Remix.run Logo
FilosofumRex 13 hours ago

Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state, and at least 50% of members of current governing parties in parliament are from religious parties and zionist parties.

In what sense Israel is not a theocracy.

9dev 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?

tsimionescu 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as the people are religious enough.

9dev 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That would mean the USA are a theocracy too, given most senators are Christian. That doesn’t make too much sense.

Theocracy is a form of government in which religious leaders rule in the name of a deity, and religious law is the basis for all legal and political decisions.

tsimionescu 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The USA is not a theocracy, though. The majority-Christian senators are not generally enacting theocratic laws and regulations (though there are some tendencies and influences, as seen with the recent repeal of Roe v Wade, for example).

However, Israel does have highly theocratic tendencies. Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. They have even more religious influence on public life than the USA does (which is already somewhat high by European standards), with businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays (not selling risen bread during Passover, making elevators stop automatically on every floor during days of rest, observing kosher restrictions on food etc). Many of their foreign policy decisions are explicitly influenced by religious tenets, such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god (which includes modern day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and several parts of modern day Syria, Lebanon, and others).

They're nowhere near the level of religous rule and/or fanaticism as Saudi Arabia, but they have much more religious influence and control of public life then a modern European/US-style democracy.

9dev 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> The USA is not a theocracy, though.

Hence I brought it up, yes.

> Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute.

Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution; that doesn't make them theocracies. Even in the USA, presidents swear their oath on the bible!

> businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays

Try purchasing something on a Christian holiday in Germany. Did you know it's prohibited by law to play Life of Brian in public on Easter Sunday there?

> such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god

That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several. Now I'm very much in opposition to a lot of what the Israeli government does, but they're really not what the term Theocracy means. That claim is just ridiculous.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_G...

tsimionescu 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution

None of these say that their states are Christian and Democratic, nor do they have government decisions finding that this means anything at all. In Israel, by contrast, their highest court has found that, for example, a right to return for Palestinians would be unconstitutional - as it would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel. A reference to some god in their constitution would be a completely different thing.

> That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several.

This is an extreme downplaying of what I said. Several of the people in charge of the Israeli government have explicitly and exclusively, religious motivations in their decision making - that is a very clear sign of a form of theocracy.

12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
otikik 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You… don’t see it?

12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
rf15 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

m8 they literally swear on the bible

/s

baxtr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is not how it played out if you talk to Iranians.

They will tell you that the theocracy folks were a small minority of the entire resistance and first built a government of unity.

Once in charge they started annihilating all other opposition factions one by one.

motorest 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too.

OP referred to democratic votes, whereas you talk about "popular uprising". Can you explain in your own words why you believe these are even comparable?

brabel 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 2014 was somehow democratic. That should show that depending on who is being ousted and your opinion on them, yes the two things can be comparable.

motorest 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...)

You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship.

The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia.

> That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...)

Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.

lenkite 11 hours ago | parent [-]

And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual.

But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.

9dev 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That is an awful retelling of history. There was no revolution in Ukraine, but protests and demonstrations that were brutally crushed by government forces. The people persevered though and the president fled the country, leading to a formal and correct process of electing a new government after. The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.

lenkite 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.

Only if one is utterly blind and put fingers in their ears, can one truly believe that. Nuland's call was leaked where she was proudly deciding who would form the next government in Ukraine and who should be kept on the outside. And her personal choice of puppet: "Yats" did in-fact become the prime minister. Nuland was even handing out cookies to anti-Yanukovych protests for Christ's sake. Mc Cain actually flew in and congratulated the protesters.

Imagine if that was happening in the US against a US President - members of foreign nation's government cheering on a coup and deciding who would be the next President. There would be Absolute War.

9dev 9 hours ago | parent [-]

For those reading this and doubting: Read the call transcript for yourself, annotated by Jonathan Marcus of the BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Yes, the USA is attempting to facilitate talks here. No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda.

lenkite 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I also fully support not just reading the call transcript, but also listening to the leaked call so you get Nuland's firm tone. I would reserve very skeptical judgement on the "annotations". Those weren't part of the call.

Listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y

> No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda

Anyone with a rational brain who separates themselves from biases and emotions and carefully listens to the call would realize there is no propaganda involved here. Also, for better clarity of judgement, please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government.

mopsi 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government.

We can discuss potential successors to Xi right here on HN, and an outsider might say that "a forum frequented by Silicon Valley billionaires is picking the next leader of China". But that would be a huge misrepresentation of us and our influence.

The fixation of Russian trolls on that single phone call reeks of desperation. During election season, I'd expect hundreds of such calls to be happening at any given moment between various officials, strategists, financiers, candidates, analysts, and many other people.

stavros 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But the GP is not saying the election wasn't valid, they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself. I hate the US meddling as much as the next guy, but why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"?

lenkite 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All politicians "mispresent themselves". Kicking them out during elections is the way they are thrown out in a functioning democracy. Or do you believe Americans should storm the White House and beat up the President anytime a campaign promise is broken ? And one that is magnified by the funding and urging of a foreign government ? Such actions - which break the "deal of democracy" naturally lead to civil war - which is exactly what happened in Ukraine.

stavros 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't care what Americans do, but I'd quite like to storm our parliament and kick out the current government.

motorest 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> All politicians "mispresent themselves".

No. The ones that try to push agendas that go against their programme and are deeply unpopular will often see public protests and even general strikes demanding policy reversals or governments stepping down. Do you call those regime changes as well?

tsimionescu 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not 100% sure of Ukraine, but most democracies have a legal way to impeach a sitting president. If Yanukovich was committing literal treason, acting on behalf of a foreign country, there should have been a slam dunk case for impeachment.

stavros 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Our government killed 50 people in a train accident because they couldn't be bothered to maintain the safety systems, then immediately ordered crews to the site to cover everything up with dirt so there would be no trace of fuel additives being illegally transported on a passenger train. The courts found no wrongdoing, and they're still in power.

Who's going to impeach them?

spacecadet 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with you.

m000 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself

You mean like "peacemaker"/"America First" Donald Trump?

> why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"?

If Americans can wait out for the second Trump term to be over, Ukrainians could do it too for Yanukovych.

stavros 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah I disagree that Americans should wait it out.

m000 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair enough :)

motorest 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid.

Yes, he was. What you are leaving out is the fact that in spite of being elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU platform, it turned out he was a Russian agent and betrayed his mandate to enforce Kremlin's anti-west agenda and force himself upon Ukraine as another kremlin-controlled dictatorship.

Except the people of Ukraine wanted none of that and protested against this betrayal, which culminated in the wannabe dictator seeking exile in Russia.

Somehow you leave this out when you talk about basic democratic principles. Why is that? Is it out of sheer ignorance?

What's also very odd is the way that you somehow try to portray anti-government protests as revolutions and regime changes, when this is a Hallmark of any democratic system: when a government doesn't follow through with their compromise and go directly against their mandate and people's will, they express their discontent and demand elections. How odd that when democracies reject Russia's interference, this is deemed as an anti-democratic coup.

Narretz 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's no way of knowing that Russia wouldn't have incited the "rebellions" anyway. Once the writing was on the wall that the majority of Ukrainians didn't want to be Russia's puppets, Putin would likely have acted one way or the other. Why take chances?

inglor_cz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"He could have been overthrown in the next elections"

Let me see if Erdogan can be overthrown in the next elections in Turkey. No US involvement either.

If you live in a stable Western country, your trust in the next elections being fair and free is understandable, but in that case, refrain from any authoritative talk ("your arguments don't matter") about other places. In recent democracies that transitioned from totalitarian rule just a decade or two ago, elections are far easier to hijack than in the UK or Denmark.

"no-one would have batted an eye"

You cannot really make such a strong prediction about places like Ukraine, the Balkans, the Middle East etc. These are places where empires collide, and several crises in a century are almost a given.

Anyway I am fairly glad that Ukraine didn't end up like Belarus did, a satellite state of Moscow. Anything is better than becoming a satellite state of Moscow. Most of us from behind the Iron Curtain would rather fight a war than submit to Moscow again.

Interestingly, the Western leftists, who otherwise preach anti-colonialism from breakfast to sunset and then some, don't understand the same dynamic among white-majority nations. But it is still there.

lenkite 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Did you somehow magically miss the part where Yanukovych's election was extensively observed and vetted by the EU and several other international bodies ? The EU’s own delegation — alongside the OSCE and other bodies — stated that the election was "free, fair, and transparent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...

"Over 700 observers from EU member states participated, in addition to OSCE/ODIHR, the EU Parliament, PACE, and other international delegations"

The Guardian reported EU-led observers praised the vote as "fair and truly competitive" noting only "minor irregularities” that did not affect overall results".

"After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukov...

inglor_cz 9 hours ago | parent [-]

"Did you somehow magically miss the part"

Could you tone down your arrogance, please?

I was talking about the next election. You expressed your conviction that Yanukovich could be removed in the next election, remember?

I expressed my doubt about iron-cladness of such future election. Strongmen-like leaders in fresh democracies have a lot of methods how to win next elections without actually winning them.

lenkite 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, but I am really incredulous now - If he won the next election even after extensive vetting by EU and a plethora of international observers who called the elections "fair and transparent", then he has completely won the seat of the Presidency. On what basis does your personal opinion overrule the result of democracy ?

mopsi 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that someone won elections doesn't mean they get to stay until the end of their term no matter what they do.

Yanukovych had over 100 people killed in a violent crackdown on protests, then fled to Russia as he was about to be imprisoned. On 21 February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to hold snap elections to replace Yanukovych before the end of his term. Not a single member of his own party supported him or voted against the decision. He was replaced through general elections held a few months later. This is exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_election

lenkite 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, by that time the coup was successful. Anyone in Kyiv who objected to it would face arrest and incarceration themselves.

The vote did not follow formal impeachment procedure under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution (which requires a Constitutional Court review and more formal steps).

I am sure you then have no objections to the 53–0 vote in Crimea to remove the then-Ukrainian-appointed prime minister Anatoly Mogilev and install Sergei Aksyonov and the subsequent referendum on autonomy. After all, this is "exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work".

mopsi 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The vote by the parliament did follow formal procedures: not those of an impeachment, because the president was not impeached, but those of snap elections, as the parliament chose to replace the government through elections. In terms of legitimacy, general elections trump over everything else. A coup is commonly defined as an illegitimate seizure of power by a small group. General elections are the polar opposite, the furthest thing from a coup.

Regarding the Crimean referendum, I do have objections: international law considers referendums held under foreign military occupation illegitimate, and rightfully so. Had Hitler staged a referendum in occupied Paris after the invasion, would that have meant that the French willingly joined the Third Reich?

The Crimean referendum is nothing new. In the 1940s, the USSR also staged a series of votes to legitimize their invasions of European nations. At this point, I would consider anyone expecting me to take these referendums seriously as either severely underinformed or simply maliciously trolling.

WesolyKubeczek 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes it was. Democracy is not only about casting your vote once every few years and then shutting up and staying put, it’s also about holding your elected representatives accountable.

11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
lawn 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How nice of you to insert some Russian bullshit narrative into the discussion.

tsimionescu 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because both are representations of the rule and self-determination of the people. Popular uprisings are comparable to direct voting in terms of expressing the power of the people (though of course have other major differences in terms of violence, rule of law, etc).

motorest 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> Because both are representations of the rule and self-determination of the people.

No, not really. Having a radical group remove another totalitarian ruler doesn't automatically grant them legitimacy or any arguments involving "self determination of people".

UncleMeat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it a fair democratic vote when a very substantial number of the people that Israel claims are residents cannot participate in this vote?

ngcazz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

your selective definition of democracy accommodates a country

- whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state

- where 50% of the population doesn't have the right to vote, land ownership, or travel on the same roads

- and faces 99% conviction rates in military, not civil, courts

- where parties can be banned directly by government decision if it arbitrarily deems them to be anti-Jewish

samjones33 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The problems of Israeli democracy are not the ones you list.

The fundamental issue is the population of the West Bank, who, outside of Palestinian Authority areas (aka "Area A"), are largely controlled by Israel but cannot vote. Note that 1-2 million West Bank Palestinians live in Area A under the Palestinian Authority.

- Within Israel, there is a Communist Party (which rejects religion and ethnicity) and other parties (including two Arab parties).

- A key problem in Israeli democracy, which it would be helpful if you noted, is that although there are two Arab parties (and majority Jewish parties who welcome Arabs), the Arab population of Israel votes at a low rate. This results in their being under-represented in the Knesset.

- The Basic Law you refer to made zero change to who can have political power.

- The 50% you refer to is neither the right percentage, nor does it take into account areas of great Palestinian autonomy.

- Function of the legal system has never been relevant to who can vote or hold office.

