Ugh. I started reading this hoping that another of TNR's gifted journalists had tackled the issue only to quicklyrealize that Jamie wrote it. It was what I feared all along, so I stopped reading. Why? Putting aside the preening and insufferable arrogance, it is basically a lack of trust. I don't trust his judgement.

Kirchick's analysis is actually sound in this case, babeffert. He was right to point out the banishment of Kahane (and splinter groups of his party, such as Kahane Chai). I thought Bishara had actually fled to Egypt, but maybe I'm wrong.

The fact is that Arab MKs frequently visit enemy countries illegally. They don't take their jobs seriously in parliament, either. They prefer to loudly interrupt government ministers during sessions.

kirchick writes:

The standards for operating a legal political party in Israel are hardly unreasonable. The four offenses that could lead to possible banning are:

1] Any rejection (in the party's goals or activities) of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.

2] Any incitement to racism.

3] Any support of the armed struggle of an enemy state or terrorist organization against the State of Israel Any hint of a cover for illegal activity.

4] Any hint of a cover for illegal activity.

George:

They are reasonable to the extent impartial observers chronicling the relationship between the Israeli government....The Knesset, the Prime Minister, the Judicial system and courts....and its citizens do or do not note any substantive distinctions between de jure and de facto treatment of citizens based on their race or religion or ethnicity or political values.

In fact, it would be interesting to read an analysis of how Israeli Arabs are treated by the government and other social, political and economic institutions in relationship to how African American citizens were treated before and after the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.

In order to understand the present more realistically it has to be viewed in contrast with what was once the norm decades ago.

But I certainly agree that any nation has the right to ban political parties that call for the destruction of the very existence of the nation itself. But again this can only be understood in the context of how people interpret the meaning of the words. And, more crucially, the history behind their application. Anyone who pretends there is not a complex existential relationship between words, laws and the power needed to enforce particular meanings, is reading an expurgated edition of human history. And every county has one.

And there is not a democratic state around the globe that could pass muster if its laws and policies were placed in contrast to some platonic sense of how an IDEAL republic SHOULD function. That's an illusion philosophical realists and political idealists try to con people into accepting.

So, sure, in this context Israel is unequivocally a flawed democracy---just like America and all the rest of them. But what is crucial is how democratic republics resist any and all attempts by political or religious fanatics to burrow into the the government and plant the seeds for a new theocratic or ideological Reich.

Also, no one should pretend that democratic republics...however transparent and malleable they may seem....are not deeply influenced by those with wealth and power. There is not a democracy on the planet that does not have its own rendition of either a "ruling class" or a "military industrial complex".

george walton

"In fact, it would be interesting to read an analysis of how Israeli Arabs are treated by the government and other social, political and economic institutions in relationship to how African American citizens were treated before and after the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 60s."

No, I really don't think it would be that interesting. Apples and oranges on many levels.

I hardly think this will dent Israel's democracy.

"In this regard I had a refreshing experience listening to the radio interview with Benjamin Begin, one of the Likud notables today. He was clearly against this punitive and destructive idea. Nice to know that, while you are in disagreement with a man, you can still respect his integrity - it goes in the family, apparently."

simplyjews.blogspot.com/.../and-our-own-racist-morons.html

"But the decision to ban these two particular Arab political parties has no effect on the ability of individual Arabs to vote. Arabs can still vote and have the same exact voting rights as Israel's Jewish citizens"

Yes they can vote but as long as it's for the people the Israeli govt pre approves -- some choice. It sounds more like a "people's democracy" than any liberal democracy I'm familiar. I find it very strange that only now the Israeli decides these two parties are extremists. Kahne's party was banned right away. What changed their minds? These two political parties have existed for years.  Arabs still have the right to vote...just not for any politicians from their own community or running on a platform that reflects their interests (as opposed to every variety and subset of Judaism in existence who have had their own parties left alone).

How a liberal magazine can justify this is beyond me.  I doubt TNR would agree if this kind of logic was employed by say the Serbs in defense of supressing the Kosovars. But Israel can do no wrong, right?

Israel

rozenson said:

"In fact, it would be interesting to read an analysis of how Israeli Arabs are treated by the government and other social, political and economic institutions in relationship to how African American citizens were treated before and after the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 60s."

