ISRAEL continues to face criticism from the world for its raid of a flotilla bringing aid to Gaza and for its blockade of the area. The episode has provoked much debate within Israel itself; about the nature of Israel's response to the flotilla, about Israel's policies in Gaza and, most recently, about its policies towards Arabs living within Israel.
Last week a parliamentary committee voted to withdraw the privileges of an Arab member parliament, who sailed with the activists and who was almost attacked by another member of parliament. Reuven Rivlin, the speaker of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, says he will ignore the committee's recommendation but he worries that these incidents illustrate an erosion of Israel’s democratic tradition.
Others have long believed that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories undermines its democratic credentials. We asked Mr Rivlin and two Israeli academics whether they thought this was the case. Please join the debate below.
Reuven Rivlin, Speaker of the Knesset, Israel's parliament
There are two answers to this question, the formal and the political.
In terms of formal legalism, Israel's administration of the West Bank since 1967 is firmly grounded in law. In 1948, in one of the new state's first legislative acts, a law was passed transferring the powers of the British Mandatory government to the government of Israel.
After the Six Day War of 1967—a defensive war of unimpeachable morality—Israel resolved, under the authority of that 1948 law, to annex East Jerusalem but not to annex the West Bank and Gaza. It hoped to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the conflict, in which the status of these territories would be agreed. It is still hoping.
The key obstacle has always been and still remains the Palestinians' demand for a “right of return” which means, in effect, the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. As long as this philosophy prevails, our security dictates, in practice, that the present situation will have no early, easy resolution.
Meanwhile, it is clear that the Israeli Arab citizens are an integral part of the state—and that here the state has failed: Israeli Arabs have still not achieved full equality within Israeli society. Peace will come when we succeed in building a bridge to the Arab world. The Israeli Arabs must be that bridge.
The Israeli Arabs' problem is poignantly clear: their country is in conflict with their people.
The Israeli Jews' problem is clear, too: they do not treat the Arab citizens as they ought.
Israel's long-term problem is also clear, and inescapable.
To annex the Palestinian territories and grant full political rights to the Palestinians—which, for me, would be the necessary and unquestionable rider to annexation—would mean undermining the Jewish character of Israel.
The only solution is to bring many more millions of Jewish immigrants to our shores.
It sounds like a dream; but the whole history of our country looked like a dream until we made it happen.
Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, vice-president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a think-tank, and a lawyer
On the face of it, Israel proves since 1967 that it is possible to have at the same time a military occupation regime in the occupied territories and a democracy within the borders of Israel proper.
A deeper look reveals that the toll of continuous occupation is high. Two generations of Israelis know no other reality but that of occupation. one cannot be committed to democracy while depriving the other of self-rule and basic rights.
Even worse is the policy of settling Israelis in the occupied territories. This policy—a violation of international law—has been implemented through trickery and deceit. Thus the state lost its moral authority as the guardian of the rule of law.
The Israeli army, in charge of public order in the occupied territories, acts in a biased way, favouring the Jews over the Palestinians. The reality of life in the occupied territories is of fundamental inequality between Jews and Palestinians. Reality shapes the norm: ‘is’ becomes ‘ought’.
This attitude infiltrates into Israel proper, and shapes the way the Israeli Arabs are perceived by Israeli Jews as an inferior enemy. The outcome is, for instance, growing support among young Jewish Israelis for depriving Israeli Arabs of their political rights.
Israel has tied itself to a time-bomb which is liable to destroy its democracy.
Dr Alexander Yakobson, a political scientist at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem
This is not really a matter of "laying claim" to something—Israel is obviously a democracy, while the occupation is obviously undemocratic. Now, if one assumes that the occupation is irreversible, then "Israel proper", apart from the territories, no longer exists, and one cannot properly speak of Israeli democracy. But I believe that the occupation is not irreversible. The two-state solution is quite feasible, if both sides genuinely adopt it. Israel deserves criticism for its contribution to the unacceptable status-quo, while the Palestinians should be criticized for theirs which, in my opinion, has been very considerable.
Israel is a country in conflict. The conflict, with ups and downs, has lasted since Israel's establishment 60 years ago. Half of the country's Jewish population originated in the Muslim Middle East; the other half, mostly in Eastern Europe; the great majority had no previous experience of democracy. It would be difficult to imagine conditions less favourable to the emergence and development of a multi-party parliamentary democracy with a free press, independent judiciary and citizens free enough to express open support for other side in an armed conflict. Israeli democracy is a tremendous achievement.
http://www.economist.com/node/16381408?story_id=16381408&source=most_commented
democracy, like any other principle, is only of real value if it triumphs under duress.
