Supreme Court Representation: The Danger to Israel's Democracy

Almost everyone is jumping on the bandwagon these days, saying that the evil MKs that comprise the (elected) government in Israel are doing their best to destroy the "Democratic Character" of Israel.

What has enraged them the most by far, is the proposal to allow the people of Israel, via their elected officials to actually decide who will comprise the makeup of the Supreme Court, rather than giving exclusive veto power to the existing Supreme Court justices.

In effect, the Supreme Court today ensures there is no representation of "the people" on the court, rather they decide in their own exclusive, infinite wisdom who may join them in ruling over Israel.

I suggest you view the following short (2 minute) video, which is captioned into English, for a clear, concise explanation of why democracy is allegedly endangered by letting the people of Israel have a say who should be on the Supreme Court.



If you don't like the video, and do believe that Israel's Democracy is truly in danger by allowing the Supreme Court justices to be actually representative of the people of Israel -- you are in good company. I'm sure you'll enjoy this unbiased article (written by an Israeli) on the same subject at Al-Jazeerah's Cross-Cultural Understanding section, entitled: Zionist Terrorists in the Knesset Threaten Remains of Democracy in Israel.

hat-tip: RRW

Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Follow the Muqata on Twitter.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Hidden Undertones in the new "Arab Democracies"

I heard this on the radio, this past Sunday:

"Former chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat told Army Radio on Sunday that Israelis should not be afraid of democracy in the Arab world. Democracy is the "main support system for peace," he said." (JPost)

Should Israelis really fear Arab Democracy?

Let's examine many of the "democratic" Arab revolutions going these days.

A CBS reporter was brutally attacked while covering the Democracy Riots in Egypt (source) As she was assaulted by the peaceful mob, they kept screaming, "Jew, Jew". (source) The reporter in question isn't Jewish, but the mob thought she might be. Noted Israeli-American left wing reporter says she deserved it because she's a "[right wing] warmonger" (source)

Of course, this attack and others on media correspondents, an the rampant violence is completely ignored by Thomas Friedman, as he wrote in the NY Times that "It [the riot] was completely non-violent and only resorted to stone-throwing when faced with attacks by regime thugs." He also wrote, "This was about Egypt and about the longing of Egyptians for the most basic human rights, which were described to me by opposition Egyptian newspaper editor Ibrahim Essa as “freedom, dignity and justice.’" Friedman means freedom and dignity for Arab men, not for Western female reporters.

Digressing from Egypt, let's focus on Jordan. As a result of Democracy demonstrations in Jordan, King Hussein fired and replaced the entire government cabinet. The new and improved Justice Minister has Israel rather miffed.

Minister Hussein Mjali was appointed last week in a government shakeup following protests inspired by the Egyptian uprising. He drew condemnation in Israel after he joined protester calling for the release of Ahmed Deqamseh, a terrorist serving time in Jordan for killing seven Israeli school children in 1997.

Mjali, who is seen as close to the Muslim opposition, served as the defense lawyer for Deqamseh, who was a soldier when he killed the children who were on an outing in Naharayim, on the border between Israel and Jordan.

"Israel is a terrorist state," Mjali said in the interview, adding that that explained Israel's position over freeing Daqamseh. (Haaretz)

While the previous Jordanian monarch visited the 7 families of the murdered girls, and at their homes in Beit Shemesh he expressed his grief and apologies, the current "new and improved democracy cabinet Justice Minister" is lobbying for the terrorist's release.

So much for Jordan. Democracy is also sweeping Tunisia.

In a shocking, horrible video (here) posted to facebook, hordes of Western, modern-looking, "democratic" Muslims attack the Great Synagogue of Tunis to the chants of "Allahua Akbar!" and the genocial Islamic death chant:

"Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya'ud," which means "Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Mohammed is returning." This cry relates to an event in the seventh century when Muslims massacred and expelled Jews from the town of Khaybar, in modern-day Arabia. (Atlas Shrugs)

Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, don't forget the Bialin weekly security fence riots, where naive Western female "activists" can expect to be assaulted by their male Palestinian co-demonstrators. (source)

When Saeb Erekat says that Israel shouldn't be afraid of democracy in the Arab world, he's basically trying to convince Israel to embrace suicide.

Till we see responsible, moral, ethical and non-antisemitic Arab democracies in the Middle East, Israel needs to be extremely careful and vigilant. To date, none of the "Middle East Democratic Arab Revolutions" fit that bill.


Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Egypt's New "Democracy" Wants to Destroy Israel

Stop fooling yourselves about the wonderful "democracy" evolving in Egypt.

CNN's Nick Robertson speaks with some of the "Democracy seeking" Muslim protesters who have nothing but genocidal remarks to offer him. This wasn't shown on CNN in the USA (to the best of my knowledge)





Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

The Democracy Poll

Our leftist guests have made the assertion that Israel is not a democracy.

As I understand their arguments, as a result they believe Israel does not morally deserve the automatic support of fellow democracies when Israel's right to exist is questioned or Israel's right to self-defense is attacked in the UN and other venues.

So here is your chance to vote and let us know what you think.

Is Israel a democracy?


SORRY. The poll didn't work. Please enter your vote in the comments section.


Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

The spirit of the Declaration of Independence

by Lurker

Barak: Willing to vote for loyalty oath only if changes accepted

Defense Minister Barak has announced that if the cabinet does not adopt his proposed changes to the amended Citizenship Law on Sunday, he will vote against the new loyalty oath.
...
Barak, unlike most of the other Labor MKs, has expressed support for the proposed oath of loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state but has asked that the language of the oath be altered to include the phrase "in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."

I have absolutely no problem with the additional phrase that Barak wants; to the contrary, I enthusiastically support it. Lieberman and the other supporters of the bill should put it in exactly as Barak demands. For one thing, I think they'd be foolish not to do so: If Barak is bluffing, then this is the perfect way to call him on it; and if he isn't bluffing, then Barak's support will provide a refutation of the claim that this is a "right-wing" law. But there is a more fundamental reason for supporting Barak's demand.

Regarding the "spirit of the Declaration of Independence", it is worth noting the following interesting points:

• The Israeli Declaration of Independence presents the books of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), together with the history of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, as central elements underlying our right to live in the the land and to establish a state in it.
  
• The DoI declares that our establishment of the State of Israel was carried out on the basis of our trust in the "Rock of Israel" [צור ישראל].
  
• Contrary to widespread misperception, the DoI does not characterize Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state", but simply as a "Jewish state". The word "democratic" or "democracy" does not appear even once in the entire document. (Check for yourself if you don't believe me.) I once got into an argument with an opinionated leftist about this: When I asserted that the DoI doesn't even mention democracy, he said that I was being "ridiculous", since "everyone knows" that it does, and that I was spouting "right-wing historical revisionism". I responded by immediately bringing up a copy of the text on the web, and challenging him to show me a single occurrence of the word. After failing to do so, he slunk off muttering sheepishly.

(People whose knowlege of Israeli history extends beyond the blind repetion of currently popular ideas and buzzwords will have no problem understanding why "democracy" is not mentioned in the 1948 document: David Ben-Gurion and his Labor Zionist movement were primarily socialists, not democrats. Their core ideology centered around socialist aims such as redistribution of capital, and empowering the "workers" with control over the means of production. For Ben-Gurion and his cohorts, democracy was a distracting side issue at best, and a pesky impediment to their political aims at worst. Israel's modern love affair with what Israelis euphemistically call "democracy" did not come into existence until decades later, when socialist ideology in Israel was crumbling into oblivion.)

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I (as opposed to Ben-Gurion and his ilk) am most certainly an avid supporter of democracy -- true democracy, not the watered-down version practiced in Israel that is polluted with politically-correct leftist totalitarianism. And precisely because Israeli democracy is so watered-down and polluted, I am very concerned about the insidious efforts by Israel's radical leftist media and Supreme Court to use "democracy" as a purported basis for eliminating the Jewish character of the State of Israel. And this is exactly why I am so pleased by Ehud Barak's proposed amendment: By stipulating that immigrants should swear their loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state" in the "spirit" of a document that describes Israel as a "Jewish state" only, without even mentioning "democracy", Barak's version of the law gives clear precedence to the state's Jewish character over its "democratic" one. (Probably not what Barak intended, but true nonetheless.)

So if Ehud Barak wants to stipulate that the oath of loyalty to the State of Israel should be "in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence", then I am definitely 100% in favor. That is the very spirit that I support and believe in.

---

Get a Free Phone when you visit Israel!
Ask your travel agent for details, or click here to learn more.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Don't ignore the political angle

by Lurker

A number of people have complained about Jameel's recent post on the Anat Kamm spy scandal, objecting to the fact that Jameel addressed the issue of Kamm's political motivations for her crime. In a comment on the post, for example, tafka pp suggests that Kamm's politics are irrelevant to the issue:

There is a lot to discuss here and a lot to get shocked and angry over.
Yet The Muqata, for a reason unfathomable to me, chooses to present an entirely political angle...

