MyDD :: Where I draw the line.

Where I draw the line.

by Blue In SC and MD, Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:53:57 PM EST

I love Israel. I'm not ashamed to admit that, and I don't moderate that view depending on where I am.

But there are times when even someone like me has to step back and say - LOUDLY - that something is wrong.

No, this isn't about Gaza.

This is about a decision that was recently made that, in my opinion, crosses any threshold of what is acceptable or decent. Israel's Central Election Committee just banned Arab-only parties (there are two parties who are mixed and have Arab-members) from running in the upcoming Knesset elections. Say what you will about Israel, but I have always held that as long as Israel conducted itself as a democracy - however flawed - it deserved the same level of respect as any democratic country.

But I draw the line here. It is a sad day for me that I have to say that I am SEVERLY disappointed in Israel. Regardless of what happens, the fact that this has even happened is devastating to me.

Tags: Israel, moderate, Arabs, elections (all tags)

Permalink :: 77 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Where I draw the line. (2.00 / 5)

Blue-

I've seen you wrestle with the Israel-Palestine issue on MyDD before and I give you the highest kudos for your ability to be honest with us and with yourself.

I, too, feel that this is an unbelievable development and I am with you 100 % on that.

If I may pick at a scab, though. This is what this has always been about. In some ways, it is the direct and natural progression. i.e. using trumped-up terrorism BS to fundamentally change Palestinians' lives for the worse. Again (because this can't be stated enough around here), I do not defend Hamas. But Israel is in a position to do better. And this is what we get from them.

by the mollusk on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:57:53 PM EST

Re: Where I draw the line. (2.00 / 7)

How could I possibly argue? Even if I were to challenge your opinion that Israel tries to "fundamentally change Palestinians' lives for the worse," how can I argue given these actions?

I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with your view - I believe with my soul their goal is - and always has been - to live in some version of peace with her neighbors. But actions like this simply blow me away - in my core I am sad.

by Blue In SC and MD on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where I draw the line. (2.00 / 2)

I can appreciate that and I will pick at the scab no more.

by the mollusk on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where I draw the line. (2.00 / 2)

Hopefully others will follow your lead mollusk

by venician on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i think this may be true (2.00 / 3)

for the majority of the population of israel but like the usa, the government seems to pander to the paranoid.... and the hawks win more political battles than they lose. i too would be sad if i wasn't so damn pissed off. i hope future actions will give you reason to be proud of israel.

by citizendave on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i think this may be true (2.00 / 3)

what a lot of people who defend Israel's actions don't seem to get is that the critics are talking about the current Israeli leadership, not the people or the nation itself for the most part.

by yungblakman on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

most israelis want peace (none / 0)

some zealots on both sides want endless war. if only they were more discriminating in whom they killed, I might have less of a problem with it...

yo mir kennen

by RisingTide on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Arab parties have always been blocked (2.00 / 1)

from forming governing coalitions. This is just taking it one step further.

by JJE on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:25:28 PM EST

Re: Arab parties have always been blocked (2.00 / 2)

that and now "some animals are more equal than others".

by the mollusk on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arab parties have always been blocked (2.00 / 3)

No Arab party has ever won enough votes to come close to being able to form a coalition. You are overstating a valid point that they have not been included in coalitions, even center-left coalitions.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is the minimum number of votes (none / 0)

required to form a coalition? None. If one of the larger parties thought that an Arab party would be helpful in forming a governing coalition, there is nothing to stop them.

by JJE on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is the minimum number of votes (2.00 / 1)

Being invited to join a coalition is not the same problem as being blocked from forming a coalition. I'm not arguing the principle here. I'm suggesting, in good faith, that you represent the problem more appropriately and accurately. It's not necessary to take every comment as antagonistic, even if critical, nor is it helpful to take every criticism as opposition.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It seems to me (none / 0)

that that is a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, it is not necessary to take every statement of disagreement as opposition.

by JJE on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It seems to me (2.00 / 2)

It's a distinction that represents a major difference. In a parliamentary system, the party that wins the largest number of seats is generally invited to attempt to form a coalition. If an Arab party actually won 45 seats (out of 120), more than any other party, and was not invited to form a coalition, this would be different from major parties convening a coalition without the direct participation of Arab parties holding 5-10 seats.

There have been Arab members of major parties and at least one Arab minister, as well as Druze participants in government.

Overstating the problem can be as gross an error as understating it.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps we are talking past one another (none / 0)

I understand how coalition governments work. My point is that other small parties have been invited to form governing coalitions, but never Arab parties.

I don't see what is gained by defending this.

by JJE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:34:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps we are talking past one another (2.00 / 1)

Because you are misstating things. Arab parties have never been in the position to form a coalition. Such a position implies winning a plurality of seats. To be blocked in such a situation would be significantly more damning and egregious.

They have never been invited to join a coalition. That's true of other small parties as well. The fact that center-left parties such as Labor have generally run by giving the impression of intending to form coalitions where Arab parties will support from without, but not sit in the government is bad enough.

I am not defending anything per se, beyond an accurate depiction of the situation.

Forming and joining coalitions are quite different things. Forming implies reaching a plurality and being blocked from being the lead party. Joining means being included by whichever party has achieved a plurality.

Now I'm repeating myself. I don't quite understand why you cannot recognize the difference or why it's important. It also obscures the participation of Arab MKs in major parties.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 07:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So this is the hair you're splitting? (none / 0)

Form vs. Join? "Form" doesn't necessarily "imply reaching a plurality" except in your own mind. If you want to impose this technical semantic distinction, fine. Arab parties have never been invited to join a coalition, even though other parties of similar size have.

by JJE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:11:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So this is the hair you're splitting? (none / 0)

The problem is your characterization of this as hairsplitting.

You are dead wrong that "Form" doesn't necessarily "imply reaching a plurality." Generally the party that wins the most seats is invited to form and lead a government. If they cannot construct a coalition, the next largest has the next crack. There have been cases in the UK and elsewhere, I believe, where the second largest party (in terms of seats won) is invited first. But this is irregular. SO it's not only in my own mind.

Look, I agree that the situation is egregious. My disagreement with you is that there is a difference in the degree of egregiousness between the two situations. Are you actually going to argue that the two situations are equivalent, i.e. a party winning a plurality (or near plurality) and being actively blocked versus the failure of inclusion of a small party? Both are motivated by racial/religious/ethnocratic considerations. But differences of degree are meaningful. To simply dismiss them as technical and semantic undermines our understanding and approach to the problem.

And I prefer to leave the ad hominem crap out of it. Perhaps you might keep that "in your own mind." Or we can just ignore each other. Your choice. But I prefer engagement in good faith.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy there (none / 0)

asserting that a very specific construction of the phrase "form a governing coalition" (note I never said say "form a government") is unique to you is not ad hominem in any sense I'm aware of. Ad hominem is "You're a jerk therefore your argument is wrong." All I was saying is "your insistence on a very particular and narrow meaning of the word 'form' is not widely shared."

I meant "form" to mean "compose". That is a perfectly common usage of the word, as in "Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, etc. form the region of the United States called New England." Of course I didn't mean to imply that an Arab party had won a plurality and nevertheless had been blocked. I don't think it's particularly reasonable to draw that inference, especially when that would both be extremely unlikely (given that only 20% of the population is Arab), and blatantly racist, based solely on a very specific reading of a single word. However I will be careful to adhere to the strict form/join distinction in the future, even though I was unable to find that distinction rigidly adhered to in press reports on various parliamentary maneuverings throughout the world.

by JJE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 07:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Easy there (none / 0)

"your insistence on a very particular and narrow meaning of the word 'form' is not widely shared."

Here's where we differ. You'd never say the Lib Dems formed a coalition with New Labor. Thus you do not find my inferences reasonable. If we agreed on the common resonance of "form" then the rest of the dispute adds up to nothing. And though I am loathe to play "prove it cop" and never have before, I'd like to see an instance of a small party whose inclusion in a coalition was referred to as forming it. Regardless, if we agreed about the initial point, then the relevance of my objection would be clear to you. Grant the premise for a moment and you will, I think, see why I accord it worthy of pressing.

As for the ad hominem, yeah, I think it's different to say "I think that understanding is unique to you, or narrow" than to attribute it to one's "mind."

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is something close (none / 0)

From Thailand

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/ 7769133.stm

On Saturday Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary general of the Democrat Party, said it could form a coalition with the support of five small parties in the ruling coalition.

