From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Israeli Arab factor in elections
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:40:34 GMT

In <4042@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:

>1. Conclusion : Warren fights for democracy for every one .
>2.  Conclusion : Warren fights for democracy for  KACH  and KOACH.
>3.   Conclusion  : Warren fights for the right of those two Rabbi
>                    Kahana's parties to  run to the Knesset.

>BUT

>   Warren SAID NO WORD for the democratic rights of those  2 parties .

>So there is a catch here.

How do you know what I think before I've said it?  And why do you
assume things on the basis of what I do not say?  Must I explain all
of my views on every subject in every posting?

Well first of all, it is somewhat of an exaggeration to say that I
*fight* for democracy, I support it, preferably with a constitution.

Secondly, I'm not sure what I would do about those two parties, as
well as Arab parties that oppose the existance of the State, in the
absence of a constitution.

I think that if we had a constitution and Bill of Rights (and yes, the
point of a constitution is to *limit* democracy) that set out what the
rights of citizens of Israel are, so that if a law that violated these
rights would be declared invalid by the court (the current situation
is that the Knesset can pass any law it wants) this would both
invalidate the law that allows the Elections Committee to ban parties
on the basis of their platforms and prevent these parties, if elected,
from passing any of their proposals, which I vehemently object to.

So a constitution should both prevent the Knesset from passing laws
that violate the rights mandated by the constitution which would include,
among other things
a) denying the rights of citizens to vote because of their nationality
b) denying the rights of citizens to vote for the party of their
choice because of the party's platform
c) just about everything that these two parties stand for

MK's currently have to take an oath to support the laws of the State
of Israel, they would be required to also swear to uphold the
constitution.  And none of this business where some MK's change around
the wording - anyone who doesn't say it can't take their seat.

If the current situation (no constitution, parties banned on grounds
of their platforms) is to be continued, I would, at the least, like to
see the decision to ban parties placed in the hands of a group whose
members were not party functionaries - the Elections Committee is made
up of politicians, I'd feel better if it was judges doing this, if
anyone.

As far as democratic rights of parties - I think people have rights,
not parties.  The topic is not rights of parties, but rights of people
to to vote for the party that they choose.  Not that this changes
much.

Oh, and I'd like to see parlimentary immunity drastically reduced.
It was not a good thing that the late Rabbi was allowed to do things
that regular citizens were forbidden from doing because he was a
Member of Knesset.

Note that I do not assume that Gideon in any way supports either of
the two parties that each claim to be the only party that follows the
teachings of the Rabbi who was murdered in New York.  Nor do I make
any assumption as to what Gideon thinks about whether Arab citizens of
Israel ought to be allowed to vote or not.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire hall		Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very crowned carrot.
 |warren@      But the weeder
/ nysernet.org is not all that paranoid.