Can Israel be a Jewish state and a Democracy? -Your take

[Micah]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Yes it does. for two reasons:
1. In ancient times, all Jews were religious. However, for the last 150 year this was not the case.

Israel lasted over 400 years as a religious state. It fell because it was becoming more secular.

Today, the VAST majority of Jews are secular. Orthodox religious are 15%. Moreover, it is the secular Zionist movement who made independant Israel possible. Many orthodox Jews still oppose the state and its laws.
It would be a historical injustice to make the Zionist creation, the state of Israel, an ultra-religious state.

I guess if you don't want to follow the laws it would be an injustice. The reason why alot of Orthodox Jews don't move to Israel is because there isn't any point right now. There is no difference between it and America or England. They oppose it because it is secular.

2. If the representatives of the Jewish religion are the orthodox political parties, than the Jewish faith is indeed primitive and narrow minded. The orthodox political parties are a bunch of greedy, stupid, selfish, criminal gangsters. The secular parties do a MUCH better job of portraing all that's beatiful and wise in the Jewish people.

If you see the Orthodox as doing everything for their own personal gain then you have a shallow view of them. Do you think they do everything for themselves and don't care about all Jews?

The description that you gave sounds almost like what I would hear from an antisemetic site. Maybe it is because it is so easy to take everything they do at face value and not think "out of the box?"

And the last part is subjective.

I didn't even speak about Arabs. I spoke of Jews who choose to live an alternative life styles. If Israel will become ultra-religious, it will have draconian laws forbidding homosexualism, erotic art, abortions, single parenthood and probably women vote.

That would be the case. And what would there be to vote about if it was a Monarcy/Theistic government? .

I'm telling you that the orthodox Jews are the parasites of the Israeli society. What happened 2000 years ago bares zero relevance to these people. I'm not only talking about military service. These people do not work, do not pay taxes, do not mix in the cultural and economic fabric of the Israeli society. They wish to distance themselves from everything that even smells as productive community life. They live in self created ghettos. They do, however, receive money from the state, courtesy of their greedy political representatives.

I guess you aren't aware of some of the relationship the tribes had with eachother. There are two tribes (I can't remember the names right now) that had a special relationship. One worked for and funded the other tribe so it could study Torah all the time. When most of the Jews in Israel are secular and help to make Israel great, why should the Orthodox when they can be given the ability to study all day?

However, I am opposed to the "ultra" part of the ultra Orthodox. They are very legalistic in many different ways.

But, to get back on track, how can Israel be a JEWISH state and be a democracy with some of the policies it takes?

[Mediocrates]

I think sharonb your view of a 'Jewish' Israel is distorted to some extent. The alternative to a haredi state is still Jewish, unlike anywhere else on earth where the alternative to living in a Jewish community is to live as the lone Jew among Christians. Quite a bit different would you say?

I am not Israeli, clearly but I would say that if 5 or 10%% of the population can make the other 90-95% so unhappy then the secular Jews haven't been activist enough in pressing their agendas. Here where I live in the US there are some very backwards laws having to do with marriage, family law and other things like that. It is precisely because 95% of the people who live here are Christians, most of them Baptists and all of them very conservative, some might say fundamentalist (but they would be wrong on that, still they are very 'hardshell' if you know what the term means). So me agitating for a change in these laws is an interesting position to have but it is ultimately useless.

I would think that if enough people staked out some simple directives one at a time they would have more success than trying to root out the influence of all Black Hats from the government and the general operation of the country. That's just banging your head on a wall.

[NewsGuy]

Yes, of course Israel can be a democratic Jewish state, as it has been since its creation.

Why would there be a question about whether it's possible, when it exists currently?

I think that some people are confusing the concept of theocracy with the concept of a state having a Jewish character.

[Micah]

Israel is democratic, but it does many undemocratic things. This is what I am saying.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Micah
Israel is democratic, but it does many undemocratic things. This is what I am saying.

Which "undemocratic things" in particular? Has the election in Israel been undemocratic?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Vic
No, you won't be able to go back, this will be the problem. Once the head of the state is offered near-dictatorial power, he won't relinquish it easily.

I think you missed the point I was making.
I didn't propose to give the PM desposit power. The PM will have the same responsibilities and authority as he has today. The only difference is that elections will be held exactely every four years, not every two or two and a half years.
I don't seem to recollect ever a US election being moved to an earlier date. Even when Nixon was diposed that was not a good enough reason to forward the elections.
This breathing space is a blessed thing because it allows the leader to prepare long term plans and take unpopular actions without the sword of elections hanging over his head.

[Mediocrates]

I agree that Parliamentary unicameral systems have problems including all of the ones you point out. I wonder how a country could extricate themselves from those problems? For example the French system is neither US-like nor is it strictly Parliamentary - if someone who knows can explain it in detail perhaps it would help for comparisons' sake. Does the German system have any such hybridization as well?

My point is that the US Federal system might have some difficulty making the transition to a country with a long history of several powerful parties and from what I can see no analogous 'states' with which to contend and clash with as we do.

Of course what they all share in common is that the transfer of power does not require tanks in the streets as it does in so many other places that hold 'elections'.

