Israel a Democracy or a Theocracy - Assignment Example

Some of Israel’s key institutions are the justice department, the police, the armed forces, and the health and welfare sector. Regarding justice, religious, military, and municipal courts exercise allotted jurisdiction, in a manner that is not significantly different from courts’ operation during the Palestine Mandate period. The country also has local labor courts founded in 1969 to settle labor-related disputes, whereas religious courts are responsible for addressing social matters like marriage and divorce proceedings. As mentioned, the president is responsible for appointing judges of the magistrate, district, as well as supreme courts. Generally, the Israeli judicial system is considerably autonomous and free from political sway (Meydani, 2011).

In Israel, the police are a subdivision of the Public Security Ministry and they report to a national main office under the command of the inspector general. It is also this ministry that oversees the country’s correctional system, which is further linked to a prisoner rehabilitation system. The national police branch has a military arm, that is, the Border Guard. The latter bears the responsibility of combating terrorism and upholding internal security (Reich, 2008).

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) constitutes the country’s armed forces. Considered by military specialists as one of the most proficient armies worldwide, the IDF has been instrumental in shaping Israel’s doctrine since the country’s establishment. This is because it was founded to protect the nation from possible attacks by hostile external forces, which were better poised for war in terms of numbers and geographical position (Galnoor, 2010).

The final key institution in this case is the Ministry of Health, which is responsible for the nation’s citizens’ health and general welfare. The Ministry has its public health services including clinics and hospitals, and it superintends the nongovernmental establishments. A broad range of health sustenance organizations are accessible to all citizens (Stone et al., 2017).

Personalities

Several key personalities have shaped the course taken by Israel politically and administratively since its inception to date. These include the first Israeli Prime Minister, Ben Gurion and subsequent ones like Begin, Peres, Shamir, and finally, Benjamin Netanyahu. The Ben-Gurion term began with the official declaration of statehood by Israel. The government was invaluable in dealing with challenges identical to those encountered by the Zionist movement prior to 1948. These issues included efforts to ward off attacks from neighboring Arab nations, attempts to get adequate foreign aid and support, as well as, efforts to re-settle the large influx of Jewish immigrants. In 1949, Gurion retained his seat, but his Labour party did not get a majority in the Knesset. The subsequent elections saw the Israeli leadership dominated by Labour Party prime ministers (Reich & Goldberg, 2008).

It was not until the 1977 election that Menachem Begin won with his Likud Party ticket. The Party perhaps won due to Sephardic Jews’ resentment toward the demeaning attitude of the Labour government and its apparent relegation of non-European Jews to second-class. Although the Begin administration attempted to quell the discontentment, the Labour party progressively regained popularity. The latter was evident from the outpolling of Likud by Labour in 1984. However, the narrow margin was not enough to form an inclusive government. In efforts to aid Israel’s economic recovery and remove the country from military involvement in Lebanon, the two parties created a coalition government. Premiership went to Peres, under whose governance Israel withdrew from Lebanon in phases (Reich, 2008). In accordance with the original agreement, Shamir rose to premiership in 1986. Shamir continued Begin’s policy of settling Jews all through the West Bank, with the intent of isolating Arab villages and towns likely to lay the foundation for a Palestinian state. By the end of 1987, the collective impacts of economic stagnation, bureaucratic violations, settlement expansions, land seizures, and the lack of diplomatic progress culminated in the Arab rebellion in Gaza and the West Bank, which came to be referred to as intifāḍah, which is Arabic for “shaking off” (Reich & Goldberg, 2008).

The final personality examined in this case is the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. His first term in leadership was tumultuous, owing to the deterioration of relations between Israel and Syria, as well as, his controversial decision to open up an ancient tunnel close to the Aqsa Mosque, which angered Palestinians and instigated violent riots. Netanyahu further reverses his prior opposition to the 1993 peace agreements and approved withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. In 1998, Netanyahu engaged in peace talks with Yasir Arafat, the incumbent Palestinian leader, which culminated in Wye Memorandum (Reich & Goldberg, 2008).

The second term for Netanyahu has not been free of controversies. For instance, he took a hard stance on Israeli foreign affairs, by lobbying for the global community to take greater action against Iran’s nuclear program. This put Israel at logger-heads with the then Obama administration, to the extent of some critics contending that this position threatened Israel and the U.S. bipartisan relationship. Netanyahu continues to advocate for a nuclear-free Iran, amongst other efforts all purportedly aimed at safeguarding Israel’s sovereignty and security (Stone et al., 2017).

Democracy

Judging from its modern history, Israel was founded on the values of democracy, social justice, civil rights, and general freedom of all people in matters of religion, enterprise and expression. This was clearly a noble ideology from the conception of this country. However, these principles no longer seem to form the basis of administration in the country. First, it is uncertain whether the Israeli government can successfully attain these objectives of social democracy, yet it was founded to serve as a Jewish state thus providing a safe haven for Jews (Bidussa, 2008). Additionally, the country’s commitment to freedom of expression, civil rights and humanism is questionable, as can be discerned from the hostile treatment of citizens other that Jews. This shows that even though Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, particularly Arabs, it still holds on to its theocratic foundation since Jews make up the country’s ruling and middle classes (Yiftachel, 2006).

Moreover, Israel is constantly violating agreements that seek to protect the interests of Palestinians, as demonstrated by continued occupation of West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in spite of the international community calls for cessation of the same. The country’s government further cites constant threats to its security and sovereignty as the basis for its extreme actions, yet it does not take responsibility for violating the same when it comes to dealing with its conflict with Palestine. Also inescapable is Israel’s advocacy for foreign policies that favor it and disadvantage its supposed foes, such as the aggressive calls for stronger actions against Iran, yet blatantly encroaching bureaucracy and diplomatic peace efforts. Overall, although it is a democracy, Israel seems incapable of reconciling its pledge to creating a Jewish nation with its original vision of a society that guarantees all citizens equal protections and rights and not just Jews.