Saving Democracy By Fighting The Occupation
A new campaign titled Back To Israel declares that “on 17.06.05 we will fight for democracy in Israel”:
What is the ‘Back to Israel’ Initiative?
The National ‘Back to Israel’ Day: Saving Israel’s Democracy by Fighting the Occupation will create a central stage for all of Israel’s civic organizations delivering the key message to the broad public: Israel’s democracy is at risk due to the occupation.
If you are currently in Israel, it is probably worth attending the event taking place this friday. The coalition organizing the campaign includes organizations with very conflicting agendas, and it is precisely for this reason that the event will be an interesting one. It is very rare to see groups such as New Profile and Yesh Gvul work together with Yachad – the new “Social Democratic Party”.
The reason such a cooperation is possible lies in the message the different groups united around. This message is considerably radical, though it doesn’t spell out what some of the more radical leftist groups consider to be evident – that a democratic regime over a limited part of the population under Israel’s de facto countrol for almost half a century is not enough to entitle Israel to be called a democracy. But the fact that such a coalition united under the call to save democracy is still impressive because it is a recognition that occupation and democracy cannot be reconciled.
This is a very important step for the anti-occupation left, who focused up until now on the humanitarian and economic price the occupation costs for both sides. Since I had nothing to do with this campaign I can only guess it is a reaction to two things: 1. The war in Iraq and its so-called democratic imperialism. Everybody’s talking about democracy in the Middle-East, so why not hop on the wagon? 2. The discussion of a binational or one-state solution, which frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in democratic terms.
It is worth noting that such events demonstrate the ability of more radical groups to promote their agenda in what is considered to be “mainstream” anti-occupation left.
Response to The Disengagement Game: It is important to know that the more radical activists in the coalition, such as New Profile, found the game mentioned by Mobius below to be unsensitive and hypocritical. To read a response in hebrew, go to Haokets website and scroll down until you find the article by Yael Barda. Unfortunately it is in hebrew only.
Yachad is a regrouping of Israel’s extreme Bolshevik left-wing. They are more correctly described as communists, not socialists.
During the years of socialist hegemony, these folks didn’t give a whit about representative democracy, free speech, religious freedom, free markets, or any of that “capitalist” crap.
Now they – like many Israeli lefties – have appointed themselves the watchdogs of Israeli democracy.
Oy.
Israel has become more democratic since 1973 precisely because the religous and Sephardic elements – dismissed as primitives by these newly “democractic” elites – have finally exercised their political will, and won their rightful public voice.
Anyone who thinks these folks care about democracy should have their head examined. These folks haven’t a democratic bone in their bodies – the best proof of which is that they side with the ultra-corrupt and violent Pals against Israel. Typical lefties, getting hard-ons from violent, corrupt “revolutionaries”…
Why on Friday?
How come these folks aren’t in the streets handing out the pro-expulsion green ribbons for drivers to tie to their antennas.
The ‘disengagement’ is about to die. When the first poll showing that support for the plan is down to 48%, the wonderful Israeli media found many a politician to say that Sharon doesn’t need a majority to pull this thing off.
Consequently, I’m looking to buy an apartment in Yesha pretty soon.
“Consequently, I’m looking to buy an apartment in Yesha pretty soon.”
josh, you mean yesh? Just because you believe the disengagement is unjust doesnt mean its not gonna happen.
Since all these groups care so much about democracy and the will of the people, it is pretty scandalous that none of them supported holding a referendum on the disengagement. They don’t really care about democracy. They merely exploit the idea to push their political agendas. When their political goals do not mesh with democracy, like with the referendum (which would have been defeated), then they have no time for these silly votes by the people. No, in a case like that, the people elected the government, so how dare anyone question what the leaders say.
whatup asaf, haven’t seen you in a while on here. i’m back from jeruzalem. we should debate when i get back to the city. now i’m saving yiddish culture. post to come
The Tuna, the only thing that would make a referendum democratic would be if the palestinians took part in it. Im all for that. how about you?
eli, im back in the city. drop me an email when u’re back.
btw maariv (www.nrg.co.il) has an interesting article online claiming that hebrew is indebted to yiddish much more than contemporary scholars think. ill try to look for an english version if u’re interested.
