Israeli General Election (2nd of March, 2020): Madness

[Velasco]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

[America Needs R'hllor]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

And that's where you agree with the zionist left. We firmly believe that without a two state solution, Israel will not be able to remain both Jewish and democratic. We believe in a country that serves as home for the Jewish people but respects its minorities and gives them full rights. Personally, I refuse to take the "Jewish" part over the "democratic" part.

[Hnv1]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

Most of the European state are ethnic democracies to a degree, even liberal Germany has a law of return for German ethnics. France is really the only state with a clear ethnic/nation separation de jure, the rest are on a spectrum. Israel is a bit closer to Central Europe conception of the nation state where the nationality is also strongly linked with ethnicity.

I don’t think your conceptualization excludes ethnic democracies as long as they provide minorities with ample protection either through human rights or through collective autonomy rights (e.g. the danish minority in SH state of Germany).

The Nation State Law night sound bad on paper but I think it has minimal actual effect. SC ruling in Kaadan already established that the Jewish element trumps equality only in regards of immigrations, “once inside the house we are all equal, it’s only the key to the house where lies the difference”.

The problem here is not of definitions but of ambitions, as both (well large parts of) both national movement demand self determination across the entire territory the conflict arise and then escalated to aggressive steps to solidify power like the disenfranchisement or the discrimination in land laws against Arabs.

But that is a debate about concrete facts, not of conflicting conceptual schemata

[Walmart_shopper]

Little known bit of gossip, Lucy Aharish was neatly placed at Gabay’s Labour when suddenly Gantz surfaced and it looked like Labour aren’t going anywhere near 15 seats. I personally don’t like her that much but it’s an improvement to have her on the panel (especially compared to the demented hag Mazlih)

Interesting! I can easily see her on some left list lead by Yair Golan or on the Yesh Atid list, depending on which direction she wants to go.

I don't know why people don't like Golan. I love him.

[CumbrianLefty]

Problem is, the "two state solution" is effectively dead (in large part thanks to Likud's actions)

[jaymichaud]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Lol you have an avatar of f***ing Japan. Sit this one out, miss thing.

[jaymichaud]

Little known bit of gossip, Lucy Aharish was neatly placed at Gabay’s Labour when suddenly Gantz surfaced and it looked like Labour aren’t going anywhere near 15 seats. I personally don’t like her that much but it’s an improvement to have her on the panel (especially compared to the demented hag Mazlih)

Interesting! I can easily see her on some left list lead by Yair Golan or on the Yesh Atid list, depending on which direction she wants to go.

Is there a chance of Labor (on their own) surging, even if it’s to 9-10 seats as they were predicted before the April 2019 elections? A lot of their voter base voted for Gantz instead of them in order to make B&W the largest party

[America Needs R'hllor]

Little known bit of gossip, Lucy Aharish was neatly placed at Gabay’s Labour when suddenly Gantz surfaced and it looked like Labour aren’t going anywhere near 15 seats. I personally don’t like her that much but it’s an improvement to have her on the panel (especially compared to the demented hag Mazlih)

Interesting! I can easily see her on some left list lead by Yair Golan or on the Yesh Atid list, depending on which direction she wants to go.

Is there a chance of Labor (on their own) surging, even if it’s to 9-10 seats as they were predicted before the April 2019 elections? A lot of their voter base voted for Gantz instead of them in order to make B&W the largest party

It seems increasingly like they're going to enter the government for Peretz to become Minister of Agriculture and Shmuli to become Deputy Minister of Welfare (lol), if they do they're good as dead. But really, this is Israeli politics, who knows.

[Angel of Death]

Problem is, the "two state solution" is effectively dead (in large part thanks to Likud's actions)

It's been dead since September 28, 2000.

[brucejoel99]

Problem is, the "two state solution" is effectively dead (in large part thanks to Likud's actions)

It's been dead since September 28, 2000.

*November 4, 1995.

[jaymichaud]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-gantz-to-push-law-allowing-netanyahu-to-serve-in-government-despite-trial-1.8719083

Utterly despicable, cowardly and infuriating. His career is 100% over.

[brucejoel99]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-gantz-to-push-law-allowing-netanyahu-to-serve-in-government-despite-trial-1.8719083

Utterly despicable, cowardly and infuriating. His career is 100% over.

