PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: Is Democracy Good for the Jews?


Fade the Butcher
01-29-2006, 02:22 AM
Guess not.

Haaretz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/675990.html)

The Palestinian Authority election marks the beginning of a new period in the region that could be termed "the era of the masses." Henceforth Israel will have to factor into its foreign policy something it has always ignored - Arab public opinion.

Israel has always based its regional policy on arrangements and terror-balances with the Arab dictators. They understood force and Israel could do business with them. Their authority was seen as a barrier protecting Israel from the rage of the hostile rabble in the "Arab street." That was the basis of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, Yasser Arafat and his heirs and the game rules vis-a-vis Syria and Lebanon.

But those days are over. The democratization process that U.S. President George Bush has triggered and the open debate promoted by Arab satellite networks are causing the old frameworks to crumble. The mass demonstrations that led to the Syrians being driven from Lebanon, the elections in Iraq and those in the territories are merely the beginning. As far as Israel is concerned, the worst stage will come when the democratic wave washes over Jordan, its strategic ally; Egypt with its modern army and F-16 squadrons, and Syria and its Scud and chemical warhead stores.

In the past year millions of Arab citizens have had their say. So did hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the center of Beirut last March and the voters in the Palestinian Authority, who changed their regime democratically.

Granted, Hamas is an armed terror organization. But the international community agreed to its participation in the elections and respects its results.

Israel saw in Bush's democratization initiative a pretension of naive Americans who had no idea of the reality in the region. Israel still remembers the Shah of Iran, who fell from power after America reprimanded him for the infringement of human rights, and was replaced by a hostile regime seeking to annihilate Zionism and make atom bombs.

The Israelis warned the Americans that that unsupervised Arab democracy will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, not pro-Western liberals. But Washington refused to listen and insisted on holding the elections on schedule. The new reality requires both Washington and Jerusalem to reevaluate the situation, before the Hamas effect hits Amman and Cairo. In any case, it will be hard to turn back democratic change and resume the comfortable relations with the old dictatorships.

Israel will have to formulate a new foreign policy and strive for peace between nations, not merely with their rulers. And that will be much more complicated.

il ragno
01-29-2006, 03:09 AM
We all know that Israel aims part of her immense nuclear arsenal at specific American and European targets. At all times. Purportedly in the event Israel's allies turn against her - such unprincipled guilt-based paranoia being a built-in part of Jewish identity by now.

But with democracy now blooming in the desert, an interesting sidebar question emerges re: what would constitute 'turning against them': do Paris, Moscow and Washington now burn if the Arabs march against Israel, and the world decides to sit this one out entirely? Suppose we were to cut off all aid to Izzy - every penny - right now, as Hamas is on the come and energizing an already-unstable 'Arab street' with the Jews already reeling from a thousand cuts, Ariel Sharon brain dead with tubes up his nose, and a serial killer like Bibi smelling blood in the water.....would even withholding our own money from the Parasite State provoke a nuclear reprisal?

In other words, if Israel faced annihilation at Arab hands in a war the West stayed out of completely, would they view Western neutrality as a crime punishable by nuke - and blow out the white man's pilot light on their way off the map?

Just kidding, of course. So long as it takes $50 million, minimum, to get elected to Congress, Israel will always have close friends in high places here who can guarantee them all the money, materiel and cannon-fodder they require.

Ahknaton
01-29-2006, 03:13 AM
Look for neocon commentators to start bringing up the "democracy isn't always a good thing - look at how many people voted for Hitler" and "democracy is more than just majority rules" arguments in the wake of this result.

Niko Bellic
01-29-2006, 07:03 PM
Democracy is wonderful. Now there can be no further discussion of how the Palestinian people are "just like us, peace loving" and "at the mercy of a tiny group of extremists". They can now be treated as the bus bombing scum that they ALL are. Democracy is the rope that they hung themselves with.

Petr
01-29-2006, 07:06 PM
We all know that Israel aims part of her immense nuclear arsenal at specific American and European targets. At all times.
Do you have firm proof of this? I don't know whether Israeli missiles can even reach America.


Petr

Jimbo Gomez
01-29-2006, 07:21 PM
Do you have firm proof of this? I don't know whether Israeli missiles can even reach America.


Petr


They can reach the only continent I care about, which is enough for me to want to see them completely disarmed.

Hakluyt
01-29-2006, 07:30 PM
Do you have firm proof of this? I don't know whether Israeli missiles can even reach America.


Petr
He probably has in mind comments made by Martin van Creveld (who has been writing a lot recently about the Iranian nuclear issue) in this Guardian interview:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1046589,00.html
Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 'If it went on much longer,' he said, 'the Israeli government [would] lose control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.'

In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon 'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'.

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

As far as America that's doubtful, and there's nothing I know of to suggest van Creveld's comments reflect any kind of actual policy, but even from a nominally pro-israel perspective myself I very much agree they need to be disarmed completely

Petr
01-29-2006, 07:36 PM
"Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third."

I consider this to be more or less just bluffing braggadocio. Creveld must know that not only would nuclear attack on Europe turn Israel into a crater, but it would also mean the destruction or at the very least a disastrous loss of prestige for the entire Jewish diaspora. Even in America, philo-Semites wouldn't be able to protect Jews from popular anger.


Petr

infoterror
01-29-2006, 08:07 PM
Look for neocon commentators to start bringing up the "democracy isn't always a good thing - look at how many people voted for Hitler" and "democracy is more than just majority rules" arguments in the wake of this result.

I'm no neocon and I detest democracy. The Greeks learned first, and it's our fault as a modern time we didn't learn history's lessons in turn.

Democracy is like anal sex with a pencil sharpener.

Slavic Enforcer
01-29-2006, 10:05 PM
'Globalism' and 'Neo-Liberalism' are good for the most rich, influential Jews and Gentiles.

'Democracy' is still a lesser evil compared to the other social systems.
Not just for the most "normal" Jews, but also for the most other people.

Starr
01-29-2006, 10:20 PM
Democracy is wonderful. Now there can be no further discussion of how the Palestinian people are "just like us, peace loving" and "at the mercy of a tiny group of extremists". They can now be treated as the bus bombing scum that they ALL are. Democracy is the rope that they hung themselves with.


This is exactly why the Hamas victory was such a good thing for Israel.

So a majority of Palestinians hate the Jews. For the life of me I can't figure out why.

infoterror
01-29-2006, 10:51 PM
'Democracy' is still a lesser evil compared to the other social systems.

Agreed in that most of the problem is the underlying values.

Disagreed in that democracy contributes its own value - individualism (ick).