Israel is less and less a democracy

[yehudi]

"As the Israeli government and its supporters in America and elsewhere invest millions of dollars in public relations strategies emphasizing how democratic Israel's system of government is, it emerges that there is a deep confusion among Israel's Jewish citizens about what "democracy" actually means in practice.


For over a decade, the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), a non-partisan Israeli research institute founded in 1991 and based in Jerusalem, has been studying the quality of Israeli democracy and how well it functions. The result is "The Democracy Index", a long-term, comparative study of some thirty-one indicators measuring Israeli democracy against that of thirty-five other democracies. The index includes a public opinion survey component reflecting how Israelis view their democracy.

Today, on 22 May 2003, the IDI will present its 2003 Democracy Index findings at a special conference under the joint auspices of Israel's President, Moshe Katzav, and the Institute itself.

Describing the 2003 Index's findings as "alarming," the IDI asserts that Israel's political system "has not yet acquired the characteristics of a substantive democracy". The Index notes that Israel does not rate high on political participation, "as opposed to what has commonly been thought: there has been a downward trend since 1996, and the country now ranks 22nd [of 31]."

For nearly every indicator in the "Rights" measurement, the Index placed Israel in the lower half of the list:
"Israel's ranking in this aspect is worrisome. For nearly every indicator, Israel places in the lower half of the list. Protection of human rights in Israel is poor; there is serious political and economic discrimination against the Arab minority; there is much less freedom of religion than in other democracies; and the socioeconomic inequality indicator is among the highest in the sample."

On the "Stability and Social Cohesion" indicator:
"Here Israel ranks at the bottom of the list in all indicators. The turnover in governments is more frequent than in other democracies, and only India ranks lower in social tensions and rifts between the various segments of society.

"If we look at developments in Israel over the last decade, we note deterioration in many indicators of Israeli democracy while in others there has been no improvement. For example, there has been a decrease in participation in elections, corruption has increased, freedom of the press is on the decline, the number of prisoners has gone up, and the inequality in wages is worsening. Despite this, there are some indicators showing advances in Israeli democracy. For example, participation in politics is more open to competition, and there is greater equality between men and women, and there is less political conflict in society."

Part of the Index includes a survey of Israeli public opinion. The results of this poll show that over the last few years there has been "a significant decline in the Jewish population's support of democratic norms on all levels" and a 20-year low in the percentage of support for the statement that "democracy is the best form of government." Israel and Poland ranked lowest in the percentage of citizens who agreed with the statement that "democracy is a desirable form of government."

Israel -- together with Mexico, India and Romania -- is only one of four countries out of 31 in which the population is of the opinion that "strong leaders can be more useful to the state than all the deliberations and laws." On one indicator, measuring freedom of the press, Israel's media came in as "nearly free".

(from http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1512.shtml)



______________________________


The Democracy Index: Major Findings 2003


The State of the Israeli Democracy


For over a decade, from 1992-2003, the IDI has been studying the quality of Israeli democracy and how well it functions. Entitled The Democracy Index, this study consists of two parts: a long-term and comparative study of some thirty-one indicators measuring Israeli democracy against that of thirty-five other democracies, and a public opinion survey reflecting how Israelis view their democracy.

The alarming findings of this study are being presented on May 22nd at a special conference under the joint auspices of Israel's President, Moshe Katzav, and The Israel Democracy Institute. The Institute plans to make this conference a yearly event for considering how well or poorly Israeli democracy has fared in the interim and what measures can be taken to improve the weaknesses.

The Democracy Index covers three aspects of democracy: the institutional aspect, rights, and the aspect of stability and social cohesion. Each aspect includes a number of characteristics important to a democratic regime. For instance, representation and participation are two characteristics of the institutional aspect. In the public opinion survey, the two main subjects of investigation are to what degree democratic political cultural has become entrenched in Israel and what the public perception is of how well Israeli democracy functions.

(..)

The Democracy Index: Major Findings

The picture emerging from the various indicators shows that Israel is mainly a formal democracy that has not yet acquired the characteristics of a substantive democracy. It also suffers from great instability in comparison with other democratic countries.

* The Institutional Aspect

Israel does fairly well in this aspect. The two areas in which Israel is strongest, compared to other democracies, are in representation and checks and balances (number 6 out of 36 countries in the sample). Israel does less well with regard to political participation, as opposed to what has commonly been thought: there has been a downward trend since 1996, and the country now ranks 22nd.

* The Rights Aspect

Israel's ranking in this aspect is worrisome. For nearly every indicator, Israel places in the lower half of the list. Protection of human rights in Israel is poor; there is serious political and economic discrimination against the Arab minority; there is much less freedom of religion than in other democracies; and the socioeconomic inequality indicator is among the highest in the sample.


* The Stability and Social Cohesion Aspect

Here Israel ranks at the bottom of the list in all indicators. The turnover in governments is more frequent than in other democracies, and only India ranks lower in social tensions and rifts between the various segments of society.

(extract http://www.idi.org.il/english/article.php?id=29773543ee323b0d72ccc5763e07d294)

[humus_sapiens]

Does that justify the Arab dream of destroying it? To el-intifada anything does.

To me, the call for strong leader is only natural at time of war.

[Mediocrates]

Anything that electronicintifada has to say about Israeli politics is as credible as anything they have to say about Atlantis, Superman, Time Travel, Nostradamus and so on.

[Mediocrates]

idi is posing an abstract analysis and electronicintifada picks up on it for anti Israeli political purposes. For example idi talks about relavtive measure such as 'could be better' and electronicintifada takes that and calls it 'near the bottom, couldn't be worse.


Why do you even suppose the idi exists? Can you even imagine a pdi? Palestinians democracy institute - yeah sure.

[yehudi]

ahahaha

I guess you do no even bother reading things that you know don't go the way you wish....

yeah the israel democratic institute does not exist... just close your eyes and it will vanish, the palestinians will vanish too ... the whole world is an illusion..

.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by yehudi
ahahaha

I guess you do no even bother reading things that you know don't go the way you wish....

yeah the israel democratic institute does not exist... just close your eyes and it will vanish, the palestinians will vanish too ... the whole world is an illusion..


Wrong guess. But again, your posts here are full of wrong assumptions and misdirected allegations. Curiously, you always chose Israel as the target of your "constructive" criticisim.

Here's a hint. If you really worry about democracy, you are in the right neighboorhood, but knocking at the wrong door. Why not Muslim tyrants, ayatollahs, sheikhs, generals, monarchs or "Jamahirias"?

Egypt, the only Arab state that was on the road to some kind of democracy, turned into tyrannic regime with horrible human right record.

Good luck on your social studies class, dude.

[Mediocrates]

Well let's look at this

* The Stability and Social Cohesion Aspect


and think about whether that even means anything to the issues here?

Does it? Whether it's good or bad it probably has as much to with Palestinians as the relative difficulty of navigating the bureacracy of acquiring a taxi licence. Yet PA apologists see the word "bad" and wave it over their head as 'proof' - - of what we don't know but apparently it's proof of something.

For example y - your own country is probably near the BOTTOM in terms of the ease of non EU people gaining employment. I suppose this is an indication of the enormous fascism, but maybe it's not.

And so on.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Well let's look at this

* The Stability and Social Cohesion Aspect


and think about whether that even means anything to the issues here?

Does it? Whether it's good or bad it probably has as much to with Palestinians as the relative difficulty of navigating the bureacracy of acquiring a taxi licence. Yet PA apologists see the word "bad" and wave it over their head as 'proof' - - of what we don't know but apparently it's proof of something.


