Fairly understandable, Israelis fear that the revolts in Arab countries do not lead to democracies "immature", but elected governments without democratic checks and balances, sensitive and susceptible to manipulation to deflect the will of the majority. They support their prejudices on precedents from Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza and Iran.
However, the Israelis would do well also to worry about certain trends, among them, increasingly violate the principles and basic values of democracy. Affirmed in democracies, freedom of opinion and expression provides a bulwark against an oligarchic control invasive, it puts a whole spectrum of information available to the electorate in a position to cast a vote knowingly.
It ensures the possibility of issuing a dissenting opinion from the positions of orthodox time. However, Israel was increasingly likely to consider dissenting voices and positions hostile to government policies as a form, punishable with high treason. The most recent example is the proposed legislation to restrict the scope of parliamentary immunity, filed by the member of the Likud Miri Regev, in reaction to statements by another member, Hanin Zuabi [Israeli Arab], which participated [May 2010] the fleet chartered by Turkey to enter the Gaza Strip.
Freedom of expression should guarantee the latter, however, elected Israeli is suspected or violence or complicity in trafficking of arms, the right to believe and declare that the blockade of Gaza is too harsh and counterproductive. Similarly, it is not committing an act of treason to consider a military operation prior defensive (like "Lead Cast) [Israeli operation in Gaza in December 2008] is wrong under the excessive breadth of collateral damage.
But the bill Miri Regev seeks to deter any parliamentary expression "irresponsible" by authorizing the state prosecutor to indict an Israeli elected to his own opinions. Another basic principle of democracy is the preservation of the primacy of the rule of law. In a democracy, citizens have the right to protest against government policy, but not physically resist with impunity.
A portion of the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] clearly is having difficulty accepting these terms. In an article published in Haaretz on March 6, Eldad Karni [Israeli singer and daughter of the ultranationalist member Aryeh Eldad] says that the dismantling of the outpost [colony illegal under Israeli law] of Havat Gilad is a decision "undemocratic" because, in the last election [10 February 2009], the majority of Israelis, she said, "voted against the destruction of Jewish homes.
Nevermind the childish notion that representative democracy requires is that an application without any challenge from any decision of the majority. The indignation of the colonists is frankly misplaced. The settlers were certainly right to condemn the dismantling of outposts like Havat Gilad, but the repression of their activists have been explained by physical abuse they have deployed to oppose the army, not to mention the sacking of private property [of Palestinians] in retaliation.
In a stable democracy, citizens can oppose the policies of their government and condemn it, but the rule of law ensures that this opposition does not lead to illegal or contrary to public policy. Concerns raised recently both the West and Israel by the Arab riots underscore the threat of mass violence that would circumvent the wishes of the majority.
In other words, minorities and organized violence may be a reign of terror on passive or unorganized majorities. But in Israel, the settlers who physically and violently opposed the government decision to oppose a similar challenge Israeli democracy. If the Israelis have good reason to fear the emergence of democracies "immature" in Arab countries, they would be well advised to worry also about the future and stability of their own democracy. 
However, the Israelis would do well also to worry about certain trends, among them, increasingly violate the principles and basic values of democracy. Affirmed in democracies, freedom of opinion and expression provides a bulwark against an oligarchic control invasive, it puts a whole spectrum of information available to the electorate in a position to cast a vote knowingly.
It ensures the possibility of issuing a dissenting opinion from the positions of orthodox time. However, Israel was increasingly likely to consider dissenting voices and positions hostile to government policies as a form, punishable with high treason. The most recent example is the proposed legislation to restrict the scope of parliamentary immunity, filed by the member of the Likud Miri Regev, in reaction to statements by another member, Hanin Zuabi [Israeli Arab], which participated [May 2010] the fleet chartered by Turkey to enter the Gaza Strip.
Freedom of expression should guarantee the latter, however, elected Israeli is suspected or violence or complicity in trafficking of arms, the right to believe and declare that the blockade of Gaza is too harsh and counterproductive. Similarly, it is not committing an act of treason to consider a military operation prior defensive (like "Lead Cast) [Israeli operation in Gaza in December 2008] is wrong under the excessive breadth of collateral damage.
But the bill Miri Regev seeks to deter any parliamentary expression "irresponsible" by authorizing the state prosecutor to indict an Israeli elected to his own opinions. Another basic principle of democracy is the preservation of the primacy of the rule of law. In a democracy, citizens have the right to protest against government policy, but not physically resist with impunity.
A portion of the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] clearly is having difficulty accepting these terms. In an article published in Haaretz on March 6, Eldad Karni [Israeli singer and daughter of the ultranationalist member Aryeh Eldad] says that the dismantling of the outpost [colony illegal under Israeli law] of Havat Gilad is a decision "undemocratic" because, in the last election [10 February 2009], the majority of Israelis, she said, "voted against the destruction of Jewish homes.
Nevermind the childish notion that representative democracy requires is that an application without any challenge from any decision of the majority. The indignation of the colonists is frankly misplaced. The settlers were certainly right to condemn the dismantling of outposts like Havat Gilad, but the repression of their activists have been explained by physical abuse they have deployed to oppose the army, not to mention the sacking of private property [of Palestinians] in retaliation.
In a stable democracy, citizens can oppose the policies of their government and condemn it, but the rule of law ensures that this opposition does not lead to illegal or contrary to public policy. Concerns raised recently both the West and Israel by the Arab riots underscore the threat of mass violence that would circumvent the wishes of the majority.
In other words, minorities and organized violence may be a reign of terror on passive or unorganized majorities. But in Israel, the settlers who physically and violently opposed the government decision to oppose a similar challenge Israeli democracy. If the Israelis have good reason to fear the emergence of democracies "immature" in Arab countries, they would be well advised to worry also about the future and stability of their own democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment