Is Israel such a bad example for proportional representation?

Those of us who advocate for proportional representation have been criticized that Israel was a bad case for the concept.  To me that is mixing up results with a tool.  Proportional representation is presented as a solution to a problem and although it has many benefits it cannot by itself solve all the perceived problems of the world.  It is an important tool that all reasonable voters should consider if they really want to solve many of the iniquities in society.

 Israel's relationship with the Palestinian people is an abomination that is a problem with a global reach.  Unfortunately the Israeli voters with a proportional system have given support to restrictive laws and practices. The Israeli rulers have set up laws that are very restrictive to Palestinians, almost certainly out of fear mixed in with some ignorance.  How the rest of the world deals with this issue is much like how we deal with the Chinese persecution of Uighers.  The main difference is there is much sympathy for Jews, but not much for the Chinese autocrats.  Although we abhor perceived unfairness most nations respect the sovereignty of other nations for practical reasons.

Each Israeli election draws a fair amount of attention and for many it is the closest they are aware of proportional representation.  We understand there are political rivals who try to establish political alliances in order to get enough power to make decisions.  Netanyahu has been very prominent for over a decade and those who follow the news are aware that by allying himself with some Orthodox elements he has been able to gain power.  For the last several years the alliances have been very fragile.   Giving power to what are considered extremist minorities is one of the charges against proportional representation.

Two developments (I am sure there are many others) have been significant.  Netanyahu has been tainted with corruption charges and many voters have become leery of supporting him.  The other development is among the Arabs who have their own factions.  Some are reluctant to co-operate  with Jewish parties that are openly anti-Palestinian.  Others have looked for opportunities to gain some leverage.  With this last election balancing efforts have opened up one such opportunity.  As has been pointed out the head of the new alliance is actually more extreme than Netanyahu, but there have been slight changes with four Arab electors essential to maintaining the current balance.  If they choose to not support any new legislation the government will fall and a new election will ensue.  They of course need to be careful to maintain the current alliance if and until something better presents itself.

One example brought to my attention by Juan Cole in his Informed Comment occurred recently:  https://www.juancole.com/2021/07/parliament-unification-palestinian.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook   Essentially the Israeli Parliament failed to renew a restrictive law against Palestinians.  Many of those who automatically would have renewed this law abstained realizing otherwise they would face another election.

There may not be too many more examples of the power of the few as it is a delicate balance that allows any leverage and there are many pressures that could disrupt it.  As in any democracy there are always many factions with their own priorities, but under proportional representation they have to consider the priorities of other parties.  Hopefully enough voters will see the results have been positive and the politicians will realize their best interest lies in respecting all the voters.

Under First Past the Post system the hard line parties would not have to pay attention to 20% of the population that Arabs represent in Israel.  We may be fortunate that corruption concerns forced voters and politicians to re-evaluate their priorities.

The bottom line is that proportional representation is a tool that can help solve a lot of problems, but other tools are necessary to solve such problems as climate change, nuclear war risks, refugees, hatred, violence, crime, etc.  Some of those other tools might be balanced education and media support.  It is reasonable that when more people are paid attention through proportional representation that society can move towards solving global problems before it is too late.

Both voters and politicians need to work together instead of maneuvering to gain disproportionate power.  More will get done, but it does require a joint effort which is something lacking today.  Proportional representation is a step in the right direction.

The BDS Movement

The BDS Movement  (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) might not have been noticed quite as much if there weren't concerted efforts to make it illegal.  The goal is for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, removal of the barriers at the West Bank, full equality of Arabs in Israel and to promote the right of return by the Palestinian refugees.  Israel claims Arabs enjoy equality in Israel and that the movement is anti-Semitic.  Both Israel and the United States have made efforts to make the BDS illegal and use national resources to reject. 

The cause is known and for most people who consider themselves progressive liberals it is admirable enough.  Like a lot of people when I hear and believe negative things about individuals and companies I try to make a conscious decision not to support.  Other people want to take a strong stand and some of them are organizers and others looking for an organized effort.

Up until past my university years I would tell anyone who asked, that "Exodus" was my favorite movie.  I barely knew any Jews, but somehow came to admire them and how they had overcome the Holocaust.  I still grapple to understand the horror of  their ordeal.  I have watched several movies that focused on the Holocaust from many different angles.  It is horrifying to read about people who deny the Holocaust.  It not only is anti-Semitic, but also indicates rationalization (guilt feelings) for expressing hatred.

