Both Israeli and US policymakers are fond of calling Israel and the United States likeminded democracies. “America has no better friend than Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said to applause from a joint session of Congress in a 2011 address. “We stand together to defend democracy.” Vice President Joe Biden has basically called Israel his second America. “No matter how long I’ve been away,” he crooned in Tel Aviv in 2010, “the instant I return, I feel like I’m at home [T]he United States has no better friend in the community of nations than Israel.” Unfortunately for Israelis, their country has anti-free speech policies that do not represent modern democracy. Israel is more open than countries it borders, yes, but this isn’t a liberating revelation.
Multiple laws, policies, and court rulings in Israel violate nearly every freedom enumerated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceable assembly. If Israeli politicians wish to brag that their nation resembles western democracies, they must defend the freedoms those countries hold dear. Israel does not.
Let’s start with religion. Ultra-orthodox Jews are eligible for welfare salaries from the Israeli government, which allow them to spend their days reading the Torah and praying, rather than earning a living. Catholic priests, Islamic scholars, Mormons, and atheists, however, do not get salaries for sitting around and pondering their beliefs. Israeli politicians, including the Prime Minister himself, routinely insist that Israel is a Jewish state, and that Palestinians must recognize that if they want to ever have a state of their own. No fully functioning democracy on earth has such an offensive religious policy, and the establishment of a national religion is something that goes against the very first democratic protection expressed in the American Bill of Rights.
Does Israel have a free press? Israeli news media must routinely submit their work to military censors for approval prior to publication. Imagine if journalists in the United States were forced to hand over their work to the Marines for their blessing, and then ask yourself if the American press, bound by such shackles, could be considered free. An Israeli journalist reported in an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune this month that another Israeli journalist and ex-soldier had been sentenced to four and a half years in jail for blowing the whistle on potential Israeli war crimes. This was after the whistleblower was confined to house arrest for two years. Another reporter for Haaretz, who received the leaked documents from the ex-soldier, may face criminal charges, despite having received approval from his military censor to publish a related report.
As for freedom of speech, a shocking policy passed by Israeli officials outlaws a core element of that right. One of the ways that citizens in a democracy can most powerfully effect change is by speaking through their financial decisions. Israeli lawmakers astonishingly passed a bill this year that makes it illegal to call for boycotts of Israeli goods, services, and even universities or cultural organizations. One renowned Israeli legal scholar quoted in The Guardian called the bill’s passage the “blackest day in Knesset history.”
Lastly, freedom of peaceable assembly is something the Israeli government openly dismisses. While thousands of Israelis have been recently demonstrating in Tel Aviv and elsewhere for economic change, not everyone in Israeli territory can do the same. Implicit in the right to peaceably assemble are the freedoms of association and of human movement. There are over 500 military checkpoints, closures, and military barricades in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which is slightly larger than Delaware. During my travels to Israel and the West Bank I met a Palestinian man who missed the birth of his son because Israeli soldiers refused to let him through a checkpoint. I once told this man I grew up in Florida and that my wife is from Seattle, and also explained the thousands of miles between those two cities. “How many hundreds of military checkpoints are between those places?” he asked. He was flabbergasted and then saddened when I told him there were none.
- 1
- 2
This article makes me ashamed that I am a graduate of Columbia. The author is hysterical that Israel is a Jewish state. Even worse, Israel doesn't want to commit national suicide, imagine that.
As for freedom of speech, Israeli Arab MKs have met with members of terrorist groups and have not been expelled from the Knesset. Perhaps Israel has too much freedom of speech.
#1 Posted by Barry Wiener, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 04:22 PM
Justin wrote: "One of the ways that citizens in a democracy can most powerfully effect change is by speaking through their financial decisions."
padikiller responds: Absolutely!
Thank goodness for Citizens United!
If you want to see restrictions on freedom of speech, you need look no further than our northern neighbor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=relmfu
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 04:50 PM
Unfortunately for Israelis, their country has anti-free speech policies that do not represent modern democracy.
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
How do the “anti-free speech” policies not represent the above definition? Were the agents who proposed and passed these “anti-free speech” policies not elected by the population? Were these “anti-free speech” policies the edicts of an unelected hereditary leader, military junta, or bureaucrat?
Multiple laws, policies, and court rulings in Israel violate nearly every freedom enumerated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceable assembly.
I wasn’t aware that the Bill of Rights, a foundation to the American Constitutional Republic very distinct from a “modern democracy”, extended to Israel. Does it also extend to Great Britain and France? If so, they better lay off the private firearm prohibition!