And so on. Personnaly I looked at the powerpoint round-up. At the bottom of the IDI page. You can find good and bad things, not only bad. The observation on corruption (real vs. perceived) is quite a surprise to me. Any idea what it means? I see you referring to "israeli bureaucracy" Medio





But to me, the most worrying aspect in the IDI report is the democratic culture indicator
======================================


(from the IDI page)
Democratic Culture

„X Over the last few years there has been a significant decline in the Jewish population's support of democratic norms on all levels: general support of the democratic system, support of specific democratic values, and support for equal rights for the Arab minority.

„X The April 2003 survey returned a twenty year low in the percentage of support for the statement that democracy is the best form of government. Only 77% of the Jewish population thought it was.

„X Of 32 countries for which there was data, Israel and Poland ranked lowest in the percentage of citizens (Arabs and Jews) who agreed with the statement that democracy is a desirable form of government.

„X Israel (together with Mexico, India and Romania) is only one of 4 countries out of 31 in which the population is of the opinion that "strong leaders can be more useful to the state than all the deliberations and laws."

„X As of 2003, more than half (53%) of the Jews in Israel state out loud that they are against full equality for the Arabs; 77% say there should be a Jewish majority on crucial political decisions; less than a third (31%) support having Arab political parties in the government; and the majority (57%) think that the Arabs should be encouraged to emigrate. On all issues there was a dramatic decline in support for democratic norms, compared to 1999.

„X Not only is the Jewish population unsupportive of equality for Arab citizens, half of them do not acknowledge that equality doesn't exist in practice; 49% disagree that Israeli Arabs are discriminated against compared with Jews.
the hostility toward the arab minority which makes for 20% of Israel is very strong.
On this forum I feel you avoid the subject, always presenting israel a "pure jew" while it's false.


Any statement by the "hawks" of this forum about the arab minority question?

[Mediocrates]

Such as what? does racism exist? should we laser in on Israel and the worlds most heinous example of it? Let me ask you - there are about 10000 black arab Israelis who are not well treated, by anyone there, Jews and Arabs alike. What is that indicative of, as a country?

There are fewer Jews living in the Arab world than there are Jews living in Poland. There are more Arabs living in Israel than there are Jews living in any country on earth except the US and Israel.

I was reading this week about the high unemployment and generally poor treatment of French Arabs. What is that indicative of?

[Bla7]

A lot of the Israeli Arabs are whining about not being equal in rights to the Jews. Actually there is a correcting favoritism towards them in many ways. But suppose there IS a discrimination. Are they really 'worth' being treated as equals? Are they giving Israel what the Jews are giving it (i.e serving in the army for starvation sallary for 3 years and then a month of reserves service every year). This is twisted, and by no fault of their own. In my humble opinion an authority should be initiated in Israel which deals with national services of all sorts. People will mandatorily serve the country for 3 years and for a very low pay roll, and the authority would distribute them to works according to their professions. After this is done, a law should be made that would grant any person born to citizens a temporary citizenship (or something of the sort - I'm not keen in the legal terminology) until the age of, say, 18. Then he has a choice - Serve the country and become a full citizen with all the rights, including sufferage - Or simply choose not to. No harm done. But no citizenship as well. No government funding of half your tuition in the university, no sufferage (which would greatly help avoiding parties that actually do not want the state to exist to ironically participate in the parliament (Knesset)). People will have a choice - Either they want to be citizens or just civilians. No one will be forced to serve. The country wouldn't waste funds on fighting people who do not wish to serve - they may as well do so...
What do you guys think of this idea???
And how could one bring it to discussion in the Knesset???

[Canajew]

So if Isarel is less and less of a democracy over time, and if the fact that the palestinians are not a democracy allows some to feel comfortable in judging Israel on the standards of a democratic country while judging the Palestininas on a lower third world type of standard (it may have been you, yehudi, but I'm not certain), then does this mean that as time goes on Israel will be allowed to/justified in/expected to act in more and more reprehensible ways. like suicide bombings and the like. After all, if she is not democratic, then what is the justification for holding her to a higher standard?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Canajew
So if Israel is less and less of a democracy over time, Thanks for recognizing the statement of the Israel Democracy Institute.



Originally posted by Canajew
After all, if she is not democratic, then what is the justification for holding her to a higher standard? once we see Israel is less and less a democracy, that israelis are more and more racists and prone to violence, what then?


"Less and less" is true, but were do you put the limit, where do you recognize Israel looks like a democracy with elections, but more like India or Russia do? With exactly the same causes/consequences: Kashmir, Chechenia, Palestine.


When do you acknowledge vitals rights are suppressed (freedom of speech, freedom of movement, minorities rights)?

.

[elke]

There is a big difference between Israel and Russia, as far as democracy is concerned. While in Israel all the institutions of the democracy are alive and well, from free press to independent court system, Russia is a different story. Rampant corruption, monopolistic practices, and underdeveloped legal system are dogging Russia to this day.

IMO, it is unreasonable to expect a country that gelled only slightly over 50 years ago, and is in a continuous state of mortal danger ever since then, to be on a par with a country like Australia or Holland in terms of stability of government; - or even, indeed, on the human and civil rights issues, among many others. These things have been thrashed out, literally over the centuries, in the older, more established democracies. It wasn't that long ago that a Jew was sworn into the British Parliament for the first time, nor that an African American was able to enter US Congress.

That's not to say that comparisons and analysis shouldn't be done, nor that these issues - and many others - shouldn't be raised and addressed. However, the very existence of the IDI, along with their testimony to the Knesset, should be considered as well. Democracy is an ongoing process, that needs to be nurtured and developed, over time and with much energy.
Sitting there "ohing", "ahing", and gloating over this report is silly.

[Gilgamesh]

"Yehudi",

I've never heared about IDI, I belive its just another "intelectual institute" established and financed by European money. It is not the only institute of this nature. Where hired "intelectuals" and merceneries acdemics publish "academic papers" for demand, to support politions and fringe ideologies that back European greed intrests in our region. No real Israeli takes them serioucly. Not even the hired academics themselves.

We are sick and tiered from these fringe ideologies of Israelis talking Hebrew in heavy French, Russian or German accent, with the words "European spokeman" written on their foreheads, and the facial expression of "Don't blame me [for my wired views], I only do my job". Any interviewes with these people is pushed to the late night news edition whose next to nobody ever watches, hosted by a known franco-phile who rather hear himself talk, French if possible... In other words, Its the freak-show corner within a freak show news edition. Nobody ever notice these freaks... but we Israelis begin to look at it as yet another way to exploite European tax payer money... If some body gives you money for nothing, won't you take it? How else can a mediocar philosophy professor, in the middle a land of professors and nation of philosophers (the way Aristo considered Judaism) feed his wife and babies? ... So goes for the IDI... believe me, there are at least a dozen "institutions" like it all over Israel.

AS for the allegation as if israel is less a democracy.
* Any foreign citizen, does not have equal rights to any other local citizen. This "discrimination" does not derived from racsim, but from the defenition of citizenship of a certain country. It is idiotic to consider Israel less democratic because of its treatment of "Palestinian" Arabs, who are citizens of anther civilian entity... .

* It is absured to compare a democracy in peace time with a democracy in crises, times of peace with times of war, and civil rights of a citizen in peace time, or of a friendly nation, with the civil rights in areas of emargency and war, let alone when that civilan of a hostail nation.

* It is stupid to compare Israel which fights terrorism, with European democracies that choose to host, finance terrorists, or in other words, collaborate [yet again] with the enemies of man kind and humanistic civilization.

