the damage has already been done and Israeli democracy has been exposed in all its fear and panic

From Haaretz:

"Democracy in a panic

_{By Avirama Golan}

Even if the Supreme Court overturns the unfortunate decision by the Central Elections Committee to disqualify United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad, enabling them to compete in next month's general election, the damage has already been done and Israeli democracy has been exposed in all its fear and panic. ( TRUE. A DISGRACE. )

That panic, which leads to a constant erosion of the concept of democracy and freedom of expression and completely negates the ability to include a minority with a propensity for going against the consensus, is rooted in two weak institutions: the Central Elections Committee and the Basic Law on the Knesset, Article 7A, Amendments 9 and 35, 1984-85, which specify the conditions under which a party or individual is banned from participating in Knesset elections.

No candidate or candidates' list shall participate in elections to the Knesset "if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish( COME ON ) and democratic state; (2) incitement to racism; (3) support for armed struggle by a hostile state or a terrorist organization against the State of Israel."

Anyone who abhors incitement to racism can, ostensibly, be happy with at least the second part of the amendment. But because the sponsors of the ban on the Arab parties are Avigdor Lieberman and his party, Yisrael Beiteinu, which supports moving Israel's Arab citizens and their communities to the other side of the border and making their civil rights conditional on proof of loyalty, and which enthusiastically supported former Kach leader Baruch Marzel and the head of the extremist World Headquarters to Save the People and Land of Israel (SOS Israel), Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe - it would have been better had that amendment never been passed.

Marzel was banned in 2002 by the election committee on the grounds of incitement to racism, a decision that was overturned by a wide margin by an 11-justice panel of the Supreme Court.

Nearly all of the justices with the minority opinion posited that his candidacy was more problematic than that of Azmi Bishara and Ahmed Tibi (the heads of Balad and United Arab List-Ta'al, respectively). Now Marzel is fulfilling the prophecy of former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar, who in the Neiman Decision of 1984 (regarding the disqualification of the Progressive List for Peace and the Kach movement under Meir Kahane) allowed that democracy had the right to protect itself but expressed trepidation regarding the potential for abuse of that argument to antidemocratic ends.

There are no grounds for complaining about this to Marzel. Disqualifying Israeli Arab citizens from participating in public life is the essence of his worldview. It is the Kadima and Labor Knesset members who voted for the disqualification that spell the danger to democracy.

Their vote, which was influenced by considerations connected to the upcoming election in the shadow of the war, prove the justness of another section in the Neiman decision:

"It is not desirable to grant the authority for disqualifying a candidates' list according to considerations of content and essence to a body that is composed overwhelmingly, with the exception of the chairman, of representatives of political bodies whose considerations are likely to be ideological-political( VERY WISE )," Justice Menachem Elon wrote.

These are the roots of the evil: A faulty political mechanism and a faulty understanding of the concept of defensive democracy that dictated a vague and potentially dangerous amendment to the law. What is so threatening about a party that champions a model other than "Jewish-democractic" or that seeks to replace the concept of "independence" with the concept of "Nakba?" ( THE IDEA THAT ADVOCATING A US VERSION OF DEMOCRACY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IS DISGRACEFUL )

Do they have the power to undermine the Jewishness of the Jews or the Israeliness, Zionism and the sovereignty of Israel?

In the name of defense, democracy has security services, the police and the courts, which are charged with preventing any activity, including treason and incitement, and with punishment leading to a ban from the political arena.

Those who fear the abuse of democracy would do well to make do with the 1984 Supreme Court decision ruling that the restrictions over the right to be elected should be imposed "only as an extreme last means of dealing with a clear and present danger." Any other means, including the slap in the face the Arabs received on Monday, destroys democracy rather than protecting it."

This was a political move. I cannot believe that some people in the US tried to justify it. They are essentially agreeing with the idea that, in Israel, if you want a secular state with no ethnic group having an advantage over any other, you cannot run for office. At all. Shame on them.

"Israel's boast that it is the "only democracy in the Middle East" rings more hollow now than ever before."