No fully functioning democracy on earth has such an offensive religious policy, and the establishment of a national religion is something that goes against the very first democratic protection expressed in the American Bill of Rights.
You do realize that Israel was founded as a Jewish state, right? And as far as “modern democracies” not having national religions, Greece has the Church of Greece, Finland has the Finnish Orthodox Church, England has the Anglican Church, Finland has the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and so on. They are all “national religions” with special privileges not afforded to other religious groups.
Now what was that you were saying about “the establishment of a national religion” being contrary to the principles of “modern democracies”
An Israeli journalist reported in an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune this month that another Israeli journalist and ex-soldier had been sentenced to four and a half years in jail for blowing the whistle on potential Israeli war crimes. This was after the whistleblower was confined to house arrest for two years. Another reporter for Haaretz, who received the leaked documents from the ex-soldier, may face criminal charges, despite having received approval from his military censor to publish a related report.
There’s a bit more to this. This soldier, like all soldiers in “modern democracies” have established chains of command for things like this. Military law is pretty clear that of you break your chain of command you can be put in jail for it.
One renowned Israeli legal scholar quoted in The Guardian called the bill’s passage the “blackest day in Knesset history.”
How “renowned” this scholar is, is not known because he is not named …. naturally though. But then again, the Guardian is well known for its moderation and impartiality in the Arab-Israeli debate.
in the right to peaceably assemble are the freedoms of association and of human movement. There are over 500 military checkpoints, closures, and military barricades in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which is slightly larger than Delaware. During my travels to Israel and the West Bank I met a Palestinian man who missed the birth of his son because Israeli soldiers refused to let him through a checkpoint.
Maybe … and this is pure speculation on my part, but just maybe if the Palestinians weren’t strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in markets, there wouldn’t be such restrictions on freedom of movement. I don’t know … call me crazy, its just a hunch,
I once told this man I grew up in Florida and that my wife is from Seattle, and also explained the thousands of miles between those two cities. “How many hun
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:05 PM
cont ...
in the right to peaceably assemble are the freedoms of association and of human movement. There are over 500 military checkpoints, closures, and military barricades in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which is slightly larger than Delaware. During my travels to Israel and the West Bank I met a Palestinian man who missed the birth of his son because Israeli soldiers refused to let him through a checkpoint.
Maybe … and this is pure speculation on my part, but just maybe if the Palestinians weren’t strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in markets, there wouldn’t be such restrictions on freedom of movement. I don’t know … call me crazy, its just a hunch,
I once told this man I grew up in Florida and that my wife is from Seattle, and also explained the thousands of miles between those two cities. “How many hundreds of military checkpoints are between those places?” he asked. He was flabbergasted and then saddened when I told him there were none.
Did you also let him know that there weren’t thousands of terrorist attacks on Seattle that originated from Florida? Kinda sorta contextualizes the comparison, no?
Palestinians rights to assemble, to visit family and friends, and to access institutions are crippled by an Israeli police presence that would’ve made Mao giddy and George Orwell vomit.
Actually, Mao would have starved them all to death or put them to work in the desert and I think an older Orwell would have well understood the need for “rough men” to guard against such barbarism.
This is in addition to a twenty-five-foot-high wall that is over 400 miles long, equipped with electrical fencing, sniper towers, and razor wire that keeps Palestinians where the Israeli military wants them.
Yes, away from hospitals, schools and malls. You know, the kinds of places they like to send their suicide bombers.
Israel does have legitimate security threats from extremist groups
How magnanimous a concession from you!
but Israel is also the only regional power with nuclear bombs, and its carpet bombing in recent years of Lebanon and Gaza and the mass civilian casualties it inflicted indicate the country doesn’t need a wall to defend itself.
Good idea, they should just nuke Gaza and the West bank ... now you are thinking.
Israel’s apologists sometimes counter that speech in Israel is freer than in any other country in the Middle East, and this is true. But again, Israelis aren’t satisfied, rightly, with being labeled more open than Algeria or Saudi Arabia. They want more. A democracy is more than a country that just holds scheduled, meaningful elections.
Perhaps that’s your definition of modern democracy but as has been shown, your definition doesn’t seem to apply to anywhere. The Israelis have the right to elect anyone they wish to change their laws at any time they like … who are you to say that they are wrong for the choice they have made collectively?