Of course if I accept your premise your objection is relevant. But in my view your premise depends upon an unreasonably strict view of the meaning of the word "form" and a willingness to believe that I was making an absurd and easily-falsifiable factual assertion.

If the construction is unique to you, where else would it be but in your mind? All I was saying was that you were universalizing your particular mental conception of the signifier-signified relationship regarding the word "form".

by JJE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is something close (none / 0)

We're arguing over a convention, this has little to do with semiotics. Your quote proves my point. The Democrat Party in this case is the leading party that will control government. It's in the stronger position. You don't win five seats and initiate coalition talks with other partys and begin a transition to the PM's office.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here (none / 0)

From the same article:

"Everyone here is fully convinced about the political situation of the country. Therefore we decide together to form a coalition government to solve the crisis of the country," he told a late night news conference.

Another, right on point:

David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, set the precedent for this exclusion when he declared that his and successive administrations should be formed "without Herut or the communists."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177757

I wasn't writing a dissertation on Levi-Strauss. I was just trying to make the simple point that "form" is a bit of a floating signifier. I wouldn't have thought that this assertion about a very commonplace verb would be controversial.

by JJE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but ALL 3 examples demonstrate my point. All signifiers float. The connection between any signifier and any signified is determined by convention. In each of these cases, deployment of this commonplace verb is bounded by this specific context, in which it conveys authority and power deriving from electoral superiority. The leader of the Democratic Party forms the coalition through negotiating with smaller parties. Ben Gurion, the leader of Mapai (Labor) had enough seats that he could exclude both right wing Herut and the mixed Jewish-Arab Rakah (communist party) and exclude them by including the national religious party and others.

Small parties have some power here, sometimes disproportionate to their electoral strength. But they do not form a coalition, they do not include or exclude others, though inclusion or exclusion of a particular party can be part of a negotiation.

I think Arab parties have been excluded systematically lending credibility that Israel is a compromised democracy at best, because the context of this exclusion sets it up as an ethnocracy. On that, I believe, we wholeheartedly agree. But this is not the same as all the Jewish parties banding together to block a dominant Arab party. That was my contention with your original comment.

All 3 examples you have provided show that "forming a coalition" is conventionally understood as expressing the prerogative of an electorally dominant party. It's not my unique understanding, but the way we express this power relation. The fact that all signifiers float is a theoretical insight that does not strengthen your argument in this context, i.e. that my reading of the verb "form" is idiosyncratic. You examples prove its normativity.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here (none / 0)

"We decide together form a coalition", not "I form a coalition and they will join." While one party is dominant in fact, it is not indicated at all in that particular quote. That quote describes all the parties as "form[ing]" the coalition.

"Successive administrations should be formed without Herut or the communists." not "Neither Herut nor the communists should be permitted to join governments formed by Labor."

I understand your contention with the statement. Nobody is objecting to your account of how governments are formed in practice. My objection is to your contention that original statement must necessarily be interpreted in the way that you did, based on an insistence on a technical, exclusive, and narrow construction of a commonplace word.

by JJE on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:48:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here (none / 0)

In all cases the speaker is the leader of the dominant party. You would never have the leader of a small party using those terms. Never. Labor determines how the governments "should be formed" and whom is "permitted to join governments formed by Labor."

It's technical, sure. That doesn't mean irrelevant. It's narrow in the sense of specific. We're dealing with a technical and specific context here.

We have now proceeded from your dismissal of my contention as "hair splitting" to the notion that my use of the term was idiosyncratic, to the idea that it's a bit of a floating signifier, to the lack of necessity in my interpretation.

Here it is. That word, in this context, is generally and conventionally understood as I read it. Your disagreement has become both more technical and theoretical than my point. My contention stands and I believe is clearly demonstrated by these examples. Even if I grant a bit of flexibility, you must grant the general likelihood of this understanding at this point, even if it's not necessary, though I think it all but so. Otherwise, I think we're just sparring at this point.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In the newsweek article (2.00 / 1)

the speaker who used the word formed in that way was the author of the article. The direct quote from Ben-Gurion came after the word "formed".

It's not clear to me what the relevance of the speaker is. Either describing a smaller party participating in "forming" the coalition is an acceptable usage, or it is not. You say it is not. I provided two examples (I admit my first example was not good) where it is used in a looser way, once by a government leader and once by a journalist.