Few facts about democracy in Israel: There are 10 Arabs in the Knesset (out of 120 seats). Two of them are in Sharon's own Likud center right, Zionist, party (the same party I'm a member of). These Arabs, also have the rank equal to colenals in the IDF. I wonder how many Arabs are there in French or German parlaments?

The highest ranking Arab in the IDF is a Tat Aluf (Gen. ). He is about the be promoted to Aluf, commanding the entire south command. It's one rank below that of the Chief of Staff, who is Rav Aluf (equal to American 3 star general). What is the highest ranking Arab in France? or Germany?

Arabs enjoy greater religious freedom in Israel then in many Arab or European countries. Here, in Israel, we don't make problems with head scarfes for muslem girls, in schools or university. Arabs have even greater religious freedoms then Jews, since the is no one single site forbiden for Arab to pray, while the goverment forbids Jews from praying in Joseph Tomb, Temple Mount or Jericho's anciant synagog, simply from fear to the Jewish worshipers lives. Arab do not respect Jews right of worship, let alone the right to live.

Any complaint about Israel's made up denail of Arab "freedoms", compared with the Arab denail of Jews right to live, is a Joke!.
The only denail of Arab freedom is their freedom to murder Jews, of Arabs ability to conduct hate crimes.

"Yehudi", My post proves your double standards. Attempting to pass judment on things you know little of, using moral standards that do not fit the situation. Like Juding a fireman from burglary, and demge of proparty, since he just axed a door...

"Yehudi". Your refusal to understand this simple truth, proves more then anything your built in anti semetism. You hardly notice it's there, so much it is an integral part of your world view. Every post you write only strenghthen my feelings of disgust of your personal, and national moral bankrupt. Your Anti Semetism is showing... and I hate for that.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by yehudi
Thanks for recognizing the statement of the Israel Democracy Institute.


it wasn't about recognizing the statement. I said "if it were true", thus premissing the statement on an assumption. My point was that you seem to lack a cohesive, consistent perception of Israel. On one hand you perceieve it as a western democracy and hold it to that standard in its dealings with the PLO (while you do not hold the PA to the same standard because it is not a democracy) and on the other hand you consistently make reference to the fact that Israel is not a real democracy. You can't have it both ways.



once we see Israel is less and less a democracy, that israelis are more and more racists and prone to violence, what then?


Ok. Here's my problem. Israelis are neither particularly racist or particularly prone to violence. You have been quick to point out the difference between the PA and the Palestinians, yet you do not make a similar distinction between government policy of the State of Israel and the views of Israelis themselves.

And Israelis are no more racist than the average American or Canadian or Frenchman. You may perceive Isareli policy to be racist, but thats only because you believe the propaganda. It is not "rwacist" at all. It is discriminatory, based on nationality, to be sure, but this is entirely different. As for prone to violence, I would think that being constantly exposed to terrorism and the depraved behaviour of the palestinians would make any group more likley to tollerate violence against them. Makes sense, no? I mean, the Palestinians act like savages and they will be seen as such. It seems quite reasonable.

And the "what then", why don't you ask the same type of question about the PA. The answer to your question would be "not much". Because the Palestinians have become FAR more violent than I think even Europe thought possible, and their depths of depravity seemingly have no bounds. But this has not changed the "enlightened" world's opinion of them. So assuming equal treatment of Arabs and Jews (to co-opt your "racism" argument) then as the Israelis sink to palestinian levels, the world's opinion should not change. this is, of course, a fiction, but illustrative of the larger problem others seem to have with your post.



"Less and less" is true, but were do you put the limit, where do you recognize Israel looks like a democracy with elections, but more like India or Russia do? With exactly the same causes/consequences: Kashmir, Chechenia, Palestine.


You are worng with this, and to reply is only to give your position credance. Look at the data if you are so inclined, but to suggest that Israel, with its history of political freedom and civil discourse, its robust body of law and its clear separation of powers, and its civil rights and civic institutions, is as much as a democracy as Russia is to again distort reality ot fit your world view. You have, evidently bought the PA's propaganda hook and sinker. Way to assert your independence of thought.



When do you acknowledge vitals rights are suppressed (freedom of speech, freedom of movement, minorities rights)?


with regards to whom? Israeli Arabs or the Palestinians. There are problems with the way the Israeli Arabs are treated and the opportunities that are afforded them. Notwithstanding this, they do get a disproportionate share of public funds, and they do have autonomous rights that would be the envy of Arabs almost anywhere else in the Arab world. The issue is complicated. Like the treatment of blacks in the US or white people in Japan. But the Palestinians are different.

They are a foreign population who are, at the present time, quite beligerent, and as such they are not entitled to the rights you mentioned. You should be aware that the treatment of the Palestininas has nothing to do with a democratic nations domestic equality status. But you don't really seem to care about that sort of thing, only the political points you can get by drawing spurious inferences.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Canajew
it wasn't about recognizing the statement. I said "if it were true", thus premissing the statement on an assumption Ok so if you do not recognize the results published (even though this institue looks serious and the results have been presented under auspices of Israel's President, Moshe Katzav) there is not point discussing them.


Like when you said "no" to negociations on the right of return", there is not point talking about the roadmap if you are totally unwilling to discuss.

.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by yehudi
Ok so if you do not recognize the results published (even though this institue looks serious and the results have been presented under auspices of Israel's President, Moshe Katzav) there is not point discussing them.


I never said I didn't agree with them either, I only said "if" to avoid talking about the validity of the figures and to direct attention to the arguments founded on these "facts" which I assumed ot be true.

I would think, though, that these types of studies are failrly accurate, but only in context. There are failings in every democracy. Women in Canada, for example, earn only about 80% of the salaries that men do. numbers like this are roughly similar in all developed countries. But to then say Canada is like Taliban Afghanistan in its treatment of women, as Canada discriminates against women and so does the Taliban is disingenuous.

Israeli democracy is not perfect and needs constant reform and revision. But to say that this is proof that Israel is non-democratic is ridiculous.



Like when you said "no" to negociations on the right of return", there is not point talking about the roadmap if you are totally unwilling to discuss.


That's not really true. I am happy to discuss all aspects of the road map. And just because I will never support a policy option does not mean there is no point discussing it. Like expulsion of the Arabs, for example. I don't support that sort of thing, but one has to be prepared to discuss something if it is an option on the table. Just like the right of return. I have always been happy to discuss the Palestinians' wishes for settlement in Israel. Only I have always said no, and do not believe they are really entitled to this "right". Seems quite a bit like your position on the settlers, no?

But what of the correlary. the Palestinians are not even willing to contemplate that they have no right of return. And if this is true, using your logic, then Israel should not even bother trying to talk about peace.

And in reality, my position and the Israeli position is far clsoer to reality. Because both functionally and theoretically, the Palestinians are not entitled to any sort of right of return. We can discuss this all you wish.

[localbrew]

Between the issue of the Israeli Arabs and the Sharon campaign funds it is starting to look like democracy in Israel is on a slippery slope the USA will not be able to support. Many people are watching very closely now.

[Batman]

Originally posted by yehudi
Ok so if you do not recognize the results published (even though this institue looks serious and the results have been presented under auspices of Israel's President, Moshe Katzav) there is not point discussing them.


Like when you said "no" to negociations on the right of return", there is not point talking about the roadmap if you are totally unwilling to discuss.

.

You are right. The Democracy of Israel is not working as well as most of the Jewish people of Israel hoped it would. But neither is it working for its own Jewish citizens! The reason is different than that you and the electronic nazifada are claiming.

First of all: In the Mid East------
Jews are a minority.
Arabs are a majority

ARAB DOMINANCE in the MID EAST
as compared to Israel:

22 ARAB COUNTRIES
50 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE
800 TIMES AS MUCH TERRITORY
EXTENSIVE OIL RESERVES

There is also a map
comparing Israel to California:

California is 100,222 square miles
Israel is 10,840 square miles


One Jewish man marries
One Jewish woman
They usually have
2.2 children,

One Arab man marries
4 Arab women
They usually have
6 children each.

YOU DO THE MATH. There is NO chance for Israel to remain a Democracy and assure that Jews remain SAFELY in their HOMELAND. That is because the ARABS hate Jews and have declared their intent to get rid of Jews out of the Mid East since over 50 years ago.

Now, I think this Israel's report is meaningless, if there will be no Jewish people who can live there safely.

I think that despite all the good will of Israel's desire for Democracy the circumstances on the ground and the ongoing war of the ARabs against Israel dictate that Israel cannot afford to lay its neck down on the butcher block so Arabs can just pass the knife over it while Europe continues to send the fundings for this Final Solution of the Jewish problem.

So since you want to communicate and discuss so much, I think you should stop laying down your blames on Israel and find every little weapon to prove your point and try to communicate with the realities in mind.

[danholo]

I still can't stand the fact that yehudi has come to this site under cover with his nickname. It'd be the same if I'd come here under the Nick "deutcher", "norsk" or "arabi".

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by danholo
I still can't stand the fact that yehudi has come to this site under cover with his nickname. It'd be the same if I'd come here under the Nick "deutcher", "norsk" or "arabi".


Yehudi explianed that by choising the nick after the self hating, marxist Jewish violinist Yehudi Manuchin, who was a traitor of his Jewish brotherens.

"Yehudi" liked Manuchin views, which are strongly anti zionist and fairly anti semetic.

As for the report... One must always be careful of "democracy indexes" some group of self appointed "independent judges", who hail the Arafat's PA, Assad's Syria and Saddam Hussain's Iraq, as much more "democartic" then Israel and the US...

I mean, anybody, can make up an index which would reflect what ever one may think... totally unscientific and unacceptable.

[Batman]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Yehudi explianed that by choising the nick after the self hating, marxist Jewish violinist Yehudi Manuchin, who was a traitor of his Jewish brotherens.

"Yehudi" liked Manuchin views, which are strongly anti zionist and fairly anti semetic.

As for the report... One must always be careful of "democracy indexes" some group of self appointed "independent judges", who hail the Arafat's PA, Assad's Syria and Saddam Hussain's Iraq, as much more "democartic" then Israel and the US...

I mean, anybody, can make up an index which would reflect what ever one may think... totally unscientific and unacceptable.

It makes sense for a Jew hater to promote Jews who hate their own selves and brethrens enough to bring on more Jew hatered.

This is exactly what Abu Mazin intended to accomplish---he said that by promoting 'peace' negotiations with Israel the Arabs will divide the Jews of Israel and weaken them more than if the ARabs waged war on the Jews of Israel. This was his thesis for his PHD, I believe and there you have it in a nutshall.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=51851

Most Skip Local Elections, Israeli Arabs Don´t
19:58 Oct 28, '03 / 2 Cheshvan 5764

Of the 3,787,860 Israelis eligible to vote in local municipal elections today, a record few of them cast their ballots. Israel’s Arabs though, have shown up in overwhelming numbers to exercise their right to vote – something most Arabs of the Middle East don’t have the opportunity to do.

A record 93 percent of Abu Ghosh residents cast their votes today, with other Arab towns averaging over an 80 percent turnout. The overall nationwide turnout at 10 PM was 41 percent, which is a 20 percent decrease from local elections five years ago.

A notable exception was the city of Nahariya, which saw 70 percent of it 41,000 eligible voters cast ballots to elect their new mayor. Nahariya is home to 10,000 new immigrants and 6,000 senior citizens, both of whom had a large turnout at the voting stations, contributing to today's local record.

Interior Ministry employees throughout the country took a break from their strike this morning to issue identification cards, without which voters cannot exercise their democratic right to choose. Close to 5,000 identity cards were in fact issued today to people wishing to take part in the elections.

In most parts of the country, the 5,705 polling stations opened at 7 AM and will close at 10 PM Haifa and Jerusalem did not hold elections today, however, because both cities held special elections in June, after their previous mayors were elected to the Knesset

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
"Yehudi",

"Yehudi". Your refusal to understand this simple truth, proves more then anything your built in anti semetism. You hardly notice it's there, so much it is an integral part of your world view. Every post you write only strenghthen my feelings of disgust of your personal, and national moral bankrupt. Your Anti Semetism is showing... and I hate for that.

I see the hatred (or at least suspicion) towards Europe and in particular France is deep-seated.
I think it's very wrong you accuse Yehudi of being anti-semite based on this post. THAT is the wrong use of the word, when accusations are made this quickly the word will lose value.
I'm interested in this topic, how democratic Israel is. And I'm able to see that israel is not perfect. Does that make me anti-semite? That's ridiculous.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Ahava
I think it's very wrong you accuse Yehudi of being anti-semite based on this post. Yehudi, who was booted out, banned, from this forum for his anti semetism, proved this in more then one post...

His very choice of his nick, after the marxist self hating anti zionisnt traitor violinist: Yehudi Manuchin, proves his exact ideas.


THAT is the wrong use of the word, when accusations are made this quickly the word will lose value. First, I don't think that I, or any of us are in need of your approval about the use of the anti semetism expression.

Secondly, the word anti semetism already lost it's value, since Israelis feel confident in thier ability to self defend and the Europeans are highly anti semetic... so too few really care about anti semetism.


I'm interested in this topic, how democratic Israel is. And I'm able to see that israel is not perfect. Does that make me anti-semite? That's ridiculous. Dependese what imperfections you mean. What reasons you use to explain how Israel is less democratic. Israelis themselves claims there are risks to our democracy. There always are...

One becomes an anti semetic if his critism of Israel is denail of Israel right to exist as a Jewish nation state, or Israel right of self defence, or by supplaying justification for Arab terrorism, mass murder of Jews and wipping out entire Jewish families.

Yehudi done all of that, and was banned.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Yehudi, who was booted out, banned, from this forum for his anti semetism, proved this in more then one post...

His very choice of his nick, after the marxist self hating anti zionisnt traitor violinist: Yehudi Manuchin, proves his exact ideas.
[/B]

Ok, sorry, I said "based on this post", if there were things he said earlier that are anti-semite, could be, i don't know that. But I'm sure it's true if he's banned. And his nick derived from that person..that's no good sign either.



Originally posted by Gilgamesh
First, I don't think that I, or any of us are in need of your approval about the use of the anti semetism expression.

Secondly, the word anti semetism already lost it's value, since Israelis feel confident in thier ability to self defend and the Europeans are highly anti semetic... so too few really care about anti semetism.
[/B]

A cynical European would say "you Israelis don't give a damn about anything that's been said by the world, you don't care about UN resolutions and condemnations..", but luckily, I'm not a cynical European.
Too few care about anti-semitism, that's true, one of the reasons is that more and more people seem to think every critic of israel is slammed as being anti-semitic. That's basically why I said it's not good to do it when it's not actually anti-semitic.


Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Dependese what imperfections you mean. What reasons you use to explain how Israel is less democratic. Israelis themselves claims there are risks to our democracy. There always are...

