Is Israel a true democracy?

[Antler's Fury]

Which other democratic countries are these?

Cause you just really seem to want to confine yourself to two of them.

Armenia, Japan, India, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Romania...how many more countries do you need as proof that what Israel does isn't particuarly undemocratic or even unusual?

[Shryke]

Armenia, Japan, India, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Romania...how many more countries do you need as proof that what Israel does isn't particuarly undemocratic or even unusual?

How is it not undemocratic? And you need to differentiate between ethnic and nationalist forms of the right of return. The UK's law, for instance, makes no mention of ethnicity, only citizenship.

You'll also notice a lack of immigrant nations in that last (except, perhaps, for Israel).

More to the point though:

I think you'll find opinions on that subject to be about the same.

Ethnic nationalism is not well regarded many, many places, regardless of who it is.

To again return to the UK, the "Britain for British people" movement is pretty much universally regarded as, you know, fucking racist. Same in the US or Canada.

[Antler's Fury]

How is it not undemocratic? And you need to differentiate between ethnic and nationalist forms of the right of return. The UK's law, for instance, makes no mention of ethnicity, only citizenship.

So long as eveyone is treated equally once they are in the state, there's nothing undemocratic about preferentially allowing ethnic groups you know are going to have an easier time assimilating. What you're essentially saying is that states can't be considered democratic unless they let in anyone and everyone who comes knocking, regardless of what social tensions that might cause. And ethnic differences have a history of leading to bloodshed, which is precisely why so many ethnic groups demand and often recieve, ethnic states.

Armenia, for instance, was only created after a long and bloody history of oppression at the hands of non-Armenians. So its only to be expected that they would give preference to ethnic Armenians when considering immigration policy, since the idea of an Armenian nation deserving self determination in the form of an Armenian state is the basis for their state's existence. Israel had a similar history and justifies its immigration policy as part of making Israel a refuge for Jews after centuries of persecution.

You'll also notice a lack of immigrant nations in that last (except, perhaps, for Israel).

What does that have to do with anything? Why should Israel be treated differently merely because it is a nation of immigrants?

More to the point though:

Ethnic nationalism is not well regarded many, many places, regardless of who it is.

To again return to the UK, the "Britain for British people" movement is pretty much universally regarded as, you know, fucking racist. Same in the US or Canada.

Ethnic nationalism is the basis of plenty of democratic states, like India, Ireland, Armenia, Spain, Greece, Japan, Korea, and Ukraine, among others. India is thus dominated by ethnic Indians, Ireland by ethnic Irish, Spain by Spaniards, etc. When people share an ethnicity, they also often share culture, customs, language, history, and a way of life that form the basis for national bonds. When these bonds don't exist, you get disintegration, like Yugoslavia experienced.

Its also important to realize that some of these states have a history of being colonized by other ethnicities, and thus part of their defining their own nation is through the basis of "natives" being separate from colonial outsiders. Hence, "India for the Indians" was a slogan for Indian independence, while Korea sought to expunge the influence of its Japanese occupier and promote Korean cultue and language instead, which were rooted in Korean ethnic ties. Israel, for its part, saw the Jewish homeland as having suffered under centuries of foreign rule, whether by Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, or British, and thus sought to make it a Jewish refuge by allowing Jews to immigrate and encouraging Jewish culture. Its really not that unique unless you unfairly compare it to, say, the US or Canada, which have very different histories. Not all nations are meant to be melting pots, and its unfair to obsess over this fact and gloss over other important factors, like free and fair elections in which people of all ethnicities participate.

European states, like Britain, Sweden, France, and others tried to reject the ethnic model in favor of multiculturalism, importing boatloads of Islamic immigrants, and silencing anyone who pointed out the obvious concerns over assimiation as "racist." Now, they face mass rioting, destruction of public and private property, murder in broad daylight, hostile ghettoized immigrant ethnic communities, and the erosion of European culture in favor of Islamic cuture.

[MinDonner]

Gods, and we did such a good job of derailing this when it first got posted. Why is everyone suddenly taking the subject seriously now? I am disappoint.

[Shryke]

Gods, and we did such a good job of derailing this when it first got posted. Why is everyone suddenly taking the subject seriously now? I am disappoint.

It's the thread necromancy I tell ya.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's the thread necromancy I tell ya.

Nothing wrong with a bit of thread necromancy. Rotting corpses always provide such decent entertainment,

[Horza]

What is thread may never die...

[Howdyphillip]

I am seriously disappointed that there are 13 pages of discussion that has stemmed from an obvious anti-semitic origin...I will now go and continue to ignore this thread...

[Gertrude]

Whatever did happen to Olwen, I wonder. I got my logic certificate in the mail last week and want to take it out for a test run.

eta: he got banned? :rolleyes: Shocked, I tell you.