I still think your original objection is hair-splitting. I used the word in a common everyday sense. You are insisting that it be used exclusively in a narrow way, and relied on that insistence to infer that I was making a rather absurd claim.

I suspect we are at an impasse on this very narrow usage question, and will have to agree to disagree on what the plain meaning of my original statement is. Since the distinction you are drawing is useful for clarity, however, I will adhere to it in future discussions of parliamentary coalitions.

by JJE on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:54:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the newsweek article (2.00 / 1)

Fair enough. I do indeed think we would require a third party referee to settle the point. Though I think the relevance of the position of the speaker should be quite clear.

I'll merely reiterate that my reading of this word is indeed according to its "common everyday sense" for this situation. No words have a common or everyday sense that obtains in every context. Normativity is determined in specific contexts as well.

All best.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arab parties have always been blocked (none / 0)

that's the crux what is the point of changing the law, given that there is no way an Arab party could get enough votes? are they thinking of annexing the territories and need to make sure that the state will always be Jewish, cause Arabs won't have the same political rights? does this mean an end to the two-state solution, and back to annexing Palestine forever occupied?

just say it: Medicare for All

by anna shane on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arab parties have always been blocked (2.00 / 3)

You've misread the problem. They have not outlawed Arab parties. They have banned two Arab parties in particular, and the consensus is that this will be overturned in the Courts. It's stupid political posturing, not the general disenfranchisement of Arab citizens.

And I certainly don't believe that this is preparing the way for annexing the territories and holding the entire Arab population in formal apartheid.

Kadima broke with Likud over the demographic impossibility of a Jewish and Democratic state including the territories. They, like Labor, are operating with the delusion that they can achieve a two state solution with a Palestinian entity that will be a state in name only, that will have a rigorously controlled and limited military, will not control its own borders, will not control its water rights, and will continue to provide cheap labor to Israel, which will ensure economic dependence. That is their goal. It's bad enough without the fantasy of annexation and formal disenfranchisement.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arab parties have always been blocked (none / 0)

yes, that's surely no life. It's all very mixed up, with the possible and the impossible. Or the plausible and the implausible?

just say it: Medicare for All

by anna shane on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not All Arab Parties (Please Edit/Update) (2.00 / 8)

And not Arab parties as such. I agree this is horrible, but we must be accurate nonetheless. The BBC is clearer than the AP: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7 825032.stm

Arab members of Parliament are not being excluded based on race. The Israeli Central Election Committee voted on three Arab parties individually. They voted to ban two of them based on platforms and activities.

Israel famously banned Meir Kahane's Kach party based on its platform in the '80s. Kahane's goal was the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories. His party was declared racist and officially banned. This was a high point. Rehavam Ze'evi's Moledet party, that advocated much the same thing was allowed to sit in parliament, and he served as a minister in the government. This was a low point.

Now we have this situation. I think it's wrong and politically stupid. But to reduce it to simple racism ignores the eligibility of one Arab party and the Arab parliamentarians in other parties who will be seated if elected.

Please edit and/or update so we can debate this appropriately.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:27:51 PM EST

I decided not to edit and I'll explain why. (2.00 / 1)

There is certainly a rule in Israeli law - a rule that was used to ban the Kach Party - that says a party can be banned from running if the party undertakes certain activities, such as advocating against the state, for example.

While I know there are individual members who have done this, I can't say with certainty that THE PARTIES have done this; and, to be clear, the platforms of these parties do NOT advocate against Israel per se.

This has been attempted before, and the courts will sit judgement again - perhaps I should have waited until the thing had run it's course before making a comment.

But it's not like Israel has enough problems to deal with - THIS is something they need to do NOW?!? How do you maintain any guise of moral superiority (and remember, I'm PRO Israel) when you are creating the perception - real or otherwise - of taking the rights away from Arab citizens?

The whole thing is just difficult, but I appreciate your points. Perhaps I shouldn't have started the thread - it was done quickly without much forethought.

by Blue In SC and MD on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I decided not to edit and I'll explain why. (2.00 / 3)

But you misrepresent the situation. 2 out of three Arab parties have been excluded. Your diary makes it seem as if all Arabs have been excluded, including Arab MKs from parties that are not specifically Arab parties. This is a serious problem. All you need to do is to edit this. Anything else is dishonest. It will strengthen not weaken your argument.

As it stands, you can simply be discredited out of hand for being grossly inaccurate.

PLEASE amend this.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I decided not to edit and I'll explain why. (none / 0)

Three? What's the third party?

by Blue In SC and MD on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I decided not to edit and I'll explain why. (none / 0)

Not named in the BBC article. But it's quite clear. I;ll find it for you in a minute.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll skip the posturing. (2.00 / 2)

You mean Hadash?

My original post was very clear: "Israel's Central Election Committee just banned Arab parties from running in the upcoming Knesset elections."

I didn't say "arab mk's," I said "Arab parties."

If you are referring to hadash, it is a mixed party, with both Arab and jewish MKs.

But I'll add something to the original post if you think it's really necessary.

by Blue In SC and MD on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll skip the posturing. (2.00 / 2)

Indeed, the BBC must be referring to HADASH as the third Arab party, and though most of its support is Palestinian/Israeli, it's indeed mixed. In fact, two out of three of its MKs are Jewish.

Nonetheless, these parties were treated individually. There is no ban on Arab parties as such. I think it would be helpful, even crucial, to flesh that out for people.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll skip the posturing. (none / 0)

It may not be an explicit ban on Arab parties as such, but that's what it is in principal. It bans the only two fully Arab parties and pretends like that isn't what it is doing. It's moves like this that make it increasingly difficult to defend Israel's actions. Must be they learned well from Dubya.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll skip the posturing. (none / 0)

Agreed, with the caveat that it's actually not a ban in principle, but in fact. The distinction between something that is so de jure as opposed to only de facto is that the latter, being less formal and enshrined in principle, is more malleable. This is not to say that de facto status in absence of authorization de jure cannot be a mode of obfuscation. It often is, and cynically so. But not always.

Look, given the higher percentage of incarceration and felony conviction of African American males over Caucasian males, one can argue that mechanisms in our society act against the enfranchisement of Black men. This is de fact what occurs. But it's not only an oversimplification that assigns intentionality to those mechanisms, as opposed to largely passive promotion, it is also significantly different from a de jure effort to exclude Black men from voter rolls as such. And I allow that the latter may in some senses be more insidious. Nonetheless, I think it's crucial to understand the difference in order to address the problem.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:10:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who has called it simple racism? (none / 0)

There are obviously a mix of motives. Even the representative of one Arab party said the decision was motivated by fascism and racism.

Whatever the motivations, it looks like a very poor decision if the main argument in its favor is that those two parties' advocate against the invasion of Gaza.

If those parties actually advocate rocket attacks against Israel, which I find very very hard to believe they would be saying, then the decision may make sense. But I assume the 'reasoning' is that opposition to the war is equated with favoring Hamas, which is equated with favoring Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, or something like that.

But thanks for the link to BBC, you're right that it is much clearer than the AP report.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who has called it simple racism? (none / 0)

Actually, maybe it is clearer in some respects, but it seems these two parties are the only essentially 'Arab' political parties in Israel's parliament.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why it happened (?) (none / 0)

It appears that the banning was motivated by the two parties being strongly opposed to the Israeli invasion of Gaza (emphasis added):

At a recent Knesset session called to discuss the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, Arab MPs condemned the conflict, which has now killed more than 900 Palestinians and injured thousands of others.

"As a humane person, I oppose targeting civilians wherever they are. Naturally, however, every time an Arab is injured it hurts me more because we are members of the same nation," Tibi [Ahmed Tibi, head of one of the banned parties] told the Knesset.

In response, Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party which petitioned for the Arab parties to be barred, described the Arab MPs as a "fifth column" clandestinely undermining the nation.

Tibi responded by calling him a "fascist", while Talab al-Sana, another Arab MP, was removed from the meeting after repeatedly interrupting Lieberman's speech.

Zahalka [Jamal Zahalka, head of the other banned party] had boycotted the Knesset session saying he was not willing to take part in a "celebration of death".

The two parties are the only exclusively Arab blocs in the Israeli Knesset, however the decision does not effect Arabs in predominantly Jewish parties or the communist party.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:07:20 PM EST

sorry, here's the link (none / 0)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middle east/2009/01/2009112165350696500.html

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, here's the link (2.00 / 2)

If this is true then it's a bald move to silence dissent. I will look for the CEC official statement to see whether they own it or cite other rationale. It smells AWFUL to say the least. Not surprised that Lieberman is involved. I don't think all Israeli right wingers deserve the label fascists, but Lieberman's mix of ethnocentrism, populism, and authoritarianism actually approaches the classical definition. I checked Haaretz, but they currently have the AP piece up which is even less detailed than the BBC piece.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From Haaretz (2.00 / 2)

This is only available in the Hebrew at this point. Here's the link anyway: http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rI d=712

Depressingly, Labor backed the ban, though Eitan Cabel, the party's Secretary General, believes that this will be overturned in the Courts. That seems to be the general consensus.

Furthermore, there is a counter move to ban the Ultra-Orthodox parties, including Shas, as they "do not believe in Israeli Democracy." http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rI d=718

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:33:49 PM EST

Re: From Haaretz (none / 0)

And several extreme Hasidics don't believe the state of Israel should exist either. I wonder if their parties are banned?

Moose Juice; debate without hate

by brit on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Haaretz (2.00 / 1)

Those, along with Sephardi Shas, are the ultraorthodox (Haredi) parties referred to here.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think he is referring to the Neuteri Karta... (none / 0)

They don't have parties. They don't vote - they don't even allow themselves to be counted in the census.

They're too busy flying to Iran to meet with Ahmedinajad....

by Blue In SC and MD on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:10:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Neuteri Karta... (none / 0)

No. there's actually a distinction that I was not careful enough about. Neturei Karta do not participate in Israeli lections. There are 2 Haredi parties (one of which is an amalgam of two prior groups) that sit in Knesset. Shas is more Zionist than the Ashkenazi party, which is sort of non-Zionist. There is an outstanding effort to exclude them instigated by a new "Or" or "Light" Party, which the CEC has postponed hearing.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 07:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Question. (2.00 / 1)

I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, but I do have a question - when you state....

"Israel's Central Election Committee just banned Arab-only parties (there are two parties who are mixed and have Arab-members) from running in the upcoming Knesset elections."

Do ANY of the countries surrounding Israel allow for Jewish parties?

by nikkid on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:19:49 PM EST

Re: Question. (none / 0)

Are you trying to claim that Israel is no better than the dictatorships surrounding it?

Israel has a long way to go before it gets that bad, though banning minority parties is a step in that direction.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question. (2.00 / 2)

except that this is not what happened.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question. (2.00 / 2)

No. Not what I'm saying. But if the country you lived in was created so that you could practice your religion without being persecuted and all the countries surrounding your country wanted to obliterate you and have you not exist, maybe your country would be a little "sensitive" too.....

by nikkid on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No - and that in part is part of my sadness. (2.00 / 2)

Israel has always been able to point to democracy as a defining difference between it and its neighbors.

by Blue In SC and MD on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i am reccing with reservation... (2.00 / 1)

both because in recent days so many have proved dishonest and well as the opposite of "loving israel' here and your framing of this issue is inaccurate and fails to put forth the crux of the problem. that said - your point is valid in as much as this ruling raises an interesting conundrum in view of its philosophical implications of zionism and democracy.

essentially the argument for passing the law is that because the two parties in question who were barred, reject the idea of an israeli state, and they can therefore not take part in the election. this makes sense based on section 7A of the Basic Law:

The Knesset, under which `a candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objectives or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; (2) incitement to racism; (3) support of an armed struggle against Israel by supporting an enemy state or a terrorist organization.

in addition, both the balad and united arab list parties both explicitly support hamas (destruction of israel in its mandate) and oppose zionism.

and zahalka, leader of the balad party said:

The State of Israel is democratic for Jews and Jewish for its Arab citizens. We never said that we don't recognize the State of Israel. We are part of it, but we will never accept Zionism, which is an ideology that aspires to banish us from our homes."

balance this with what lieberman, member of the yisrael beiteinu party said:

"The difference between them is that the Hamas is outside of Israel, in Gaza, whereas Balad is not only within Israel, but sits in its parliament. The power of a democracy is not just allowing representation of the minorities that live within it, but also the obligation to defend itself from those who wish to exploit the freedoms that it enables in order to destroy it"

so now that we balance these two opposing arguments, the question remains, not if its racist - it clearly isn't - but rather is this democratic? that im not sure of.

and my last question - and its rhetorical - is, why is it that the world takes such intense interest in the inner workings of israeli politics? while acknowledging that this is a conflicted country and region, why do we not examine countries like say the sudan with the same interest?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:21:22 PM EST

Re: i am reccing with reservation... (2.00 / 1)

The United States takes intense interest in Israeli internal politics because our special relationship with, and significant aid to, Israel is premised on Israel being a liberal democracy. That relationship changes as Israel abandons it's democratic ideals.

You may want to wait for the Israeli high court to rule on this action before you defend it. But regardless of the outcome surely you can see that banning minority parties damages Israel's ability to find a resolution to its problems.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you might want to reread my comment. (none / 0)

i didnt defend or decry it. in fact, i think i outright stated that it didnt appear to be democratic - didnt i?

maybe you should take your own advice friend and actually you know, try and reserve judgement on this issue until understand its implications.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you might want to reread my comment. (2.00 / 2)

The standard for banning a political party should be very high. The Communist, Soviet aligned CPUSA fielded candidates in the US throughout the cold war. Banning parties that speak for one fifth of a country's citizens is an alarming act in any country that calls itself a democracy. It is hard to conceive of a threat that would justify such an action, that kind of response to popular parties usually indicates that the country is no longer a democracy. Look at the history of Central and South America for numerous examples.

I'm optimistic that the Israeli high court will check this action of the Central Election Committee, in the interest of preserving Israeli democracy.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you might want to reread my comment. (none / 0)

i don't necessarily disagree with your comment nor do i think that the balad and ual parties represent 1/5 of the israeli public. but as i said in earlier, this is not cut and dry case of banning a political party - because of how seeped this action is in the philosophy of zionism.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand your reservations. (2.00 / 1)

I understand this isn't a competition, but i'll post my "pro-Israel" as well as my Democratic credentials against any others.

I can't speak to why "the world" takes interest in Israeli politics, but I can speak for myself - it is an intensely personal interest, not only in Israel being good, but being right AND good.

I don't relish the balancing act of Israelis in the dichotomy you've presented, and I have faith that the SC will make this right. What astounds me is the lack of vision that so many have, both within and without.

FYI - not looking for reccs, but appreciate it nonetheless.

by Blue In SC and MD on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Americans, providing essential support to Istrael, (none / 0)

our number one recipient of foreign aid, have an obvious reason for taking an intense interest in what we're getting for our support and money.

I'm sure the preceding is pretty obvious and you've heard it numerous times before. Here's a non-rhetorical question for you: what it your motivation for repeatedly questioning the motives of U.S. taxpayers being interested in what we're spending our money (and so much else) on?

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Americans, providing essential support to Istr (1.50 / 2)

dont worry I believe you.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:14:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Americans, providing essential support to Istr (2.00 / 1)

Mojo'd to counter the inexplicable TR.

Yes. We. Did.

by pneuma on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i am reccing with reservation... (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for that CG. Useful information, and I think it alerts us to the key problem of 'anti Zionism'.

Zionism is such a fungible concept. Herzl's vision has been achieved, and about its further objectives there is such a variety of opinion, pro and contra, among Israeli Jews, that the charge 'Anti Zionist' is at risk of being abused as much as 'Anti American'.

Who is a true Zionist? Who is actually Anti Zionist? (Your opinions on withdrawal of settlements would be extremely anti Zionist in many people's eyes).

Moose Juice; debate without hate

by brit on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the sudan doesn't have (none / 0)

a nuclear arsonal or a fleet of f-16's sponsored by the united states. nor is conflict in the sudan a root of that tree of terrorism that spreads far beyond its borders. the sudan lobby doesn't lobby u.s. lawmakers to pass legislation that is contrary to our better interest. etc. (but you knew all that already)

by citizendave on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:38:33 PM EST

just so i understand dave. (none / 0)

is your disdain for israel about US interests, the plight of palestinians peoples, or something else?

i ask because i have seen several of your comments on this issue and the rationale behind your intense interest on this topic seems to change like the wind. seriously, a serious answer is appreciated and it might help me to understand the swarming that has gone on here in recent days.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just so i understand dave. (2.00 / 1)

an incomplete declaration:

i believe that israel (and to be clear the united states as well) have abandoned the plight of the palestinians long ago. i also believe that u.s. support for israel when settlement expansion continues is hypocritical (at best). my disgust with american foreign policy is not limited to our dealings with israel... i think we pretty much fuck up every thing we touch in the middle east, supporting dictators who will supply us with oil and army bases rather than promoting aid to those populations in need. we are misled by the media (they don't even show army caskets) to believe that the israeli-palestinian conflict is a balanced one...sorry, i don't see it that way. one side prospers while the other side suffers endless humiliation...and we ask what could drive someone to blow himself up? his religion must be f-ed up. its not religion; its despair.