One becomes an anti semetic if his critism of Israel is denail of Israel right to exist as a Jewish nation state, or Israel right of self defence, or by supplaying justification for Arab terrorism, mass murder of Jews and wipping out entire Jewish families.

Yehudi done all of that, and was banned. [/B]

Ok, I'm clearly not in either category, but I already knew I was not anti-semite, i couldn't be. I tell people all the time whoever denies israel's right to exist is anti-semite.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Ahava
A cynical European would say "you Israelis don't give a damn about anything that's been said by the world, you don't care about UN resolutions and condemnations..", but luckily, I'm not a cynical European. UN resolutions which Israel seems to ignore are not compulsive, they are merley a suggestion.

Israel ignores any idea which implementing it will risk human lives, or impractical or anti semetic. Israel do not ignore our friends. Most Europeans aren't among our friends.


Too few care about anti-semitism, that's true, one of the reasons is that more and more people seem to think every critic of israel is slammed as being anti-semitic. That's basically why I said it's not good to do it when it's not actually anti-semitic. It is immoral to allow redefinition of anti semetism by ignoring anti semetism because it is an opinion held by the vast majority of modern Europeans. We usually call anti semetics by their name. Let Europe decide for her self whether she is anti semetic or not. Egypt, Syria and many other Arab nation already decided to be anti semetic. Britain and the USA, India and China are not anti semetic. Europe should pick her side.


Ok, I'm clearly not in either category, but I already knew I was not anti-semite, i couldn't be. I tell people all the time whoever denies israel's right to exist is anti-semite. Good to hear that. Thankyou!

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
UN resolutions which Israel seems to ignore are not compulsive, they are merley a suggestion.

Israel ignores any idea which implementing it will risk human lives, or impractical or anti semetic. Israel do not ignore our friends. Most Europeans aren't among our friends.
[/B]

I know, and I agree. The UN is very one-sided, but what do you expect with Syria as leading country in the Security council? I always call the USA the second side of the one-sided UN.


Originally posted by Gilgamesh
It is immoral to allow redefinition of anti semetism by ignoring anti semetism because it is an opinion held by the vast majority of modern Europeans. We usually call anti semetics by their name. Let Europe decide for her self whether she is anti semetic or not. Egypt, Syria and many other Arab nation already decided to be anti semetic. Britain and the USA, India and China are not anti semetic. Europe should pick her side.

Good to hear that. Thankyou! [/B]

It's true, for example if you're discriminated every day, shouldn't you be able to say it everyday? And I see you don't consider England as a part of Europe, neither do they, ha, but I do think Holland is on the good side. At least with the current foreign minister.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Ahava
I know, and I agree. The UN is very one-sided, but what do you expect with Syria as leading country in the Security council? I always call the USA the second side of the one-sided UN. True! So True!



It's true, for example if you're discriminated every day, shouldn't you be able to say it everyday? And I see you don't consider England as a part of Europe, neither do they, ha, but I do think Holland is on the good side. At least with the current foreign minister. I agree! Holland is relativly ballanced and never was an obediant member in the German-French rat pack. The Duch people are looked upon fondly in Israel, we know you, in general, to be nice and fair people.

The land that hosted Baruch Spinoza and other great Jews, and hosted an imporatant Jewish community in Amsterdam, in relative peace for centuries up to the war...

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
True! So True!


I agree! Holland is relativly ballanced and never was an obediant member in the German-French rat pack. The Duch people are looked upon fondly in Israel, we know you, in general, to be nice and fair people.

The land that hosted Baruch Spinoza and other great Jews, and hosted an imporatant Jewish community in Amsterdam, in relative peace for centuries up to the war... [/B]

We're a big fan of the Dutch here in Canada too. :) It's 'cause you guys appreciated our liberation efforts so much and treated our boys so well while the french were perceived as derrisive and arrogant. The more things change ...

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
I know, and I agree. The UN is very one-sided, but what do you expect with Syria as leading country in the Security council? I always call the USA the second side of the one-sided UN.

Just a friendly reminder to mention that Libya chairs the UN Human Rights commission.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Just a friendly reminder to mention that Libya chairs the UN Human Rights commission.

:eek:
I'll keep this in mind.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Canajew
We're a big fan of the Dutch here in Canada too. :) It's 'cause you guys appreciated our liberation efforts so much and treated our boys so well while the french were perceived as derrisive and arrogant. The more things change ...

Nice to hear that. :)

[Leon]

Originally posted by yehudi
ahahaha

I guess you do no even bother reading things that you know don't go the way you wish....

yeah the israel democratic institute does not exist... just close your eyes and it will vanish, the palestinians will vanish too ... the whole world is an illusion..

.

Close your eyes and picture all the Arab Mk's sitting in the Israeli parliament. Picture their political parties. Picture the ones who freely support the intifada against Israel. Picture the one million Arabs who have the right to vote, free speech, freedom of religion in Israel - simple rights that would be denied to them in their OWN ARAB COUNTRIES.

Thats what I call a democracy.

[Isiah 2:4]

Just thought id say that i dont care about why yehudi chose his name, but all i can say is the Yehudi Menuhin was probably THE greatest violin player of the last century.

http://www.menuhin-foundation.com/

www.yehudimenuhinschool.co.uk/

He did a lot of good things too, especially for classical muscians in Britain.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Isiah 2:4
Just thought id say that i dont care about why yehudi chose his name, but all i can say is the Yehudi Menuhin was probably THE greatest violin player of the last century.

http://www.menuhin-foundation.com/

www.yehudimenuhinschool.co.uk/

He did a lot of good things too, especially for classical muscians in Britain.

Yasha Hefetz, was the greatest violinist of all times.

Yehudi Manuchin was a marxist sc*m! an anti zionist traitor who admired anti semites and other hated goyims.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Yehudi Manuchin was a marxist sc*m! an anti zionist traitor who admired anti semites and other hated goyims.
Sounds like Avrum Burg:

I fear that the Zionist dream is doomed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/03/28/do2801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/03/28/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=68808)
By Avraham Burg
(Filed: 28/03/2004)


The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.

There is time to change course, but not much. What is needed is a new vision of a just society and the political will to implement it. Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out.

The opposition does not exist, and the coalition, with Ariel Sharon at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there is nothing left to say.

Yes, we have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvellous theatre and a strong currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations.

It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.

It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements such as Beit El and Ofra. The biblical landscape is charming. You can gaze through the geraniums and bougainvilleas and not see the occupation. Travelling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it is hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied.

This cannot work. Even if the Arabs lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger for ever, it won't work. A structure built on human callousness will inevitably collapse. Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism.

They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated. We could kill 1,000 ringleaders a day and nothing will be solved, because the leaders come from below - from the wells of hatred and anger, from the "infrastructures" of injustice and moral corruption.

If all this were inevitable, divinely ordained, I would be silent. But things could be different, and so crying out is a moral imperative.

Here is what the prime minister should say to the people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world's only Jewish state - not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.

Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let's institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages. Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem.

Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse - or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements - all of them - and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.

Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.

The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers, or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.

Why, then, is the opposition so quiet? Perhaps because some would like to join the government at any price, even the price of participating in the sickness. But while they dither, the forces of good lose hope.

Anyone who declines to present a clear-cut position - black or white - is collaborating in the decline. It is not a matter of Labour versus Likud or Right versus Left, but of right versus wrong, acceptable versus unacceptable. The law-abiding versus the lawbreakers. What is needed is not a political replacement for the Sharon government but a vision of hope, an alternative to the destruction of Zionism and its values by the deaf, dumb and callous.

