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.
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.
Not really, because the group's influence is based on their religious doctrine.
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?
"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. "
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.
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.
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.
Naturally you are free to work with any defintion you choose in an effort to move the goal posts.
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?"
