I read several blogs, academic blogs, personal blogs by academics weekly. Of course, one of these is my mentor Steve Saideman's blog. Today, Steve blogged about a comment by Benjamin Netanyahu about his opponents drawing in Arab Israeli votes being a bad thing. Below is a section from Steve's blog:
If Israeli politicians actually had to appear to Arabs, it might offset the power of other minorities, the ultra orthodox, as well as strengthen the hands of the less irredentistly inclinded. The statements by Netanyahu in his desperate bid to stay in power reveal that some trends are pushing against him and his party--that if the Arab vote turns out, more moderate forces may be able to govern with the support of parties presenting the Arab community.
Of course, this speaks to a larger challenge down the road--but much closer than it used to be--when Israel has to choose to be democratic or be Jewish. The one-state non-solution that Netanyahu favors these days would drive the country directly at this fork in the road. Demonizing one part of the electorate to stay in power is a perfectly democratic thing to do in the sense that it happens in most democracies (see voterfraudfraud in the US for a similar example), but it is pretty hostile to the idea and practice of democracy.
If Israeli politicians actually had to appear to Arabs, it might offset the power of other minorities, the ultra orthodox, as well as strengthen the hands of the less irredentistly inclinded. The statements by Netanyahu in his desperate bid to stay in power reveal that some trends are pushing against him and his party--that if the Arab vote turns out, more moderate forces may be able to govern with the support of parties presenting the Arab community.
Of course, this speaks to a larger challenge down the road--but much closer than it used to be--when Israel has to choose to be democratic or be Jewish. The one-state non-solution that Netanyahu favors these days would drive the country directly at this fork in the road. Demonizing one part of the electorate to stay in power is a perfectly democratic thing to do in the sense that it happens in most democracies (see voterfraudfraud in the US for a similar example), but it is pretty hostile to the idea and practice of democracy.
For my two cents, the most important line in Steve's blog is the first line of the second paragraph above. If a state chooses to be theocratic, by design, technically, the state cannot be democratic. By definition a theocracy does not separate church from state. Priests, Pastors, etc. serve as both the spiritual leaders and leaders of state. Tenants of state, laws and legal practices, offices, penalties for breach of rules of state, etc. are determined by the teachings of the particular religion. (Quick Question: Does this mean that any state where the legal system is determined by the primary religion of the state is non-democratic?) What I am not certain of by definition is that citizenship and rights of citizenship are denied to those who are not adherents of the religion that is the state. However, if the religion determines the state, then the population through mechanisms of democratic organization will not have a voice in determining the state and its tenants to be certain--which means democracy is lost.
As a Christian who has not worked out all the details on understanding the particular future role of a Jewish state on the eschatalogical terminus of the faith, I am not sure how I feel about the particular question of Israel reaching a fork in the road and determining whether or not to be Jewish or a democratic country. What I do believe at the moment is that the current status of Israel is democracy with both socialist and theological overtones. Israel is a complex political entity and a decision to move down either fork, if indeed these are the only choices, will mean a less complex state to understand, but also a new set of complex religious and political issues will follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment