Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Defense Minister Ehud Barack is quoted as having told students: “One of the foundations of a democratic state is a monopoly on the use of force on the one hand; on the other is the state's authority over the citizens.”
This definition of a democratic state is perfectly consistent with the definition of a fascist state.
That Barack went on to say: “The citizens express their stances through political activity and the ballot box” does not nullify his fascist orientation because there are many fascist states that have ballot boxes—such as Egypt, Iran, and Russia.
Moreover, the fact that Members of the Knesset in Israel are not individually accountable to the voters on constituency election indicates that Israel, in a most decisive respect, is semi-fascist.
Thus, in Israel’s January 2003 election, at least 70 percent of the voters cast ballots against Labor’s policy of “unilateral disengagement,” a policy also opposed by the Likud party. Yet that became the policy of the Likud government.
By the way, Barack’s definition of a democratic state precludes civil disobedience, such as that of Martin Luther King.
For a comprehensive assessment of the flaws in Israel’s political system, see my book The Myth of Israeli Democracy: Toward a Truly Jewish Israel (Davidson Press, 2006). This book discusses different types of democracy and prescribes the basic institution of a Jewish democracy. In a more recent book, Toward a Renaissance of Israel: The Political Theology of Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh (Lightcatcher Books, 2008), I show that the Torah system of government, properly understood, is far more democratic than Israel’s present system of government, and infinitely more just and rational.
