From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: Israel and Kuwait in the Spotlight
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:44:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.232315.29424@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.090154.13381@discus.technion.ac.il>,
>davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>
>|>In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep10221531@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
>|>writes:
>|>>In article <1992Sep10.183041.26418@discus.technion.ac.il>
>|>davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>
>|>>On the other hand, it _is_ illegal in Israel to form a political party
>|>>which has a plank to remove the Zionist nature of the government.
>|>>This would be possible by simple constitutional amendment, I believe.
>|>>
>|>
>|>The Zionist (the precise term is Jewish) nature of the country is the
>|>raison d'etre of Israel even before Democracy. Denying it is same as
>|>denying the existence of Israel - this is of course forbidden.
>
>That is precisely the point at issue. In a democracy where everyone is equal
>there can be no laws supporting cultural hegemony. All this "we are a democracy
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BUT..." business just doesen't wash. You can fool yourself about it but you
^^^^^^^^^

The U.S.A is a democracy BUT you can't set up a party to advocate certain
positions.

Canada is a democracy, EXCEPT that in "emergency situations", as when
pro-Quebec seperatist demonstrators killed a politician in 1970, civil
rights can be disbanded.

England is a democracy. Perhaps a few of our readers in Belfast can
come up with a BUT or 2.



>won't fool anyone else.
>
>In fact it is of course perfectly practicable to set up a party with such an
>aim. Merely make it a stated aim of the party to institute a written
>constitution, to be agreed at a constitutional convention and deliberately leave
>vague the question of special treatment.
>
>Alternatively it would be perfectly legal to set up a party which wanted to
>remove the law making parties wanting to change the Zionist nature of the
>state.
>
>Even if these positions were blocked it would be perfectly legal to form a party
>which called for an annual vote *IN FAVOUR* of the maintenance of the special
>nature of Israel as a Zionist state. Of course were such a vote to fail then it
>would be equivalent to a vote in the opposite direction.
>
>At the end of the day anyone who thinks that constitutional trickery is going to
>be much of a safeguard is quite wrong. Constitutions are only effective if they
>have the poltical support of the establishment and people. If the US people
>stopped believing that their constitution was the greatest thing since sliced
>bread the executive would effectively abolish it in short order.
>
>|>>Jews get to advocate Jewish hegemony in Israel.
>|>>Arabs don't even get to advocate the breakdown of Jewish hegemony in
>|>>Israel.  They certainly don't get to advocate Arab hegemony in Israel.
>|>>
>|>>You call that full rights?
>|>
>|>Arab hegemony in Isarel == Jews in the sea. (or at least those who came
>|>afetr 1917 - according to the pitiful Arafat).
>|>
>|>Jews prefer their lives over theoretical equality!
>|>
>|>This is not the Arab's right to kill the Jew, as it is not the Jew's 
>|>to kill the Arab.
>
>Introducing such histrionics into the debate hardly constitutes an argument. 
>
>Claiming that all Arabs want to kill all Jews is pretty much tantamount to
>racism.
>
>--
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

iShay