Israel's friends abroad - Jewish and non-Jewish alike, presidents and prime ministers, rabbis and lay people - should choose as well. They must reach out and help Israel to navigate toward our national destiny as a light unto the nations and a society of peace, justice and equality.

Avraham Burg, a Labour-Meimad party member, was Speaker from 1999 to 2003. Translation published in Forward, from an article in Yediot Aharonot

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Sounds like Avrum Burg:

Nah... Manuchin could play the fiddle. Burg can't handle a whistle

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh


Nah... Manuchin could play the fiddle. Burg can't handle a whistle [/B]
I would have said Burg fiddles while Israel burns. :mad:

[TheyAre]

George Will once said that "two Israelis can produce three political parties."

Israel has one of the most... robust... democracies around. Sometimes its a bit too robust. Yet another silly report that claims that things have little or nothing to do with democracy (the only thing that affects democracy is the right to vote; do all citizens over the age of X in Israel have the right to vote provided that they haven't denied themselves that right by breaking a law where one of the punishments is denial of the right to vote? Yes) make it less of a democracy.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I would have said Burg fiddles while Israel burns. :mad:
Here's a partial response to Burg and his ilk:

Hope vs. despair (http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El3484&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&)
By Judy Lash Balint April 1, 2004


Originally published by Frontpagemagazine.com.

According to Israeli journalist Doron Rosenblum, Israel has plunged "into the depths of despair, bereavement and failure." We have, according to the Haaretz writer, deteriorated "willingly and with full awareness, down the slopes of the sewage (sic) of history." Further, he states, Israel is now "one of the most hated, most isolated and most miserable places to be on the planet." (Haaretz Magazine, March 26, 2004)

Another prominent Israeli, Labor MK Avram Burg, decided to air his pique in the London Sunday Telegraph (March 28, 2004) in an op-ed entitled 'The Zionist Dream is Doomed.' Here, Burg, a former speaker of the Knesset, reiterates a theme he sounded first, last September in the International Herald Tribune.

In his London piece, Burg writes: "The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun." Incredibly, this member of Israel's elite goes on to justify homicide bombers by explaining to the Brits that, "They [Arabs] consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated."

Burg's late father, Yosef - a long-serving Israeli Cabinet minister - was my mother's teacher in Leipzig during the 1930s. Life for Jews there was indeed "torture," and our parents were "hungry and humiliated." No Jew resorted to blowing themselves up in restaurants or night clubs, did they Avram?

The sheer ignorance and willful self delusion displayed by this member of our ruling elite is daunting. Even a cursory examination of some of the more notable bombers illustrates the fallacy of his claims.

At least eight suicide bombers of the past three years were students at Al- Najah university in Nablus. Izzadin Masri, the 23-year-old who murdered 15 people at Jerusalem's Sbarro restaurant in 2002 was the son of a prosperous restaurant owner. Ayat Akhras, 18, a straight-A student, months away from graduation and then marriage killed two Israelis outside a supermarket in Kiryat Yovel. The father of 15 year old Tamer Khawireh, recruited by Islamic Jihad and arrested last Sunday, wails to reporters in his beautiful Nablus home: "Am I not a rich man?"

The two terrorists from upper middle class British backgrounds who killed three people at the Mike's Place disco on Tel Aviv's beachfront, had never even stepped foot in Israel before - how could they have felt Israeli "humiliation?"

As Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism specialist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland categorically states: "You hear people say that these are all desperate people, or poor people whose families need the money. This is nonsense."

"These are rational people, not necessarily uneducated or impoverished," adds retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Todd Stewart, director of the Program for International and Homeland Security at Ohio State University in Columbus.

"These operatives, typically men in their early 20s, came from diverse social, economic and work backgrounds. They have at least as much education as the general population where they grew up, and usually more. They are seldom fatherless, friendless, jobless or hopeless."

Why does Burg have such trouble accepting the fact that the murderers are motivated by hatred, not humiliation? How have we arrived at the point where some leaders of Israeli society have bought into the propaganda of the enemy?

Heavy-duty analysis would be required to begin to comprehend the complex cocktail of psychological and emotional factors that influence both the individual and national Israeli psyche.

Still there's at least one group of Israelis who are actively fighting the culture of despair disseminated by the Burg and Rosenblum crowd. Some long-time immigrants from English-speaking countries are expressing optimism and even gratitude for being in the country.

Caroline Glick, an American immigrant and columnist for The Jerusalem Post who served in the Israeli Army during her early years in the country, told a packed and attentive Jerusalem audience recently that there is cause for optimism about the future.

Citing positive changes in the region - from the overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein to the U.S.'s new attitude toward Syria - an upswing in the local Israeli economy and a history of astonishing achievement building a country in 55 years, Glick's prognosis was diametrically opposed to that of her Israeli journalist colleague.

Barbara Scher, another veteran American immigrant and CEO of the Docustar Company, organized an upbeat event in Raanana, just north of Tel Aviv last week Celebrating Life in Israel. Along with the music and food, several immigrants rose to explain why they came and why they are still here.

Miserable Rosenblum and despairing Burg should have been there.


And here's another way (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5334) of proving the Burgs of this world wrong.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by TheyAre
George Will once said that "two Israelis can produce three political parties." This is a paraphrase of an old Yiddish saying.

Debate is at the very heart of Jewish philosophy and civilization. The bible itself records debates and even conflicted opinions among prophets. The Talmud (aka Gmara) is basicly a record, or kind of a protocol (minutes?) of theological, philosophical and ethical debate among early Jewish Rabbies, taken over centuries. And even in the Talmud, some questions, end with unresolved disagreement (Mahloket). "Some Rabbie think this, while other think that...".

Bottom line, a Jew must alway used his own head to figure things out. Rabbies can help, shed light clear things, but cannot do all the thinking for one. (or at least, this is what supposed to be).

Since our goal, is making justace, doing right and choosing right, these are all terms much needed a clear defenition in an aspect to certain question... so the debate is on... always, all the time and in every field imaginable. A Jew does not have the laxury to listen to a certain leader and follow his orders blindly. The bible often is critical of such apporach, as leaders, even the best of them, as still humans who are capable of doing evil, and pron to do mistakes.

Even Moses was punished, Aharon was punished, so was King David, even Eliyahu the prophet is critized for his zealotry in the revelation at mount Carmel (the earth quake and land slide. "Kol dma'ma da'ka" ). So, a jew can only trust himself. Following orders is not an escape from guilt. Following leaders is a result of free chiose that can be good or evil.


Israel has one of the most... robust... democracies around. Sometimes its a bit too robust. Israel problem is lack of leadership. Indecisiveness. Dabate is great, can imagion a life of a freedom (jewish) without it. But a debate must not become endless, aspcialy on crusal matters of life and death, and the debate most not act as a substitute for decisions.

[Mediocrates]

Me? I'm a process wonk. The problem is the underlying system itself, particularly electoral politics and professional civil service. If Israel had a rational electoral system that limited the leveraged effect marginal parties could mount then Israeli leadership would become much more focused and effective.

Look around at the other Parliamentary systems that are stable, like the UK. PM's aren't always at risk, the cabinet stays in place and importantly, there is a permanent qualified civil service class at the upper echelons (The "Mandarins") who have the skills the contacts and the authority to execute on policy away from electoral demands.

Look to the non Parliamentary systems as well, such as the US and Mexico - the senior policy executors are not elected. In Mexico the President can only serve one 6 year term and never runs for reelection. These are basic tools.