That smacks of some kind of cultural imperialism … something I thought was a “bad thing” in progressive circles?
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:10 PM
Mike H: You seem to have overlooked the point here. If Israeli officials wish to claim Israel is similar to the US in its democratic values, then the country should withstand scrutiny with regard to those values. It doesn't.
#5 Posted by Justin Martin, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:13 PM
Justin, fortunately for this debate you have made yourself the arbiter of what is and what isnt a "democratic value".
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:20 PM
"Perhaps that’s your definition of modern democracy but as has been shown, your definition doesn’t seem to apply to anywhere. The Israelis have the right to elect anyone they wish to change their laws at any time they like … who are you to say that they are wrong for the choice they have made collectively?"
I think that's somewhat the point, Israelis have rights. Palestinians have bantustans. And that's not a judgement on Israel, I recognize the problems in Israel as far as security and broken trusts on both sides go, but that is the reality.
"How “renowned” this scholar is, is not known because he is not named …. naturally though. But then again, the Guardian is well known for its moderation and impartiality in the Arab-Israeli debate."
What once was lost:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/12/israel-ban-boycott-legal-challenge
has now been found. "Amnon Rubenstein said: "This law will serve as a weapon in the hands of those people who claim that Israel is not a democracy and does not respect human rights... It seems to me that yesterday will be remembered for years to come as the blackest day in Knesset history.""
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:40 PM
"If you want to see restrictions on freedom of speech, you need look no further than our northern neighbor."
Hate speech and discrimination will get you a fine. A traffic ticket's worth of punishment maybe too much for some people, but America isn't in a position to complain. Talk to me when habeus corpus is once again a respected and universally applied concept.
And you, talk to me when you're willing to defend freedom of speech when it's speech you don't support.
Unfortunately, the concepts behind open democracies always fall wayside when security threats are identified on the inside. Openness vs Security, that's the essential balance that's difficult to maintain. Problem is, when you create a permanent exclusion based on security, you leave no avenue for inclusion and openness to establish peace.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:43 PM
Thimbles fabricates an apology for Canadian censorship: Hate speech and discrimination will get you a fine.
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell: "A notorious Montreal-based white supremacist whose body is covered in racist tattoos was sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail for willfully promoting hatred on a website he created."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/01/23/qc-presseault.html
And I'm not the one whining to CJR to hush the opposition.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 06:44 PM
Good article. While I prefer a decentralized republic to a democracy, I do admire the author's stand on the principle of free speech, no matter how inconvenient or dangerous it is to go after unduly sacred cows such as Israel.
While we're on the topic, here are a couple truths which the U.S. and Israeli state-worshipers and dupes will never conquer, no matter how many Arabs, Persians, and Muslims their beloved "democracies" annihilate:
-- There is no greater cultivator of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli violence than the murderous, expansionist violence of the ever-aggressive, Israeli gangster-state.
-- There is no greater recruiting tool for anti-U.S. "violence" than the U.S. gangster-state's military occupation and mass-murder of innocent people the world over, and its support for brutal "democratic" regimes in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.
(And, btw, the U.S. govt is not much better — arguably, worse — than Israel on free speech: say the wrong thing and you could be put on a "terrorist" watch list and, ultimately, be murdered by Obama-decree. A good portion of your family could be murdered too, along with whoever was unlucky enough to be in the general vicinity.)
Again, nice article. And bravo, Justin, for saying what needs to be said, despite the hate mail and death threats you'll likely receive from those who'd have us believe they are "protecting Jews," etc.
#10 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 07:04 PM
"paidkiller tolls the Reality Bell"
Mistake noted. Now how about you acknowledge your failings to defend freedom of speech on 'Twitter' or the failings of the American public, particularily conservatives, to defend the principle of Habeus Corpus.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 07:15 PM
Thimbles wrote: Now how about you acknowledge your failings to defend freedom of speech on 'Twitter' or the failings of the American public, particularily conservatives, to defend the principle of Habeus [sic] Corpus.
padikiller scratches his head: ??????????????????
There is no "free speech" on Twitter. Twitter is a private enterprise not bound by the 1st Amendment.
If your point is that Twitter is censoring content (I don't do Twitter and haven't heard this before) then I guess the best thing to do is find another outlet.
CJR has every right to censor content here. They pay the bills. They own the forum. Of course, censoring comments is antithetical to the stated mission of a self-described "watchdog" agency of "professional journalism" in a free society... And censoring commentary would incur a cost to the core values of the institution of journalism... But if CJR decided to boot me, they have the right. I cannot dispute that.