I'm sorry, but there most definitely is a political angle here. A very, very big one. The media has reported quite unambiguously that Kamm did what she did for "ideological reasons", and even Kamm's attorneys do not deny that.

Well, if she did it for "ideological reasons", then what ideology is that, exactly? I think we all know the answer to that. And why should the issue of that ideology, and its relationship to the criminal acts that the ideology spurred, be a forbidden topic of discussion?

Why should we tiptoe around the 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the room?

The Israeli media and leftist political leaders have been quite vocal of late in voicing their objections to the service of right wing religious people in the army, charging that their allegiance to their own ideological values trumps their loyalty to the State and the army, and thus poses a "threat to Democracy". The rightists' ideological beliefs, it is argued, makes them inherently disloyal.

So why, exactly, is it legitimate to raise these concerns about ideological rightists in the army, but illegitimate to raise analogous concerns about ideological leftists? This is a glaringly obvious political double standard, one that we would be remiss in ignoring.

It should be noted, too, that the supposed "threat" posed by ideological rightists in the army is their potential refusal of orders to forcibly expel Jewish families from their homes and destroy their communities. Such a refusal poses no immediate, tangible military threat to Israeli security. The threat posed by ideological leftists like Kamm, on the other hand, poses "a direct and real threat to the lives of IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens", in the words of GSS chief Yuval Diskin.

The left brands the phenomenon of conscientious objection by ideological rightists as a "threat to Democracy". These leftists (in a display of embarrassingly stupendous ignorance) define "Democracy" as the "Rule of Law" -- insisting that Israel be run as a "Medinat Hok" ("State of Law"), and that the law be strictly enforced with an iron fist against any rightist who dares to disobey a military order that conflicts with his or her conscience. But when it comes to a brazen leftist criminal like Anat Kamm, there is no such "threat to Democracy" perceived in her actions. On the contrary, in this case, it is the very suggestion that she should be prosecuted for her crimes at all that is branded a "threat to Democracy" by Kamm, Haaretz and their fellow travellers! Gone and forgotten by these leftists is all their self-righteous pontification about the "Rule of Law" and "Medinat Hok".

That is rank, outrageous, baldfaced hypocrisy.

So please, let's not kid ourselves into pretending that there is no "political angle" here. There most certainly is. The left would very much like us to ignore it, so that there will be nobody to object the next time they stir up a frenzy against a religious solder who dares to refuse orders to throw a woman and her children out of their home in the middle of the night. For right now, while the spotlight is on Anat Kamm, they would like us to forget about the sacred imperative to "obey orders", and how failure to do so "endangers Democracy". They would like to intimidate us into ignoring their hypocrisy.

I, for one, refuse to be intimidated.

---

Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Abandoned principles, and fascism as democracy

by Lurker

Today, Defense Minister Ehud Barak made good on his threat to punish R. Eliezer Melemed, head of the Har Bracha Hesder Yeshiva. R. Melamed had previously expressed support for soldiers who dared to protest against the use of the army to evict Jews and destroy their homes. After Barak threatened to retaliate by revoking the status of R. Melamed's institution as a Hesder Yeshiva, R. Melamed flip-flopped, and signed a statement along with all the other heads of Hesder yeshivot, condemning such protests by soldiers.

Apparently, however, that statement didn't make much of an impression on Barak. In a speech today in Petah Tikva, Barak ignored the statement, and announced that he was ending the Hesder status of Yeshivat Har Bracha.

A few reflections:

• Barak's actions here should not come as a surprise to anyone.
  
  
• R. Melamed deserves this. He abandoned his principles by signing a statement in which he obviously doesn't believe -- something that is almost always a misguided course of action, ethically -- and often practically, as well.
  
  R. Melamed tried to save the status of his yeshiva by sacrificing his integrity. As a result, he now has neither.
  
  He still has a small chance to salvage the former, and a few shreds of the latter, if he resigns.
  
  
• It is simply incredible to read Barak's description of what he calls "the foundations of a democratic state":
  
  
  • "a monopoly on the use of force"
    
  • "the state's authority over the citizens" [yes, really]
  
  It can hardly be gainsaid that these two points are actually the foundations of a fascist state. In fact, the second point -- the state's authority over the citizens -- is the very core essence of fascism.
  