The problem as I see it is that Israeli leaders are always beholden to a vast group of party aparachiks, the constituents and the fringe party "King Makers". Better they should look at steps toward an indirect representative democracy, still a Parliamentary one but constrained. The tiny parties will wither away at the national level and stay at the local level where they belong. The constituents won't feel they should be tossing out the government every 3rd Thursday of the month and the leaders can focus on policy and executive branch things that they are supposed to be working on.

The next thing I would do is reorganize the PM's cabinet around the western notion, that all ministers serve at the PM's (or Presidents's) convenience, beck and call. Period. Anything else is disloyalty and will be terminated.

Is corruption a problem? I don't think so. I think there is always a certain amount of corruption in the system and it's not that important to weed out the less-than-angels. What is important is that the decisions these leaders make are real, make sense, are useful and not overly influenced by personal issues.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Me? I'm a process wonk. The problem is the underlying system itself, particularly electoral politics and professional civil service. If Israel had a rational electoral system that limited the leveraged effect marginal parties could mount then Israeli leadership would become much more focused and effective. Israeli electoral system is just fine. exactly what we need and most suitable to Jewish walk and political spirit. We choose our parties based on their ideologies, and less according to their composion of personal.


Look around at the other Parliamentary systems that are stable, like the UK. UK parliament is a Yawn. 3 parties, no politics, no ideology.


PM's aren't always at risk, the cabinet stays in place Israeli PM doesn't go anywhere either. If he builds a strong coalition, according to guidlines affected by coalition partners (which are usually natural allies, for each large party), and the PM sticks to the agrees guidlines, he doesn't have a problem, any problem.


and importantly, there is a permanent qualified civil service class at the upper echelons (The "Mandarins") who have the skills the contacts and the authority to execute on policy away from electoral demands. lol! :D
Some times, electoral demands are exactly what democracy is all about. Last time I heard, british civil service wasn't exactly functioning... when it takes a thousands of pounds to replace a light bulb in goverment hospital, two decades to design UAV, four decades to design a spy plane, which non of them work as planned... SA-80... a rifle ideal of "peace keeping" ... it's neither fires properly nor is it accurate.... british civil service is rotten to its core, while Israeli civil service has improved dramaticly over the past 25 years I remeber... and it going to improve even further!!! Mostly by more privatisations.


Look to the non Parliamentary systems as well, such as the US and Mexico - the senior policy executors are not elected. but they do, in the UK and most of Europe. In israel it is a combination. The PM can appoint anybody to become a minister. even if he isn't elected. Right now, both Natan Sheransky and Shaul Mophaz are ministers on the account of personal appoinment of Sharon. If I'm not mistaken, so is Bibi.


In Mexico the President can only serve one 6 year term and never runs for reelection. These are basic tools. What do you do, if the people like the PM? want him back?

AFAIK, in Israel we had recently limited the PM limited to only two terms. 8 years totall.


The problem as I see it is that Israeli leaders are always beholden to a vast group of party aparachiks, the constituents and the fringe party "King Makers". Better they should look at steps toward an indirect representative democracy, still a Parliamentary one but constrained. The tiny parties will wither away at the national level and stay at the local level where they belong. The constituents won't feel they should be tossing out the government every 3rd Thursday of the month and the leaders can focus on policy and executive branch things that they are supposed to be working on. You were right, and it was true in the 1980's and mid 90's.

The instability caused not by fringe tiny parties but by a majore theird force or the religious parties. A force that was only recently shrunk back to its normal size (16 seats, totall). It is a power representing more then 330,000 voters and more then a million citizens. They are king makers for a good reason.

Other part of the instability is the result of a political suicidal behaviour of the NRP of simply STUPID Hanan Poraz, but he paid dearly for that.

National Union is one of the lessons lernt from the 80's and 90's. the need to creat a block, a political superstracure. A combination with the NRP will result a huge block of 13 seats, orginized, united, to the right of Likud.


The next thing I would do is reorganize the PM's cabinet around the western notion, that all ministers serve at the PM's (or Presidents's) convenience, beck and call. Period. I am not sure the people in Israel like that. It may be good for some ministries, but not the others, where political influance and political decision making is what the people want. We prefer weaker PM positions, with ministers mostly appointed by coaltion pressures or inner party politics. These guys give the wind in the sails of their offices. The offices themselves are running by the civil service personel, some of it, appointed by the minister. The minister cannot and will not fire anybody of the office, only key personel. All these people are supposed to meet some profesional standards definced by law. (the minister can not appoint his cousin, unless that cousin has proven skills).


Anything else is disloyalty and will be terminated. We don't want a president, but to vote for ideology or certain general policy and the people who are willing to promote it. Again, ideology is the issue, not the people manning it.


Is corruption a problem? I don't think so. I think there is always a certain amount of corruption in the system and it's not that important to weed out the less-than-angels. What is important is that the decisions these leaders make are real, make sense, are useful and not overly influenced by personal issues. We have a whole different problem. A cult of academics and ultra left law professors with funny ideologies, who are running the courts. They are appointed by a committee, manned by other judges, and the hold thier post till the tender age of 70 or till death will drive them apart from the seat...

We have judges who passed their job to thier children who passing the job again to their children... nepotism and crowniesm is widely spread... even in the court system...

bottom line, most of the curroption charges, were the result of of the actions of a political cult, a collaboration between the some jurnalists, politicians and police officers, designed to terrorise elected rightwing politicians and push forward through black mail, policies and seacret economic deals, contracts, jobs for relatives, ect... or else: alledge curroption charges, never ending trail, lot and lots of disinformation in the media...

Since bringing charges and writing about it is more then enough to ruin a politician political career, you can blackmail politicians, judging them BEFORE the trail. So even if the court find the accused not guilty, the public remains sceptical.

Now days, their policies have back fired on them.
1. They got unmaked by one brave jurnalist. Yo'av Yitzhak (www.nfc.co.il)
2. They pushed one man who is over their size: Nimrody. Owner of Ma'ariv and other enterprizes. They don't have any control over him or his paper. (where the
3. We have a brand new Att. Gen. , Mazuz, who is expected to put the house in order.
4. Yosseff Lapid the the minister of the justace. He is beyonned that cult reach. Former columist, highly conected, very powerful, media celebrity... the people like him alot (got 15 seats!!!!).
5. The cult of jurnalists-police-judges pushed their method too far. The people understood their actions. When they brought charges against Ya'akov Ne'eman the whole country was in termoil. The court found the accusation baseless. The repeated the same shtick with Kahalani, a war hero. Again, the court found no blame. like Ne'eman before, the accused was aquitted beyonned any doubt, found blameless!!!. Yet they didn't stop there: the pushed charges against Natanyahu for as long as he advanced his political career, demanding him to quite for as long as he is under investigation... which took forever and found nothing... So now, it's Sharon.

They accuse people for very little evidance, nothing more then a hearsay, or investigate according to that hearsay, for ever, all the time the police is setting the public against the accused politician thus blackmailing the politician to do their bid or else... more police investigations.

[Oh Jerusalem]

How sad that Caroline Glick has to devote her weekly column to this:

[b]Column one: Obstructing democracy[b] (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080796262234&p=1006953079897)
By CAROLINE GLICK


Speaking to the Likud's Central Committee Tuesday night, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon maintained that while as prime minister he has "supreme responsibility" over public policy, he still believes that "major decisions" like his plan to retreat unilaterally from the Gaza Strip "should be brought to a democratic vote."