Seth Freedman on the Guardian:

"A week is a long time in Israel
From making arrests on trumped charges to banning political parties, Israel has been busily upping the anti-Arab stakes

Comments (19)

• 
• • Seth Freedman
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 January 2009 13.35 GMT
  • Article history

On the edge of a lush, well-tended park, palm trees swaying in the evening breeze, a small delegation of demonstrators silently clutched candles as they condemned the bloodshed in Gaza. Their vigil was watched benignly by clusters of policemen strategically grouped nearby; passing pedestrians and drivers offered words of support and condemnation in equal measure – and within an hour the protest had run its course and disbanded.

On the face of it, last night's show of solidarity for Gaza epitomised Israel's commitment to free and fair expression for all its citizens, but the reality behind the mask tells a very different story. This was Jaffa, after all, a largely Arab city on the edge of Tel Aviv, where the locals find themselves in a precarious position at the best of times, and even more so when the country is firmly on a war footing.

Seven days ago, I attended a protest at the same spot, which boasted a far larger – and far more vocal – crowd than last night's vigil: scores of demonstrators loudly denouncing Israel's leaders as war criminals, rowdy brandishing of incendiary placards and flags, and a proud mixture of Israeli Jews and Arabs joining forces to voice their opposition to the war.( GOOD )

However, a week is a long time in internal Israeli politics, during which time several local Arab activists were arrested on trumped-up charges and held in jail, purportedly to prevent them carrying out future acts of sedition. Their detention served to scare off not only them from attending subsequent demonstrations, but also their friends, families and the rest of the Jaffa community, leading to the sharp drop in attendees at last night's protest.

"It feels like old-school state intimidation," said one man who braved the threat of arrest to show his support for yesterday's vigil. "What's worse is that Israel trumpets itself as a democracy, yet takes measures such as these [to stifle dissenting voices]. At least in places like Syria, the public aren't fooled into thinking their rulers are in any way democratic."

He described the reaction he had encountered when handing out leaflets advertising the demonstration to fellow members of the community: "People are frightened to come, and there's nothing we can say to convince them differently. We can't tell them they won't be arrested, since the evidence of the last week proves otherwise." He told me that stop-and-search tactics have increased in the area since the outbreak of hostilities in Gaza, adding to the sense of state-sponsored pressure on the local Arabs.

Yesterday, at the same time as the watered-down vigil was taking place, Israel's Central Elections Committee upped the ante in the anti-Arab stakes, banning two Arab political parties, Balad and UAL, from running in the upcoming general election. After two petitions claimed that Balad's and UAL's political platform aimed to undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish, democratic state, and that the parties were supporting armed struggle against Israel, the committee voted decisively to kick them out of the electoral race.

Balad's chairman Jamal Zahalka was defiant in the face of the committee's stance, declaring that "Israeli democracy, not Balad, is being put to the test today. Balad is a democratic and progressive party, and we believe in the basic principle of equality for all people. All we demand is democracy! What are you afraid of when we ask for equality? We are the sons of this country, we were born here and we are willing to treat you with equality, so why don't you?"

UAL chair Ahmed Tibi was equally scathing in his attacks on the Israeli government, asserting that "Any vote given to Kadima is a bullet in the chest of a Palestinian child in Gaza." He had short shrift for those accusing his party of undermining the Israeli status quo: "We never said that we don't recognise the state of Israel. We are part of it, but we will never accept Zionism, which is an ideology that aspires to banish us from our homes."

While appeals are expected to be lodged in the Israeli high court of justice by the suspended parties' chairmen, Zahalka maintained that the damage had already been done, predicting that the move would lead to a deeper crisis between the country's Jewish and Arab citizens. There is little doubt that he is right on that front; the already-strained relationship between Israel's Jews and Arabs has now suffered two body blows this month alone, in the shape of the Gaza offensive and, now, the clampdown on Arab political activity.

Whether on the balmy streets of Jaffa, or in the upper echelons of Israeli officialdom, the message appears to be the same: if you raise so much as a murmur of dissent in a time of war, the strong arm of Israeli law will come crashing down and stifle your protests in a flash. Israel's boast that it is the "only democracy in the Middle East" rings more hollow now than ever before."( HOW TRUE )

"But in the current financial crisis, I believe a bailout is warranted

An excellent post this week on the Big 3 Bailout on the Becker-Posner blog. First, Posner:

"Becker has laid out the case for refusing to bail out GM, Ford, and Chrysler. It is a powerful case, and if the drop in auto sales that is driving these companies toward insolvency had occurred two years ago, there would be in my view no case, other than a political one, for a bailout. But in the current financial crisis, I believe a bailout is warranted, provided that the shareholders and managers of the companies are not allowed to profit from it."

That's basically my position.

"The likely psychological impact of a bankruptcy of the U.S.-owned auto industry should not be underestimated. Already consumers, rendered fearful by repeated misinformation from government officials concerning the gravity of the economic situation (including their reluctance to acknowledge that the nation was even in a “recession,” long after it was obvious to the man in the street that we were in something worse), are reducing their buying, precipitating big layoffs in the retail industry, which in turn reduce buying power, which in turn spurs more layoffs. This vicious cycle would be accelerated by the laying off of hundreds of thousands of workers in the automobile industry, including employees of suppliers and dealers as well as of the manufacturers.

The U.S.-owned auto industry may be doomed; it may simply be unable to compete with foreign manufacturers (including foreign manufacturers that have factories in the U.S.); or a reorganization in bankruptcy may be the industry's eventual salvation. But the automakers should be kept out of the bankruptcy court until the depression bottoms out and the economy begins to grow again. (Recall that the government bailed out the airlines after 9/11, allowing United Air Lines to have an orderly bankruptcy reorganization beginning the following year and ending in 2006.) Any bailout, however, should come with strict conditions, to minimize the inevitable moral hazard effects of government bailouts of sick companies. The government should insist on being compensated by receipt of preferred stock in the companies, on the companies' ceasing to pay dividends, and on caps on executive compensation, including severance pay."

An absolutely first rate piece of Political Economy and Economics. Read it all.

Now Becker:

"Bankruptcy would help GM and Ford become more competitive by abrogating significant parts of their labor contracts with the UAW. One of the greatest needs would be sizable reduction in their health costs through sharp increases in the deductibility and co-payments, and a reduced coverage of medical procedures. Bankruptcy should also help bring the wage rates of GM and Ford in line with those of foreign producers in the US. Some of their pension liabilities may be shifted onto the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp, but even that would be preferable to an overall bailout.

A good analogy is what happened to United Airlines. By entering bankruptcy it was able to reduce its inflated cost structure by breaking contracts it had with the pilots union and other employee unions. It exited bankruptcy a slimmer and more efficient airline. Whether it is able to compete effectively in the long run is still not certain, but it is in much better shape to compete than before it entered bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy may also force out the current management of GM and Ford. I do not know for certain whether they have competent management- GM surely did not have top management for much of its recent history. I do believe, however, that when a coach of a team loses a few games, he might legitimately explain that by injuries, bad luck, or even bad officiating. These excuses become lame when he consistently loses many games, and the correct and common practice is then to fire the coach. The same considerations apply to top management. When a company consistently does badly while some of its competitors (like Toyota) are doing well, its time to fire the management team, and see if another team can do better.

Is GM "too big" to fail? I do not believe the company is too big to go into a reorganization-which is what bankruptcy would involve. Such reorganization would abrogate its untenable labor contracts, and give it a chance to survive in long run. A bailout, by contrast, would simply postpone the needed reforms in these labor contracts, the business model of GM, and its management."

Oddly, I agree with this as well. I accept Posner's reasons for a bailout as opposed to bankruptcy, but I would include Becker's points as conditions of the bailout.

1) Renegotiate contracts
2) Replace management

These onerous conditions, as well as Posner's:

3) Shareholders do not profit by it

This seems to be very similar to the Samuelson and Sachs post earlier.