  Old-fashioned, naive people such as myself once believed that democracy was the citizens' authority over the state. But apparently, we had it all backwards.
  
  
• Best of all is Barak's amazing description of what he calls "the true basis of democracy":
  
  "When a state reaches the place in which it needs to enforce the law on citizens, it has no choice but to use its army. This instruction must also be carried out and obeyed, this is the true basis of democracy."
  
  There you have it: The use of the army against a state's own citizens, and the resulting imperative to obey orders, constitute -- according to Ehud Barak -- "the true basis of democracy".
  
  Taken as a whole, Barak's points describe fascism to a tee:
  
  
  1. The supremacy of the state over the individual
     
  2. The usage of the military against the state's own citizens
     
  3. The absolute imperative to obey the state's orders, even at the expense of obeying one's conscience
  
  Barak has not only outlined the core principles of fascism as his model for how our state should be run -- he also has the shameless, unmitigated gall to label it "democracy".

Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Decoupling Iran and the Palestinians

In a fascinating article in the WSJ, entitled "Iran's Democratic Moment", we see a clear trend of protesters starting to demand an "Iranian Republic" not an "Islamic Republic."

The most interesting part of the article wasn't so much that the movement wants an Iranian Republic, but that they are clearly decoupling anti-Israel rhetoric and support for Palestinians from Iranian independence.

On Jerusalem Day, Sept. 18, officially intended to express anti-Semitism, the opposition showed that Iranians have no hostility toward Jews or Israel. One popular slogan was "Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah! I give my life for Iran!" Another was "Forget about Palestine! Think about our Iran!"

Most significantly, the movement that started as a protest against the alleged rigging of the election that gave a second term to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been evolving. The crowds' initial slogan was "Where Is My Vote?" and the movement's accidental leaders, including former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, tried hard to keep the protest confined to demands such as a recount of the votes and, ultimately, a runoff in accordance with the law.

The slogans of the protestors are no longer about election fraud. Today they include "Death to the Dictator," "Freedom Now," and "Iranian Republic, Not Islamic Republic!" One slogan is a direct message to President Barack Obama: "Obama, Are You With Us or With Them?"

It is crucial for the USA to reject Iranian opposition leaders to the current regimes as possible options. The Iranian protesters for democracy do not view them as viable alternatives.

In short, the protestors no longer regard the present regime as the legitimate government of the country.

Both Mr. Mousavi and Ayatollah Mahdi Karroubi, another defeated presidential candidate, tried to prevent attacks on the "Supreme Guide" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the hope of eventually making a deal with him. As part of such a deal, they promised to defend the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, according to sources close to the opposition. The crowds have rejected that by shouting: "Abandon uranium enrichment! Do something about the poor!"

They clearly reject Iran's nuclear program, which is good for Israel.

President Obama should be supporting the protest movement, though the US has a poor record on such support, if one uses Tiananmen Square protests as a litmus test of what to expect.

Even more important -- President Obama should realize that linkage of the Palestinian issue with Iran's nuclear program doesn't serve anyone's interest, except that of Ahmadinejad.

Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

The Audacity of Aliyah

A guest post by Lurker:

The other day, JoeSettler posted an ad for Nefesh B'Nefesh, noting (with his tongue planted in his cheek, by my reading) that there are some American Jews who will be looking to make aliyah now that Barack Obama has been elected President.

This prompted a spate of indignant comments. One commenter declared that any American Jew who wishes to make aliyah for such a reason (or perhaps any Jew who disagrees with Obama at all) is simply a racist. Another one acknowledged that there are some opponents of Obama who are not motivated by racism, but insisted that because some Orthodox Jews are racist, the entire Orthodox community has "no credibility" regarding an election where one of the candidates happens to be black. Here are some excerpts:

• "Sorry, but racist right-wing was the first explanation that came to mind after the opening line - that Obama winning would be a big push for aliyah.
  Why otherwise would anyone flee America just as we're finally starting to get hope again?"

Note that this commenter states flat out that she didn't imagine any possible reason why anybody might want to get away from Obama, other than racism. Even more frightening than this knee-jerk reaction is the reasoning she gives for it: Now that Barack Obama has been elected, it is unimaginable that anybody would not want to stay, since, as we've all been told, "we're finally starting to get hope again". (One is reminded of the famous Soviet question to refuseniks: "Why would you possibly want to leave this worker's paradise?") Clearly, it has not occurred to this commenter that there might be some people who don't feel this "hope". Or, if such people do exist, then the only possible excuse for their lack of "hope" is that they are "racist".