This is a rather ironic bit of demagoguery from Sharon who, since he announced his plan to retreat from Gaza amid reports that he is to be indicted on bribery charges, has prevented any constructive debate or vote on his plan in any of the legally constituted forums of government. Neither his cabinet nor the Knesset has been presented with the prime minister's radical plan of withdrawal under fire.

Sharon's plan to cut and run from all of Gaza and still to be determined portions of Judea and Samaria is being advanced against the backdrop of increasing collaboration among global terror organizations. Just this week Hamas chieftain Khaled Mashaal met with Hizballah overlord Hassan Nasrallah and the two agreed to tighten the collaboration between their terror groups. Hamas's reaction to Ahmed Yassin's death made it clear that Hamas is not an autonomous organization but rather a local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself is a major segment of Al Qaida. Hamas communiques say nothing about the Palestinians. Rather they address themselves to the Arab and Islamic nation, much in the style of Al Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
But we can be certain that we will not have any debate or discussion of what awaits us the day after an Israeli withdrawal. A democratic vote on the issue, as Sharon indicated he supports, might have had a chance of bringing various aspects of the plan to the public's attention. But what Sharon forced down the throats of his Central Committee members Tuesday evening is not a vote at all. It is, at best, an opinion poll. And, like most opinion polls, it will be run like a popularity contest.

The Likud members who will be called on to vote on the withdrawal from Gaza will not be participating in a legal exercise in participatory democracy. They will not be voting in a referendum. A referendum must be legislated by the Knesset. And the short public discussion last December of a referendum made clear to Sharon that he would lose control of his agenda if he allowed democratically elected representatives to have a hand in structuring it. And so the idea was shelved.

In their upcoming vote, Likud members will not be participating in an exercise that is subordinate to any rules of electioneering. Since there is no legal basis for their vote, there will presumably be no legal restrictions on donations to one side or the other of the debate. There will be no limitations or prohibitions placed on foreign financing of commercials or billboards.
There will be no obligation for anyone to disclose the sources of their funding. Quite simply, in the uncharted territory of this non-legal vote, there is a possibility that the votes can simply be bought.
What's to stand in anyone's way? To ensure that the vote will follow a vacuous and short debate on the plan, where none of its obvious dangers will receive too much attention, the resolution passed on Tuesday calls for a vote to take place no more than three weeks after Sharon decides he wants it to take place.

Sharon's associates explained to the media on Wednesday that their plan is to have the vote carried out before Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has a chance to decide whether or not to indict the prime minister for accepting bribes.

Under the gun of a possible indictment, it is the prime minister's popularity that will be put to a vote. And the "opponent" that Sharon will be running against will not be his Likud rivals, who enjoy support among party members. Sharon will be running against the much despised State's Attorney Edna Arbel, who with her usual temerity and penchant for abuse of power, let it be known that she wants Sharon indicted.

Sharon's opponents within the Likud are deeply worried. Given that Sharon is making this a contest between himself and Arbel, they cannot get a critical mass of ministers willing to campaign against him.

Aside from that, if the party members vote against the plan, Sharon will not be the only loser. The Likud as a party will also be weakened. A party that paralyzes its leaders is a party that cannot be trusted by the voters.

And so ignored is fact that the plan leaves Israel vulnerable not only to a more lethal threat of terrorism emanating from a Judenrein Gaza but also from the type of international pressure Sharon groundlessly claims a withdrawal will prevent. As is its wont, the media, always game for an Israeli retreat, is complicit in this conscious dumbing-down of the national discourse.

On Thursday Haaretz reported that US President George W. Bush will tell Sharon that, in exchange for leaving Gaza, the US supports the view that Israel will not have to retreat from all of Judea and Samaria. This does not mean, as Sharon would wish for us to believe, that the US supports Israeli annexation of blocs of settlement. To the contrary: The US still insists that Israel not build the security fence in areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines. If Sharon announces that he is adding ten neighborhoods to Ma'aleh Adumim and five to Efrat after he throws thousands of Israeli citizens from their homes in Gush Katif, the Americans will not accept this. The fact of the matter is that it is Israel that is scaling back its positions, while the US remains adamant about defending the Palestinians' full territorial demands.

The press tells us that the US has agreed to Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's conditions for his support of the plan. This is not true. Netanyahu stated that in return for an Israeli surrender in Gaza, the US must announce that it rejects the Palestinian demand for a so-called right of return that would allow millions of foreign-born Arabs opposed to Israel's existence to immigrate to Israel and demographically undo the state, or, at least create the conditions for a Lebanese-style civil war.

It would seem obvious that the US opposes a demand that would cause the destruction of Israel. And yet the US refuses to accept this condition. Rather, it is reportedly willing to say only that it supports Israel's right to be a Jewish state, which can mean a lot or nothing depending on the circumstances. In addition, the US is planning to announce that the so-called Palestinian refugees will have a right of free immigration to the Palestinian state. That is all very fair, but where exactly are these foreign Arabs to work? Who will be pressured to ensure their economic viability? These would all be interesting issues to hear debated among our political leadership.

Yet to go against the unilateral withdrawal plan means to go against Sharon in his time of victimization by the State's Attorney's office – and who could bear to do such a thing? The sad truth is that both Sharon and Arbel are abusing their offices. By making the adoption of his plan before Mazuz decides on an indictment the central unifying principle of his political and diplomatic efforts, Sharon is lending credence to the view that his radical diplomatic platform is based largely on personal considerations. In so doing, Sharon is cheapening his office, damaging the credibility of our political institutions, undermining his party and delegitimizing his own leadership.

In publicly stating her view that a criminal indictment of an elected official is grounds for his forced resignation from office, Arbel is using her position as State's Attorney to advance a view that is not within the purview of her office and gravely undermines the democratic process. This is a patent abuse of power. It harms her office by damaging the public trust in the fairness and equity of our justice system.

[Oh Jerusalem]

(cont.)

Sharon today is advancing a policy that is antithetical to the policies he advanced when he was elected chairman of Likud and prime minister just a bit over a year ago. Sharon ran for office on a commitment to fight relentlessly against terrorism and a refusal not merely to retreat under fire, but a refusal to conduct negotiations for as long as the Palestinians enabled terrorist cells to operate at any level.

The policy of retreat that Sharon now embraces was the platform of his election rival, Labor candidate Amram Mitzna. This policy was roundly rejected not only by Likud members, but by the rank and file of Israeli voters who served up Labor's greatest defeat in its history.
If Sharon respected democracy, as he claimed on Tuesday night, he would return his leadership mandate to the voters and ask to be reelected on the basis of his adoption of the 2003 Labor Party platform.

Of course he will not do this. Bu the fact that the prime minister is behaving improperly does not give our other elected officials the right to do so. It is the duty of our governing ministers and members of Knesset to require Sharon to present his plan to them for their oversight and approval before he concludes a deal with a foreign head of state. The Knesset attempted to force Sharon to do so a couple of weeks ago, but Sharon called the members' bluff by turning his presentation into a vote of confidence and proceeded to say absolutely nothing. Sharon has sidelined his government ministers by bypassing their calls for debate with ego-massaging meetings with headline-hungry ministers. This can no longer be countenanced.

Our elected officials have a sworn duty to participate in policymaking and to oversee and debate the policies of the government. The prime minister is not, in our parliamentary democracy, a supreme authority. He is the head of a government of empowered ministers and the leader of the largest parliamentary bloc in the Knesset. The Likud Central committee is not a politburo and the Prime Minister's office is not the Kremlin. It is time for our political leaders to call Sharon's bluff. This is, after all, a democracy.