Can someone please explain to me why America is as loyal to Israel as we are? I have donee some research and the repetitive answer I keep getting is "because Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East". But so are 76 other countries around the world, and we couldn't care less about most of them. So why Israel? I have my own theory about it. From what I know of religious history, everyone wants Jeruselum. And if the Jews and Christians pair up to keep the Muslims from maintaining control of it, it's a win/win situation. It's the only conclusion I can find that makes sense.
Unless I am mistaken there are no natural resources in that area to fight over so the only thing I can see that is of any interest to anyone there is the historical value of the land. Barely anything grows there, and I don't think they are huge exporters of any natural resource. Who knows maybe if they stopped fighting over the land like spoiled kindergartners fighting over a toy, maybe they could pool economic resources and find something of value there. If it were up to me, I'd handle it the way I handle the fights between small children. If they can't work out a sharing arrangement or one back down, then take it away and no one gets it. I'd nuke it or flood it somehow and make it unlivable for anyone. It nearly is anyway, from what I am told by Israeli and Palestinian friends online. Of course I would give everyone there warning so they can evacuate.
its domestic plitics. jewish votes and donations are worth more that arab/muslim voters and votes to candidates.
That I can. Israel is a special interest group and like all special interest groups they throw a lot of money at U.S. politicians so they get their way. Simply put, they buy U.S. loyalty. The irony is that Israel is a theocracy :3. Israeli Cash --> U.S. politicians. It's a fun theory but really the U.S. doesn't give a rats ass about Jerusalem.
This is true. The only god politicians really pay homage to is the almighty dollar. Though they will dress that dollar up as Jesus on an as needed basis.
No it isn't. You think Netanyahu is a rabbi or something? But there are other democracies in the Middle East, regardless. Turkey was always the big example, but now we can add Egypt and Iraq. Jordan seems to be on the way as well, although still a constitutional monarchy.
Claim: Israel is a theocracy. Definition of theocracy: "Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy Evidence supporting the claim: http://www.jta.org/news/article/201...s-freedom-violations-highlighted-in-us-report
There is no evidence supporting that definition in your link. Religious/ethnic nationalism is not theocracy. Israel is a country by and for Jews, but that is not the same as being a country governed by clerics or clerical authority.
Then allow me to help you find an example of evidence: From the article: "The report describes in great detail how the government of Israel surrenders to the ultra-Orthodox parties' extortion and hinders the right to marry; freedom of worship; the dignity of women; the new immigrants' population; the non-Jewish communities; and many others.” From the definition (notice the highlight): "Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group." Putting the sample and definition together: ultra-Orthodox Jews are a religious group. When the government surrenders to their will, official policy is by definition pursuant to a religious group. That of course satisfies the criteria as being classified as a theocracy.
That's still pretty weak. If the fact of some religious group having significant influence in the state policy renders a state a theocracy, then it will be difficult to identify any states which are not theocracies. I'm going to stick to the rigorous definition of theocracy as rule by the clerisy - which comports with the standard intuition about the term - and not buy into the overbroad reading of "pursuant" there. Let's also note that, by your overbroad definition, "theocracy" is no longer exclusive of "democracy," and so your original point is undermined either way.
And that's pretty subjective. It doesn't really matter if a person considers it weak or strong. What matters is if it's correct. Not really, because the group's influence is based on their religious doctrine. Read the doctrines, read the policies, and see if they correspond. If you want to use a rigorous definition of theocracy then you want the legal one: "A form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities. " http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/Theocracy.aspx When the government surrenders to the will of Orthodox Jews (a religious authority) then you get laws based on Orthodox Jew interpretation of 'God's will. Naturally you are free to work with any defintion you choose in an effort to move the goal posts.
Correctness of the application of a definition is itself a subjective issue to begin with. This isn't formal logic we're dealing with here. Likewise, the entire dispute comes down to what said definition even consists of. You are not in a position to hector me over the correctness of your application of a definition that I have not accepted in the first place. You'll have to substantiate that assertion. On the face of it, the influence in question would appear to stem from democratic powers - the ability to rally voters and elected officials to the position, throw money at lobbying, etc. And not on any inherent deference towards the doctrine itself on the part of the state. There exist religious groups in the USA which engage in successful political lobbying and electoral influence to get policies that comport with their religious doctrines. Does this render the USA a theocracy? What is the bright line here that separates simple influence of a religious faction within a democratic framework from actual theocracy? Can you identify one? Because from where I sit, it looks like you are defining theocracy down quite a bit. The suspicion would be that you are doing this in a casuist fashion in order to indulge some gripe about Israel - so how about you apply this same reasoning to some other states that are definitively not theocracies, and show how your reasoning would not apply the label "theocracy" to them? That's a decent definition, as written. The devil, as always, is in the details of how one reads "defers" and other terms in there. What does this mean, "surrenders to the will of Orthodox Jews?" Does is mean that they literally gave up on being a civil state, and simply put the Orthodox rabbis in charge of all policy-making? That would certainly be a theocracy. But if it just means that the Orthodox Jews are successful in using the civil, democratic framework of the state to advance policies that they favor, then it's nothing of the sort. That's the kind of thing that happens in every democracy in history. It is, in fact, exactly one of the mechanisms designed into democracy to avoid theocracy - and we'd expect pretty strong usage of it in a small state with an ethnoreligious national identity. A state with policies that align very well with the religious preferences of Jews is exactly what one would expect from a secular democracy in the context of a small, predominantly-Jewish nation. The whole point is that no goal-posts were defined in the first place. You're simply inventing them whole cloth to suit your favored "Israel is a theocracy!" rhetoric. I'm trying to discern whether this makes any sense. So far, I'm not seeing where you've managed to draw a clear line between what you mean by "theocracy" and what people understand to constitute "democracy." So, I will repeat my above invitation for you to make your position rigorous, and obviate suspicions that you are applying terms to Israel in a casuist manner, by considering at least one other state which you hold not to be a theocracy, and showing how your reasoning gives that conclusion. How do we tell the difference between "surrender to the will of some religious group" and "some religious group is successful at working within a civil, democratic framework to advance its policy goals?"
Israel is not a theocracy has the clerics don't rule it ( well at least directly) and its laws aren't based on its religious scripts. just because it is a state for a religous group doesn't make it a thoecracy. there is only one theocracy in the entire world.
I can think of more than one, offhand. There is only one in Europe, but there are several more in the Middle East. Israel isn't one of them.