[Micah]

One thing that comes to mind is the policy of having a Jewish majority in Israel. Taking steps to keep Arabs from becoming a majority in (as I see it) not democratic. Maybe I don't understand enough about it?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Micah
One thing that comes to mind is the policy of having a Jewish majority in Israel. Taking steps to keep Arabs from becoming a majority in (as I see it) not democratic. Maybe I don't understand enough about it?

So far, Israel has, unfortunately, not taken any steps to prevent its Arab enemies from becoming a majority in the Jewish homeland.

On the contrary: The sad truth is that the Arabs living in Israel receive financial, medical and housing aid to help raise their children. This is true even though the Arabs have a much higher number of children per family than do Israelis, and even though the Arabs do not contribute equally to Israel.

In a sense, Israel is paying to raise the next generation of its enemies.

While I agree that it will soon become a big issue as to how Israel will retain a Jewish majority, as of now, no action has been taken to prevent such a calamity.

And while I am on this topic, I'd also point out again that under international law, Israel is to be a Jewish state. Specifically Jewish as expressly included in UN resolution 181. So, the notion that Israel having a Jewish majority and operating as a Jewish state is somehow undemocratic, is absolutely untrue.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Micah
Israel lasted over 400 years as a religious state. It fell because it was becoming more secular.

That's not how I see it.
Rehavam, the son of Salomon, succeeded his father in ca. 930 BC, and he is 41 y.o. Without losing much time, the new king committed the foolish act that caused the division of the Jewish people and the loss of the ten tribes, who became the kingdom of Israel.
The people were aching under the burden of forced labor and heavy taxes, imposed on them by king Salomon, and already attempted mutiny while under his rule, led by the fierce general Yerovam. The mutiny failed and Yerovam fled to Egypt.

Upon his crowning, Rehavam received the loyalty of the two southern tribes: Judea and Benjamin. He was very much aware of the great unrest among the other tribes, and so went immediately to Shkhem (today’s Nablus), the capital of northern Israel, to get the people’s trust. Upon his arrival, he was greeted by a delegation from the ten tribes, that demanded a relaxation of the hardships imposed by his father. They informed him that if he should meet their demands, they will become loyal subjects and accept his authority. Among the delegates was Yerovam, who was used to signal Rehavam about the seriousness of the demands. Rehanvam was baffled by the demands and asked the delegation to return in three days to hear his response.

In the meantime, the king consulted the elderly advisors who advised him to meet the demands of the people. They added he should sweet-talk his way into their hearts and thus make them slaves for the duration of his rule. Rehavam, who was already possessed with the lust for power, decided this approach did not suit him and went to hear from his childhood friends. They knew his heart’s content and told him what he wanted to hear: he should make no compromise. On the contrary, he will tell the people his demands will be harsher then those of his father. Rehavam, delighted by this advice, faced the delegation after the three waiting days, and bluntly informed them of the hard times they are facing.

The possibility that his subjects might not receive his wrath with humility did not even occur in Rehavam’s mind. It is for a reason he was named “great foolish” in Jewish history. Upon hearing his reply, the people instantly announced their departure from the kingdom and their challenge of the new king.
Rehanvam, with so little wisdom that would surprise Marie Antoinette, choose to commit the single most provocative act that he could have done at the time: he appointed Aduram, former head of the police in charge of forced labor and the symbol of evil in the eyes of the ten tribes, to head the military force set out to quell the rebellion. However, Aduram’s force was too small for the job: the force was defeated and Aduram was stoned to death. The king had to flee the scene back to Jerusalem, where he gathered all the warriors available for him. The ten tribes established the kingdom of Israel and crowned Yerovam as their king.

For the next 17 years, until Rehavam’s death the two kingdoms fought each other and weakened their strength to the point where the vassal countries that were conquered by David – Moav, Edom, Ammon, etc. – rebelled and were able to reestablished their independence. This opened the way for an Egyptian invasion that further diluted the Jewish military strength.

The twelve tribes never reunited. The two countries, absorbed in their struggle, could not hold the Israeli empire that David and Salomon maintained and that stretched from northern Syria to Egypt and held key position in the international trade routes. Eventually, the Assyrians conquered all of the land of Israel and dislocated the ten tribes from their home and spread them across their empire. The ten tribes disappeared into oblivion and became the subject of rumors and speculations throughout history.

Originally posted by Micah
I guess if you don't want to follow the laws it would be an injustice. The reason why alot of Orthodox Jews don't move to Israel is because there isn't any point right now. There is no difference between it and America or England. They oppose it because it is secular.

Fine with me. the orthodox Jews can stay whereever thay are. I manage without them.

Originally posted by Micah
If you see the Orthodox as doing everything for their own personal gain then you have a shallow view of them. Do you think they do everything for themselves and don't care about all Jews?

I believe that the orthodox Jews are not interested in defending, caring and nourishing the state of Israel. They do not contribute to the military, economic or diplomatic strength of Israel. in fact, they are a burdon that the secular Jews have to support, in addition to all other chores.

Originally posted by Micah
The description that you gave sounds almost like what I would hear from an antisemetic site. Maybe it is because it is so easy to take everything they do at face value and not think "out of the box?"

When I see the orthodox Jews think out of their tiny rigid box, when I see them take part in defending the country, take part in the work force, take part in the cultural life of Israel - then I will change my view of them.

Originally posted by Micah
But, to get back on track, how can Israel be a JEWISH state and be a democracy with some of the policies it takes?

Like NewsGuy pointed out, Israel is a Jewish democratic state by its own definition. The state was founded to shelter Jews from prosecutions and to prevent a second holocaust. It still carries this function. The state will even accept those orthodox Jews who are unwilling to come, should the sword of anti-semitism will be raised again.
The state is desgined to house the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. This does not make it necessary for it to become a fundementalist religious state.

[cerulean]

Sharonbn, I very much appreciated the historical part of your post.

In respect to orthodox Jews, I know that at least some are contributing as much as anyone else to Israel's defense and to the economy. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points, but it sounds as if you are condemning all. There are orthodox Jews in the IDF, orthodox Jews in science, orthodox Jews in medicine, etc. Apart from that, I can't imagine Israel without at least some highly observant Jews. Nevertheless, I agree that Israel's generous welfare benefits have had some unfortunate results (just as they do in every country that has them).

[Vic]

Anyone know more about it?

A bunch of weirdoes gathered yesterday at a synagogue in Jerusalem and called for the annulment of democracy in Israel. Instead they want a king to be crowned.

http://israeliguy.blogspot.com/2002_....html#80129672

[Micah]

To Newsguy: Where is this resolution 181 so I can check it out? Very interesting to know because I have had arguments with people in the past and they thought that Israel, "This grand democracy, could do something so racist."

To sharonb: I knew our opinions would conflict quite a bit from the start .

The history lesson was good, but it was purely because of secular problems. You talked about "lust for power," that is a very secular attitude. I still hold that it was because Israel was becoming too secular for God's taste.

Also, I am disappointed that you don't seem to even want to understand the Orthodox's position. You either ignored and chose not to comment on where I said that two of the tribes in Israel in ancient times had the relationship of one worked, the other studied. You seem to be more inclined to blame them for your woes and ignore the fact that what they are doing they are doing purely for your good and for the good of Israel.

[Mediocrates]

I would ask instead how one believes it is impossible to forge a state with religious underpinnings? How is that somehow MORE successful and viable.

We like to point to modern socialist states or hybrid capitalist states and brag to ourselves how secular we all are, so inclusive, so open to all and all without the shackles of dark medieval superstition. But isn't that little more than an ethic that's already been internalized? Ok so America or Germany or Singapore are ostensibly not religious states but how so? Doesn't the US base it's ethical and judicial system on Judeo Christian ethic? And while the Enlightenment that gave rise to revolution in the 18th C. was not strictly religious and even disavowed itself of mainstream religion, isn't it based on the same foundation?

And then I would point to states that actively stamped out all religious life and see if any of them survived or if they did did they simply replace God with Maximum Leader and Spirit with Cadre or Militia or whatever.

There are basic symbolics in human life and the desire to believe in something compassionate or least gracefully larger than oneself is probably one of them. Before cave dwellers could forge a piece of copper they already believed in the basic dignity of their own life against a backdrop of something spiritual, however they defined it. I can't imagine it's all been wrong so far; we're not that evolved.

So at any rate I'd ask that if you think its possible to have a country that ignores religion I'd ask you if you think it would be inhumane to live in one. To me that would be dystopian.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Vic
A question to the American posters,How much control does the parliamentary system in the US really exercise over the government?

----------------------------------------------------------------

No, you won't be able to go back, this will be the problem. Once the head of the state is offered near-dictatorial power, he won't relinquish it easily. There is a similar development in Italy under way, after decades of political instability comparable in some respects to that in Israel, with Berlusconi trying to accumulate all the political power he can grab. It is very alarming, really, since once the parliament loses power, it would probably take a full-fledged civil war to get it back.Is it possible to optimize the parliamentary system without bringing down the whole country?

Well the American system is not Parliamentary. There is a distinct executive branch elected independently of the Congress. The term of office is fixed even if party and public support is zero. There is no reformation of government in the sense of a Parliamentary system. Congressional power cannot be subsumed or subverted based on party as each member stands and is elected on his or her own.

There are no no confidence votes and there are as well strict limits on the actual power the majority party can accrue beyond its numerical vote and the ability to appoint committee heads.

Majorities in either Congressional house are not tied to one another, the terms are different as well. The lower house isbased on district population and the upper house is fixed at two votes per state. Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the protectorates have no congressional representation with any actual power.

All Federal Judges including the US Supreme Court are unelected and posted for life barring impeachment. They are recommended by the President and approved by the Senate as are most Executive branch cabinet positions.

The US Supreme Court has the power to strike down any legislation or law or administrative standard or ruling as unconstitutional. It can reverse or endorse any lower court finding. It can determine applicability of laws in different venues and statutes. It can also decide consitutional issues over state laws as well. It does not decide guilt or innocence in any court case.

In civics 101 you are taught that Congress makes the Law, the executive branch enforces it and the judicial branch interprets it.