[Pericles]

It doesn't seem that Netanyahu is getting actual immunity though. So what exactly is happening with his trial-and could he be convicted?

[Velasco]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

Most of the European state are ethnic democracies to a degree, even liberal Germany has a law of return for German ethnics. France is really the only state with a clear ethnic/nation separation de jure, the rest are on a spectrum. Israel is a bit closer to Central Europe conception of the nation state where the nationality is also strongly linked with ethnicity.

I don’t think your conceptualization excludes ethnic democracies as long as they provide minorities with ample protection either through human rights or through collective autonomy rights (e.g. the danish minority in SH state of Germany).

The Nation State Law night sound bad on paper but I think it has minimal actual effect. SC ruling in Kaadan already established that the Jewish element trumps equality only in regards of immigrations, “once inside the house we are all equal, it’s only the key to the house where lies the difference”.

The problem here is not of definitions but of ambitions, as both (well large parts of) both national movement demand self determination across the entire territory the conflict arise and then escalated to aggressive steps to solidify power like the disenfranchisement or the discrimination in land laws against Arabs.

But that is a debate about concrete facts, not of conflicting conceptual schemata

The right of return in Germany may well be related to the post-war context, with millions of Germans fleeing former eastern territories and Central European countries. The question to determine whether Germany is an 'ethnic democracy' (I tell you that concept sounds horrible, due to its historical impications) is not the right of return. Does German Basic Law define Germany as ''The Nation of German People'', in the same fashion as Israel with the Jewish people?

With regard to the ethnic character of Central European nations ,-that is more accentuated with regard to Western democracies- and the protection of minorities, Hungary is an illustrative example of illiberal government mistreating the non-Hungarians. Orban's regime might be, in a sense, a mirror for the 'ethnic democracy' envisioned by the Israeli right (and more centrist emements as well)

The Nation State Law enshrines the notion that Israel is not a state for all its citizens, but only the state for its Jewish majority (excluding disrnfranchised Palestinians, of course). The second-class condition of the official Arab minority is consecrated. Such legiation inspired by 'ethnic democratic' principles is radically illiberal and undemocratic. There is a difference between the majority rule and the tyranny of the majority that you are missing. Ethno-nationalism and liberal democracy are not really compatible

[Oryxslayer]

It doesn't seem that Netanyahu is getting actual immunity though. So what exactly is happening with his trial-and could he be convicted?

I haven't seen anything about immunity, though maybe Gantz secretly folded. I think the takeaway from this whole ordeal is that Bibi learned he couldn't get a majority to support active authoritarian-style reforms to the basic law. He cannot change the law, but he almost certainly can twist it and stretch the definitions of legality. One option for instance to ascend to the presidency where he will be beyond persecution. Another option to take a plea deal where he agrees to leave all govt positions permanently in exchange for no/limited prison time. This sort of deal would allow Bibi to become an Israeli 'godfather,' (think Harry Reid) governing from the shadows through interest groups and his loyalists in the Knesset. Bibi certainly has enough loyalists inside Likud to transfer control of the PM slot to someone else but still retain control. This is why Bibi may be looking to co-opt Gantz personally now and potentially allows the govt to last near its full term. Gantz getting the PM slot via rotation under these circumstances is fine, since he is almost an ideal prisoner for this Gilded Cage. Handing over the PM slot to a unprepared Bibi sycophant could endanger Likud's brand and said person could try to transform the Bibi cult into their cult. Gantz though has few allies, is politically weak, and has some interesting proposals that could improve Likud's appearance. Especially if the Haredim politicos end up in court next year (as theorized) without immunity, making this govt a whole lot more "secular-rightist" than it appears presently.

Or we get another election next year.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

Most of the European state are ethnic democracies to a degree, even liberal Germany has a law of return for German ethnics. France is really the only state with a clear ethnic/nation separation de jure, the rest are on a spectrum. Israel is a bit closer to Central Europe conception of the nation state where the nationality is also strongly linked with ethnicity.

I don’t think your conceptualization excludes ethnic democracies as long as they provide minorities with ample protection either through human rights or through collective autonomy rights (e.g. the danish minority in SH state of Germany).

The Nation State Law night sound bad on paper but I think it has minimal actual effect. SC ruling in Kaadan already established that the Jewish element trumps equality only in regards of immigrations, “once inside the house we are all equal, it’s only the key to the house where lies the difference”.

The problem here is not of definitions but of ambitions, as both (well large parts of) both national movement demand self determination across the entire territory the conflict arise and then escalated to aggressive steps to solidify power like the disenfranchisement or the discrimination in land laws against Arabs.

But that is a debate about concrete facts, not of conflicting conceptual schemata

The right of return in Germany may well be related to the post-war context, with millions of Germans fleeing former eastern territories and Central European countries. The question to determine whether Germany is an 'ethnic democracy' (I tell you that concept sounds horrible, due to its historical impications) is not the right of return. Does German Basic Law define Germany as ''The Nation of German People'', in the same fashion as Israel with the Jewish people?

With regard to the ethnic character of Central European nations ,-that is more accentuated with regard to Western democracies- and the protection of minorities, Hungary is an imlustrative example of illiberal government mistreating the non-Hungarians. Orban's regime might be, in a sense, a mirror for the 'ethnic democracy' envisioned by the Israeli right (and more centrist emements as well)

The Nation State Law enshrines the notion that Israel is not a state for all its citizens, but only the state for its Jewish majority (excluding disrnfranchised Palestinians, of course). The second-class condition of the official Arab minority is consecrated. Such legiation inspired by 'ethnic democratic' principles is radically illiberal and undemocratic. There is a difference between the majority rule and the tyranny of the majority that you are missing. Ethno-nationalism and liberal democracy are not really compatible

This is all a discussion about declarations and semantics, but as hnv said, the vision of Jewish and democratic is that the keys favour Jews, but everyone inside the house should have equal rights. If you're comfortable with Germany having a right of return for Germans in a post war context, it's insane to say the Jews don't have an even better reason to have a right to return or immigrate to their country.

[jaymichaud]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

Most of the European state are ethnic democracies to a degree, even liberal Germany has a law of return for German ethnics. France is really the only state with a clear ethnic/nation separation de jure, the rest are on a spectrum. Israel is a bit closer to Central Europe conception of the nation state where the nationality is also strongly linked with ethnicity.

I don’t think your conceptualization excludes ethnic democracies as long as they provide minorities with ample protection either through human rights or through collective autonomy rights (e.g. the danish minority in SH state of Germany).

The Nation State Law night sound bad on paper but I think it has minimal actual effect. SC ruling in Kaadan already established that the Jewish element trumps equality only in regards of immigrations, “once inside the house we are all equal, it’s only the key to the house where lies the difference”.

The problem here is not of definitions but of ambitions, as both (well large parts of) both national movement demand self determination across the entire territory the conflict arise and then escalated to aggressive steps to solidify power like the disenfranchisement or the discrimination in land laws against Arabs.

But that is a debate about concrete facts, not of conflicting conceptual schemata

The right of return in Germany may well be related to the post-war context, with millions of Germans fleeing former eastern territories and Central European countries. The question to determine whether Germany is an 'ethnic democracy' (I tell you that concept sounds horrible, due to its historical impications) is not the right of return. Does German Basic Law define Germany as ''The Nation of German People'', in the same fashion as Israel with the Jewish people?

With regard to the ethnic character of Central European nations ,-that is more accentuated with regard to Western democracies- and the protection of minorities, Hungary is an imlustrative example of illiberal government mistreating the non-Hungarians. Orban's regime might be, in a sense, a mirror for the 'ethnic democracy' envisioned by the Israeli right (and more centrist emements as well)

The Nation State Law enshrines the notion that Israel is not a state for all its citizens, but only the state for its Jewish majority (excluding disrnfranchised Palestinians, of course). The second-class condition of the official Arab minority is consecrated. Such legiation inspired by 'ethnic democratic' principles is radically illiberal and undemocratic. There is a difference between the majority rule and the tyranny of the majority that you are missing. Ethno-nationalism and liberal democracy are not really compatible

Okay, resident of ethno-nationalist homogenous country. You been to any 'Japanese Only' restaurants lately?

[jaymichaud]

It doesn't seem that Netanyahu is getting actual immunity though. So what exactly is happening with his trial-and could he be convicted?

I haven't seen anything about immunity, though maybe Gantz secretly folded. I think the takeaway from this whole ordeal is that Bibi learned he couldn't get a majority to support active authoritarian-style reforms to the basic law. He cannot change the law, but he almost certainly can twist it and stretch the definitions of legality. One option for instance to ascend to the presidency where he will be beyond persecution. Another option to take a plea deal where he agrees to leave all govt positions permanently in exchange for no/limited prison time. This sort of deal would allow Bibi to become an Israeli 'godfather,' (think Harry Reid) governing from the shadows through interest groups and his loyalists in the Knesset. Bibi certainly has enough loyalists inside Likud to transfer control of the PM slot to someone else but still retain control. This is why Bibi may be looking to co-opt Gantz personally now and potentially allows the govt to last near its full term. Gantz getting the PM slot via rotation at under these circumstances is fine, since he is almost an ideal prisoner for this Gilded Cage. Handing over the PM slot to a unprepared Bibi sycophant could endanger Likud's brand and said person could try to transform the Bibi cult into their cult. Gantz though has few allies, is politically weak, and has some interesting proposals that could improve Likud's appearance. Especially if the Haredim politicos end up in court next year (as theorized) without immunity, making this govt a whole lot more "secular-rightist" than it appears presently.

Or we get another election next year.

Fair enough, but if Gantz genuinely believes he's getting that PM slot he's living in upside down world.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Democracy doesn't equal liberal democracy, it can also mean the right of an (ethnically or culturally defined) people to govern itself. The core of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a national homeland, and if there is a conflict between that and liberal principles (as enshrined in the constitution) then you can't just assume that the latter takes precedence for every Zionist. If one were to follow your logic you can't be a Zionist unless you believe in liberal principles incl. minority rights, and that's a meaningless definition.

Are you implying there exist alternative forms of democracy based on ethnicity, such as ''Jewish democracy'', ''Arab democracy'', or ''Chinese democracy''? I don't think so

I concur that Zionism and liberal democracy are not indivisible. Far from that, the mainstream rightwing revisionist Zionism is blatantly racist and illiberal. But there's a brand of liberal Zionism that tries to reconcile the notion of ethnic state with the principles of liberal democracy, as it's enshrined in the constitution. In case of conflict (unavoidable), it seems clear many Zionists give precedence to ethnicity

Descriptively of course there is, there exists democracies which satisfy the majoritarian principle and have an ethnic constitutional basis. You might not think that it’s *desirable*, or that any democracy should always contingently come with an absolute equality before the law (still reconcilable with ethnic democracy), or even a stronger case where no there should be no ethnic trait to the state (and the problem lies here).

I am not a big fan of democracy, nation states, or any popular based institution. But your claim is too rigid if you also want to maintain a group right of self determination. Or as a matter of fact enable non liberal societies to move towards a liberal path an ethnic democracy might be a necessary pre condition.

Could you provide examples of ''ethnic democracies''? The subject would be fascinating to be discussed in another board, as well the right to self determination (its true meaning, in which cases it's enforceable, which people has precedence in case of territorial conflict...). I'd say that Israel is a particular case and most western democracies have constitutions based on liberal principles, but...

In any case, I think democracy is both defined by the majority rule and by the scrupulous respect for minorities. When the Israeli government tries to disenfranchise (even partially) its official Arab minority with the Nation State Law, it's undermining one of the pillars of democracy. Let alone the existence of a consolidated 'status quo', in fact a one-state reality. Israel extends beyond the pre-1967 border to incorporate the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Given that it's unlikely that Israel resigns territorial gains, the Jewish state or the 'ethnic democracy' seem only possible by the disenfranchisement of nearly 1/2 of the population between the Jordan and the Sea

Most of the European state are ethnic democracies to a degree, even liberal Germany has a law of return for German ethnics. France is really the only state with a clear ethnic/nation separation de jure, the rest are on a spectrum. Israel is a bit closer to Central Europe conception of the nation state where the nationality is also strongly linked with ethnicity.

I don’t think your conceptualization excludes ethnic democracies as long as they provide minorities with ample protection either through human rights or through collective autonomy rights (e.g. the danish minority in SH state of Germany).

The Nation State Law night sound bad on paper but I think it has minimal actual effect. SC ruling in Kaadan already established that the Jewish element trumps equality only in regards of immigrations, “once inside the house we are all equal, it’s only the key to the house where lies the difference”.

The problem here is not of definitions but of ambitions, as both (well large parts of) both national movement demand self determination across the entire territory the conflict arise and then escalated to aggressive steps to solidify power like the disenfranchisement or the discrimination in land laws against Arabs.

But that is a debate about concrete facts, not of conflicting conceptual schemata

The right of return in Germany may well be related to the post-war context, with millions of Germans fleeing former eastern territories and Central European countries. The question to determine whether Germany is an 'ethnic democracy' (I tell you that concept sounds horrible, due to its historical impications) is not the right of return. Does German Basic Law define Germany as ''The Nation of German People'', in the same fashion as Israel with the Jewish people?

With regard to the ethnic character of Central European nations ,-that is more accentuated with regard to Western democracies- and the protection of minorities, Hungary is an imlustrative example of illiberal government mistreating the non-Hungarians. Orban's regime might be, in a sense, a mirror for the 'ethnic democracy' envisioned by the Israeli right (and more centrist emements as well)

The Nation State Law enshrines the notion that Israel is not a state for all its citizens, but only the state for its Jewish majority (excluding disrnfranchised Palestinians, of course). The second-class condition of the official Arab minority is consecrated. Such legiation inspired by 'ethnic democratic' principles is radically illiberal and undemocratic. There is a difference between the majority rule and the tyranny of the majority that you are missing. Ethno-nationalism and liberal democracy are not really compatible

Okay, resident of ethno-nationalist homogenous country. You been to any 'Japanese Only' restaurants lately?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's hypocritical for anybody not in favor of Japanese ethnonationalism to live in Japan or have a JP avatar? Seriously?!

[Walmart_shopper]

I'll just add that the majority of immigrants under the Law of Return for the last several years have been non-Jewish relatives and descendants of Jews. So even the Zionism of the Basic Law is not nearly as rigid as left wing anti-Zionists and right wing Judeofascists think it is. Israel is a diverse and multiciltural society with a larger non-Jewish minority than the United States' non-Christian minority. Thr idea that Israel can br a unique homeland for ethnic Jews doesn't harm non-Jewish Israelis and it doesn't make Israel a racist ethno-state.

The problem is when right wing bigots hide behind Zionism to pretend that because Israel is a Jewish nation-state that non-Jews are "guests" or that Israel  is primarily for its Jewish residents and not its non-Jewish ones. The problem is when non-Jews are systemically discriminated against in law and society. The problem is when the original Zionism dream becomes a theological or religious one, and Israel's beautiful Jewish culture is blanketed with fundamentalist Judaic rules that harm Muslims and Christians (and atheists, too). Many non-Jews in Israel celebrate the rich culture and freedom and prosperity that we experience in the Jewish state. It's not Zionism but ratger tye Jewish supremacism that right wing bigits try to pass as Zionism that not only harms the country but actual turns the original Zionist project in its head and uglifies what the country's founders tried to create.

[Walmart_shopper]

It's looks more and more likely that Yamina, or at least Bennet and Shaked, will be in opposition, and that Litzman will be replaced by soneone from Hosen. Niesenkorn may get Justice instead of Troper.

These are all wonderful developments. It's not like Bibi even wants Yamina in government so I wish Gantz would push for Education instead of Foreign ministry. What the settlers have done to the educational system is a moral crime.

[Velasco]

And he is Spanish anyway. The Germany comparison is does have applicance to a degree - yes, Germany, unlike France, is a state of the German people - the Grundgesetz does make a very clear distinction between the German people and citizenry, and ethnic minority immigrants* are expected to adopt German leitkultur, the culture and societal values of the majority populace. But Arabs in Israel are, of course, not Immigrants and can hardly be expected to assimilate.
*(important distinction though between them and the infinitely smaller Danish/Sorbian "native" minorities, to which this does not apply - making the debate around Germanys ethnic character somewhat more hazy)

In my opinion the best analogy for Israeli-style ethnic democracy is Malaysia - which has a very similar discourse around the threat that a significant participation of certain minorities (who are, by and large, granted equal political rights) in politics  might cause to the integral character to the State that is a state for Malays - the bumiputra. So much so, that recently a "progressive" malay party defected to the "corrupt" right-wing bloc it ran against in elections - ostensibly to protect the character of the state - sound familiar?

I'm Spanish, yes. I vindicate my right to wear a Japanese avatar, as others wear a Prussian one without being labelled as Junckers. I think Japan is fascinating (possibly because it's totally alien to me) and I love Sushi

I get Arab Israelis are a large ''native minority'' and they should not be expected to ''assimilate''.  Also, under normal circumstances, their participation in politics and their very existence should not be considered a threat to the State. We all know that's not the case: they are citizens and eligible, but they have been consistently marginalized. Also, in a broader context, they are part of the larger Palestinian people (at least the vast majority identifying as such). If we look at the reality existing on the ground, the Arab/Palestinians can hardly be considered a minority in the territories under Israeli control.

I am totally unfamiliar to Malaysia and apparently it's an interesting case of 'ethnic democracy'. Also, it'd be interesting to determine if the so-called 'illiberal democracies' are actual democracies

I'll just add that the majority of immigrants under the Law of Return for the last several years have been non-Jewish relatives and descendants of Jews. So even the Zionism of the Basic Law is not nearly as rigid as left wing anti-Zionists and right wing Judeofascists think it is. Israel is a diverse and multiciltural society with a larger non-Jewish minority than the United States' non-Christian minority. Thr idea that Israel can br a unique homeland for ethnic Jews doesn't harm non-Jewish Israelis and it doesn't make Israel a racist ethno-state.

The problem is when right wing bigots hide behind Zionism to pretend that because Israel is a Jewish nation-state that non-Jews are "guests" or that Israel  is primarily for its Jewish residents and not its non-Jewish ones. The problem is when non-Jews are systemically discriminated against in law and society. The problem is when the original Zionism dream becomes a theological or religious one, and Israel's beautiful Jewish culture is blanketed with fundamentalist Judaic rules that harm Muslims and Christians (and atheists, too). Many non-Jews in Israel celebrate the rich culture and freedom and prosperity that we experience in the Jewish state. It's not Zionism but ratger tye Jewish supremacism that right wing bigits try to pass as Zionism that not only harms the country but actual turns the original Zionist project in its head and uglifies what the country's founders tried to create.

The virtue is on the middle ground, isn't it?

You know perfectly that the most intolerant brand of Zionism has became mainstream and is threatening the non-Jewish elements of the Israeli society. With regard to the declining liberal Zionists, I think they deserve heavy criticism as well. However, you have point saying there are elements in the rich culture and the society worthy of celebration. Of course they are and it'd be great if Jewish Israelis could appreciate the Arab culture as well. You are doomed to coexistence and it's better to find ways to foster peace and tolerance. But don't get fooled, liberal Zionists are tolerant and patronizing at best and don't really take the non-Jews into account (how many Arab candidates ran in the B&W list?). If the non-Jews want equal rights and full participation in the social and political life, they'll have to stand for their rights

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's looks more and more likely that Yamina, or at least Bennet and Shaked, will be in opposition, and that Litzman will be replaced by soneone from Hosen. Niesenkorn may get Justice instead of Troper.

These are all wonderful developments. It's not like Bibi even wants Yamina in government so I wish Gantz would push for Education instead of Foreign ministry. What the settlers have done to the educational system is a moral crime.

Its also been agreed, I believe, that Edlestein will not return to the Speaker's seat. I guess we might see Erdan or something there. It's surprisingly not terrible so far, but we'll see.

[Hnv1]

It's looks more and more likely that Yamina, or at least Bennet and Shaked, will be in opposition, and that Litzman will be replaced by soneone from Hosen. Niesenkorn may get Justice instead of Troper.

These are all wonderful developments. It's not like Bibi even wants Yamina in government so I wish Gantz would push for Education instead of Foreign ministry. What the settlers have done to the educational system is a moral crime.

Doubt it. Bibi will be a fool to let Bennet go to the opposition. Justice will end up with Troper, Gantz will be in defence first.

the only real dealbreaker right now is who gets to be speaker. If Gantz agrees to Edlstein that will be total bankruptcy

[America Needs R'hllor]

According to Tal Schneider: Hosen will get Welfare and Economy, right-religious get Housing and Health (so Litzman maintains it). Sad!