared of inhabitants and planted with immigrants at a rate that ensures a majority will be Jews is to make a nonsense of any definition of the word democracy.

True, but continued support from the USA is dependent on continued "democratic" status. And without US backing they would be finished.

When the Nazi's wanted a bit of extra living space, they had no such qualms, they could annex territories much more quickly as minority rulers. But then that strategy proved somewhat unstable. For a true1000 year Reich, you really need to look after your majority

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Em, I remember when Hamas won the election of 2006 they then decided to use their 'mandate' to round up Fatah oppositon members and started to exectute them in cold blood, thus strengthing their position.
Yeap, very democratic, dont you think? :rolleyes:
......

You can "remember" all you want - that, however, isn't what happened. Theres a link in the post you quoted you would do well to read.

Banbh

Again, proving that Hamas isn't democratic doesn't make Israel democratic.

jank

Maybe we should use a sliding scale then. Israel is more democratic then its Arab neighbours but not as democratic as european countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
Would that satisfy you?

Can you define by what you mean as democratic? An example?

Banbh

Feel free to make a sliding scale of freedoms but my post concerned the use of the term 'Jewish and democratic' by the US representative at the UN.
I remain of the opinion that this is a contradiction for those who are not Jewish. We have discussed here how 'democratic' can be adjusted to exclude those who might vote in a way that is not favourable to those who control the voting and also whether the term 'democratic' when applied to states includes other rights.
While Israel can claim to adhere to the letter of the first definition by excluding non-Jews from voting, it falls far short in all other aspects.
Incidentally I've discovered since Googling for this discussion that Israelis of mixed religions must go to Cyprus or the Panamanian Embassy to marry as the Rabbinical law is the state law on marriage and excludes marriage to non-Jews.

Peregrinus

Banbh wrote: »

Incidentally I've discovered since Googling for this discussion that Israelis of mixed religions must go to Cyprus or the Panamanian Embassy to marry as the Rabbinical law is the state law on marriage and excludes marriage to non-Jews.

Ironically, this works out as a discrimination against Jewish Israelis.

It’s an oversimplification and (I’m sure unintentional) distortion to say that “rabbinical law is the law of the state”, if that implies that rabbinical law applies to all Israelis, Jewish or not. It does not.

The position here is that, in Israel, questions of personal status are left to be resolved by the law of the community to which the citizen belongs. This isn’t something that Israel invented; it was the law in place under the British mandate, and before that under the Ottoman empire. It was intended for the protection of minorities. So questions about marriage, inheritance, adoption, etc were resolved not by the general civil courts, but by the religious authorities of the various religious communities, applying their own laws.

Right. So the marriages of Jews in Israel - but only Jews - are governed by Jewish religious law, as interpreted and applied by the Orthodox Jewish religious authorities. And they won’t marry a Jew and a non-Jew. And there’s no civil marriage in Israel. The result is that a Jew and a non-Jew who wish to marry have to do so abroad, and Cyprus is the most convenient place. The marriage will be recognized in Israeli law.

There’s no similar problem for non-Jewish mixed marriages. If a Maronite and a Greek Orthodox, say, wish to marry, no problem. They can get married, lawfully and effectively, in Israel, since they belong to communities which will celebrate mixed marriages.

This is hopelessly old-fashioned, of course, and it doesn’t conform to our notions of the secularity of the state, and its something of an embarrassment to most Israeli Jews who are, in fact, secular. But I question whether it tells against Israeli democracy. The reason that Israel has never reformed this confessional system is that the necessary cross-community consensus isn’t there, and the government won’t impose a uniform system on without that consensus.

Banbh

This is the kind of muddle you get when people are defined by 'community' or ethnicity. The Nazis (they always crop up when race is discussed) had definitions of half-Jew and quarter-Jew etc. The Israeli model is purely on the maternal line so I, a quarter-Jew by Nazi rules, can be a full Jew and an Israeli citizen by Israeli law (if I chose to ignore my three-quarter Irishness) with full voting and marriage rights in Israel.

It's racist nonsense of course as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the origins of our species knows.

Peregrinus

Banbh wrote: »

This is the kind of muddle you get when people are defined by 'community' or ethnicity. The Nazis (they always crop up when race is discussed) had definitions of half-Jew and quarter-Jew etc. The Israeli model is purely on the maternal line so I, a quarter-Jew by Nazi rules, can be a full Jew and an Israeli citizen by Israeli law (if I chose to ignore my three-quarter Irishness) with full voting and marriage rights in Israel.

It's racist nonsense of course as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the origins of our species knows.

If it is racist nonsense, then there's an awful lot of racist countries around, since many countries have a concept of citizenship by descent - Ireland among them. Would you say that those countries also are not democracies, or is the concept of citizenship by descent a bit of a red herring in this context?

Banbh

Most countries do not define citizenship by ethnicity. In fact with the obvious exception of Israel I can think of any other country which legislates for ethnic origins and has laws to define what that means.

Israel is a pariah state among nations for the ethnic cleansing it is carrying out but from the perspective of an atheist and a democrat it is also repugnant on other grounds.

And I don't know what you mean by red herring.

Nodin

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it is racist nonsense, then there's an awful lot of racist countries around, since many countries have a concept of citizenship by descent - Ireland among them. Would you say that those countries also are not democracies, or is the concept of citizenship by descent a bit of a red herring in this context?

You seem to be confusing being born to Irish citizen parents, with being declared "irish" as some form of ethnicity. The only state in Western Europe I can think of with such a definition offhand was Germany, which changed it some years ago (around 2000/2001).

Siuin

Banbh wrote: »

The Israeli model is purely on the maternal line

No it's not, so get your facts straight before you start mouthing off about something you don't even understand. In Israel you only need one grandparent who is Jewish- they do not need to be from the maternal side of the family.

Banbh wrote: »

(if I chose to ignore my three-quarter Irishness)

You know it's possible to be Jewish and Irish too, right? The two aren't incompatible and you wouldn't need to 'ignore' anything.

Banbh wrote: »

It's racist nonsense of course as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the origins of our species knows.

If that's your opinion, then Israel is much better off without you as one of its citizens.

robindch

^^^ Siuin, take a chill pill or take a hike.

Siuin

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Siuin, take a chill pill or take a hike.

They can call Israel a pariah state, racist, promoting apartheid, ethnic cleansing and compare them to Nazis, yet I'm the one told to 'chill out' :rolleyes: