Israeli Democracy
Fact or Fiction?
by WILLIAM A. COOK
Israel's bulldozing of 62 shops in the village of Nazkt Issa, north of Tulkarem next to the West Bank line with Israel on Tuesday and its refusal to allow International and Israeli peace activists to witness the devastation illustrates the total control of the military in what is supposed to be a democratic state. Americans saw and heard little of this action except that it was caused by the illegal establishment of the shops by Palestinians. In a democratic state, the alleged "illegality" would be dealt with in a court of law, not by an army protecting bulldozers from citizens throwing stones. But Americans hear only what Sharon allows the corporate media in America to receive from his minions as he prevents outsiders from witnessing the demolition.
The impending Israeli elections and the plethora of commentary that touts Israel as the only bastion of Democracy in the mid-east warrants consideration of the truth of the claim in light of Tuesday's devastation. It would appear that the American public accepts the reality of Israel as a democratic state and finds comfort in its compatibility with American values. That comfort translates into approximately three billion dollars per year for Israel, more aid than any other country receives.
A true Democracy must meet two criteria: one philosophical that presents the logic of its argument in a declaration and/or constitution; the other practical that demonstrates how the Democracy implements legislation, distributes resources, and makes equitable all policies and procedures for all its citizens.
Democracy is first and foremost a concept, a philosophical understanding concerning the rights of humans relative to the government that acts in their name. A Democratic government serves through the manifest consent of the governed. That government receives its authority through the citizens in whom the right resides. Inherent in this philosophical understanding is the acceptance of the rights of all citizens that reside in a state: each and every citizen possesses the right to consent to the legitimacy of those who govern, and each and every citizen must receive equal treatment before the law.
For a state to claim a Democratic form of government, it must have an established geographic area accepted by other nations as legitimate and defined. The need for established borders is both obvious and necessary with necessity arising out of the obvious. Without borders, there can be no absolute determination of citizenry, and, therefore, no way to fulfill the establishment of the rights noted above. What has this to do with the Democratic state of Israel? Everything.
Israel has no accepted legitimate borders other than those provided to it by Resolution 181, according to Anthony D'Amato, Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University, in his brief "The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law": "The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine were delimited in Resolution 181." Since the 1967 war, the borders of the current area controlled by Israel exceed those outlined by the UN in Resolution 181 of 1948 as the current incident in Nazkt Issa illustrates. Despite numerous resolutions from the UN demanding that Israel return to its proper borders, most especially Resolution 242, Israel defies the world body continuing to retain land illegally held. The reality of this dilemma is most manifest in the settlements. Here, Jews residing in Palestinian areas continue to vote while Palestinians literally surround them and cannot vote. Where is the state of Israel? A look at a map would make it appear that Israel has the spotted coloration of a Dalmatian. Clearly, those living under Israeli domination are not considered citizens of the state of Israel even though they reside within parameters controlled by Israel. Since they are not citizens of Israel, and since there is no Palestinian state, these people are without a country and, therefore, without rights; an untenable position for any group which is recognized as a distinct governing group by the UN through its election of the Palestinian Authority as its governing body. That election followed democratic procedures including the creation of a constitution and the international monitoring of the election process.
A Democratic state must declare the premises of its existence in a document or documents that present to the world the logic of its right to govern. That usually comes in the form of a constitution. Unlike the Palestinians, Israel has no constitution. Chuck Chriss, President of JIA writes, "Israel has no written constitution, unlike the United States and most other democracies. There was supposed to be one. The Proclamation of Independence of the State of Israel calls for the preparation of a constitution, but it was never done." It's been more than 50 years since that "call". Why has Israel demurred on the creation of a constitution? Both Chriss in his article and Daniel J. Elazar, writing in "The Constitution of the State of Israel," point to the same dilemma: how to reconcile the secular and religious forces in Israel. Elazar states: "Israel has been unable to adopt a constitution full blown, not because it does not share the new society understanding of constitution as fundamental law, but because of a conflict over what constitutes fundamental law within Israeli society. Many religious Jews hold that the only real constitution for a Jewish state is the Torah and the Jewish law that flows from it. They not only see no need for a modern secular constitution, but even see in such a document a threat to the supremacy of the Torah"
The consequences of this divide can be seen in the discrepencies that exist in practice in Israel. While "the State of Israel is described in the Proclamation of Independence as both a Jewish State and a democracy with equal rights for all its citizens," the Foundation Law of 1980 makes clear that Israeli courts "shall decide [a case] in the light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel's heritage." Without a written constitution, Israel relies on a set of laws encased in Israel's heritage, "some blatantly racist in their assignment of privilege based on religion," according to Tarif Abboushi writing in CounterPunch in June of 2002. But the structure of Israel's governing process that depends on a Knesset is also flawed. According to Chriss, "Members of the Knesset are elected from lists proposed by the parties on a national basis. Following the election, the parties get to assign seats in the Knesset based on their proportion of the national vote, drawing from the party list.Thus, individual MKs owe allegiance to the party chiefs and not directly to the electorate." (Emphasis mine). He goes on to say, "This political system has resulted in some distortions in which Israeli law and government do not reflect the actual wishes of the voting population."
For a state to claim a Democratic form of government, it must accept the equality of all residents within its borders as legitimate citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, religion, political belief, or gender. For a state to claim it is Democratic and reserve the rights of citizenship to a select group negates its claim. It is an oxymoron to limit citizenship rights to Jews alone and call the state Democratic. As Joel Kovel has stated in Tikkun, "a democracy that is only to be for a certain people cannot exist, for the elementary reason that the modern democratic state is defined by its claims of universality." Yet this inherent contradiction exists in Israel. And this brings us from the philosophical phase to the practical one.
Daniel Elazar, reflecting on this conundrum in the postmodern era, notes that this "makes it impossible for the State to distinguish between the entitlements of Jewish citizens and others based upon obligations and performance; i.e., more benefits if one does military service than if one does not."
How does Israel implement the Democracy it claims to possess? First, any Jew from anywhere in the world can come to Israel and receive citizenship by virtue of his/her Jewishness. By contrast, a Muslim or Christian Palestinian living in exile because of the 1948 war cannot claim citizenship even though they were indigenous to the area, nor can their descendents claim citizenship. Second, ninety percent of the land in Israel is held in restrictive covenants, land initially owned by Palestinians for the most part, covenants that bar non-Jews from ownership including the Palestinians who hold a limited version of Israeli citizenship. Third, Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian do not share the rights accorded Jews who serve in the military, nor do they receive the benefits extended to those who serve in the military. Non-Jews are taxed differently than Israeli citizens and the neighborhoods in which they live receive less support. As recently as June 12, 2002, Paul Martin writing for the Washington Times noted "Israeli Arabs are trying to strike down a new law reducing family benefits, arguing that it has deliberately been drafted in a way that will affect Arabs more harshly than Jews."
While Arabs constitute 20% of the population within Israel, their voice in government is limited. Recently, an "expert" working for the General Security Service submitted his "expert opinion" to the Central Election Committee that undertook to disqualify Azmi Bishara and other Arab MKs from taking part in the election. This action would have deprived the Arabs of a voice in the Knesset if it had not been overturned by the Israeli court. The reality of Israeli political parties virtually assures non-representation of the Palestinians in the governing process. Even with Bishara permitted to run, the voice of the Palestinians is muted. As Uri Avnery noted recently, "One glance at the poitical map shows that without the Arab votes, no left-wing coalition has any chance of forming a government not today, nor in the forseeable futureThis means that without the Arabs, the Left cannot even dictate terms for its participation in a coalition dominated by the Right."
Perhaps the most graphic illustration of the non-democracy that exists in Israel comes from Human Rights Watch and the US State Department reports published in Jurist Law. The range of abuses listed by the State Department includes detainees beaten by police, poor prison conditions that did not meet international standards, detainees held without charge, holding of detainees as bargaining chips, refusal to allow access to Obeid by the Red Cross, imposition of heavier sentences on Arabs than Jews, interference with private rights, etc,, and finally, "Trafficking in women for the purpose of forced prostitution is a continuing problem."
Human Rights Watch offers a litany of abuses, many more serious than those proferred by the Department of State: Israel has maintained the "liquidation" policy targeting individuals without trial by jury, lack of investigations to determine responsibility for killings and shootings, increased use of heavy weaponry, including F-16 fighter jets etc. against "Palestinian police stations, security offices, prisons, and other installations." HRW also references the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the occupied Territories for the wanton killing of civilians by settlers. The listing is too extensive to offer in its totality here.
As I mentioned at the outset of this article, the American public hears constant reference to Israel as the only democratic nation in the mid-east. They receive little or no information about the accuracy of that statement. Yet Americans accept this administration's and past administrations' support of Israel in large measure because they believe that it reflects the ideals expressed in the American Constitution and they are willing to spend their tax dollars in support of those ideals. In reality, American democracy and Israeli democracy are decidedly distinct.
Democracy cannot exist in ignorance of policies, processes, and actions undertaken on behalf of the people including the refusal to admit citizens to areas like Nazkt Issa where non-democratic action exists. Silence by the peoples' representatives concerning reasons for actions taken in their name corrodes democracy. Americans have not been told, for example, that American authorities removed 8000 pages of information from the 12,000 provided by the Iraqi government to the UN Inspectors, according to former MP Anthony Wedgewood Benn in an interview on BBC January 12th , pages removed to protect corporations that provided Iraq with chemicals and other material that could be used to develop WMD. Die Tageszeitung, a Berlin Daily, reported the names of the corporations that acted with the government's approval through the '80s and up to 1991 supplying Saddam with nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technology. An extensive report on the chemicals sent to Iraq by the US was disclosed in the Sunday Herald by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot, but received little press beyond this paper. How can the American people respond intelligently to the designs of this administration against Iraq without knowing how Iraq obtained its capability to develop WMD and the reasons for developing them?
Similarly, Israel cannot restrict its citizens, including peace activists, or its American supporters, from knowing how it acts relative to Palestinians by preventing reporters or activists from describing what is done in their name. Preventing the UN investigation of the Jenin "massacre" is only one example. Restricting journalists from occupied territory is another. Preventing Israeli and international peace activists from Nazkt Isa is the most recent.
While the founding fathers' verbalized the concepts and ideals that are the foundation of American Democracy in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the full implementation of those ideals took many, many years to bring to fruition: a Civil War that freed slaves more than 70 years after the creation of the nation, Women's Rights more than 120 years after the founding, and the Civil Rights Acts of the '50s and '60s more than 150 years after its birth. That, however, is not a reason for Israel, or any nation moving toward a democratic status, to delay implementation of equal rights for all of their citizens; rather it is a demonstration of the necessity to introduce and ensure equity from the outset.
William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century, will be published by Mellen Press in January. He can be reached at: [email protected]
After numerous postings of Israel's policy/law regarding the Arabs living peacefully in Israel, and that they do not suffer discrimination other than they are allowed to opt out of the military if they so choose--they don't have to--I don't know how some keep trying to portray Israel as an oppressive and discriminatory state.
Good citizens in Israel, no matter what their race, ethnicity, or country of origin, seem to get along quite satisfactorily with no complaints about violations of human rights. How many other countries in that area can claim that kind of inclusiveness?
Those who commit terrorism and/or harbor terrorists don't do as well, of course. Bad BAD Israel to discriminate against those who do not respect Israeli laws and/or who have pledged the destruction of Israel. I don't know how we can accept that kind of thinking.
Regarding ethnic restrictions, Israel does the least necessary to survive as a country. Infra has the temerity to point to the denial of a right of return, though he knows that allowing millions of Arabs (although only 700,000, most of whom are dead, left Israel in 1948) would destroy the state.
Do demographics predict destiny? Probably the most common argument made by Jewish Israelis against annexation of the Occupied Territories is that it would "endanger the Jewish character of the state" by extending citizenship to millions of non-Jews. In the early 1990s, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, a progressive American Zionist, opposed the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza on the grounds that these Jews should be encouraged, instead, to settle in the Galilee, a heavily Arab region, to build up the Jewish population there. The demographic argument has also been the central basis for Israeli rejection of the Palestinian demand for the right to return.
These concerns are not limited to the Palestinians living outside Israel's borders. Arab citizens now comprise 20% of Israel's population. Zionist leaders, from left to right, have predicted disaster should these numbers ever approach a majority through the high Arab Israeli birth rate. A National Demographic Council now exists in Israel to deal specifically with this "problem."
What if the Arab percentage of the Israeli population continues to grow, perhaps augmented by returning refugees or Arabs incorporated into Israel by annexation of portions of the Occupied Territories? What would happen if their political parties were poised to be a swing vote, hold the balance of power, or even win enough votes to form a "non-Jewish" government? To prevent this from happening, would the Israeli government be justified in taking preemptive, coercive measures to encourage Arab emigration or reduce Arabs to the status of black Africans under apartheid? Without such measures, what would happen to the "Jewish state"?
Jewish privilege is a guiding principle of Israel. Although its Declaration of Independence promises equal rights to all citizens, this principle was never codified into law. For the first 18 years of Israel's existence, Arab citizens officially lived under martial law. They have faced institutional discrimination ever since.
In matters of immigration, Jewish privilege is absolute, as the welcome wagon is rolled out for any Jews in the world who wish to immigrate to Israel, whereas the immigration of Arabs whose families formerly lived in the region for generations is practically banned. Privileges for Jews also exist in many other vital areas.
Most American Jews are proud of Jewish participation in the U.S. civil rights movement, but fail to realize that Israel is also in need of a civil rights revolution. Arab citizens of Israel live under conditions roughly similar to those of African-Americans living in the North during the early 1950s. Despite possessing the right to vote, they suffer grave inequalities in employment, housing, education, social services and representation in government, business and the media. Israel is a highly segregated society in which "separate but unequal" is the norm. Racist attitudes against Arabs are pervasive. A common insult among Israeli Jews is "Don't be an Arab." Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an Arab couple could not be legally excluded from a "Jewish" housing development. The Knesset, however, did not pass any fair housing legislation or create any government agency to investigate and adjudicate housing discrimination complaints.
The Jewish Agency (or Israeli Land Authority), which owns over 90% of the land in Israel, enforces a restrictive covenant limiting this land to Jewish residents. The Arab population, outside of East Jerusalem, is concentrated in segregated towns in the Galilee. Although Arabs comprise 20% of Israel's population, they own only 4% of the land. Arab towns receive proportionally about one third of the funding for public services that are provided to Jewish towns. Over 50% of Israeli Arab homes are not even connected to sewage systems.
In Jerusalem, 200,000 Arabs (about a third of the city's population) are confined to less than 10% of the city and are routinely denied building permits. Eight thousand "illegal dwellings" have been demolished since 1967. Arab neighborhoods are run down. At the same time, Jerusalem¹s borders have been greatly expanded to provide new housing for tens of thousands of Jews who have moved into Greater Jerusalem since the 1967 Six Day War. When Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister, Israel insisted on building the Har Homa settlement just outside of Jerusalem, despite tremendous Arab opposition. As a sop to the protestors, Israel promised to build housing for them. Har Homa is now occupied by hundreds of Jewish families, while the Arabs are still waiting.
History was made recently when El Al, the Israeli national airline, hired its first Arab flight attendant. Employment discrimination is rampant throughout Israel, with the best jobs reserved by law for army veterans. Since the Arabs cannot serve, they are excluded. Defense industries are completely off-limits for Arabs, and they are grossly underrepresented in the public sector - both huge sources of employment in Israel. No Israeli counterpart of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exists to prevent this. Arab citizens of Israel are concentrated in the low-wage sector, performing the dirtiest jobs in construction, agriculture and the hotel industry. Lack of army service also deprives them of a range of government benefits - which Orthodox yeshiva students deferred from military service manage to receive. The Arab poverty rate, unemployment rate, infant mortality rate and low status in other quality-of-life indices testify to a far worse quality of life than that of Israeli Jews.
Although Arabs have the right to vote and do serve in the Knesset, no Arab has ever served as a government minister or Supreme Court justice, and none of the Arab-based political parties have ever been included in a government. At the same time, Jewish parties that call for the "transfer" of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories or are openly contemptuous of secular democracy move in and out of government coalitions with ease. An article in Ha'aretz on Sept. 5, 2002 told a series of compelling stories about Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens. One graduated from college with a degree in electrical engineering but cannot get a job, even at entry level, because most employers in his field will not hire Arab professionals. Another has a decent job as a registered nurse in a hospital, but cannot get a home mortgage because banks systematically "red line" (deny credit to) Arab communities. Still another works as a taxi driver for a company operated as a cooperative, but his applications to join the coop are rejected, despite his 15 years on the job, while the applications of Jewish drivers with far less experience are accepted.
An article in the Jan. 8, 1998 Jerusalem Report told the story of two young, educated Israeli Arab women who managed to rent an apartment in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. Their neighbors harassed them and bombs exploded two times outside their front door. A police officer was injured trying to defuse one of them. Ehud Olmert, the mayor of Jerusalem, condemned the bombing but urged the women to move to an Arab neighborhood. The women moved out. No arrests were made.
During the riots that erupted on Sept. 28, 2000, after Ariel Sharon's foray onto the Temple Mount, Israeli police shot and killed over a dozen Arab citizens. In past years, when Jews have rioted over Sabbath rules, forced autopsies, German reparations or other issues, Israeli police have always managed to avoid inflicting such casualties. Arabs convicted of acts of violence against Jews almost always get longer sentences than Jews doing violence against Arabs.
Beyond socio-economic discrimination, Israeli Arab citizens are made to feel like "strangers in a strange land." All national symbols (flag, anthem, currency) and holidays are Jewish. Arabic is officially recognized as the nation's second language, but few Israeli Jews learn it, and Arabs or Arab programming in the media are barely visible.
Only by beginning to dismantle the structures of discrimination against the Arab population can Israel win their trust and loyalty. Even under current circumstances, Israeli Arabs have made it clear that they would prefer to remain in Israel after a Palestinian state comes into existence. They appreciate the higher standard of living and more open society that Israel provides. Israel, after all, may be a flawed democracy, but the rest of the region consists of authoritarian regimes that have far less respect for human rights.
For years, large numbers of Israeli Arabs have remained loyal to the Labor Party, even though it has treated them with disdain. If major Zionist parties were to offer substantive reforms and bring Arabs into leadership positions, real progress could be made toward equality. Even if Israeli Arabs flock to Arab parties, there is no legitimate reason why coalitions cannot be built with Jewish parties. Jewish and Arab members of the Knesset make de facto alliances all the time. Perhaps in the long term this will lead to binational parties.
It seems likely that until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, Israel will be reluctant to address seriously the second-class status of its Arab citizens. However, this does not mean that the problem should be ignored. The New Israel Fund does excellent work in this area. Other organizations working for a truly democratic Israel include the Abraham Fund, Rabbis for Human Rights and the Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development.
Majority status is not the key to Jewish survival. Democracy is. Jewish majorities did not save the Jewish people from the destruction of the First and Second Temples and would not have saved the yishuv (pre-state settlement) during World War II had the German army under Rommel reached Palestine. Jews today make up less than 2.5% of the U.S. population, yet American Jews are far more secure than Israeli Jews.
Israel's Declaration of Independence calls for "complete equality of social and political rights for all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." This is a noble statement, but it will do nothing to resolve the tension between democracy and demographics in Israel until it is translated into law and vigorously enforced.
Finally, those who remain convinced of the absolute necessity of a Jewish majority in Israel should consider this: Among Israeli Jews, the ultra-Orthodox have by far the highest birth rate, with the Orthodox coming in second. If Jewish numbers are all that matters, the future of Israel belongs to them.
Read the Or Commission report.
It certainly reinforces everything that Advocate, Ican, I, and others have been saying.
Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon. Meanwhile, not enough was done to enforce the law in the Arab sector, and the illegal and undesirable phenomena that took root there.
Foxfyre wrote:It certainly reinforces everything that Advocate, Ican, I, and others have been saying.
It does, indeed, what you all said:
Quote:Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon. Meanwhile, not enough was done to enforce the law in the Arab sector, and the illegal and undesirable phenomena that took root there.
You're quoting what the Arab critics said, Walter.
Foxfyre wrote:You're quoting what the Arab critics said, Walter.
And what makes it different to your quote - besides you quoted it completely? (I quoted Topic 3 in your quote in case you didn't notice it.)
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You're quoting what the Arab critics said, Walter.
And what makes it different to your quote - besides you quoted it completely? (I quoted Topic 3 in your quote in case you didn't notice it.)
You're right I did. I thought your quote was from another posting. So I apologize for my error.
Infrablue writes
Quote:Read the Or Commission report.
Thank you for that. Did you read it? It certainly reinforces everything that Advocate, Ican, I, and others have been saying.
Foxfyre wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You're quoting what the Arab critics said, Walter.
And what makes it different to your quote - besides you quoted it completely? (I quoted Topic 3 in your quote in case you didn't notice it.)
You're right I did. I thought your quote was from another posting. So I apologize for my error.
With due respect, Foxfyre:Foxfyre wrote:Infrablue writes
Quote:Read the Or Commission report.
Thank you for that. Did you read it? It certainly reinforces everything that Advocate, Ican, I, and others have been saying.
I don't think such increases your credibility.
I do however emphasize that all the postings I have made on this subject today illustrate how the Israelis are absolutely fair and impartial to their Arab citizens when such citizens behave like citizens of Israel.
3. The events, their unusual character and serious results were the consequence of deep-seated factors that created an explosive situation in the Israeli Arab population. The state and generations of its government failed in a lack of comprehensive and deep handling of the serious problems created by the existence of a large Arab minority inside the Jewish state.
Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon. Meanwhile, not enough was done to enforce the law in the Arab sector, and the illegal and undesirable phenomena that took root there.
As a result of this and other processes, serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of the distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system and substantially defective infrastructure. These all contributed to ongoing ferment that increased leading up to October 2000 and constituted a fundamental contribution to the outbreak of the events.
Another cause was the ideological-political radicalization of the Arab sector. These processes were expressed in various expressions of identification with and even support of the Palestinian struggle against the state. This radicalization process was related to the increasing strength of Islamic politics in Israel in the period preceding the events. Serious conflicts existed between Muslims in Israel and governing authorities on matters like the Waqf's property; worsening conflicts between Muslims and the government on the issue of the Temple Mount; and cheers, primarily from the radical branch of the Islamic movement, for Islamist organizations that are Israel's enemies, including Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden.
Really?
And there there are those who aren't following the discussion at all.
Foxfyre wrote:
Really?
Yes, asking others if they've read the report and then thinking, a quote from that would come from a totally different source ...
Foxfyre wrote:And there there are those who aren't following the discussion at all.
You do?