I am afraid that the good old US of A failed with Guantanemo, and Israel has failed with Palestine and the Palestinians.
its easy to point the finger, but thats the way it is.
Britain (a little late, perhaps, but not for the first time) has given us a wonderful example of the dealing with the difficulties of principle (for democracy) with the Saville report. Difficult but necessary.
Israel must be prepared to make sacrifices to reinforce its belief in democracy.
No, a country cannot hold a few million people without citizenship or any kind of rights for more than 40 years and still be democratic.
The main reason is the education system: A democracy is not just elections, it is a set of values as well. A side effect of the occupation is that the education system in Israel cannot (and indeed does not ) teach about basic democratic values and human right which are at the heart of the democratic idea. And how can they? Any student who will learn about democracy will ask - but what about the Palestinians?. So the side effect is a generation (or a few) of Israelis who grow up without any idea what democratic values are.
Hence a gradual but sure deterioration of the democracy.
Mr Rivlin makes several objectionable statements:
1 that the occupation is legal under Israeli law - true but against UN resolutions
2 that Israel acted in self-defence in 1967 - it was a pre-emptive offensive which is why the Egyptian air force was annihilated
3 that is Israel is a Jewish state - Jews were a small minority in the 1920s
He then goes on to recommend the influx of millions more Jews, while barring returning Arabs.
I hope his views are not widely shared.
How can a state which occupies others` land be democratic?
If this is what passes for editorial intelligence, then we should see a similar article from the Economist on Monday asking the same question of Great Britain.
Between its occupation of Northern Ireland, the Falklands and Gibralter, her majesty's government holds on to quite a bit of territory that's just not British.
The short and honest answer is that yes, Israel is a liberal democracy, period end of story. It's representative voting system, its strong independent Judicial branch, its independent press, and its tolerance of minorities, mark it wholly in the representative Liberal Democracy category.
The argument, that by holding onto the West Bank, that Israel now should be deligitimized, is as hollow as it is biased.
The reality is, Israel is a party to the UN accords 242 and 338, which makes the statement that Israel will exchange land with its Arab enemies, in return for peaceful relations and recognition of its existence as an independent state of the Jews.
The failure comes from the Arab and Muslim world, including the Palestinians, which spent the subsequent 43 years and counting, rejecting those very terms that they signed onto.
In addition, the truth of the matter is, if Israel was going to turn over the West Bank and Gaza to the 'nations' that claimed the territory, Gaza would now be property of Egypt, and the West Bank, of Jordan, with a final border being decided based on negotiations over the placement of the national blue line instead of the armistace green line, which remains through today.
Unless the Economist is going to argue that UN242 is now abolished, than Israel is acting as it should . . . as a true democracy.
Israel can still lay claim to being a democracy despite the occupation.
After all, Turkey is considered a democratic country despite occupying northern Cyprus since 1974 and overseeing an influx of 40,000 Turkish settlers there. Turkey has for a long time had problems with its Kurdish minority and the conflict in Kurdistan has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Nevertheless, everyone considers Turkey to be a democracy.
I should also point out that many consider India to be occupying Muslim majority Kashmir and the Indian army has been accused of human right abuses against Muslim Kashmiris. Nevertheless, no one will say that India is not a democracy.
I therefore highly disagree with the presumption that because of the occupation Israel should not be considered a democracy.
@ ometepe08:
