Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
P2: When you throw Israel into the mix. - Coggle Diagram
P2: When you throw Israel into the mix.
Neuberger : Does Israel have a liberal democratic tradition
ISRAEL and its political tradition: Mix of demo and non demo tradition=> Zionist movement early 20th in Palestine combine all these components above to create these democratic communities)
Democratic elements
ancient Judaism
no religion in is purely democratic in the liberal modern sense BUT
there are democractic ingredients in the old Testament
part of the jewish values to cherish human dignity and intellectual pluralism
traditional pluralism had its limit (only practices within the halakhah)
"Jewish tradition has an impact on the founding fathers of the State of Israel" (p.86)
federal practice in jewish communities in diaspora
diaspora tradition of self gov. / kehilla
consent of the governed
self-governing kehilla
autonomous unit in a hostile environment (ex: Russia,...)
quasi-democratic structure
right to vote
"This historical fact helps to explain why the Zionists who came from the quasi-democratic kehilot of the diaspora practiced democracy in the newly-founded settlements in the Land of Israel" (p.87).
"Israel could develop its democracy without facing the opposition of an autocratic monarchy, a centralized church, and a feudal landlords" (p.87)
decentralised pluralism due to the disepersal of jews => actually a big part of of LD
exile + ant-semitic policies prevented the rise of an aristocracy (enemies of democracy in many countries)
impact of liberal democratic West
hostility of dictatorships open the communities' mind to ideas of liberal democracies
some of founding fathers of Z had experiences LD (ex: Chaim Weisman 1 president, in Br)
+++ BRITAIN : the fate of the Zionist dream was dependent on Britain's decisions, they were really looking up to UK and inspired by their elections, free press, ...
So in the Yishuv
from the beginning of the 20th adopted D structures in the Yishuv
multi-party competition and complete freedom of expression
Authoritarian oR Non-democratic elements
Parties in Israel 3 groups (vary more auth more LD)
left
orthodox
a good part is not compatible with the LD ingredients
"general will" was part of one of the Kehilla principle tho, for the good of the community and the Orthodox parties are applying that rule that is highly >< the democratic tradition (pro individual rights).
orthodox tradition also >< other principles of LD
religious law is the highest one
"this religious democracy has no human law-makers and is thus poles apart from Western liberal democracy" (p.90)
right
nationalist right
state as a holy value + nation as an organic whole (individuals were part of this whole body rather then autonomous citizens bound by liberal idea of social contract)
Revisionists has military values, didn't believe in LD, discipline, gun, ...
ex: National Military Organization in the 1930s/40s was a gun on a map of the Land of Israel
rise of their party believing "Judaism did not stand for freedom of speech but for discipline"
In 1948 Revisionism made peace with parliamentary democracy
Zionism & Zionist mindset (kibboutzims and all)
"establishment of democracy was clearly subordinate to the establishment of the Zionist idea" (p.92)
collectivism of the early-socialist Zionist parties was also incompatible with the liberal-democratic tradition (democratic centralism + ideological collectivism)
ZIONISM = fear of individualism, ... VS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY = "tyranny of the majority" pro individual rights
Labor Zionists under the influence of socialism Russia "second homeland"
similarity in vocabulary used by revolutionary socialists ( for example idea of organising a "disciplined Labor army, ...)
Until 1984 Knesset elections were decided by informal committees and not by intra-party democratic contests
Barak & Sheffer
Previous work on I CMR
3 Approaches denoted by the authors (1980-90S)
CRITICAL
NEW CRITICAL
TRADITIONAL (following the structural theories that dominated Isra until 1980s)
using traditional theories of CMR
looking at the functional features in the country
they see two clear sphere one is Civil the other military, they are seperate
the ciivl one rules over the mil.
comparison of the patterns in these approaches (9 issues :)
5) the assessment of the strenght of the civilian sphere in Israel
6) the assessment of the level of civilian control of the military in Israel
4) their conceptualization of the structure and relationship between the two sectors
7) the assessment of the strenght of the security sector in Israel
3) their characterisation of the nature of the relationship between these spheres + the boudaries that exist between them
8) the view of the relationship between the civilian and military spheres in a broad historical perspective
2) the theoretical and analytical models that they employ to analyze the Isareli case
9) the overall conclusions regarding the process of state formation in Israel and whether it has been completed.
1) main theoretical emphasis of the 3 approaches
general important things on Israel they mention
lacks in internationally recognized borders
unending conflicts
citizens continue to believe they're under treath
IDF and security in almost all sectors spheres of life ad society
Their own theory