From another comment:

• "The point is, a substantial number of Orthodox Jews are racists. That is undeniable. Therefore, the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole has no credibility on the question of an election between a white man and a black man."

Now, it is true that there are many Orthodox Jews who are racists (more on this below) -- just as every ethnic group in America has its racists. But does this justify the blanket delegitimization of the entire OJ community, as this commenter declares? What would he say to the following copy-and-replace job:

"The point is, a substantial number of blacks are racists. That is undeniable. Therefore, the black community as a whole has no credibility on the question of an election between a white man and a black man."

Or perhaps even this:

"The point is, a substantial number of Americans are racists. That is undeniable. Therefore, the American people as a whole has no credibility on the question of an election between a white man and a black man."

Would our commenter agree with this statement as well? And if so, then what does this say about the election of Barack Obama?

This same commenter goes on to tell us that even though not every Obama supporter is necessarily a racist, anybody who criticizes Obama in a manner that he regards as "inaccurate" probably is a racist:

Simply claiming not to be a racist does little to reassure skeptics, especially if you follow your reassurance with some inflammatory and inaccurate statement like that Obama is a "socialist."

Now, I'm not going to address the question here of whether Obama's policies can be regarded as "socialist" in nature. (See the comments if you're interested in that.) What's really incredible is how, according to this commenter, "socialist" has now become an ethnic slur! Someone should tell that to the government of Sweden. (One can't help but wonder -- if someone refers to a white person as a "socialist", does that mean the speaker is racist against whites? Or does it mean that the speaker thinks the person in question is black?)

Finally, this commenter provides a long quote from conservative columnist and Orthodox Jew David Klinghoffer, in which Klinghoffer descibes his disturbing encounters with racism in the OJ community. In fact, I agree with, and strongly identify with, every word that Klinghoffer says on this subject. Yes, there is a lot of ugly racism in certain streams of American Orthodoxy. I have run up against quite a bit of it myself, and I am saddened and offended by it.

However: There are plenty of OJ Jews who are not racist at all. (I daresay most, but I don't have figures to prove it.) And knowing both Joe and Jameel personally, I am absolutely confident that their critical opinions of President Elect Obama are based upon their own (entirely legitimate) political views, and have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of racist bias.

To suggest or imply that their criticisms of Obama are are based upon racism is completely unfounded, and nothing short of slanderous. It is also presumptuous in the extreme. And it is no less presumptuous to assume that a Jew who chooses to make aliyah because of Obama (as misguided as that may be; see afterthought below) is doing it because of "racism".

Furthermore, and most importantly: The attitude expressed by these commenters, and many others like them, represents nothing less than a frightening, illegitimate attempt to stifle political debate that is critical to our future as a free society. For many years, there have been those who attempted to paint any and all criticism of people who happened to be from racial minorities as "racism". This notion has become a powerful weapon in the hands of those who would curtail the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, particularly on university campuses. But today, as never before, we cannot possibly afford to allow such an attitude to hold sway in America -- for one simple reason: The man who will be President of the United States for the next four years (at least) happens to be black. Now, regardless of one's political views, this is a historic first for a nation with a history of racism, and an achievement for which all Americans can rightfully be proud.

But along with that achievement, and because of it, comes new responsibility: It demands of us a new level of maturity and fair play in our public discourse: It is now completely unacceptable to play the race card on the American political field. People must be completely and unreservedly free to criticize President Obama and his Administration, just as they have been free to criticize President Bush and his. True democracy -- which America strives to exemplify -- thrives on free and unfettered debate, and open criticism -- sometimes harsh -- of our leaders. If people become intimidated against doing so for fear of being called "racists", then the fundamental underpinning of our free society will be gone. And that would be a tragedy for all of us who cherish liberty.