No, I really don't think it would be that interesting. Apples and oranges on many levels.

George:

So you say. But let's not forget that apples and oranges are both fruit.

In fact, I have never understood why the components of that particular expression weren't farther removed.

How about, "that's like comparing apples and Rod Blagojevich's hair"

Or, if the distinction encompasses a distance smaller than one between apples and oranges, we could say, "that's like comparing a golden delicious to a fuji apple"

Or, if the distinction is absolutely enormous, we could say, "that's like comparing the Bush administration to the Founding Fathers"

But sometimes the distinction seems enormous to some people....and negligable to others. Then we could say, "that's like comparing the God of the Jews to the God of the Muslims" .

In any event, I have found from experience that expressions like this are almost always a shortcut to thinking.

george walton

A healthier democracy wouldn't ban parties no matter what outrageous things their leaders said or did.  If the things they say or do are treasonous, then by all means prosecute them for treason.  If they use the party apparatus to promote treasonous aims, then prosecute as many party members as you can for conspiracy.  But don't exclude the party per se from the electoral process.  

America has a long history of tolerating the existence of fringe parties while prosecuting their members, e.g. The American Communist Party, The American Nazi Party, NaMBLA, The KKK...  Now I'm sure someone will argue that the threats Israel faces from Arab organizations in and out of its borders are orders of magnitude more extreme than any trouble the American Communist Party could ever generate, but it does beg the question as to when measures taken to defend the democratic state are so draconian that the state can no longer rightfully be called democratic.  

(There's an obvious parallel to Gitmo here.)

If Israel has to choose, is it a Jewish state or a democratic state? (I know it intends to be both; if the two goals seem to conflict, which one wins out?). I admit a lack of expertise on Arab political parties in Israel, but from the evidence presented in the post and from my own political values, banning political parties seems to me to be a very bad idea.

In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President on an explicit platform of racial segregation. In 1968, George Wallace ran on a similar platform. Their political movements, repulsive as they were, were not banned. If the KKK set up a political party in the US, some would call for it to be banned, but it would not be banned. It would not get many votes, though.

First informative Kirchick post I've read since his delightfully paranoid Ron Paul takedown. A surprise, really. His posts can reliably be skipped over, but not without a moment of "wow, this guy is still here?" incredulity.

Also: Mr. Walton, your posts suck. I hate them. You don't seem to understand how blog commenting works.

Your interminable tirades frequently take up half of the commenting space, do little to spark discussion, and inevitably insert some immaterial reference to, say, the teleological implications of God's will. Most irritatingly, your insistence on that little "George responds:" formalism grates on the eyes, so to speak.

And Jesus, 'comparing apples and oranges' is an expression; it means that these two things don't share much in common. Rozenson put it in a blog comment, for chrissake, and only Mr. George Walton would fail to contextualize its usage.

aeromonas said:

A healthier democracy wouldn't ban parties no matter what outrageous things their leaders said or did. If the things they say or do are treasonous, then by all means prosecute them for treason. If they use the party apparatus to promote treasonous aims, then prosecute as many party members as you can for conspiracy. But don't exclude the party per se from the electoral process.

George:

This is one of those situations where you aim not to establish the most rational solution so much as to weed out the most irrational. But even here we trip all over ourselves connecting words to worlds.

You could imagine for example how your suggestions might play out in Germany in the 1930s. But even hypotheticals are embedded in particular circumstantial contexts. One might argue that Germans then and Israelis now share in common the need to circle the wagons. Hitler came to power in large part because Germany between the wars was a basket case in more ways than you could count. And Israel is surrounded by nations and Islamists that want to destroy her. Many Germans came to Hitler less because of what he said and more because he would make all the chaos go away. He would anchor them to a new narrative. Israelis today are grappling with the ambiguities of intertwining democracy and survival. There is so much danger all around them, they would be fools not to place restrictions on parties that might well aid and abet her enemies.

There is just no way for Americans to understand [viscerally] how it feels to be a target in practically every direction you look. Only after 9/11 and the anthrax scares, did it start to sink in that maybe many more such attacks were on the horizon. Eight years later though the extreme anxiety all begins to fade away. It never does in Israel.

