تاملاتی در باب قانون اساسی اسرائیل ۱

همیشه حسم این بوده که ایران و اسرائیل شباهتشون خیلی زیاده، نه چون گروهی از این دو با جنس مخالف دست نمی‌ده‌ یا بعد از غذا ساکت می‌شینه و دعا می‌خونه و مشکلی نداره که تو معطل نشستی، بلکه بیشتر بدین خاطر که هر دو اونا همت‌شون براینه که هویت خودشون رو بر اساس دین خودشون تعریف کنن.
دنباله این کنجکاوی بدین‌جا کشید که کمی به تاریخچه قانون اساسی اسرائیل نگاه کنم. اما قبلش یک نکته.

نکته: عجیب نیست که ما این همه روشنفکرهای عرب رو تحویل می‌گیریم درحالیکه جامعه‌ای که اونا ازش برخاستن نه انقدری که ایران هم دموکراسی بسته دغدغه‌ی دموکراسی دارن و نه به دموکراسی شهرت یافتن. اما در عوض کاملا بی‌خیال روشنفکرای اسرائیلی شده‌ایم و از اون مهمتر تقلایی که در آشتی دادن ارزش‌های غربی و تورات کرده‌اند.

باری، من هم مانند بقیه‌ی آمریکایی‌ها گمانم بر این بود که هر جامعه‌ی موفقی الگو گرفته از آمریکاست و خب هیچ نمی‌دانستم که انگلیس یک قانون‌اساسی رسمی و تنظیم شده آن‌گونه که قانون‌اساسی آمریکا نوشته شده ندارد. اسرئیل هم چنین است اما به دلایل متفاوتی از انگلیس. قرار بر این بود که این سند تا سال ۱۹۴۸ تهیه شود اما به گفته الازار (یکی از تینک تنک‌های اسرائیل) در مجلس اول که کارکرد مجلس موسسان نیز داشت، بحث بسیار شد که آیا قانون‌اساسی نوشته شده‌ای تنظیم گردد یا خیر. اما بحث به جایی نرسید چه گروه‌های مذهبی مخالف این ایده بودند که قانونی اساسی‌ای غیر از تورات وجود داشته باشد و البته گروه‌های چپ نیز مطمئن بودند که عقایدشان هیچ انعکاسی در قانون‌اساسی نخواهد یافت پس چه بهتر که قانون‌اساسی‌ای وجود نداشته باشد. نتیجه این شد که دیوید بن گوریون (اولین نخست وزیر اسرائیل) به مجلس موسسان پیشنهاد داد که نوشتن آن به تدریج انجام شود و هر مجلسی می تواند بندی بدان اضافه نماید و یکی از دلایل او این بود که باید منتظر ماند تا عموم یهودیان از سراسر جهان با خانه خود بازگردند. اگر کنجکاوید پیش‌نویس آن این‌جاست (با آخرین تغییرات مجلس شانزدهم) که تاکنون ۱۴ قانون تصویب گشته‌اند که از جمله آنان قانون معروفی است که قدس را پایتخت اسرائیل نمود و در سال ۱۹۸۰ تصویب شد.
‌ در «هاشمی بدون روتوش» خواندم که خمینی چه اسراری بر این داشت که همه چیز به سرعت شکل گیرد. تحلیل هاشمی این بود که مردم تشنه مشارکت بودند و می‌بایست با رای مردم حکومت و چارچوب مملکت را تعیین کنیم. تحلیل خوشایندی است اما اکنون و بعد از ۳۰ سال آیا انعطاف‌پذیری لازم در آن تعبیه شده بود؟

بحث‌های آشنا به کنار، آنچه من واقعا بدان کنجکاو بودم این بود که چگونه اسرائیل توانست خود را دولتی برای یهودیان سازد و هم‌چنان در بین غربیان شناخته شده به دولتی سکولار باشد که دینی را ترویج و ترجیح نمی‌دهد وبازجالب‌تر اینکه همچنان بانی یهودیان خارج از اسرائیل نیز بماند. به گمان من، این از موفقیت‌های اسرائیل است و موفق‌تر آنکه توانست آن را خصوصا در تقابل با کشورهای عرب و همسایه دیکتاتور خود به برگ برنده ساسی-اقتصادی در برابر کشورهای غربی تبدیل کند.

الان باید برم سرکار (۱۱ ظهر!) بقیه‌ش باشه برای بعد

Israel in EuroCup

Wouldn't have been funny if Israel would have qualified and was in one of the groups? The the question that "If Israel can play soccer in The European Cup shouldn't it be able to
join The European Union?" would have gotten more color!

Representation without Taxation

Last night I thought of this phrase to describe the state of democracy in Iran. It's simply "the economy, stupid"; if people don't have an active financial role in the government and are not it's main source of financial support, they won't have a political role in it either. Sovereignty flows from Oil, not the people.