[RhaegarTar]

Under your definition, the US isn't a democracy either.

The US is not a democracy, it is a Republic. A democracy, historically defined, involves majority rule on every subject.

[Robin Of House Hill]

How this thread got started again, boggles the mind, but if anyone finds the following helpful in derailing it, again, please feel free to use them.

And, of course, Wikipedia is the undisputed source of truth. The statement, if believed, means that there are no democracies on the planet.

But, this isn't really about democracy, it is about creating needless controversy.

And naan bread?

Does the divine right of kings have a place in a true democracy?

Maybe a soliloquy of sesquipedalian polymorphous perverse expletives?

As an authorized issuer of certificates in logic, I will be happy to issue you one, Gertrude.


ETA: for some reason that made sense at the time.

Would any of this apply to freshly caught Cornish pixies?

Fantastic! Another food thread. Love Cornish Pasties, though the ones I make feel like lead when they hit your stomach.

It has become a ray of sunshine in a dreary world.

She still had pointy ears.

Do you want me to send you a logic certificate?

How many do you think a logic certificate is worth?

So, this is a food and urine thread and not like the Middle Earth/Northumberland #11 - now with added Theatrical Prolapse, thread?

That is likely to start as much of a debate as who created Tabouli.

[Aemon Stark]

So long as eveyone is treated equally once they are in the state, there's nothing undemocratic about preferentially allowing ethnic groups you know are going to have an easier time assimilating. What you're essentially saying is that states can't be considered democratic unless they let in anyone and everyone who comes knocking, regardless of what social tensions that might cause. And ethnic differences have a history of leading to bloodshed, which is precisely why so many ethnic groups demand and often recieve, ethnic states.

Armenia, for instance, was only created after a long and bloody history of oppression at the hands of non-Armenians. So its only to be expected that they would give preference to ethnic Armenians when considering immigration policy, since the idea of an Armenian nation deserving self determination in the form of an Armenian state is the basis for their state's existence. Israel had a similar history and justifies its immigration policy as part of making Israel a refuge for Jews after centuries of persecution.

So, by this logic, Armenia would only allow immigration by... Armenians? Israel doesn't have any kind of modern history as a state prior to the 20th century, and the Zionism that led to its foundation gained considerable momentum by WWII and the Holocaust but most certainly did not originate with them.

Ethnic nationalism is the basis of plenty of democratic states, like India, Ireland, Armenia, Spain, Greece, Japan, Korea, and Ukraine, among others. India is thus dominated by ethnic Indians, Ireland by ethnic Irish, Spain by Spaniards, etc. When people share an ethnicity, they also often share culture, customs, language, history, and a way of life that form the basis for national bonds. When these bonds don't exist, you get disintegration, like Yugoslavia experienced.

An interesting selection of countries, inasmuch as Spain - to take just one example - has significant ethno-linguistic minorities in the Basques and in Catalonia. I'm not sure what you mean by "ethnic Indians" either, particularly in light of that whole Partition thing, Hindu nationalism, a multitude of languages, and religious plurality in many regions. The kind of 19th century ethnic nationalism you seem to favour is essentially unworkable. People can enjoy self-determination and governance without separate states. And "different" people can even manage to live alongside each other without "riots" or civic strife.

Its also important to realize that some of these states have a history of being colonized by other ethnicities, and thus part of their defining their own nation is through the basis of "natives" being separate from colonial outsiders. Hence, "India for the Indians" was a slogan for Indian independence, while Korea sought to expunge the influence of its Japanese occupier and promote Korean cultue and language instead, which were rooted in Korean ethnic ties. Israel, for its part, saw the Jewish homeland as having suffered under centuries of foreign rule, whether by Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, or British, and thus sought to make it a Jewish refuge by allowing Jews to immigrate and encouraging Jewish culture. Its really not that unique unless you unfairly compare it to, say, the US or Canada, which have very different histories. Not all nations are meant to be melting pots, and its unfair to obsess over this fact and gloss over other important factors, like free and fair elections in which people of all ethnicities participate.

How did "India for the Indians" turn out? As I recall, religion turned out to be rather a sticky point, though there are still some 176 million Muslims in India. In any case, the founding purpose of Israel was the culmination of the Zionist project, the establishment of Der Judenstaat in "Eretz Israel". I don't know that this should affect our understanding of Israel as a constitutional representative democracy; it certainly is much more pluralistic, founding principles notwithstanding, than the likes of Japan or Korea (see, for example, Koreans in Japan).

Neither the US nor Canada became pluralistic "multicultural" or "melting pot" states overnight. At various times Canada has barred all Asian immigration, infamously with the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 which specifically prohibited all Chinese immigration on an ethnic basis and was not repealed for 24 years. Before WWII, Old Orange Toronto took its cues from Belfast on how to discriminate against Catholics; more generally, help wanted signs might be seen to say "Irish and Jews need not apply". We've come a long way since then.

European states, like Britain, Sweden, France, and others tried to reject the ethnic model in favor of multiculturalism, importing boatloads of Islamic immigrants, and silencing anyone who pointed out the obvious concerns over assimiation as "racist." Now, they face mass rioting, destruction of public and private property, murder in broad daylight, hostile ghettoized immigrant ethnic communities, and the erosion of European culture in favor of Islamic cuture.

That seems a rather pessimistic read on the situation. Though unsurprisingly shunting immigrants with poor local language skills to isolated suburbs without adequate employment opportunities has not worked out so well. If you think that this is the only model of immigration, let alone "multiculturalism" (which doesn't mean what you think it means), that exists, think again.

@RhaegarTar:

The peculiar American fixation with distinguishing "republic" from "democracy" is tiresome. Democracy does not mean anything about inherent majority rule on all things, and there has been anything like a true democracy in history. Ancient Athens, during its time when not ruled by tyrants, never extended any franchise to foreigners, let alone slaves!

In any case, "democracy" simply means "people power/rule" while "republic" simply implies a regime where politics and affairs of state are a "public matter", as distinguished from monarchies where they might be said to be a "private matter". The best descriptor for the US is as a federal democratic republic, with a presidential-congressional as opposed to a parliamentary system.

[Antler's Fury]

So, by this logic, Armenia would only allow immigration by... Armenians? Israel doesn't have any kind of modern history as a state prior to the 20th century, and the Zionism that led to its foundation gained considerable momentum by WWII and the Holocaust but most certainly did not originate with them.

No, Armenia would give preference to Armenians due to their history of being persecuted under non-Armenian governments. Israel does the same, due to Jews' being persecuted in a similar manner, with the Holocaust being the latest and most grotesque instance of that.

An interesting selection of countries, inasmuch as Spain - to take just one example - has significant ethno-linguistic minorities in the Basques and in Catalonia.

And so does Israel, with Arabs, Druze, and Circassians, among others.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ethnic Indians" either, particularly in light of that whole Partition thing, Hindu nationalism, a multitude of languages, and religious plurality in many regions. How did "India for the Indians" turn out? As I recall, religion turned out to be rather a sticky point, though there are still some 176 million Muslims in India.

But none of that has to do with ethnicity. The Punjabis of Pakistani Punjab are ethnically identical to those of Indian Punjab. The same goes for the Bengalis of Indian West Bengal vs Bangladesh. All of them are Indian ethnicities. In fact, Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan was an ethno-linguistic movement that succeded despite East Pakistan's being Muslim like West Pakistan.

The kind of 19th century ethnic nationalism you seem to favour is essentially unworkable. People can enjoy self-determination and governance without separate states. And "different" people can even manage to live alongside each other without "riots" or civic strife.

Sure they can. But that isn't always workable. The Kurds, for instance, have a brutal history of persecution under non Kurds, like Arabs and Turks, and some demand a separate Kurdistan despite having autonomy within Iraq.

In any case, the founding purpose of Israel was the culmination of the Zionist project, the establishment of Der Judenstaat in "Eretz Israel". I don't know that this should affect our understanding of Israel as a constitutional representative democracy; it certainly is much more pluralistic, founding principles notwithstanding, than the likes of Japan or Korea (see, for example, Koreans in Japan).

Quite right. The fact that Japan still has problems to fix regarding Koreans, for instance, doesn't seem to make people deny its democratic character. I really don't see why Israel deserves to be singled out the way that it is.

Neither the US nor Canada became pluralistic "multicultural" or "melting pot" states overnight. At various times Canada has barred all Asian immigration, infamously with the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 which specifically prohibited all Chinese immigration on an ethnic basis and was not repealed for 24 years. Before WWII, Old Orange Toronto took its cues from Belfast on how to discriminate against Catholics; more generally, help wanted signs might be seen to say "Irish and Jews need not apply". We've come a long way since then.

An admirable accomplishment, to be sure. But there is a difference between banning certain ethnicities outright, and showing preference to some over others due to concerns over assimilation and ethnic strife.

That seems a rather pessimistic read on the situation. Though unsurprisingly shunting immigrants with poor local language skills to isolated suburbs without adequate employment opportunities has not worked out so well. If you think that this is the only model of immigration, let alone "multiculturalism" (which doesn't mean what you think it means), that exists, think again.

You have it backwards. Islamic ghettoization is not a consequence of poor language skills or a lack of jobs, but the cause of them. No does it necessarily have to do with their being immigrants. Muslims form ghettos in India too, for instance, despite not having immigrated there recently. If they were unwillingly forced into isolated suburbs, they'd do everything they could to get out of them, instead of declaring them sharia controlled zones, where police can't enforce the law.