I have ambivalent opinions about how Israel deals with that. I understand why many in Israel might feel compelled to support what is happening in Gaza. But I think it was far too brutal and it makes people around the world think of Israel in Gaza as they think of Bush in Iraq. And it will only make Israelis less secure down the road. I mean, if there is one thing America found out the hard way in Iraq, it was that you can never win these kinds of conflicts militarily.

george walton

Tiger writes:

Also: Mr. Walton, your posts suck. I hate them. You don't seem to understand how blog commenting works.

George:

My blogs only stink if you read them.

But just out of curiousity, what are the essential "components of blog commentary"?

For example, lots of people have complained about the way I copy and paste chunks of the post I am responding to. It is like I am breaking all ten commandments at once doing this.

But I spend most of my time in philosophy venues. And there you are expected to copy and paste because sometimes the threads can reach a couple of hundred comments. People want and need the context in order to understand what you are referencing your points to. In here as well there are threads where there are over 100 people commenting. Lots of times they "follow the TNR blogging community rules" [I guess] and there are all these mini threads gestating within the main thread and it is often impossible to understand why someone responds as they do because you can't untangle all the overlapping party lines.  

In my world you don't compartmentalize philosophy, politics, ethics, theology, psychology etc as though to link them was conmpletely ridiculous. In fact, I think that's what really pisses people off about me. I put a whole different spin on the spin I'm in. It makes some folks start to wonder if the links are not so irrelevant after all. Then they start to wonder about the etiology of all their other tropes too.

Really, you should think about this after you calm down. You should ask yourself, "why am I getting so pissed off at something someone writes I don't even have to read?!

I've been in philosophy venues for years. No one ever complains about the posts----other than when they strongly disagree about the SUBSTANCE of the argument.

That's the only "rule" that makes sense to me when no one is forced to read what you right.

george walton

Ezra Klein has an interesting post on this issue which, after discussing the consequences of Israel becoming 20-40% Arab, concludes with:

-- The numbers don't back up that sort of demographic swell among Israeli Arabs]. But if they did, Israel would figure out some policy to ensure that the Jewish state wasn't voted out of existence. And that would mean disenfranchising Israeli Arabs. Put slightly differently, Israeli Arabs have the franchise so long as they don't have the numbers to use it effectively. As a supporter of the Jewish state, I find this sort of thought experiment pretty uncomfortable. I can't think of another country that I would support if it regularly discussed how best to disenfranchise a fast-growing minority in order to preserve a particular ethnic or religious identity. And Israel is doing itself some real damage by laying bare the second class nature of its Arab citizens in a moment of fear and racism. This action implies a sort of cold honesty they can't afford right now.

www.prospect.org/.../ezraklein_archive

Good post Jamie, spot on.

- Ben

I'm going to agree that this is a good post. Too long, as usual for this author, but too long on account of covering too much substantive ground for this medium, rather than too long on account of verbosity about too little substance. A vast improvement.

But while I'm impressed with the technical and journalistic quality, I'm disappointed in the substance. From any author who reflexively defends any action by the Israeli state, we really don't need to have a long argument defending any new action by the Israeli state. Just write the headline, "Israel: Right about This One Too," sign it, and we can all figure out the rest. Writing at this length can only be justified if the writer is willing to challenge his own biases and say something interesting. Which he comes close to doing in the final third, but never allows himself to follow his own implicit logic to its uncomfortable-for-him necessary conclusion.

Further, as a matter of fact, a Klan party formed in America with the goal of dissolving the United States would not be banned, as Kirchick asserts, because it is illegal for the state to ban political parties. Kirchick may want to acquaint himself with the Constitution of the United States before writing any further on American politics or government. In fact the United States has had political parties devoted to all sorts of evil ends, and we don't ban them. From the anti-Masons to the Know Nothings to the actually treasonous secessionist Democrats to the treason-abetting Roundhead Democrats to the Klan to the Dixiecrats, with all manner of lesser parties devoted to religious separatism or racial bigotry or just plain old seditious stupidity at the fringes, the mark of a truly democratic republic is that the state does not tell its people who they may or may not vote for. Hell, the seditious Alaska Independence Party not only isn't banned, a supporter and associate of that secessionist party was recently nominated for vice president by one of our two major parties.  