As for habeas corpus... What do you mean?
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 09:19 PM
For those who don't want to read the posts in question here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/cnns_gutless_firing.php
What paidkiller supports is employer retaliation over an act of free speech in a non work related medium. He also supports the use of free speech by right wing slanderers and agitators, like Breitbart, to encourage their mobs to bully and intimidate organizations, like CNN, into retaliating against innocent subjects.
Personally I wouldn't defend actions like that, but Padi seems to like sticking up for poor little racists like Limbaugh and that Quebec guy with the tattoos and the violent criminal record a kilometer long. For someone who condemns free speech when it comes to Hezbollah, he sure sticks up for it when it comes to white prejudice.
And he sure screams about censorship alot when it comes to him.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 09:49 PM
You're claiming that I support the Clinton News Network?
For real?
I support the right of ANY private enterprise to hire/fire whomever it wants.
PERIOD.
If CNN wants to toss a particular employee... They have every right to do so.
There IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. PERIOD.
The first Amendment doesn't apply to private enterprises... I don't know what it will take to get the commies to acknowledge this reality.
Thimbles... It isn;t complicated....
The G O V E R N M E N T can't suppress speech...
But private enterprises can.
That's what makes this D E M O C R A C Y thing work.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:01 PM
"As for habeas corpus... What do you mean?"
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/13/opinion/ed-gitmo13
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/21/nation/la-na-court-bagram-20100522
I'm pretty sure Dan A can fill in some blanks if you asked him nice.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:12 PM
Gitmo is closed.
Obama promised to close it within a year.
Remember?
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:42 PM
"I support the right of ANY private enterprise to hire/fire whomever it wants."
Sure, but it's one thing to support a right and another to support something as being right.
For instance, you claim to support the right of CJR to censor you, but you whine and cry about it for months afterwards when they do. They have the right to do certain things, but having a right doesn't make those actions right.
And, in the case of CNN, they had the right to terminate their employee of course, but you supported the act. Not the right, the scummy act. Your defence of free speech extends not much further than your own.
And meanwhile, you and the rest of the right wing intimidation squad remain silent on a much more overt offender of American decor. You people have the nerve to complain about PC hypocracy? Look in the mirror.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:48 PM
Wait, what? You're complaining that another sovereign nation doesn't abide by the US Bill of Rights? That's absurd: a country can be a democratic nation without following every single jot and tittle of American civil liberties and practices. There is still freedom of religion in Israel even if one religion is favored over others.
As for military censorship, again, the comparison to the US is bogus - the US is not surrounded by enemies, regularly bombed and shelled, and subject to suicide bombings in places where civilians gather.
It's also my understanding that the freedom of speech bill recently passed was very controversial and is likely to be overturned.
#18 Posted by JG, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 08:16 AM
like Japan is a Japanese state, France is a French state, and England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are known for being the lands of the Angles, Scots, Welsh, and Irish. Israel is no different, and in fact makes special efforts to promote diversity, but the author is stupid enough to say:
England and Scotland have official churches, as do most of the Nordic states. Israel's most "offensive religious policy" might be to put the holiest Jewish sites under the control of the Muslim Waqf council and forbid Jews from visiting them because the sight of Jews praying at Jewish holy sites might start a war.
Another neocon wants to impose his American values on the world.
Okay, I'll call that fantasy "World War Two".
They were and it was.
The "journalist" was a military attache leaking all of the military documents she could get her hands on to a journalist whose politics she agreed with. It had nothing to do with abuses, it was a complete document dump. She talked about abuses to seek sympathy after she was caught. The author calls the military attache a "journalist" to seek your sympathy. I agree that Israel's handling of this particular case included transgressions on human rights, but that is no reason to lie about it.
Consider the context: the only organizations calling for such boycotts are the warmongers who want to destroy Israel. Any Israeli who supports these boycotts is aiding a war against their state. In the United States they call that "treason" and it carries the death penalty. Israel made it a misdemeanor.
Just because the protest movement in Israel preceded the Occupy movement and exceeded it in numbers and effectiveness, and because there are protests in Israel every Friday after prayers, and because Israel has a long history of public protest and social progress, don't let that fool you into thinking that protesting is allowed in Israel. The author says it's not.