1. The occupation of the West Bank & Gaza are legal … by Law Israel is an occupying power.
The Israelis are replacing the former 'owners' … Egypt & Jordan who ANNEXED the territories … they 'captured' these territories in a DEFENSIVE WAR … the UN RESOLUTIONS you speak of are non-binding 'suggestions' … the Security Council Resolutions 242 speak to a 'settlement' WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN NEGOTIATED … not for lack of trying … as pointed out in the article … the Arab/Muslim world created the 'so-called Palestinian Refugee' problem and still insist on the so-called 'Right of Return'
2. The Egyptian Government … a. pulled the UN peacekeepers out of Sinai (voiding the armistice agreement between the 2 states) b. imposed a closure of the Straits of Tiran (an ACT OF WAR) c. put its army into forward positions in the Sinai (voiding the armistice agreement) d. Made military pacts with Syria, Jordan and Iraq in the days & weeks and month preceding the War …
Did I leave anything out … probably … the Arabs wanted and fomented a WAR of Aggression … attempting to 'Drive the Jews into the Sea' … their leadership was bragging and 'stirring the pot'
3. Israel is the JEWISH STATE … PERIOD … Iran is an Islamic Republic and so are a great number of Arab/Muslim states around the world. If you have difficulty with this idea … then YOU have difficulty with it … However, unlike ANY OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLICS (sic) the Jewish State offers ALL IT'S CITIZENS … freedom of religion and equality under the RULE OF LAW … like all democracies … it's a work in progress … all democracies have issues but that's why AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY is there to 'help' straighten out the law …
I agree with the 3 Israelis quoted in this article … Israel needs to 'dislodge' the territories they occupy today …
However, to suggest that it is onLY ISRAEL'S fault is facile … the Arab/Muslim world has its fingers ALL OVER THIS CONFLICT …
The lack of a solution is on the Arab/Muslim world …
the Arab/Muslim world benefits in many ways from the continued 'occupation' and the 'delegitimization' of Israel …
Israel has not played this game as well as the Arabs … frankly …
Is the fact that the Arab/Muslim world can count on their superior numbers … 1.5 Billion Muslims versus at most 15 Million Jews … make this clear? …
despite the fact …
'the Jews control the media?'
This false premise (Jews control the media) should tell you that it's not about a political solution …
its about the Arab/Muslim world PUSHING THEIR AGENDA …
THE ELIMINATION OF THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL …
This is a laughable excuse for a debate, and a new low for The Economist. Loading the question with emotive terms like "shield of democracy" and "true democracy" slants the debate in favour of Israel by making those who disagree look like they don't understand a democracy when they see one.
Israel was never a "shield" for any idea or system but the resettlement of Jews on land they didn't have title to. That is a matter not of debate but of historical record. Their "democracy" was a settlers' legislature like that of Rhodesia. But just as in Rhodesia, the "democratic" exchange of ideas was heavily circumscribed. If you went too far against Ian Smith (defender of Christian civilization!), your white skin was no protection. Nor was being an MP with "Honourable" in from of your name. You'd learn that the police were investigating you for homosexual acts; a few threatening phone calls were enough to convince you to move to the UK.
That's the extent of democracy in a state based on land theft. Enjoy the fruits of your economic privilege as long as you zip your mouth shut and look the other way when a peasant is evicted or gets his well sealed.
Many Palestinians have been taken down by the Mossad and other state organs, but many Israeli Jews have fallen afoul of them too. I hope some of them log on here and share their stories about the wonders of Israel's "true democracy".
A liberal democracy (Israel) that occupy another people's territory against their will and denies that occupied part the same liberal democratic rights, as they themselves enjoy, cannot be deemed to be a true liberal democracy. The act of occupation is an act of tyranny. That the tyrant in this case is a democratic elected government, does not change this fact.
The fact that Israel not only occupy a territory that does not belong to them, but use settlements of their own citizens on the occupied land, only makes this worse.
And this is only a few points on a very long list.
Freedom, equality and brotherhood should be the values governing any society that deem itself to be a liberal democracy, and obviously that is not the case in Israel. Hence it cannot be said to be a democracy. It is a jewish tyranny, and since the government is democratic elected, the Israeli electorate is the real tyran.
Whatever moral credibility Israel has held, it has lost. They have forgotten that one can win the fight but lose oneself on the way, and Israel has certainly lost itself, and that is sad to watch.
Each of your three contributors is impressive. Perhaps it is unfair of me to perceive, as a non-Israeli, that the positions of most Israeli politicians seem sadly very much less so.
Oh, and even thou others act in undemocratic ways as well, is does not legitimize anything, and hence is no argument. A thief does not stop being a thief just because there are others stealing as well.
@ Le Connaisseur who said:
"that occupy another people's territory against their will and denies that occupied part the same liberal democratic rights, as they themselves enjoy, cannot be deemed to be a true liberal democracy."
The 'other people' would be the states of Jordan & Egypt who 'OCCUPIED' these territories from 1948 to 1967 … before losing them in a WAR … they began.
The Palestinians … are the major bystanders … in this … and the ones with the most to gain by making PEACE with Israel … yet … they have not been able to MAKE A PEACE AGREEMENT …
NOW … WHY IS IT onLY on ISRAEL TO SETTLE THIS? What about the responsibility of the Arab/Muslim world AND the Palestinians? Are they not actors in this?
Israel as the military occupier DOES NOT HAVE TO GIVE THE PALESTINIANS equal rights that are enjoyed in the State of Israel … they are living under MILITARY OCCUPATION …
Israel affords the Palestinians the right to challenge the military occupation with the ability to appeal decisions made by the military to the Supreme Court of Israel … there have been many instances of Palestinians using this approach and WINNING … giving them relief from STRICTLY MILITARY DECISIONS …
This is democracy in action … make PEACE and the occupation ends … it couldn't be any simpler …
Read the Clinton Parameters … if the Arab/Muslim world agreed … THE OCCUPATION WOULD END TOMORROW
@ tzatz
This is not about the Palestinians, nor about who's fault it is. Nor is it about legal mumbo-jumbo. A democracy can make undemocratic laws. Nor is it about who owned the occupied land temporarily at some point.
Oh, and just because you SHOUT, it does not lend more credibility to your opinion nor arguments. As I matter of fact, I would say less.
Jacob Blues:
You had me until the " tolerance of minorities" part.
equilibrium:
I would argue that Turkey is a "developing" democracy.
Its only in the last 8 or 9 years have we seen anything resembling democracy in Turkey. The previous model could not be described as so (according to the definition of democracy).
You forget that Turkey has worked with the Turkish Cypriot part to vote in favour of UN resolutions to solve the current stalemate, but the Greek side voted against the resolution (and got rewarded with acceptance into the EU).
Gaza voted...(OK it was for Hamas party), but none the less...democratic process was beginning in Gaza, until the IDF dropped the boot on it.
@ christopher haslett who said:
"That's the extent of democracy in a state based on land theft"
Israel is not based on LAND THEFT … your premise is wrong. Rhodesia … which you seem to know about … was based on a premise that … whites were 'better' than blacks … and there was a religious taint to the 'white' settlers as well (MOST OF WHOM WERE CHRISTIAN)
Israel was granted the land in question by INTERNATIONAL APPROVAL …
after WW I … the Great Powers including Britain, France, and the USA … with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire … leaving the territories of the Arab/Muslim world in a vacuum …without governance … the Great Powers oversaw the creation of … many Arab/Muslim states AND at the San Remo Conference 1922 … granted Britain, the British Mandate over Palestine with the SPECIFIC instruction to create a 'HOMELAND FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE' … in 1947 … the UNITED NATIONS voted to create 2 states (within what was left of the territory of the Mandate) … one Jewish and one Arab …
Unfortunately … the indigenous Arabs and at least 6 Arab States attacked the nascent State of Israel …
AGAINST THE WILL of the UNITED NATIONS AND AGAINST THE UN CHARTER …
and against the will of the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY …
and began hostilities … which they still pursue up until today
Rhodesia was an odious place which was a sham country … created for the benefit of CHRISTIAN WHITES … clearly a SLAVE STATE … where 5% of the total population controlled the other 95% …
Israel is not and has never been such a SLAVE STATE … frankly your forebears chistopher haslett are the ones who will have to answer for their 'crimes against humanity'
GOOD POINT Le Connaisseur!
"democratic process was beginning in Gaza"
In case you blinked … Hamas already turfed out the Fatah opposition … killing … jailing … and dropping their adversaries from the tops of buildings … effectively ENDING … DEMOCRACY …
essentially … one vote … one time … is what Hamas calls democracy
YOU CANNOT DEFEND HAMAS … they are a JIHADI TERRORIST MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ORGANIZATION … WHOSE PREMISE IS TO NEVER RECOGNIZE THE JEWISH STATE … there will be no accomodation with Hamas … not now … NEVER … jihadis can only be killed …
"A democracy can make undemocratic laws"
The OCCUPIED TERRITORIES are under MILITARY RULE … they are not part of Israel …
their status will be fixed … when there's a final PEACE AGREEMENT … so military rules are being used until then
Is this too hard for you to understand?
BTW … capital letters don't sound louder to me … maybe I"m hard of hearing?
"its tolerance of minorities"
All citizens of the state are tolerated … why even you would be tolerated …