And then there is the Persian elephant in the room: Iranian "democracy" also has perfectly defensible-in-the-abstract rules giving the state authority to determine in advance who the people may or may not vote for. Why would an actual democracy like Israel choose to conduct itself in any way that validates -- a conservative like Kirchick would say "emboldens" -- Iranian-style sham democracy? Iran justifies its prior limitations on party participation on the grounds that it is an Islamic republic, not merely a republic, just as Israel defends its prior restraint on the grounds that it is a Jewish democracy, not merely a democracy.

The bottom line is that Israel's actions may be defensible -- it's the kind of thing I give self-governing foreigners the benefit of the doubt about, much like Germany's restrictions of the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly vis-a-vis fascists -- but they are defensible only within their specific, local contests. Any appeal to "this would be right and proper in America, too" is odious in the extreme. This is a case where Israeli values are not compatible with American values, which is OK because the values are being applied by Israelis to Israelis in Israel. But they are not universal values, and America is America in part precisely because we have a different -- superior -- understanding and practice of democratic self-government.

Damn, Rhubarbs, that was good.  I had worried that reasoned argument had totally abandoned TNR conversation about Israel, but am pleased to proven wrong.  

It is entirely understandable that Israel doesn't want to see itself get voted out of existence, and also understandable that it sees Arab Israeli parties as the thin edge of the wedge. Unfortunately, it's not quite kosher to manipulate the rules of eligibility for parties (or "creatively" interpret them) to exclude them. Short of engaging in or advocating criminal acts, i.e., acts that would be counted as crimes regardless of who engaged in them., any party should be at liberty to form  and to run candidates for election in any democratic country. There is in fact no good reason why any country should be immune from being voted out of existence. Modern Israel as a political entity and as a Jewish state is an accident of history. It never should have been put where it is except for the completely baseless view that it is somehow the land promised to the Jews by God. As I recall, the promised land was already 'owned' by the Canaanites and the Jews conquered them and took it away. True, at one time the Jews needed a refuge from persecution and potential extermination, especially when nearly no one would take the refugees in, but Israel (as being that geographic location) made no sense then or now. There is really no good reason for a "Jewish" (i.e. religious) state to exist anywhere today and especially in the (mostly Arab and Islamic) Middle East, except for any  relgious or symbolic value that locale may have to some Jews (and some fundamentalist Christians, their odd bedfellows). Perhaps waiting for the Arab Israeli citizens to become a majority and vote to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state is the only peaceful solution to the mess there. Please note that I'm scarcely advocating this!! I'm saying that one can't manipulate the rules of democracy to avoid that outcome. By the way, to avoid anticipated ad personam criticisms, I am Jewish and had relatives die in the Holocaust.

Rozenson: "They don't take their jobs seriously in parliament, either. They prefer to loudly interrupt government ministers during sessions."

I guess that disqualifies he honorable members of the British House of Commons as legitimate democrats.

This is not a serious argument, is it? Period, let alone as partial justification for banning a party? They dare to interrupt the government ministers with their complaints, ban them?

Israel is not a "religious state" gnathan, it is an ethnic state. And there are damn good reasons for ethnic states to exist, one being that they are almost always more stable and pleasant places for their inhabitants to live in than multicultural stews.  PROVIDED, that is, that their continued existence does not necessitate constant war with or oppression of minorities or former inhabitants of that country's land.  Personally, having paleocon sympathies, I try to understand why I am less sympathetic to Israel than I would be to, say, a Maronite Christian mini-state in Lebanon.  And I think it mainly it is because so many supporters of the Jewish ethnic state have tended to be so unabasedly unsupportive of efforts by racial, ethnic, religious and cultural majorities in America and Europe to maintain the present the demographic character of their own countries.  Much as I am glad that so many neocons and liberal internationalists are alarmed at the Islamization of Europe, I worry what will happen if there actually were to be some resolution of the Israel-Palestinian dilemma and most Arab "anti-Semitism" was shown to be simply a fevered expression of Arab anti-zionism.  I fear then that all the Jamie Kirchuk's of the world would suddenly become neutral on the question of whether Europe ought to have more mosques than churches.  

gurdjieff66  writes:

-- And there are damn good reasons for ethnic states to exist, one being that they are almost always more stable and pleasant places for their inhabitants to live in than multicultural stews.

kluck, kluck, kluck.

Anyone who believes ethnic states "are almost always more stable" really needs to get a better history book. The American Civil War, after all, killed as a result of hispanic and Asian immigration into the United States.

Rhub, in defense of kirchick (a first for me) he did add this: That said, I remain skeptical of this move. Without a political outlet, there's every reason to believe that Israel's Arabs--by and large opposed to the fundamental notion of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state--will turn towards violence as a means of expressing discontent.

I tend to agree. I am skeptical of the move as well, for many of the reasons you mention and for the the reason he did as well. I support Israel as strongly as I do because it enfranchises its Arab citizens, and part of freedom is to tolerate the nuts provided their nuttiness is peaceful. They don't have the votes in the Knesset to enact their agenda so why not allow them to take their seats, and if they commit treason prosecute them for it.

Holy crap, a decently-written and argued post from Jamie Kirchick.  Are the pod-people invading?

Snark aside, this was well-done.  More like this, please.

Indeed Kirchick, it's mere coincidence that two ultranational ministers, the positions of whom include more settlement construction, more occupation, and no rights to speak of for the occupied if not full blown expulsion and annexation, forwarded these motions. Israel is a vibrant democracy and we're just getting the wrong idea. And I've no doubt your response would be similarly accepting were Hugo Chavez to ban the AD and COPEI parties, especially considering how much stronger a case there is to be made on these ever so reasonable grounds that he do so.

I don't know who you think you're kidding, but should point out that the road Israel is traveling upon has few detours and little room for reversal. Anyone wishing to obfuscate that, can hardly be considered its friend.

rhubarb writes:

The bottom line is that Israel's actions may be defensible -- it's the kind of thing I give self-governing foreigners the benefit of the doubt about, much like Germany's restrictions of the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly vis-a-vis fascists -- but they are defensible only within their specific, local contests. Any appeal to "this would be right and proper in America, too" is odious in the extreme. This is a case where Israeli values are not compatible with American values, which is OK because the values are being applied by Israelis to Israelis in Israel. But they are not universal values, and America is America in part precisely because we have a different -- superior -- understanding and practice of democratic self-government.

george:

This analysis is basically a reflection [and a defense] of moral relativism. Right and wrong behavior are mediated differently in "local" contexts. But if anyone should propose [as I do] that moral relativism is applicable to all human relationships revolving around the evaluation and judgment of  human behavior, the reaction is often very different. Then I hear from folks about moral and political comvictions that are absolutely true because they are said to reflect universal values of mankind.

But what if they don't? How do we live in a world like that?

Precariously, of course.

george walton

ndmack -- there is no reason to believe that the American Civil War would have occured if USA had been a nation made up of assimilable Europeans, even if those Europeans including a large number of Slavs or slaves or serfs agitating for emancipation.  As opposed to a nation of assimilable Europeans intermingled with a large, unassimilable non-European minority.  

I do appreciate your link to the Ezra Klein article, though I think his confidence in the Israeli Arab birthrates going down is more wishful thinking than anything else.  

Banning these parties is bad PR for Israel.  One of the results of this Gaza war, the banning of these parties, and, especially, a victory for Netanyahu in March will be a whole lot of articles pushing the "one-state option."  Time Magazine this week broaches the topic, along with the shocking factoid that Arabs ALREADY outnumber Jews west of the Jordan, 5.5 million to 5.4 million.  

Actually, Rhubs, people like myself can greatly benefit from Kirchick's post, since we are not quite privvy to many of the factuals that bore the informed reader.

gnathan writes:

It is entirely understandable that Israel doesn't want to see itself get voted out of existence, and also understandable that it sees Arab Israeli parties as the thin edge of the wedge.

George:

Those in power in most democratic republics are almost never worried about being voted out of office. And that is because the government [and the media] studiously vet candidates to weed out the ones not supportive of the way things work in "the system". Sure, individual office holders will come and go; but the parties tend to stick around a lot longer.

Thus voters get to elect candidates already carefully selected by those who have the most to lose by being "voted out of existence".

Every once in a while, however, a Barry Goldwater or a George McGovern or a Ross Perot gets on the ballot. But that's when the revolving door relationships between wealth, power, elections and "democracy" really kick into high gear.

But these are not ordinary times are they? If Obama and the Congress and Wall Street fail to reverse the deflationary economic spiral all bets are off in 2012.

george walton