A few things happened over my adult years to change my perspective  At work I remember talking to a secretary at work about Hallowe'en.  I was telling her that I had to get home early to protect my home from tricksters.  She surprised me by saying as a born again Christian they could not celebrate Hallowe'en.  I have always considered myself secular, but Lynn was someone I liked working with and accepted her offer to read a book about Armagedden.  There seemed to be a lot of logic, but really twisting the meaning of Biblical words which I just could not accept.  But I came to understand and more frequently heard or read references to the second coming of Christ.  I kept a few details in mind such as there would be the anti-Christ who would seem to have the answers (could that be Donald Trump?), Israel would have to be run by Jews again and there was something about ten tribes that would play a role and that the true believers would ascend to heaven.

I gradually became aware of the role this belief played in American politics and other nations.  They seemed very protectionist of Israel, but at the same time saw Jews only as necessary for the prophesy.  The Palestinians were in the way and needed to be stomped down.  The fact that they resorted to terrorism only proved how undeserving they were.  Arab states and Muslims were suspect as they always seemed to be using the supposed Palestinian injustices to inflict terror on the rest of us.  Many Christians just wanted to protect the holy sites. 

The Arab oil boycott of the west was mostly seen as inconvenient.  One good thing that came out of it was a movement in part led by Jimmy Carter (who is my most admired president) who preached conservation.  Of course Ronald Reagan ridiculed the idea and reversed course.

Another factor emerged when my sister, Rebecca married a Muslim from Morocco.  She was actually married in an inter denomination ceremony.  It was over ten years and two daughters later that she decided to convert.  She is one of the people who I both love and admire.  I had come to admire Ali as well and he gave a different view of Palestinians.  He was careful not to speak against Jews and in fact pointed out to me that he would seek kosher food when halal food was not available.

My reading convinced me that the Palestinians had been taken advantage of.  While I could still admire what the Zionists had accomplished against heavy odds I began to realize they did so at the expense of the Palestinians. And the more I heard and read the more it seemed the Palestinians were being dismissed and discriminated against.  The media in my neck of the woods was almost totally picturing Palestinians as backward, dishonest, violent and undeserving.  The Israelis are pictured as besieged, but very innovative.  Perhaps there is an element of guilt from many Western countries that had allowed anti-semitism to prosper and helped set the events of the Holocaust.

After a television appearance I read a book by Peter Beinart.  It made me realize there is a lot of politics behind the support of Israel.  Check out  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/crisis-of-zionism-book-review.html

By now you realize I am sympathetic to the Palestinians, but there is more to it than that.  I am not much of a boycott participant.   I have completed two books by Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli and have started his most recent book.  He has the best understanding of what it means to be a human of any one I am familiar with.  I am not willing to give up that.  An investment counselor was recommending a mutual fund and thought one of its highlights was that they included Israeli stocks--although like anyone else I wanted to make the most money for the least risk,  passed on it.  I watched and appreciated many movies from Israel http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/05/youll-find-arabic-and-hebrew.html  particularly the ones that seemed balanced.

My experiences with boycotts are very limited.  As a Canadian one example was when Heinz decided to stop processing tomatoes from their Simcoe, Ontario plant.  I had driven through Simcoe numerous times as part of my sales job.  I remember consciously actually driving by the plant with a distinct, but not unpleasant smell of the ketchup plant.  French's, better known for mustard, picked up the slack and I have made it a point of buying their ketchup (which happens to taste pretty good).

I was too young or disinterested to think about the anti apartheid boycott.  I am proud that Canada did participate unlike United States and the United Kingdom.  Thinking what would I buy from South Africa?  Never thought of diamonds or gold.  A little later did enjoy eating Granny Smith apples and have since enjoyed South African wines, but think of them as post Mandela (one of my very favorite heroes).

If we don't want people to settle their differences with violence we have to accept alternatives.  Every person who has a dime to spend has some power.  Once they spend that money they have lost some of their power, but the choice should be theirs.  Yes, there should be exceptions--we should not be able to physically harm someone or denigrate them. 

Israel is forgetting its values.  They have suffered at the hands of degenerates, but now they are causing great suffering that to me is counter productive.  I know there are significant elements that want to bridge the gap, but they don't seem to dominate.  Hatred and ignorance are very difficult to deal with, but others have found ways

Critics are welcome to do a counter boycott if they really want, but they have absolutely no right to impose legal restrictions on people who  feel the merits of the cause.  I think what needs to happen is more effort to reconcile the Jews and Palestinians.  Biblical prophesies can be interpreted any way that suits someone else.  The Qu'ran is interpreted very widely.  To me the boycott and such efforts to encourage Israel to take a fairer treatment of the Palestinians is a worthy cause and those that want to delegitimize it are the immoral ones.  Politics and money are a big part of the problem.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement

Most of the world seems to like the new agreement with Iran and six other nations, but others are threatening to block it anyway they can with one presidential candidate threatening to bomb Iran on his first day in office.  Many Americans feel they are "exceptional" and ought to be able to get their way no matter what.  It is actually not healthy when one side can bully everyone else.  Fear creates communication problems and ignorance begets poor choices.