Afterthought:

Having said everything I said above, I feel it necessary to point out the following reservations regarding the idea of making aliyah to "run away" from Obama: I believe strongly that Jews should make aliyah -- but they ought to do it for the right reasons: They should come because Israel is our homeland, and it is where a Jew belongs. But if an American Jew makes aliyah on account of Obama's election as President, then he is a fool:

• If the issue of concern is the expectation that Obama will be pressuring Israel into making dangerous concessions to her enemies, then I would point out that those policies -- even in the worst-case-scenarios predicted by some -- are more likely to endanger the lives and security of Jews in Israel, than those in the U.S. So that would be a reason for Israelis to make yerida, not for Americans to make aliyah. Of course, I would also point out (as I have in the past) that in the end, Obama's policies are unlikely to be a major factor in this arena: The self-destructive policies of Israeli governments since the onset of Oslo in 1993 have been primarily due to the irresponsiblity and foolishness of our own Israeli leaders right here, and not because of American pressure. And there's no reason to expect this to change significantly in the near future.



• And if the issue of concern is fear of Obama's expected fiscal policies, then making aliyah on this account is even more foolish. During the election campaign, there was much heated debate over whether Obama's plan for the American economy -- which he said would be characterized by a program that would "spread the wealth" -- should be properly labelled as "socialism". Well, I don't know whether Obama's plans are radical enough to qualify as "socialism", but I can definitely tell you this: Israel's economy already is socialist! After all, the country was founded by a group of true-blue, ideologically orthodox, diehard European socialists and communists. And the economy remained solidly socialist for decades after its founding. Now, it is true that Israel has come a long way in the direction of privatization and capitalist reform (particular during Netanyahu's terms as Prime Minister and Finance Minister), but Israel is still worlds away from having a true free-market economy. The point is simply this: Israel is far more socialist right now that America can possibly become, even under eight years of an Obama Administration. So anyone making aliyah from America because they think they're running away from "socialism" is in for one heck of a shock when he gets here...
  

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Election Day kiddush

Jameel has expressed reservations about Gidon Sa'ar's new bill that would dock a day's pay from anybody who doesn't vote on election day. Jameel is not so comfortable with punishing non-voters, and neither am I.

There are other, more creative ways to address the problem of declining voter attendance, however: We can try using a carrot instead of a stick. How about providing free food at the polling stations? Of course, that would require funding for the food, so we've got to find a way to come up with the money. Well, how about we have the political parties provide the free food, out of their campaign budgets? They can each set up refreshment tents near the polling stations. Election day would become just like a big shul kiddush -- everyone will want to come. In fact, each party should recruit a sponsor for their Election Day "kiddush": Morris Talansky can sponsor the "kiddush" for Kadima, Ronald Lauder can sponsor it for the Likud, Octav Botner's estate for Labor...


Imagine: You could get hamin at the Shas booth, kugel at the UTJ booth, humus at the Arab parties, borsht by Lieberman, geriatric food at Gil, and sushi at Meretz. (If the Third Way was still around, I'm sure they'd serve bread in a pita, and Shinui would offer a spread of shrimp and lobster.) Kadima can offer free drinks from their mini-bars, and they'll probably promise the most "fun" food to eat (but everyone who does will develop an upset stomach by the time they get home...).

So how about it? It's a sure-fire way to boost election attendance. (Unless, of course, Jameel is serving waffles at the Muqata that day.)


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Democracy in Action: Vote...or else.

Debate underway today in the Knesset...

Current Status: The National Election Day in Israel is already considered a paid vacation day (national holiday) for anyone who works.

Proposed Amendment by MK Gidon Sa'ar: Any employed person who does not vote in the national election day, will be penalized, and have their pay deducted (equivalent to one day's work).

Result: Its the equivalent of a fine if you don't vote.

Over time, the percentage of voters from the eligible voter population has been decreasing from the founding of the State (86.9% voting...and decreasing to the last election in 2006 with only 63.5%).

So, should one be "forced" to vote? While I'm in favor of voting, I'm not sure this is the best way to education people about democracy.

% Voting; Voter Pop ; Year ; Israeli Election

86.9% 506,567 1949 1
75.1% 924,885 1951 2
82.8% 1,057,795 1955 3
81.6% 1,218,483 1959 4
83.0% 1,271,285 1961 5
83.0% 1,499,709 1965 6
81.7% 1,748,710 1969 7
78.6% 2,037,478 1973 8
79.2% 2,236,293 1977 9
78.5% 2,490,014 1981 10
78.8% 2,654,613 1984 11
79.7% 2,894,267 1988 12
77.4% 3,409,015 1992 13
79.3% 3,933,250 1996 14
78.7% 4,285,428 1999 15
62.3% 4,504,769 2001 (Prime Minister elections)
68.9% 4,720,074 2003 16
63.5% 5,014,622 2006 17



Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד