Consider the context of this decision: during a war, members of Israeli Arab political parties have talked with enemies of the Israeli state (Iran, etc...). Can you imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a senator met with a Osama bin Laden without permission from the oval office? Same situation here.

Also of note: Israel has previously banned a right wing Jewish political party (called Kach) in the 1980s because it advocated expelling all Arabs from Israel. In Germany, neo-Nazi parties are illegal. etc...

I'm not justifying Israel's decision, only providing context.

A religious/racial state identity is incompatible with liberal democracy.

Can you imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a senator met with a Osama bin Laden without permission from the oval office? Same situation here.

Or what if a Democratic Representative met with Saddam on the eve of our (illegal) invasion. Oh - wait, that did happen, and while Congressman McDermott (D-WA) was criticized, the Democratic party wasn't banned.

This decision is inexplicable. In response to David, I'll just say that Israel has been at war many times (continuously - if you count both hot and cold wars) over the past 60 years. I can't recall them ever taking this step before.

Wapiti, the Democratic Party doesn't wish to destroy the United States. The goal of these Arab Israeli parties is the destruction of the State of Israel, and the creation of Palestine in its place.

Again, I'm not excusing Israel's decision. Frankly, I'm not too happy with it either. I'm just providing some context so that the decision becomes a bit more understandable.

This could be -- excuse the hyperbole -- the beginning of the end for Israel, if it's allowed to stand. All of the sturm and drang of the Middle East "peace" process has ignored the ticking demographic time bomb: A larger and larger proportion of the Israeli populace is Arab. There is no reason to believe this trend will reverse. Israel faces a choice:

1. Allow a majority-Arab state (implicitly giving up claims to be a "Jewish state")


2. Reduce Arabs in Israel to second-class, disenfranchised status.

It's a conundrum, and for the life of me, I don't know what Israel's going to do. But the only conceivable way out -- addressing concerns of the Arab populace effectively enough that they "Israeli-ize" and consider themselves more Israeli than Arab-street -- seems totally impossible and certainly not a priority of Israel's leadership right now.

Can you imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a senator met with a Osama bin Laden without permission from the oval office?

Yes. The Senator himself would almost certainly fail to win reelection, to say nothing of a criminal investigation. However, I can say with near-certainty that the Federal government would not ban the Senator's political party.

Israel's situation is singular and I do have more than a bit of sympathy for the predicament they find themselves in (even though I think they've also exacerbated their own problems in various ways). Still, a lot of that sympathy is predicated on a connection with Israel as a fellow liberal democracy that strives for many of the same ideals America does. In a year when Israel is badly losing a PR war against the Palestinians (and a minority is assuming the most powerful political post in the world), this sort of heavy-handed crackdown is exactly what they don't need to do right now.

Also this article is a bit misleading. Not all Arab parties in Israel have been banned, only two:

1. Balad
2. United Arab List

They were banned on the grounds that they incite and support terrorist groups and that they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

To make an analogy, do you think the U.S. would let a political party have a seat in the senate if it supported Osama bin Laden?

If upheld, in the short term I assume this might help Kadima -- no way Israeli Arabs are going to vote for Netanyahu's, er, "racial separatist" views?

In the long term, it's another step into the cesspool of industrial hog waste.

I'll just point out that the Israeli Supreme court overturned a ban on Journalists being able to report in Gaza. So far, the Israeli gov't has ignored the ruling. So, if the Israeli SC overturns this ban, what's to stop the gov't from ignoring that?

This is a *miserable* move for Israel. And I say this as a lifelong Zionist. I sincerely hope that the Israeli Supreme Court does, indeed, reverse this ban. Otherwise, the previously-false claims of Israel being an 'apartheid state' will become far more true.

-Z

You forgot to mention that according to the cited AP article, "the last party to be banned was the late Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach Party, a list from the 1980s that advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israel." I would think that banning parties that call for the destruction of the Israeli state is consistent with banning parties that call for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel.

DBL, exactly my point. There is precedent in Israel for banning political parties, and the last time this happened not for Arab extremism, it was for Jewish extremism. The two situations are largely equivalent. In one case, a right-wing Jewish party supported terrorism and wanted to ban all Arabs from Israel, in another two right-wing Arab parties supported terrorism and wanted to destroy Israel (they were banned).

It's sad that it has come to this in Israel, but given the reality of the Middle East situation, it is somewhat understandable.

If this decision stands, Israel will cease to be a democracy. Its supporters in the United States will no longer be able to cite it as such. Israeli political leadership across-the-board would be well advised to ponder that profound fact.

To make an analogy, do you think the U.S. would let a political party have a seat in the senate if it supported Osama bin Laden?

I think it's inconceivable that a candidate would be elected to the Senate on that platform. But preventing that candidate from appearing on the ballot or banning that candidate's party? That would be unconstitutional and would be struck down by the courts -- even on 9/12/01.

The key phrase is,

"incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist."

Sedition is illegal in the US, too.

This is the problem with not holding the Bush/Cheney administration morally and legally accountable for it's misdeeds.

It's the Bushification of the global body politic. The group in temporary nominal power ignores decades of tradition and precedent and engages in nationalist, jingoist, racist, unilateral, anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-liberal democratic policies in the name of saving said liberal democracy.

I expect to see more and more of this kind of behaviour. Just as Bush ignored U.S. law by signing statement, more "leaders" will decide to just ignore the results of elections (Norm Coleman), jury verdicts (Ted Stevens), subpoenas (Bush/Cheney and anyone who worked for them).

"To make an analogy, do you think the U.S. would let a political party have a seat in the senate if it supported Osama bin Laden?"

Well, we wouldn't let them in, but we should. That's what democracy is about. One seat in the Senate isn't going to make much of a difference, but denying their voice would undermine the very meaning of democracy. Which is more important? We have banned parties in the past, and it was wrong. What's sad about this is that we always say that there is only one democracy in the Middle East. And that is correct. That democracy is Turkey (except for the coups, of course). Someday, Israel will become one too. Either let the West Bank free, or give them representation in the Knesset.

"addressing concerns of the Arab populace effectively enough that they "Israeli-ize" and consider themselves more Israeli than Arab-street -- seems totally impossible and certainly not a priority of Israel's leadership right now"

Bernard HP Gilroy raises a very real point here. The problem is that Israel's actions have radicalized the Palestinians to the point that they can no longer become Israeli Arabs without causing huge problems. The only choice is to give the Arabs the West Bank. But there's just too much water there for the Israelis to give it up. So, they'll just fight over it until everyone dies of thirst.

It strikes me as extraordinary that there are any voices supporting such a demarche. Banning all (not a specific extremist part, a la the Kahane party) political parties based on ethno-social affiliation is genuine racism. It is an actual effort meriting comparison with the inital steps, for example to Apartheid in the late British period.

The Israeli state, under cover of the current outgoing American administration has begun to walk down a road that it has already gone rather too far down, towards becoming the thing it was ostensibly set up in reaction to. Such a step - indeed actually pursing such a step - really takes the Israeli state down the last steps to a kind of ethno-Fascism or sad replay of late 19th c. European Ethno-Statism that never played out positively.

While the constant bleating of the left in things Middle East is to be expected, it is a real effect that the corrupt influences of the last American Administration have enable bad things in Israel.

To make an analogy, do you think the U.S. would let a political party have a seat in the senate if it supported Osama bin Laden?

Bernard HP: '... and right now Arabs don't like Jews....'

It sounds more like Jews not liking Arabs...
What came first the chicken or the egg??

'...It's unthinkable that Israeli Jews allow themselves to become subordinate to a non-Jewish authority in Israel. Yet the second option is also a step toward doom -- because (I feel sure) the American polity will not long support an Israel that has blocked the Arab right to vote...'

Another reason to give back the West Bank, Gaza and Arab Jerusalem

That would leave Israel with 80% of the Palestinian mandate lands
and the Palestinians with 20% of those lands

Why not allow the Palestinians a viable state?
If Israeli Arabs didn't like Israelis, they could move to Palestine

"It strikes me as extraordinary that there are any voices supporting such a demarche. Banning all (not a specific extremist part, a la the Kahane party) political parties based on ethno-social affiliation is genuine racism."

Of course it is. But this is not what Israel did. Israel did NOT ban all Arab parties. It specifically banned two Arab parties that support terrorism and the destruction of the State of Israel.

"Why not allow the Palestinians a viable state?"

Because that state would control water rights that Israelis want. And when Israelis want something, they take it. That's why they are taking the West Bank.

"If Israeli Arabs didn't like Israelis, they could move to Palestine"

The Israeli Arabs have a special right that no other Palestinians enjoy: the right to not be bombed. Yeah, they get random rockets fired at them just like the Israelis, but that's a far cry from the weapons the Israelis would employ against them if they lived in Palestinian lands. If I had a choice between being attacked by Hamas or Israel, I'd choose Hamas for sure. Hamas will hit within ten miles. Israel will kill me for sure.

"...we always say that there is only one democracy in the Middle East...that democracy is Turkey...someday, Israel will become one too. Either let the West Bank free, or give them representation in the Knesset.

Remember -- Israel offered 98% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians at Camp David, and Arafat refused. The majority of Israelis want out of the West Bank, minus a small slice (2%) of the West Bank closest to Israel proper, to act as a security buffer from terrorism.

If the Palestinians put all their energy into building up their society, rather than trying to take down the Israel's, there would be peace. Put another way, there will be peace in the Middle East the moment Palestinians start to value their own children's lives more than they hate the Israelis.

and would you like to comment on the other story today?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/pl_afp/mideastconflictgazaolmertusrice_newsmlmmd

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.

"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

david wrote: Israel did NOT ban all Arab parties. It specifically banned two Arab parties that support terrorism and the destruction of the State of Israel.

Would david mind naming the Arab parties that were not banned? At least as given here, the only parties that identify as "Arab" and have members of the Knesset, are... Balad and United Arab List. If this is correct, while it may be technically true that Israel has not banned "all" Arab parties, it has banned all the Arab parties sufficiently strong to have elected members to the Knesset.

Pending further information, let me highlight this: Of course it is. But this is not what Israel did. Israel did NOT ban all Arab parties. It specifically banned two Arab parties that support terrorism and the destruction of the State of Israel.
Posted by: david on January 12, 2009

As far as I can read from the international press, the Governmental proposition is to ban Arab majority parties (or rather conveniently certain currently legal parties essentially of Arab ethnic membership).

David's characterisation strikes me as something effectively similar to events in the 1930s where political parties were banned for being vaguely unreichlich, but "Jewish" or "non fascist Italian" etc, one need not Godwinise to see the grotesque Orwellian usage here. Of course not all Arabs were as such banned from standing for election, but step by step, that was how things happened in the depths of the early 20c expression of vulgar ethnic nationalism.

"Would david mind naming the Arab parties that were not banned?"

Sure. There is one additional Arab party, Maki (originally called Rakah, amongst other names). This is an Arab-communist party, run by Mohammed Barakeh. It has not been banned.

Also, the reason for banning these political parties is not because they are Arab. It is because their platforms are in favor of terrorism and the destruction of the State of Israel.

As previously mentioned, in the 1980s Israel banned a Jewish party which supported terrorism. The action taken is not anti-Arab, it is anti-terrorism.

There's also something called the Arab National Party and Hadash, a predominantly Arab party.

So, these parties, after years of existence, in a particular crisis became unreichlich? What specific "terror" supporting actions did these parties suddenly take?

david,

"Put another way, there will be peace in the Middle East the moment Palestinians start to value their own children's lives more than they hate the Israelis."

This is a recycling of an old Golda Meir quote, and it nauseates me each time I hear it. Get off the santimonious BS. The Palestinians are not solely at fault for the continuation of this conflict. Israel constantly whines that the Palestinians don't "accept" it. Well, someone who really wants acceptance and peace doesn't behave the way Israel has for the last 40 years--building settlements, making it impossible for the Palestinians to ever have a contiguous state, etc. When you want peace with someone, you don't do unnecessary things to further inflame them and pour salt in the wound. Isn't everyone supposed to know that from kindergarted onward?

Let me be clear. If Israel banned Arab parties simply because they were Arab, that would be both racist and unacceptable. I would never support such an action, nor would any reasonable person.

But I do not believe that is what has happened. Israel has a history of banning parties that support terrorism (both Jewish and Arab). In this case, the two banned parties support terrorism, and THAT is the problem, NOT that they are Arab.

"Remember -- Israel offered 98% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians at Camp David, and Arafat refused."

Yeah, but East Jerusalem was totally off the table. Yeah, it's only where 300,000 Arabs lived before 1948. But, hey, if we just exterminated the West Bank settlements, it wouldn't be much more different would it? Nobody of consequence for sure, right? And the Israelis wouldn't even acknowledge that they committed massive ethic cleansing in the 1947-49 years, would they? We're not talking about the right of return, we're just talking about admitting history. I would say that it would be wise for the Palestinians to allow Israel to whitewash history and forget the past, but that's not easy to do, is it? The Jews still can't get over their Holocaust, why should the Palestinians give theirs up so easily? And why should they give up their holy places when the Israelis get to keep all of theirs? That plan was designed to either keep the Arabs in submission or give Israel an excuse to keep taking over Arab lands. The Arabs chose the latter, and poorly in my opinion. But can you blame them. Israel would never give up their own land for their existence, they'll only give up other people's land for it (and take a cut). The Palestinians are willing to give up some of their land just to exist.

To put it into perspective, how about a British Parliament allowing an IRA (political wing) Member of Parliament. Oh wait, they did (See Gerry Adams et al). None of the Sinn Fein MPs actually took up their seat in Parliament, as they would have had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

If Israel is so concerned about terrorism, maybe they should stop killing and terrorizing innocents in an effort to defeat Hamas.

The petition to ban Balad claimed its party platform was a denial of Israel as a state, which is not true, unless advocating equality of all Israeli citizens is considering the denial of a Jewish-only Israel.

As in 2003, there's no evidence of any such claim against Balad. Repeating a claim is not proof.

So...

Fighting for freedom with weapons is unacceptable.

Fighting for freedom with politics is unacceptable.

So basically, Israeli Jews just wanht Arabs for cheap labor and to piss on every once in a while when they feel blue. And they expect that to end well?

Again David, please state specifically what actions the parties just took that were (a) Terror supporting actions and (b) actions denying the Israeli state's right to existence. Suffering from fatique in this area, I readily confess that I might have missed such, and that the initial reporting may have glossed over some legitimate reason to take a conclusion in either areas (a) or (b), but at present from what I find in the reasonable press online, I find nothing.

Oh and you can stop being so bloody precious about Israel talking to hated enemies. I assure you that countries such as the UK, France, etc. have long histories of talking to parties denying fundamental parties (or even the Governments themselves, that would, historically be called 'diplomacy' queerly enough, oddly quaint that concept, talking to your enemy, bloody novel eh? I'd wager my cousins felt like you do, back when one had to talk to the Jewish terrorists pre 1948, but they were wrong)

Seems to me that Israel's Central Election Committee members ought to sit down to a tea and sympathy session with the Iranian clerics who also like to dictate, a priori, who can/cannot run in elections. The clerics decision is also -- like Israel's -- based on the potential candidates' politically inconvenient opinions. Two peas in a pod; Allah/Jehovah forbid, people should decide who they want to represent them.

Apparently this same thing happened in 2003 and the High Court of Justice immediately reversed it, which, it says here,

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760644913&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

it is expected to do by Friday.

So what is really going on here is it is just a bunch of guys getting in a slap fight with each other, exactly like a comment thread.

Except this is a legal battle, and one launched by a seated governmental entity. Yes it is greatly to Israel's credit that it has a Supreme Court that has both spine and proper standards, and that is not at all trivial. It is something to be proud of.

However, it is quite a statement that the Government has pressed ahead with such efforts, above all in the current circumstances.

Israel is getting more and more like a combination of Southern USA circa 1950s and USA circa 1870s.

If it were Korea or Japan they'd just have gotten into a massive brawl until the cops came in and clubbed them all out the doors.

So what is really going on here is it is just a bunch of guys getting in a slap fight with each other, exactly like a comment thread.
Posted by: alan

... except for the apartheid reminiscent of south africa, exactly like a comment section.

It's always interesting to see the levels which Israeli apologists will whitewash atrocities against Arabs. You'd think recent history would have taught them better, but once the shoe was one the other foot ...

David, seriously, you're pissing into the wind.

To the The Lounsbury, welcome back. Haven't seen you in a while. It makes me feel like I'm drunk and hanging out in a bar in Bangkok. Feels good.

Israel - the second coming of both Nazism and apartheid.

And WE pay to keep them that way.

This is nothing even close to apartheid.

If this were anything like that, we would never have seen an episode like this,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/palestinians_applying_for_israeli_citizenship_in_droves/

in the second half of 2007,

Some 250,000 Palestinians currently reside in Jerusalem. Only 12,000 of them have sought to obtain an Israeli citizenship since 1967, an average of about 300 new citizens a year. But over the past four months the Interior Ministry has registered an unprecedented 3,000 applications, primarily residents of the Arab neighborhoods unlikely to remain under Israeli sovereignty according to the political initiative currently on the agenda.

The 240,000 non-naturalized Palestinians in the city currently hold the status of permanent residents. As Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem they were also eligible to participate in the elections held by the Palestinian Authority. As accepting Israeli citizenship was viewed by many within the community as tantamount to treason, most Palestinians opted to remain permanent residents and enjoy the benefits of living under Israeli sovereignty – full welfare rights, municipal voting rights and unrestricted movement - without putting their loyalty to the Palestinian Authority into question.

Palestinians in a position to appreciate the difference were suddenly thinking better of Israel, and that number reflects just those who had the courage to try.

Life among the Palestinians is a lot like prison, but it isn't a prison forced on them by Israel.

The CEC did not ban "Arab Parties". It banned two parties.

As for the question of whether there is a justification for this action the article gives it:

>Parliament spokesman Giora Pordes said the election committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motion, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arab lawmakers have traveled to some of Israel's staunchest enemies, including Lebanon and Syria.

The Supreme Court of Israel will probably strike down the ban, unlike when the Kahane's party was banned.