Harry’s Place

I’d prefer Arabs to be arguing their case in the Knesset, than through the barrel of a gun. There is also an argument that the proportion of Arab seats in the Knesset - I think seven of out 120 - is not reflective of the proportion of Arabs in the Israeli population - about 20 per cent. This decision will further alienate Arab Israelis from the democratic process. What stake will they have in electoral politics?

Israel should not give its enemies an opening to question its democratic credentials– even while many of those same enemies proclaim their solidarity with the profoundly undemocratic and fascistic Hamas.

You mean the ones critical of Israel’s military action? If you oppose the action because you feel its detrimental to the cause of defeating Hamas, as well as it killing so many civilians, how is that showing solidarity with Hamas? I think Hamas should stop firing rockets, but feel that this cannot be achieved through military action.

Must… not… reply…

Simple question, politely put… I am genuinely curious.

But while Israel’s friends on the democratic Left should condemn this decision

Well, no, that is simply your personal opinion. There is no ’should’ about it.
In my opinion, treasonous enemies of democracy and Israel should not become legislators, any more than a Nazi party should be allowed to sit in the Commons.

“treasonous enemies of democracy and Israel should not become legislators”

The trouble is where to draw the line on what is “treasonous”. If it is someone who opposes the status quo, who criticises government policy and who seeks another political system, then it could be used to censor and silence those who are not violent in their intent. In the UK, we have sitting in parliament Welsh and Scottish nationalists who wish for autonomy or outright secession. But they have a stake in the democratic process and should they be victorious, they could overturn the political system. Likewise, Arab Israeli opinion should be fully represented in the Knesset, even if it challenges the notion that Israel should be a Jewish state. Because if you do not give them the opportunity to seek to further their aims through the ballot box, you give the initiative to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And they will be the ones who will be celebrating the prevention of these parties from contesting elections.

Nearly Oxfordian said: “Well, no, that is simply your personal opinion. There is no ’should’ about it.”

Yes, and the author’s personal opinion is that they should. If I read a blog or column which states that someone ought to do something, I assume that’s the author’s opinion, like everything else in the blog not quoted or credited or linked. I don’t require that he bury the text in caveats and qualifications about it only being his personal opinion.

For clarification do you think that neither Kach or Balad should have been banned for seeking to subvert the Israeli polity, or that Kach should have been, but Balad shouldn’t be?

If the latter, why?

The decision of Israel’s Central Elections Committee to bar two Arab parties– United Arab List-Ta’al and Balad– from competing in next month’s Knesset elections was profoundly wrongheaded, not least because of the propaganda ammunition it provides to Israel’s enemies at a critical time.

And: Israel should not give its enemies an opening to question its democratic credentials

So your opposition to banning Arab parties is tactical, not principled.

I think that there’s a good argument for banning the political wing of a terrorist organisation from parliamentary politics. Not only do they have no respect for democratic politics; they’re actively trying to destroy that country’s democratic polity, by murderous violence.

Now, a state might refrain from banning such a party, for strategic reasons, or because it felt that it was a strong enough democracy to withstand such violent assaults. But I think it would have the right to do so.

By contrast, I can’t think of any good reason to ban a party which merely embraces anti-democratic, totalitarian, or racist policies. You should campaign against such a politics, but it is improper to ban it.

I wouldn’t want to vote against the SWP - just to expose it.

Oh, and the CPB too - wouldn’t want Zin to feel left out!

So your opposition to banning Arab parties is tactical, not principled.

Zin, note my deliberately-chosen words “not least because” rather than simply “because.”

And excuse me for a moment while I laugh into my sleeve over your supposed concern for democratic political principles.

Anyone know how the fighting in Gaza is influencing opinion polls for the elections?

Gene

I did note your words. “Not least because”, suggests that the number one reason you oppose the banning is tactical, not based primarilly on principle.

And excuse me for a moment while I laugh into my sleeve over your supposed concern for democratic political principles in Israel, or in Venezuela. How is your campaign in support of those who overthrew democracy in the 2002 going? You’ve been awfully quiet on that front recently.

Even the members who voted to bar the parties conceded that Israel’s Supreme Court is almost certain to overturn the ban before to election.

Quite possibly. Just like the Supreme Court overturned the ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza. What happened next?

Is Israel governed by the rule of law?

How can people be so sure it will be overturned?
If it is overturned in the last day and voter confusion drives down the arab vote?
What if they have no time to campaign?

Israel could always skirt the “democracy” issue because they could control the citizenship issue, deny Palestinians citizenship (so much so as actively discriminating against them when marrying an Israeli) and giving immediate citizenship to any Jew (religious or “racial”).

That said they are now not even content with that, and want to limit the democratic rights of a minority even further.

Israel has always been a covert-citizenship-apartheid state, now they are a state controlled by apartheid parties, and if it is not overturned… well you know, overt.

Flanker: Are you also against the state of Liberia?

An outstandingly irresponsible decision by the central election committee. They wait for the court to rescue them, and when it does, they’ll say the court is leftist and detached from reality.

I hate Balad like everyone else. I hate many other parties as well. That’s not a reason to refuse them fundamental democratic rights.

And make no mistake, the people who are advocating this do not want to reject Balad because it is anti-democratic. They make a point of rejecting it as non-Zionist.

Unfortunately, there is a huge contingent of Jewish rednecks and bigots who hate Arabs for being Arabs.

“Flanker: Are you also against the state of Liberia?”

Maybe, maybe not, elaborate.

Is Israel governed by the rule of law?

I note that you ran away from answering my question:
Can you name one country in the world where nobody - a person or a body of people - has ever done anything that conflicts with a court ruling?
Regardless of what the outcome was: sanctions by the court, a ruling in the national assembly, whatever - just name the country.
I only want one country, please. Would it be Cuba? Venezuela? China? Any other haven of Communist democratic heaven? Mayhap a Moslem country?
The fact that raise this canard only about Israel speaks volumes.
And no doubt you’ll run away again.
Remember: I only want one single country.

Unfortunately, there is a huge contingent of Jewish rednecks and bigots who hate Arabs for being Arabs

And as we know, there are no Arabs who hate Jews. After all, there has never been a genocidal attack on Israel by Arabs.

Nearly Oxfordian, there are Arab shits as well. What you’re saying in effect, can’t bit them, join them. We either are or are not a democracy.

How many Jewish political parties are there in Arab countries?
For that matter, How many non-Muslim parties are there in Arab countries besides Lebanon?

lest we forget Britain whilst not banning all rebellious political parties certainly blocked Sinn Fein’s MPs from sitting at Westminster, imposed ludicrous bans on hearing their voices (so an actor’s voice was often substituted) and HMG would occasionally resort to travel restrictions for people from Northern Ireland, deporting them from mainland Britain, etc

that was a few decades back

and those selfsame Sinn Fein MPs (Adams & co.) are the ones that helped to make the Good Friday agreement, and relative peace, in NI possible

how times change? what short memories we have

nothing is achieved by attacking the Arab Parties in Israel, they should NOT be banned.

“But while Israel’s friends on the democratic Left should condemn this decision and support the effort to overturn it, we shouldn’t hesitate to make a few points which the Israel bashers ignore”

It is possible to criticize the action of an Israeli government without having to qualify it every single time, Gene.

P.

“But while Israel’s friends on the democratic Left should condemn this decision and support the effort to overturn it, we shouldn’t hesitate to make a few points which the Israel bashers ignore”

It is possible to criticize the action of an Israeli government without having to qualify it every single time, Gene.

Paul, I wouldn’t have mentioned those points if I didn’t think they were important (and largely unknown outside of Israel).

Funny that this largely pro-Israel site criticizes a point that has largely slipped the conventional left media.

To me, this is more distressing than Gaza. Over there, it’s self-defence, as ugly as it might be; but this disqualification of parties is a sinister populist move.

I think that there’s a good argument for banning the political wing of a terrorist organisation from parliamentary politics. Not only do they have no respect for democratic politics; they’re actively trying to destroy that country’s democratic polity, by murderous violence.

David T 14 January 2009, 5:15 pm

David T,

Excelent point, which nicely answers the question vis a vis why their is no overall protest against the Kach party.

Israel could always skirt the “democracy” issue because they could control the citizenship issue, deny Palestinians citizenship …

Flanker 14 January 2009, 6:24 pm

Couple of points, Flanker:

1) A state cannot control the mechanims to atain citizenship? Does this mean the you will join me in protesting the US for their apartheid policy of not allowing illeagal imagrants to vote in their elections? Or perhaps we should join in protest for the PA not allowing the Jewish Settlers of the Administered Territories from voting in their elections.

2) If Arabs have no vote in Israel, umm… what is the issue we are discsussing. After all the issue is disenfranchisment of political parties whom arabs vote for.

3) Flanker, during the years 1930-1948 + nations around the world closed their doors to jewish immigration. Thus, jews who wanted to flee Europe were litterally turned away, and returned to die in the Ghettos, concentration and death camps, not to mention the “special action”. After the war, and the discovery of the results of the Final Solution, the nations of the world expected that the jewish surviours of the camps should return to their old home and to live amongst their neighbours who had actively participated in facilitating the destruction of European Jewry. Not surprisingly, perhaps, jews of Europe were less than enthusiastic about the idea. Israel, as part (part) of its reason de te, exist as a haven that jews from anywhere can flee to avoid oppression etc. In the last 60+ years jewish refugees from Europe, Yemen, Iraq, Eygpt, Ethiopia, India have all been able to flee opression and find haven in Israel. Contrast that with the treatment of European Jews by… Europe (England), USA, South America, even Austrlia, and you begin to understand the importance of the Law of Return.

Still don’t understand… Consider this: In the last 60 years a nation of 2+ million people exist that is able to absorb 700,000+ refugees from the arab world and then absorb another 200,000 + refugees from the former USSR. Contrast that with the fact that the Arab world, despite all its wealth and land, has failed, not just to accomidate the “refugees” from what is Israel today, BUT THEY HAVEN’T EVEN TRIED.

By the way, I agree with Gene’s overall point, Israel should find positive ways of enfranchising its Arab citizens, and making them fell part of the broader Israeli society. This action only acts to enhance the disenfranchisement of the Arab citizens.

“Maybe, maybe not, elaborate.”

Liberia was created as a colony for free African-American slaves to return home to Africa, but the native population was never asked. Do you advocate the dissolution of Liberia and the expulsion of the “settlers” and their families back to the US?

Openly supporting violence and genocide against your own citizens in a time of war tends to test the boundaries of ‘free speech’. Even if you are the most bong addled liberal anarchist Starbucks window smashing tool you should be able to understand that. Unless you wanted Oswald Mosley to preach the wonders of Nazism during the Blitz.

Arab participation in electoral politics in Israel is today half of what it is for the general population. Their own leaders tell them not to vote or participate. Banning them is right, but it also gives them what they want so they can declare Warcrime #3,240,515 based on their own violent outbursts.

If they wanted to support crazy violent sociopaths then they should have moved to Gaza. But of course the last thing Arabs in Israel want is to be Palestinian.

“Unless you wanted Oswald Mosley to preach the wonders of Nazism during the Blitz”.

In 1940, there were many pro-Hitler and defeatist movements around. That’s democracy. The right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Even though the thread is probably dead…

“Does this mean the you will join me in protesting the US for their apartheid policy of not allowing illeagal imagrants to vote in their elections?”

Belive it or not, it is very racist.

“Or perhaps we should join in protest for the PA not allowing the Jewish Settlers of the Administered Territories from voting in their elections.”

I do not know what the path to Palestinian “citizenship” is (defined as the right to vote) but I can assure you that the settlers would reject it, so the issue is in limbo.

“2) If Arabs have no vote in Israel, umm… what is the issue we are discsussing. After all the issue is disenfranchisment of political parties whom arabs vote for.”

When I mean Arabs, I mean ALL arabs under control of Israel, Israel can diffuse this manner by handing off sovereignty to Palestinians, but until this is denied, Israel is responsible for their rights.

“3) Flanker, during the years 1930-1948 + nations around the world closed their doors to jewish immigration. Thus, jews who wanted to flee Europe were litterally turned away, and returned to die in the Ghettos, concentration and death camps, not to mention the “special action”. ”

And that was wrong.

“the importance of the Law of Return”

The only problem I have with the Law of Return is that it is racist-like .

As for Liberia, I think it was a mistake, like Israel was the same.

“If they wanted to support crazy violent sociopaths then they should have moved to Gaza. But of course the last thing Arabs in Israel want is to be Palestinian.”

Considering how Israel treats the Palestinians… who wouldn’t? One of the most oppressed people on earth.

Flanker,

Thank you for your reply. Of course, as per usual, you are not thinking with your head.

1) Israel has not extended soverignty over the Administered territories, and so does not extend citizenship to the residents. On the other hadn Israel has established a proto-sovereign entity, called the Palestinian Authority, which does enfranchised the Palestinians. So what is your complaint again?

2) The lack of a soveriegn Palestine has nothing to do with Israeli lack of willingness to accomidate it, Israel has tried sevreal times to “create” a Palestine, and everything to do with Palestinian rejectionism. Starting in 1948, the years between 1948 and 1967, 1967 (Khartoum “Three Nos), to as recently as 2000, Camp David and then Taba. Hamas has gone further and said that it is not bound by the Oslo agreements, effectively declaring war on Israel.

3) The Law of Return is only one way to become a citizen of Israel, another way is Family Reunion, which many Arabs have used to gain citizenship.

4) US not allowing non-citizens a vote is far from racist, but I am perplexed why you would simultaneously argue the racist nature of American citizenship, while endorsing Palestinian anti-Jewish measures.

“1) Israel has not extended soverignty over the Administered territories, and so does not extend citizenship to the residents. On the other hadn Israel has established a proto-sovereign entity, called the Palestinian Authority, which does enfranchised the Palestinians. So what is your complaint again?”

Yes they do, they control the borders, the airspace and they invade willy nilly, Israel is in complete control of Gaza and West Bank, the fact that they allow what could be at best be described as regional elections for “governors” is immaterial.

“to as recently as 2000, Camp David and then Taba.”

Wrong it was a disturbing carveup of the west bank and Gaza, anyone that saw the actual map would never believe the 99% crap.

“3) The Law of Return is only one way to become a citizen of Israel, another way is Family Reunion, which many Arabs have used to gain citizenship.”

Except for Palestinians in particular.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124×97034

“4) US not allowing non-citizens a vote is far from racist, but I am perplexed why you would simultaneously argue the racist nature of American citizenship, while endorsing Palestinian anti-Jewish measures”

Quote the anti-jewish measures. Nearly Oxfordian claims that Jewish settlers should have voting rights in the WB and Gaza once Palestine is formed, I agree they should, but as Palestinian citizens they also are fair game to land redistribution…