Obama is Christian!

It's funny that one of the side effects of the whole reverend Wright's commotion is that now people know he's Christian and not a Muslim!

Democracy without America

So I came up with this brilliant title not knowing that Michael Mandelbaum already used it and quite frankly for a really good and mature article too. My initial thinking was that using an army to ameliorate the democratic conditions of a country is the equivalent of rejecting the primacy of liberty and recognizing the people as the sovereign and the highest form of authority. In a best scenario, democracy with America's might will become a collection of "do-gooders" (in the Jacksonian sense) that will have to limit liberty in favor of security neglecting the "competitive" nature of democracy at national and local levels.

Mandelbaum's article was much better! The question for him rooted from the seemingly paradoxical combination of spontaneous spread of democracy in the world contrasted against the failure of US democracy promotion in specific countries: "Why have the deliberate efforts of the world’s most powerful country to export its form of government proved ineffective?". But the real question for him was something else: "Why and how has democracy enjoyed such extraordinary worldwide success despite the failure of these efforts?"
His answer starts at the definition of democracy itself; a combination of liberty and popular sovereignty. Economic liberty implies the inviolability of private property, political liberty connotes the absence of government control of speech, assembly, and political participation and popular sovereignty refers to the tradition that the right to govern belongs not to hereditary monarchs but rather to the people they governed. But the crucial point is that democracy is the combination of these two concepts that protects the freedom of individuals from the government, the majority and special interest groups. Merge of these two concepts has always convinced me of the brilliance of the founding fathers and of course because of a vast available "space" they had an easier time than Europeans moving from a feudalistic regime to a democratic one. Anyway Mandelbaum concludes as a Stanford lecturer did in a speech after occupation of Iraq that "Any country can hold an election, but for an election to be free and fair requires a lot of organization, preparation, and training of political parties, electoral officials, and civil society organizations who monitor the process. "
The real question that Mandelbaum is concerned with is actually more interesting than the first one. He's surprised by the rate at which democracy spread in that last quarter of the century considering that it will take at least one generation for creating the social conditions conductive of liberty. His answer is simple: "The magic of the market"! The key to establishing a working democracy, and in particular the institutions of liberty, has been the free-market economy. Why? Simply because "the institution, skills and values needed to operate a free-market economy are those that,in the political sphere,constitute democracy". This argument alone was convincing for me when I thought about all the debates in Iran as which should take priority, political growth or economic growth. Mandelbaum's answer is neither if you adopt a free-market economy. He goes on to enumerate more arguments supporting his claim:

• Private property, which is central to any market economy, is itself a form of liberty.
• A successfully functioning market economy makes the citizens of the society in which it is established wealthier, and wealth implants democracy.
• The free market generates the organizations and groups independent of the government that are known collectively as civil society, which is itself indispensable to a democratic political system
• The experience of participating in a free-market economy cultivates two habits that are central to democratic government: trust and compromise.

It is easy to see what he would conclude from this analysis: "the best way to foster democracy is to encourage the spread of free markets" and that deliberate promotion of free market is unnecessary due to the fact that "the market will always take care of itself".

American Exceptionalism

One theme that has not changed during the course of America's history is the "American exceptionalism". An example of it is T.R. "The New Nationalism" speech:
"The history of America is now the central feature of the history of the world; for the world has set its face hopefully toward our democracy."
And he goes on saying how each of us carries the burden of the world in addition to our country. It's what some call the secular version of "Citty upon the Hill" of the Puritans. I guess if you follow this through the “New World Order” and now to “Promoting Democracy” you can reach the same point as Bush did when before invading Iraq in 2003 and said:(the quote is a bit out of context but I still like it this way) “This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.” America is the Citty upon the Hill and everyone is "strongly encouraged" to improve themselves by emulating her. I see the world going in this direction and is it bad you ask? No; it's only natural to follow the winner! Imagine the new world order that Russia would have established had they won the cold war.

After 9/11 somebody said we don't need martyrs we need heroes. Iran doesn't need a 9/11 for this to be true.

In that Way Lies Ruin!

There was a sentence in one of the speeches in my all time favorite shoe West Wing that went something like this "government to be an instrument of good, where everyone comes together and no one is left behind" well I can just say that in that way lies ruin! I also didn't like the fact that a character in the show said it that he's suppose to morally superior and when I think about it more, really that's all that this sentiment is good for. I'm mentioning this because the election atmosphere has me thinking of rationalizing what can make Iran something again. Time and time again I come to this fact that we, instead of following the simple but powerful slogan of "get capital" find ourselves relying on other powers; most notably a dysfunctional government.

One thing to look into is Bushes visit to Israel as a governor and how it's related to him getting elected as a president!