At least four years in the making many politicians have denounced it before reading any details.  Obviously to them politics and appealing to a political base is more critical than serious study.

Obama explained the situation much better than I can so I may borrow a few of his thoughts.  Each side had some leverage and each is looking for ways to increase that power.  If you don't have anything the other person wants it creates an awkward situation.  The British started what became known as the Opium Wars essentially because the Chinese didn't want very much of what the English had to offer in exchange for tea which the British took a fancy to and so they did their best to create opium addictions.

The Iranians want to be able to sell more goods to the world and the West wants to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (particularly to unfriendly parties).  There are a lot of side issues such as prisoners being held hostage, conventional weapons being sent to terrorists, Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Syria, human rights violations.  One option is to use force, but that can be very expensive, not only in terms of money, but in lives and credibility.  Force in the Middle East often just reinforces their perception of being hated and the need to fight back.

I remember an example given in a sales talk.  The other person would probably be willing to pay 1¢ more for what you are selling and you would probably be willing to accept 1¢ less but how much effort and risk is that worth for that small reward.

As Obama pointed out they were able to put a coalition together that added more pressure to Iran, but each coalition member (United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany) have their own particular concerns.  They negotiated an agreement they felt comfortable with, but won't be pleased if the United States wants to renege.  Each member of congress has to recognize they are not just objecting to Obama, but also to the other coalition partners who helped force Iran to this agreement.  Congress also needs to realize that the coalition members may not wish to carry on sanctions and therefore Iran may well feel less pressure to give up further power.

The issue of trust is often brought up as if the Iranians were the only ones with a bad reputation.  It was the American CIA that arranged for a democratically elected Iranian leader to be deposed and replaced with a monarch way back in 1953 and then went on to help set up a secret service that controlled ordinary Iranians.  Iraq was encouraged to invade Iran.  Later  Ronald Reagan authorized a contra deal involving weapons with the Iranians.  Earlier after World War I European powers, mainly England and France split up the Middle East for their own greedy reasons.

Americans are upset that Hamas and Hezbollah are financed in part by Iran.  Iranians, at all levels do not see them as terrorists, but as freedom fighters.  There is a great deal of resentment in the Muslim world that Israelis financed by Americans are subjugating Palestinians.  There are a lot of facts and opinions to back that up.  It is fair to say Iranians do not share American sentiments on the issue.

There is a very delicate balance between keeping Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries satisfied.  The agreement will not please everyone in that area, but a revocation by one party will only exacerbate the situation.

Israel fears their Arab and Persian neighbours, but does work with some of them and is concerned that any new regimes (such as after the Arab Spring) might be more difficult.  Saudi Arabia seems to be the biggest source of terrorists and have Shiites wanting to be treated equally.  The people of almost all Muslim countries are sympathetic to the Palestinians and distrust those they feel abuse them.

The American negotiating team has been accused of naivety, but in fact Obama clearly understands there is a possibility the other side will not honour the agreement.  Punishments are laid for any violation and reasonable verification is in place.  Violations affect credibility.

Alternatives?? All seem to revolve around being tougher, more threatening.  There are a lot of complaints about Iran (and they have a few about us), but the underlying idea of these negotiations was to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and avoiding an escalation by other countries.

With the release of Iranian oil, the price at the pump is expected to go down.  This will have consequences.  Low cost oil will curtail expensive sources such as  Tar Sands and fracking.  Non oil countries will benefit with lower costs of living.  Climate change strategies may be delayed again, although green forces are gaining strength.  Arab countries and other oil producers will lose revenue.

Possibly the ISIL problem will be dealt with more effectively.  How will the Kurds fare as they contribute to the solution?

Israel and Sunnis and Shiites and Christians need to get along better--what plans do any of them have to facilitate that?

Photo is of the flags along the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia.

Thirteen Days in September

The news brings us updates of international conflict every day.  Sometimes the situation seems hopeless.  With this book, "Thirteen Days in September" author Lawrence Wright brings us to a time when three men were able to deal with great difficulties to fashion an agreement that has had a positive effect ever since.  The author argues the timing was wrong, the personalities not conducive, however in the end Jimmy Carter's determination was critical.

Lawrence provides a lot of background information that really sets the stage for why the Middle East is such a tense place.  Also a lot of in depth personal history of not only the main characters but also many of the supporting cast.

The three men, Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat had conflicting personalities  and viewpoints with one shared trait.  They all had religious beliefs, but they were in some ways counter productive.  Menachem Begin felt that the Jews deserved more land than they were originally given.  Jimmy Carter, a Sunday school teacher, then as now felt settlements on occupied lands were a provocation.  Anwar Sadat felt Egypt should represent the Arab and Muslim grievances.

Jimmy Carter wanted to be a facilitator letting the other two work out differences, but that failed.  Originally thought the process required 3 or 4 days, but dragged on.  Jimmy and his American team (Zbigniew Brzezinski and Cyrus Vance were key) then made proposals and looked for some sign of bending which occurred only after a lot of stress.

Tempers flare as there is a lot of obstinacy.  Each leader had his flaws--in the end political realities played a role. Once they had invested some effort they each needed something to show for the effort. Egypt wanted land, Israel wanted better relations--Jimmy Carter needed something to make him look good.

A few oddities included that Sadat was descended from a slave and had negro blood.  Boutros Boutros-Ghalli who later became prominent at the Untied Nations was a Coptic Christian, and married a Jew.  Zbigniew Brzezinski and Menachim Begin both shared a Polish heritage and enjoyed playing each other in chess.

In the end diplomatic relations were established between Israel and Egypt that also facilitated trade benefits.  The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt including oil resources.  The Suez Canal is accessible to everyone.  A surprising detail is that since 1979 there has not been a single violation of the terms.

The Palestinians were abandoned as their inclusion would have negated the rest of the treaty that could be worked out.  Originally they were an important component, but Begin would not budge and both Egypt and United States desperately wanted something to be agreed upon.

There was quite a political risk for Jimmy and in the end it wasn't enough.  The Iran crisis and a stagnant economy did him in.  Nobody since has made as much progress and the agreements were not enough of a building block to stop violence.  Jimmy Carter has said (and I agree) that the biggest obstacle is Jewish settlements on occupied land.  That is such an emotional issue on both sides that nothing will go forward until it is resolved.

Another step towards peace was taken under Bill Clinton, another Democrat president when he facilitated an agreement between Jordan and Israel in 1994.  Still no real impact on the Palestinians.

"The Crisis of Zionism book review

As an outsider (in the sense of not being Jewish and not having ever visited Israel) I can easily be accused of ignorance.  On the other hand we all benefit from understanding what outsiders think even if they are totally wrong.  I grew up thinking of  "Exodus" as one of my favorite movies, however as I got older I became aware that it represented only one viewpoint.  I am now aware of other viewpoints.

Peter Beinart, who I have found in other contexts to be intelligent and objective has more of an insider perspective on Israel and is very concerned.  Peter might be described as a liberal Jew who sees Israel as not treating Palestinians fairly.  Most Jews in the United States seem to vote Democrat, but because they tend to be liberal they also tend to inter-marry more and are losing their Jewish identity.  Other Jews, especially older ones see themselves as victims and view Israel as a possible refuge or at least as a beacon.

The author is concerned that Israel is losing its democracy.  Many Israelis emphasize that they are victims and don't realize that they now have power and are using it to impose hardship on others.  A significant segment of American Jews support the right wing approach which essentially is to keep the Palestinians from having their own state.  Many of those who feel more liberal are gradually losing their identification with Israel.

Beinart is concerned that the current Israeli government is turning the world against Israel.  Including the occupied lands Palestinians are likely to become more populous in the near future and this will force a difficult choice.  Will Israel remain Jewish and will it also remain a democracy?

Barack Obama has a personal perspective on Jews which surprised me.  One of his early mentors was Arnold Jacob Wolf who believed Israel and American Jewish organizations had to be democratic and felt Jews should de-emphasize victim-hood.   Some liberal Jews were closely tied to Obama's education and to his political rise.  Obama spent part of his upbringing amongst Muslims and is well read on their perspective.  Beinhart thinks Obama was out maneuvered by Netanyahu and sees danger.

Benjamin Netanyahu  has a different vision for Israel and its role in the world. He sees the Palestinians as an obstacle to Israeli and Jewish security.  The settlements in the west bank are seen as a necessary and desirable move although Palestinians and many others see them as a threat to peace. There is a feeling amongst some hard liners that Jordan was taken away from them.

Evangelicals, particularly in the United States have an influence on the dynamics.  They believe Christ will come back, but only while Israel is ruled by Jews.  Several years ago at one  of my jobs I had my eyes opened by a fellow worker who I respected that the second coming was moving forward and would take place in Israel.

It is all very scary, but I believe Peter Beinart has a valid perspective that should be seriously considered.

for a more recent Peter Beinart post after the Hamas attack and Gaza followup  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/02/peter-beinarts-being-jewish-after.html