I think its already been summed up as to what type of hypocrites are in these organizations. Their all a farce. Asaf do you even care that your vision of democracy will ruin Israel?
Asaf,
Democracy does not require the Palestinians to vote on inter-Israeli issues any more than Israelis should vote for members of the PLC or the Palestinian chairman.
Get this straight: The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. That’s why Israel is occupying the areas. If the Palestinians were part of Israel, there would be no occupation (or a state of Israel).
Your answer only proves my point: your idea of democracy is merely a tool to carry out a political agenda. When your political agenda isn’t served, you swist and turn the idea of democracy on its head.
josh, you mean yesh? Just because you believe the disengagement is unjust doesnt mean its not gonna happen.
No,
yesha forever. I don’t think that there will be a ‘disengagement’ at all. The country is waking up to the insanity and illegitimacy of the plan from the most openly corrupt government the state has ever seen.
Yesterday, the news was about Mazuz the state prosecutor asking questions about what asst-minister Gila Gamliel is doing in the dept. of Agriculture and how Gila in return attacked Mazuz for ignoring the state comptroller/ombudsman’s warning about the corruption in Mazuz’s own ‘justice’ ministry.
Today, the news is that the Golani brigade will not take part because there is a high rate of
oops,
cont’d…
…high rate of conscientious objectors be it from regular infantry to officers and support units who are suspected of not intending to take part in the expulsion of Jews this summer.
Am yisrael chai.
Josh – no reason to speculate. We’ll know very shortly whats gonna happen.
Tuna if the West Bank and Gaza aren’t Israel then why is Israel occupying them?
In a democracy people have the right to express their opinions in this case their opinions against the occupation? To claim that it is undemocratic to protest against your government with the idea of trying to change it is a gross misunderstanding of democracy. In fact societies that lack a strong civil society like Israel’s – that covers the political spectrum from left to right like any healthy civil society should – do not tend to remain democracies for long. Civil society acts as a protective buffer between the power of the state and the people.
But as long as Israel effectively controls Palestinians’ lifes i.e. their basic rights of freedom of movement, their access to water, their electricity, access to markets and their physical freedom on many an occasion then it is democratic that they should have a vote in Israeli elections, this is what alot of the protests during the 1st intifada were about. However, if this were the case then yes the Jewish state would be in jeopardy, so the solution to save democracy and the Jewish majority in Israel and, thereby, the very nature of Israel itself is to end the occupation. Its were all logical investigations end.
Mr. Tuna it seems you have answered yourself. Israel is controlling the lives of millions of palestinians. these palestinians have a democratic right to determine their own political present and future. A referendum without the palestinians is as democratic as the vote of support De Gaulle got from the the “people” in algiers – in other words, the european colonists. alternatively, its like letting only the whites in america vote whether they want to abolish slavery. Of course I dont expect anything else to happen – all I am saying that such a referendum would not be democratic so its a rediculous argument to be brought by the settlers.
“The idea of democracy is merely a tool” – exactly – a tool of the fundamentalist settlers who dont give a shit about democratic rights of the people living two feets away from them. Some settlers have more guts than others to admit that, such as itamar ben gvir.
Speaking of democracy and referenda, where was the referendum to establish the settlements in the first place?
Ben David: “Anyone who thinks these folks care about democracy should have their head examined. These folks haven’t a democratic bone in their bodies – the best proof of which is that they side with the ultra-corrupt and violent Pals against Israel. Typical lefties, getting hard-ons from violent, corrupt ‘revolutionaries’…”
Typical zero-sum reactionary wingnut geshrei…. As if disagreement with the grand high exaulted opinions of the Yesha Council amounts to insanity. As if a Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine were mutually exclusive. As it is written in the Book of Gingrich, When you run out of arguments, make it personal.
To coin a popular Ben-Davidic phrase: Get a clue!!
question:
what i dont understand is if all these leftist orginization are so in favor of democracy, then why are they all against putting the issue to a public vote ?
regardless of polls, everyone knows that it would not pass.
I dont think democracy is what the left really wants.
Money quote:
“It is worth noting that such events demonstrate the ability of more radical groups to promote their agenda in what is considered to be “mainstream” anti-occupation left.”
We’ve been warned.
cream pie,
you wrote: “what i dont understand is if all these leftist orginization are so in favor of democracy, then why are they all against putting the issue to a public vote ?”
I answered that above. a referendum would be “democracy b’grush” as one might say in hebrew. In such a case only israelis would get to decide the future of the people they control. thats the farthest thing from any conception of democracy u might have.
Yes, well know sooner than you think.
Yediot is building up in foreplay to the orgasm it fanatasizes about. Today’s headline, “60 days left until expulsion”.
In the meantime, an investigative reporter finds that AsafST is right about oppressed residents of the ‘West Bank’: The only place in the world where Jews have no rights
The cherry on the cake is a new book out in Israel about the real motivation behind Sharon ramming this insane plan through the government: Bommerang. You know, there’s only so much that a supposed democratic country can take in corruption. The Israeli media can try ignoring it, but it will just get too large a lie to suppress.
The whole ‘seperation plan’ is born in sin, but the left doesn’t care about killing the country in order to carry out their dream.
…and in order to correct any misunderstanding:
if all white people in the US (whatever that means) voted to give black people their freedom, this would be democratic act due to the contect of the vote, not its form. The form of the vote is undemocratic since it assumes that black freedom is in the hands of white people. It may be legally valud, but this doesn’t make it a democratic practice of power.
in other words, this was a bad analogy but i think the point i made (twice already in this thread) is very clear.
Asaf,
I don’t know what the hell you’re ranting about with your white people/black people shit. Are you so divorced from the reality here? No country is going to give non-citizens a vote on what it does with its army and the fate of its citizens. The question of whether the Israeli army should withdraw from somewhere and if Israeli citizens should be forced to leave their homes is an Israeli issue. Why don’t the Palestinians offer Jews living in teh West Bank the right to vote for members of the PLC? Because that’s a Palestinian issue. It’s really not so complicated.
You are making a desperate attempt to rewrite history so that it fits your ideology, and exploiting the concept of democracy to do it. No one who opposed the referendum said they were opposed because the Palestinians weren’t being included. No one. The left opposed it because they knew they would lose. To come along now and claim what you are saying shows how little you care about truth or real democracy.
And your line about the settlers is pretty pathetic as well. You are just as much a fundamentalist as any settler, and the fact that you think they don’t believe in democracy is irrelevent in proving YOU treat democracy as anything other than a club to batter people you disagree with.
Admit it Asaf: you and those leftist extremists you list above don’t really care about democracy. They care about building a bi-national state (which is left wing code for destroying Israel.) You don’t care about finding ways to improve democracy in either Israel or the Palestinian territories. And you don’t care about the democratic rights of the setters, who are only two feet away from YOU. You only care about exploiting ideas like democracy for your own agenda. It’s about time people who really care about democracy stood up and put you in your place.
Tuna: “No one who opposed the referendum said they were opposed because the Palestinians weren’t being included. No one. ”
Not true. Check out: http://www.acj.org/Daily%20New…
And
http://peacepalestine.blogspot…
Both articles were originally in Ha’aretz
Tuna, “The question of whether the Israeli army should withdraw from somewhere and if Israeli citizens should be forced to leave their homes is an Israeli issue.”
You have full right to take this approach, but you gotta realize that this contradicts the most fundamental principle of democracy: people have the right to govern themselves. It is therefore undemocratic to exclude a people from the decision of whether or not they are going to continue living under an undemocratic regime. I find it hard to believe that you dont understand what im saying. I find it easier to believe that you dont believe in these simple democratic principles.
I prefer kahanists like itamar ben-gvir over hypocrites like yourself.
“No one who opposed the referendum said they were opposed because the Palestinians weren’t being included. No one.”
um, I just did. i never claimed other people made such an argument and I dont know how that has anything to do with the argument’s validity.
“You are just as much a fundamentalist as any settler, and the fact that you think they don’t believe in democracy is irrelevent in proving YOU treat democracy as anything other than a club to batter people you disagree with.”
can you point to any coherent argument in this paragraph?
face it asaf, you will qualify and modify the term democracy until you get the leftist result you want. “and thats the thats the farthest thing from any conception of democracy u might have.”
anal cream pie – do you really have a problem with my “qualificatin and modification” of the term democracy? lets take a look at what i consider democracy to be in this thread:
“people have the right to govern themselves. It is therefore undemocratic to exclude a people from the decision of whether or not they are going to continue living under an undemocratic regime.”
do u not accept this?
of course i dont accept this. every democracy excludes people. the u.s. excludes felons in prison, and millions of noncitizens. are we not a democracy?
There is a BIG difference between people in the two cases you brought and people who are FORCED into a military against their will. fine line, isnt it. Nobody forced immigrants to come to the united states.
What a weird thread.
I’ve got to hand it to Asaf, it’s an interesting argument. Not his, of course; he’s toeing the party line here. But it’s alluring, if wrong.
There are two definitions of democracy being bandied about. The first is where people vote on what they should do (everyone but Asaf). The second is where people vote on what affects them (Asaf).
The second one is wrong. It’s the one that claims that I should be able to vote on that which affects me. The really extreme situations are stuff like occupation, which affects me physically in the here and now. Less obvious are stuff like foreign policy, and then right down to trade policy. Yeah, there are people around who claim that the whole world should vote on the U.S.’s foreign policy ’cause, well, it affects them.
Asaf’s argument is identical to theirs, although confronting a much easier situation to make it in — ie people from one country occupying one directly next to it, rather than people from one country making rules about how they trade with a country halfway around the world from it.
It fails, though. There are two steps here, and Asaf is trying to reduce them into one. The first step is democracy — voting on what to do. The second step is basic rights — whether or not the thing voted on respects basic rights, laws, ethics, etc. Iranians can have a referendum as to whether or not to slap a boycott on Iraq, and Zambians can have a sweeping vote as to whether or not they should all go on vacation to the U.S., and the Brits can cast ballots as to whether or not to “take back” the Falklands/Malvinas. All those things are democratic (first step), but the third one is dubious under international law (second step).
That’s what’s at issue here. A national Israeli referendum as to whether or not to continue the occupation of Gaza would be perfectly democratic. Non-Israelis wouldn’t vote, and that’s fine; they’re not Israeli citizens. The issue, rather, is as to whether the results of that referendum would be legal.
Now, I’d argue that they’d be no more legal than would be a national referendum as to whether or not all of Israel’s knitted kippa wearers should be put to death by sword: no matter the outcome of such a vote, only one outcome would be consistent with Israel’s basic laws.
Democracy is just the people’s will. And sometimes the people’s will is not consistent with basic ethics. Basic laws are for encoding those ethics. Like constitutions at the national level. Like the international laws which govern the relations between states at the international level.
So: “people have the right to govern themselves. It is therefore undemocratic to exclude a people from the decision of whether or not they are going to continue living under an undemocratic regime.”
Here there are two problems. The first statement is wrong. And the second statement doesn’t follow from it.
1. People don’t have the right to govern themselves, unfortunately, because then they’d have to be able to vote directly in every decision that anyone on the planet makes that affects them. I think I hear a butterfly’s wings flapping…
Rather, people have the right to participate in the decisions undertaken by the polity of which they are a part. That’s what we call “democracy”. It’s also why the plight of stateless people is pretty sucky: they don’t have any of these rights at all.
2. Anyway, of course it’s not undemocratic to exclude people from the decision, etc. — because the “regime” in question may not be the one under which they are enfranchised, whether that “regime” be the trade regime of an economically powerful actor halfway around the world, or the occupying army of a militarily powerful actor next door.
While it isn’t undemocratic, though, it is almost certainly illegal. It sounds like Asaf is crafting his arguments to fit the answer he wants to hear; the good news is that he doesn’t have to make untrue argument to get to that answer.
“you gotta realize that this contradicts the most fundamental principle of democracy: people have the right to govern themselves. It is therefore undemocratic to exclude a people from the decision of whether or not they are going to continue living under an undemocratic regime. I find it hard to believe that you dont understand what im saying. I find it easier to believe that you dont believe in these simple democratic principles.”
No one is asking the Palestinians to decide if they are going to continue living under an undemocratic regime. That’s not what the referendum movement was about. It was about asking Israelis if they supported pulling troops and citizens out of Gaza. Yes, that does affect the Palestinians; but no one was asking them to do anything, give anything, or support anything. They were not directly involved in the decision. Again, demanding that they get to vote on what Israel should do with its army is the same as demanding that the residents of Hebron get to vote on the mayor of that city. The Israelis don’t get to participate in that vote, even though it effects them. But none of you “saviors of democracy” have ever argued in favor of granting the Jews the right to vote in Palestinian areas. Why? Either the idea is self-evidently wrong, or you don’t really care about democracy.
What is most baffling in some of the above comments is the need to personally vilify someone because they happen to hold a view one is opposed to.
There is a peculiar theme which repeats itself often on these pages: people point the fingers at the ‘other’ side (be it Palestinians or – the horror – Lefties) and stipulates that because such and such act or slogan does not match the basic decency that is sought in this matter (i.e. peaceful solution and means to coexist), that is the prove why the ‘other’ are ‘hypocrites’ ‘insane’ and other such verbal treats. Throw the baby with the bathwater. What is democratic about abusing someone who does not agree with you?
Incidently, Democracy has few different lines in the dictionary (Webster), two of which are quite interesting in this context: Democracy is … the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority; the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
The first one is (I think) the point that Asaf is trying to make, though it seems 8opus comes close to refuting it by deducing that there is no logic in people’s right to govern – it simply is a fait accompli of corporate/big govt. culture that we have little say in many of the decisions which affects us. (this is what I understood – forgive me if I’m wrong). I say comes close because I don’t think it actually pre-empts Asaf’s point – political authority. By default, if the Palestinians don’t have authority to decide on how they live – in ALL aspects of their lives, including access to hospitals and schools – they are governed by a non-democratic process – legally anchored or not.
The second point is even more poignant in the context of the conflict, because no such privilege has ever been extended to Jews for many centuries. The fact that we now carry a class A citizens distinctions in all aspects of life within Israel (i.e. Israeli Arab citizens) and proceed to make sure we keep on carrying them further a field by fortifying our accomplishments outside our international borders because we feel we have a divine right to do so regardless of the suffering of other people who live there, does not stand scrutiny of the democratic principle. Either it is the rule of majority (we are not, however many settlements we build), or it is the rule of the jungle and kol D’alim gaver. Either we recognise that a democracy does not stand apart of basic human rights to all under its jurisdiction, or we agree it is a certain theocracy and so by default does not necessitate a fair play. But we hold the stick at both ends: we are the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’, and ‘The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. That’s why Israel is occupying the areas…’
But hey, I’m just a Leftie – I will go and get my head examined right now…
8opus interensting argument but I believe it falls since your first definition of democracy has its source in the second definition. expect a full answer after this weekend.
Does any available freeper who’s still around want to check out what happened in Germany this weeked, and tell us all again why we’re supposed to hate “the Left”?
Zionista-
What did happen in Germany? If you tell us, I’ll tell you what Senator Durbin said, and about the Democratic anti-Semitism Dean condemned.
a neo-nazi rally, stong left opposition protesters, many arrested
J,
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/s…
Too bad, “we’re not as bad as nazis,” doesn’t have the same ring to it as “land of the free and the home of the brave.”
By the way, J, has Bush-Cheney made any headway against the antisemitism of our valuable Saudi and Pakistani allies lately? Heck, I’ll settle for a simple diplomatic exchange with Israel, for starters….
Conservative pundit, Andrew “good enough to hire not good enough to marry” Sullivan writes about Durbin too….
“DURBIN SAID NOTHING WRONG: I’ve now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin’s comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful….”
Whole thing here: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/…
So the guy who keeps telling us that the Christian right is not to be trusted despite their strong pro-Israel stance is now telling us that the Left isn’t hateful because they oppose Neo-Nazis?? (The Left has been the archenemy of Nazism since Nazism started, but that doesn’t make them friends of ours, not then in the days of the Stalin-shills and not now as haters of Israel.)
And if the actions of a Republican consultant like Finkel are supposed to prove that the Republicans are no good, what should we make of the views of a high-ranking Democratic senator like Durbin? (The Nazi and Soviet comparisons were pungent and all, but kudos on getting Pol Pot in there. And let’s not forget the main point, the gross anti-Americanism. But how dare we impugn his patriotism? He supports our Hitler and Stalin-like troops as the much as the next loyal American!)
You’ll be crying and moaning after Election Days 2006 and 2008 like you were in 2004, and you’ll still have no clue why.
Reading a little further along on Sullivan’s blog one finds some interesting ideas….
“Ah, yes. The danger of the Jews/Gays spreading their disease throughout society, their enormous power despite tiny numbers, their ability to pass, their threat to children, their flaunting of their disagreement with the New Testament. It’s all so familiar. I think the arguments now made by some Christianists are replicas of the old anti-Semitism, peddled by so many Christians in the past: that Jews are to be loved, but loving them is dependent on their conversion to Christianity; that you can love individual Jews while disdaining Judaism; that Jews’ stubbornness in resisting conversion is evidence of their inherent evil; that such evil, at some point, has to be segregated from mainstream society as much as possible. Gays are not the new blacks. They’re the new Jews. And the Church, in both Catholic and Protestant variants, is dredging up its old anti-Semitism in new guises. The GOP is along for the ride.”
Looks like the Log Cabin types have discovered their expendability. Makes me wonder how long til the Yiddishe freeperlach figure it out too?
Those last three remarks of Zionista’s apparently arrived while I was posting, so here goes:
“Too bad, “we’re not as bad as nazis,” doesn’t have the same ring to it as “land of the free and the home of the brave.”
Say what? You’ll have to explain that one to me.
“By the way, J, has Bush-Cheney made any headway against the antisemitism of our valuable Saudi and Pakistani allies lately?”
Looks like someone is trying to change the subject. Is the Z-man actually criticizing Bush for not doing what no administration has ever attempted before? And if trying it damaged our relationship with those countries, wouldn’t Zionista be the first to jump down his throat for damaging the war on terror in exchange for pie-in-the sky idealism? The bad faith in that argument reeks.
“Conservative pundit, Andrew “good enough to hire not good enough to marry” Sullivan writes about Durbin too…. ”
Well, first, for about a year now, no one, I believe including Sullivan himself, has considered Sullivan a conservative (who did he endorse in the Presidential election?) Second, is anyone buying what he wrote?
You know, even the Democratic Party, miserable as it is, deserves a more capable defender.
J: “So the guy who keeps telling us that the Christian right is not to be trusted despite their strong pro-Israel stance….”
Low marks for reading comprehension, J. See, they’re not so much “pro-Israel” as pro-Yesha (sic). It’s alot easier to to go on hating alot more Jews that way. They’ll be your best buddy as long as they think Israel has the potential for bringing Jesus back to life.
J: “Say what? You’ll have to explain that one to me.”
Just a reasonable extension of your very own point. Think about it. Meanwhile, don’t choke yourself playing with your orange ribbon or anything….
“See, they’re not so much “pro-Israel” as pro-Yesha (sic). It’s alot easier to to go on hating alot more Jews that way. They’ll be your best buddy as long as they think Israel has the potential for bringing Jesus back to life.”
I assume you mean “pro-Yeshua”. Well, some of them are sincere and some aren’t. Even in the case of the insincere, I’d like to see why you think they’re Jew haters. (Just because some of them have their own agenda doesn’t mean they “hate” Jews, although they don’t love Jews quite as much as they claim publicly to.) In any case, although there are certainly risks in dealing with the Christian right, it’s a lot better than dealing with those who claim to love the Palestinians while actually just hating Israel (and they don’t seem too fond of non-Israeli Jews, either).
“Meanwhile, don’t choke yourself playing with your orange ribbon or anything….”
Aw, that’s sweet, Mr. Z. You’re classy all the way.
When I’m not “crying and moaning,” I like to check out the view from down at your level, J. Fun for a visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
By default, if the Palestinians don’t have authority to decide on how they live – in ALL aspects of their lives, including access to hospitals and schools – they are governed by a non-democratic process – legally anchored or not.
I guess I’m pointing to the difference between the real-world meaning of democracy — where a polity collectively decides how it wishes to act — and its redefintion as “autonomy”.
Autonomy is a great thing to strive for. But if there is no democracy except where there is autonomy then, obviously, nowhere has ever been democratic, and never will be. (Until the End of Politics. Or the Messiah comes. Or something like that.)
In other words, while the current meaning of “democracy” is kind of disappointing — achieving it is a starting point, not a finish line — it is at least useful. Redefining it is tempting, but ultimately not particularly useful, ’cause we already have words for utopias.
Lest anyone still believe dittoheaded “Judeo-Christian” freeperlach are anything but pure batshit crazy….
http://americablog.blogspot.co…
Rush Limbaugh: At any rate, the Downing Street memo, the reason it’s such an item in the news is because it’s what spawned this mock impeachment hearing that took place Thursday night in Washington. This is the thing that was chaired by John Conyers, and this is where all the anti-Semitism came out of the mouths of a bunch of Democrats that participated in this thing, and it’s that which Howard Dean has now had to go out and say, “Anti-Semitism, why, that’s not part of our party,” blah, blah.
Americablog: In fact, there was some nutjub in the public audience who started handing out anti-Semitic crap, and he was routinely denounced by the entire Democratic party. So what exactly is Limbaugh talking about when he says “all the anti-Semitism came out of the mouths of a bunch of Democrats that participated in this thing”? Which Democratic congressmen in particular were spouting anti-Semitism, Rush? Or are you back on your prescriptions again?
8opus; “I guess I’m pointing to the difference between the real-world meaning of democracy — where a polity collectively decides how it wishes to act — and its redefintion as “autonomy”.”
So if a polity cannot decide how it wishes to act – because it is controlled by an occupying regime – is this regime democratic?
“Lest anyone still believe dittoheaded “Judeo-Christian” freeperlach are anything but pure batshit crazy…. ”
One misstatement by Limbaugh (a radio host, let’s recall) and a whole bunch of people are, not just crazy, but “pure batshit crazy”, but let the number two US Senator (!) of the Democrats spew lunatic comparisons and gross anti-Americanism, and Democrats are… what?
As they say in the law biz, if the facts and the law are against you, start screaming and pounding the table.
And if I may cut in to the Asaf – 80pus debate, I’d like to say that while I’ve appreciated many of the points made in the discussion, I think too much of your energies are being consumed in trying to define the word “Democratic” , which has always had a vague meaning. Isn’t the real issue whether or not the exclusion of the Palestinians is JUSTIFIED?
J: “let the number two US Senator (!) of the Democrats spew lunatic comparisons and gross anti-Americanism, and Democrats are… what?”
Go for it. Show us the facts instead of pounding on your own proverbial table already. Give a verbatim example in Durbin’s statement that is in any way anti-American. (Hint: If you read it or heard it, you’d know you can’t do it).
J: “One misstatement by Limbaugh (a radio host, let’s recall) and a whole bunch of people are, not just crazy, but ‘pure batshit crazy…”
Yep.
“[T]he long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives… continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats. Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians” (Rep. John Hostettler, Republican from Indiana).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c…
So if a polity cannot decide how it wishes to act – because it is controlled by an occupying regime – is this regime democratic?
Um, I don’t know. How did Unnamed Regime arrive at the decision to occupy Unnamed Country?
Also, why are you so preoccupied whether violations of international law are “democratic”? If the U.S. embargoes Cuba and Cubans do not vote, is it “democratic”? If Mahathir carefully coordinates a large investment pool in North Kitchenstan’s economy so as to cause inflation, mayhem, and chaos in North Kitchenstan, is that investment “democratic”?
Etc. “Democracy” != “really good stuff”. It refers to a political system. Political systems sometimes produce really bad stuff. Illegal, even. It’s nutty!
Josh, are you an advocate of the ‘don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story’? Because your “Settlers themselves know that using weapons is out of the question.” comment indicates either a tragic naivety or a belief system fed by some really right wing sources (Eh, “Don’t believe everything you read in the news…”).
Google delivers more then 450,000 results for the string – Israel settlers violence – (and these are English pages updated in the last three months). I am pretty clear lots of them could be categorized as propaganda; many of them at least written with a certain agenda. But I am sure you have heard the phrase ‘no smoke without fire’. Incidentally, the string – Israel settlers non-violence – nets just over 19,300 articles.
Look, I am sure there are many a decent folk out there who live in the territories because that was a comfortable – economically sensible, government supported etc. I am also pretty clear that many people have a certain vision about the future of a Jewish state and were hopeful such visions could be brought about with perseverance. We are yet to see the results of the move but I think you shall find out many of these people will move quietly – because their respect for the law and maybe even desire to peaceful normalcy is deep rooted – as it is indeed in the Jewish tradition (Rabbi Hillel, one foot etc.).
But there is a (large) hard core group which has definitely taken the gun and the fist to be their guiding principles. One does not need to look far to found evidence for such activities. These people behave as if they live in the Wild West and keep the same standards the settlers of those times held to: ruthless disregard for law and complete abhorrence to basic human decency when it comes to someone other than your own ethnic group:
From an Amnesty International report in 2004 –
“On 11 October, a 26-year-old Palestinian farmer, Hani Shadeh, was shot and seriously wounded in the neck by an Israeli settler as he was picking olives with other farmers in Asira al-Qibliya, a village near Nablus and near the Israeli settlement of Yitzhar. The day before, Israeli settlers had set fire to an olive grove near the Israeli settlement of Tapuach.â€â€¦
Or – “In the southern Hebron region, on 15 October, after Israeli peace activists from Rabbis for Human Rights had coordinated with the Israeli army that the Palestinian farmers harvest their olives on that day, the farmers were attacked by armed settlers. The Israeli army patrol responded by telling the Palestinian farmers to leave, claiming that they did not have sufficient forces to protect them from the settlers.â€
Note that AI is not some outlandish hippie outfit and is considered one of the leading proponents for human rights across the globe. But even if one makes a point not to look at websites which naturally lean towards victims, there are other places one can find similar information:
Here – http://www.fmep.org/reports/20…
and here – http://keshev.org.il/siteEn/Fu…
You make Israel no service by pretending these violations of the Geneva accord do not happen. It is transparency and fairness which will stand in judgment. We have very little merit left as it is.
May we all find better ways to solve our differences. Shabat Shalom.
8opus your examples have nothing to do with the point. This is not how the occupation “affects” the palestinians. Within the Israeli de facto borders – there is one part that is run more or less as a representative democracy while one part that is run under a military regime. The military regime is ipso facto an authoritairan regime where the people under its control have no say. I dont see how this relates to whether on embargo on cuba is democratic. HEre we have an example of direct control of a population without them having any say about anything.