If you want to reflect what is on the ground, I suggest you take in the whole picture.

hiddencost 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Liar

9dev 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Enlighten me, which part of my comment was a lie?

dekelpilli 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would quite concerning if Israel had non-Zionist (read: not in favour of the existence of Israel) parties.

vixen99 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not any longer but one might have thought of Britain as a theocracy at some point in the recent past insofar as members of the governing party would have put down Christian in the box marked Religion. On the other hand, in 2025, formal occasions in the UK usually take place in Christian cathedrals and churches. The King (albeit with no executive powers in the Government) is head of the Church of England - the 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

Interesting that 20% of Israelis do not believe in a deity. 18% are Muslim. In Iran, Jews are 0.03% of the population.

CactusRocket 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In what sense Israel is not a theocracy.

I find this very disingenuous because the person you replied to was talking only about Iran, and stating that Iran is a theocracy in their opinion. They never mentioned anything about Iran, let alone stating that Israel isn't a theocracy.

So asking this question, this way, is quite strange in my opinion.

amenhotep 9 hours ago | parent [-]

They said "theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first". If this is true - and it is their stated position - then, since Israel has nukes, either they are not a theocracy or they are begging to be nuked. The commenter has, I think reasonably, concluded that the other commenter doesn't think Israel is begging to be nuked, and is therefore addressing the apparent contradiction. It seems entirely genuous.

motorest 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state (...)

I think the "Jewish state" refers to how the country serves as the homeland for the jewish people, not how they force a religion upon others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state

Israel's legal definition is "Jewish and Democratic state", which explicitly ensures "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state

CalChris 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The Basic Law (their Constitution) of Israel defines it as a Jewish state. Its first page says:

  The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established.
  (b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
  (c) The realization of the right to national self- determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People.
Not irrespective of religion, exclusive to the Jewish People.
spwa4 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you have a problem with laws defining this sort of thing, you're going to have problems with the constitution of any muslim-majority country. Including ... of course Palestine.

Hamas/Gaza:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: O’ Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him,”

And the west bank's government pays pensions according to how many Jews you hurt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_...

(No worries the "parliamentary democracy" that the WB is - hah! - promises to stop that now. Well, except for the payments)

But this is a general problem with all muslim-majority nations. Take an extremely moderate one - Morocco - defines itself as:

"A sovereign Muslim State, attached to its national unity and to its territorial integrity, the Kingdom of Morocco intends to preserve,"

ngcazz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Even if you take those statements at face value, Israel is the only apartheid country being discussed here.

samjones33 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Have you paid attention to who can hold power in, say, Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Syria? Or Jordan?

Israel isn't any more apartheid than any of those places. Given that Israeli Arabs can and do vote (and become Medical Doctors), Israel is a heck of a lot _less_ apartheid than those places.

Consider travel... it can help you get outside the "american" box.

spwa4 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

You do realize that socialists are people who kept supporting khomeini AFTER it became clear he sent snipers, during the revolution, to attack his own people (well, the students, unions, ...) just so he could claim "zionists" killed thousands of people?

Of course this government is FAR worse, including on racism, than the worst Israel has ever been accused of. It's not going to change their minds ...

The current Iranian government started blaming Israel for everything long before they were even in power. Socialists supported them back then ... and largely now.

Clearly, one is forced to conclude, they see no problem with such actions.

samjones33 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you have not paid attention to European and Middle Eastern countries.

They are all ethno states.

The very concept "nation-state" is an alignment of "ethnic tribe" with "political borders"

You might want to hit a history book or two.

In this regard, Israel is more normal and places like the U.S. are abnormal. (Once you get outside the U.S....)

tdeck 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

With such a commitment to equality it's hard to believe policies like this slipped through

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee

gadilif 9 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a bad law (although somewhat covered with 'good intentions', it does have a scent of racism which shouldn't exist in state laws). However, note that the outcome was the unintentional creation of Jewish/Arabs communities in the Galilee, which actually help bring Jews and Arabs together. It is also important to note that Arab Israelis have full rights as citizens, have representatives in the parliament and even were a part of the previous coalition. This, of course, is not the case for Palestinians in the occupied territories, and this issue MUST be resolved (one- or two-state solution, either way the current situation is unbearable). With that, the current coalition does include extremists, and many (according to recent polls, >60%) in Israel want to see them replaced.

hiddencost 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Absurd.

djfivyvusn 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Who cares if they are? They're not out here calling for the destruction of all the Islamic states. Well, at least not the ones not already actively bombing them.