Send a few dozen truck bombs into the next city over, once every few days, and they will set up checkpoints too. It is not a coincidence that the checkpoints did not exist before the "peace" talks. Was the author not aware that they were a new development caused by the war?
and "Israeli-occupied"? No fact checkers here? Jordan took it from Israel.
Israel took it back. Jordan officially gave it to Israel and set their
mutual border along the Jordan river. It's Israel's land pending future
diplomatic agreements or wars.
#19 Posted by Tang, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 07:16 PM
will set up checkpoints too. It is not a coincidence that the checkpoints did not exist before the "peace" agreement. Was the author not aware that they were a new development caused by the war?
and "Israeli-occupied"? No fact checkers here? Jordan took it from Israel.
Israel took it back. Jordan officially gave it to Israel and set their
mutual border along the Jordan river. It's Israel's land pending future
diplomatic agreements or wars.
It would have made them both go "WTF?" to learn that there is no Israeli police presence in the places where they were told there was a crippling Israeli police presence. Part of the deal that put the Palestinians in charge of the Jordanian cities is that the Israelis left. Gone. They're not there anymore. If you wanted to call these places "occupied" again, they haven't been "occupied" in seventeen years.
Such as the Palestinians, which is a terrorist group if you are too young
and ignorant to be aware of that.
We think. Supposedly. They might like you to think that. They definitely want their enemies to think that. France may have supplied Israel with nukes during the '50s and Israel may have had them as late as the '73 war, but nothing has ever been verified.
did not exist.
did not exist. Israel does not even have the type of weapons needed to
carpet bomb.
did not exist. The recent Gaza war had an extraordinarily low civilian to combatant death rate of circa 3:7. The normal rate for urban warfare is generally said to be 9:1, although that number has been dropping in recent decades as weapons and tactics become more precise.
Israel lost both wars, and the fact that the Gaza war happened proves
that the wall around Gaza was not enough.
or Ukraine or Hungary or Czechoslovakia, or Ecuador or El Salvador.
Israel's level of social and political freedom is comparable to the average of the European countries and is above the average of any other continent. There
are states in the US that are less free than Israel with regards to religious
oppression, police abuse, and so on. They could do better; they could do a lot worse, especially given the state of war; the comparison to Saudi Arabia is a dishonest insult.
That is the general definition of a democracy. If the author meant a liberal democracy, then it would mean more. Israel has members of Parliament from a party whose policy is to promote the invasion of Israel by the Arab League states. If that is not an extremely tolerant democratic-republic, then what is?
There are too many indicators revealing that this article is crap and its author knows nothing about Israel but is willing to lie a lot to pretend he does. How did an article so full of falsehoods get onto the Colombia Journalism Review? Did all the journalists an
#20 Posted by Tang, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 07:21 PM
An interesting aside on the subject of free speech in America and intimidation in the private sector:
http://coreyrobin.com/2011/10/25/fear-american-style-what-the-anarchist-and-libertarian-dont-understand-about-the-us/
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 07:23 PM
ot an extremely tolerant democratic-republic, then what is?
There are too many indicators revealing that this article is crap and its author knows nothing about Israel but is willing to lie a lot to pretend he does. How did an article so full of falsehoods get onto the Colombia Journalism Review? Did all the journalists and reviewers have the day off or is there an anti-semite on the editorial board who pushed it through?
#22 Posted by Tang, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 07:23 PM
To the guy that loved citizens united, you assumed the leap that a corporation = citizen. Yes this position has been held by supreme court,yet so was Plessy v. Ferguson. Point is were talking about interpretation of 'western' principles, were not apologizing for disregarding them.
You make a good point about Canada, and it's capable of better, regardless it does not change anything. USA, Canada and 'most' of Europe is still leaps and bounds above Israel. There is no known government which hold all principles, even some of the time... but once Israel gets in the 'western' league, it could then go 'tit for tat'.
A message for the Israeli apologists, specifically Tang. While no government hold all enlightenment principles correctly, Israel is 'less correct' than the other 'western-style' governments. SO while some of your specific criticisms are legitimate, none of them shows how Israel can brush-off its 'indiscretions'. I don't need to go through them all, but Bibi, Il Duce has really taken the country farther from the rest of the western world.
I expect more excuses from the apologists, explanations I could literally rip to shreds... If I even cared to go through each one of those piss poor rebuttals. I also criticize the author, for not making a more clear cut article. Complete with pre-emptive reason, which would swat away the hysterical ignorant opinions.
#23 Posted by nonya, CJR on Tue 15 May 2012 at 04:28 AM