i believe there is a strong israeli movement to erase the palestinians from the gaza strip and the west bank (though no one will claim this as a motive, actions seem to support this) i don't believe that this is the desire of a majority of israelis anymore than the iraq war was supported by the majority of american citizens. the israeli right wing needs their demons to keep them in power....today it is hamas, tomorrow who knows?

my posts have been consistant with these beliefs. (except for the sarcastic little ditties)

by citizendave on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)

i guess i can't argue with your opinion on this since i asked for it, and do agree with some of the points you make. i guess it was easy to lump you in some others. i apologize.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just so i understand dave. (2.00 / 1)

In fairness, we actually fuck up everything we touch everywhere. Not exactly limiting our damage to the Middle East. Our drug policies are partly responsible for the terrible war going on in Mexico right now. We continue to embargo Cuba just because that's the way it has always been. We want no part of helping victims of genocide in Africa. We economically support China's repressive policies toward its own people. Hey, at least our fuckups are well-rounded.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just so i understand dave. (2.00 / 1)

I find the idea that the Israelis want to erase the Palenstinians from Gaza and the West Bank ludicrous, mainly because if they wished to do so, it is easily within their power. They have enough daisy cutters to level Gaza within 24 hours, and no one could do anything about it.

It is apparently the correct groupthink among the left to to sympathize the poor Palestinian people, and completely discount the Israeli point of view. Fairleft's diaries are powerful, and certainly provoke an emotional reaction in me; and believe me I'm not prone to being so moved.

Frankly, I've yet to see a single theory about why Israel is behaving the way it is that makes sense. I mean, they are already receiving an international political backlash from what they are doing; I can't imagine if their true goal was the purging of Palestinians from Gaza that they wouldn't be more effective at it - I doubt the backlash would get much worse. 900 dead vs. 10,000 dead vs. 100,000 dead - the international reaction will be pretty much the same.

Israel is not stupid. They know that their actions here are going to increase violent resistance in the future. Yet they are not committing their full resources to the military effort. Their actions are in line with their publicly stated goals, but their methods seem calculated to erode support from their strongest ally.

I humbly suggest that none of us understand what is going on here. None of it makes sense. The only thing that I have heard that sounds plausible is that the Israeli leadership has concluded that Israel political makeup makes a viable peace deal impossible, and that it must be imposed upon them from the outside, so they are intentionally causing a humanitarian crisis - but saying that out loud sounds laughable.

The only thing I can conclude is that the Israeli leadership knows something I don't.

Yes. We. Did.

by pneuma on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there you go (1.00 / 2)

is it about "something else" (wink wink)?

Change the subject to other people's secret motivations and then complain about how it's become so personal. Neat trick.

by JJE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:39:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no apology necessary (2.00 / 1)

a heated exchange here doesn't kill anyone.

its up to us to elect people with the courage to reevaluate failing policies. i think thats why we are all here..... (the few exceptions shall remain nameless ..for now)

by citizendave on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:36:18 PM EST

I have another question.... (2.00 / 1)

If Israel let Arab parties run and they actually gained some seats and wanted to install Sharia law - is that okay?

Is that okay HERE in the U.S.?

by nikkid on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:06:29 AM EST

Re: I have another question.... (2.00 / 1)

It is not okay here because our constitution pretty much precludes it...and it would take a large number of people being in favor of Sharia law for it to make its way into the constitution...

Heck, there are many far right wingers who probably would agree with many things in sharia law as long as it wasn't called that.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:27:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

democracy (none / 0)

is not a guarantee of just and righteous policy but the U.S. promotes it as the single most desired result. when conditions produce a repressed and angry population, they may not vote for peace or capitalism (insert photo of dick cheny throwing his hands in the air here)

by citizendave on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 07:47:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have another question.... (2.00 / 1)

If enough people supported it to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to invalidate the freedom of and from religion clause, then yes. That's how democracy works. I wouldn't still live here, but I don't get to decide what is and is not allowable under democracy.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.