7 ms·

Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state, and at least 50% of members of current governing parties in parliament are from religious parties and zionist parties

Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state, and at least 50% of members of current governing parties in parliament are from religious parties and zionist parties. In what sense Israel is not a theocracy.

9dev 1y ago
Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as the people are religious enough.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    That would mean the USA are a theocracy too, given most senators are Christian. That doesn’t make too much sense. Theocracy is a form of government in which religious leaders rule in the name of a deity, and religious law is the basis for all legal and political decisions.
    - rf15 1y ago
      m8 they literally swear on the bible /s
    - otikik 1y ago
      You… don’t see it?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      The USA is not a theocracy, though. The majority-Christian senators are not generally enacting theocratic laws and regulations (though there are some tendencies and influences, as seen with the recent repeal of Roe v Wade, for example). However, Israel does have highly theocratic tendencies. Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. They have even more religious influence on public life than the USA does (which is already somewhat high by European standards), with businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays (not selling risen bread during Passover, making elevators stop automatically on every floor during days of rest, observing kosher restrictions on food etc). Many of their foreign policy decisions are explicitly influenced by religious tenets, such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god (which includes modern day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and several parts of modern day Syria, Lebanon, and others). They're nowhere near the level of religous rule and/or fanaticism as Saudi Arabia, but they have much more religious influence and control of public life then a modern European/US-style democracy.
      - 9dev 1y ago
        > The USA is not a theocracy, though. Hence I brought it up, yes. > Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution; that doesn't make them theocracies. Even in the USA, presidents swear their oath on the bible! > businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays Try purchasing something on a Christian holiday in Germany. Did you know it's prohibited by law to play Life of Brian in public on Easter Sunday there? > such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several. Now I'm very much in opposition to a lot of what the Israeli government does, but they're really not what the term Theocracy means. That claim is just ridiculous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_God#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_G...
        tsimionescu 1y ago
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. OP referred to democratic votes, whereas you talk about "popular uprising". Can you explain in your own words why you believe these are even comparable?
    - brabel 1y ago
      Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 2014 was somehow democratic. That should show that depending on who is being ousted and your opinion on them, yes the two things can be comparable.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...) You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship. The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia. > That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...) Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.
        lenkite 1y ago
        And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual. But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
  - baxtr 1y ago
    This is not how it played out if you talk to Iranians. They will tell you that the theocracy folks were a small minority of the entire resistance and first built a government of unity. Once in charge they started annihilating all other opposition factions one by one.
- hiddencost 1y ago
  Liar
  - 9dev 1y ago
    Enlighten me, which part of my comment was a lie?
- ngcazz 1y ago
  your selective definition of democracy accommodates a country - whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state - where 50% of the population doesn't have the right to vote, land ownership, or travel on the same roads - and faces 99% conviction rates in military, not civil, courts - where parties can be banned directly by government decision if it arbitrarily deems them to be anti-Jewish
  - samjones33 1y ago
    The problems of Israeli democracy are not the ones you list. The fundamental issue is the population of the West Bank, who, outside of Palestinian Authority areas (aka "Area A"), are largely controlled by Israel but cannot vote. Note that 1-2 million West Bank Palestinians live in Area A under the Palestinian Authority. - Within Israel, there is a Communist Party (which rejects religion and ethnicity) and other parties (including two Arab parties). - A key problem in Israeli democracy, which it would be helpful if you noted, is that although there are two Arab parties (and majority Jewish parties who welcome Arabs), the Arab population of Israel votes at a low rate. This results in their being under-represented in the Knesset. - The Basic Law you refer to made zero change to who can have political power. - The 50% you refer to is neither the right percentage, nor does it take into account areas of great Palestinian autonomy. - Function of the legal system has never been relevant to who can vote or hold office. If you want to reflect what is on the ground, I suggest you take in the whole picture.
  - xdennis 1y ago
    > whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state The Basic Law which passed with 62 for and 55 against, just states what the constitution of pretty much any European country does. Most European countries are nation states. It's countries like Switzerland, Russia and Belgium which are outliers. (Hopefully, one day, they will be broken up too.)
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Is it a fair democratic vote when a very substantial number of the people that Israel claims are residents cannot participate in this vote?
motorest 1y ago
> Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state (...) I think the "Jewish state" refers to how the country serves as the homeland for the jewish people, not how they force a religion upon others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state Israel's legal definition is "Jewish and Democratic state", which explicitly ensures "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state
- hiddencost 1y ago
  Absurd.
- CalChris 1y ago
  The Basic Law (their Constitution) of Israel defines it as a Jewish state. Its first page says: The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established. (b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. (c) The realization of the right to national self- determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People. Not irrespective of religion, exclusive to the Jewish People.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ngcazz 1y ago
      Even if you take those statements at face value, Israel is the only apartheid country being discussed here.
      - samjones33 1y ago
        Have you paid attention to who can hold power in, say, Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Syria? Or Jordan? Israel isn't any more apartheid than any of those places. Given that Israeli Arabs can and do vote (and become Medical Doctors), Israel is a heck of a lot _less_ apartheid than those places. Consider travel... it can help you get outside the "american" box.
djfivyvusn 1y ago
Who cares if they are? They're not out here calling for the destruction of all the Islamic states. Well, at least not the ones not already actively bombing them.
CactusRocket 1y ago
> In what sense Israel is not a theocracy. I find this very disingenuous because the person you replied to was talking only about Iran, and stating that Iran is a theocracy in their opinion. They never mentioned anything about Iran, let alone stating that Israel isn't a theocracy. So asking this question, this way, is quite strange in my opinion.
- amenhotep 1y ago
  They said "theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first". If this is true - and it is their stated position - then, since Israel has nukes, either they are not a theocracy or they are begging to be nuked. The commenter has, I think reasonably, concluded that the other commenter doesn't think Israel is begging to be nuked, and is therefore addressing the apparent contradiction. It seems entirely genuous.
vixen99 1y ago
Not any longer but one might have thought of Britain as a theocracy at some point in the recent past insofar as members of the governing party would have put down Christian in the box marked Religion. On the other hand, in 2025, formal occasions in the UK usually take place in Christian cathedrals and churches. The King (albeit with no executive powers in the Government) is head of the Church of England - the 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. Interesting that 20% of Israelis do not believe in a deity. 18% are Muslim. In Iran, Jews are 0.03% of the population.
dekelpilli 1y ago
It would quite concerning if Israel had non-Zionist (read: not in favour of the existence of Israel) parties.

9dev 1y ago

Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?

tsimionescu 1y ago
Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as the people are religious enough.
- 9dev 1y ago
  That would mean the USA are a theocracy too, given most senators are Christian. That doesn’t make too much sense. Theocracy is a form of government in which religious leaders rule in the name of a deity, and religious law is the basis for all legal and political decisions.
  - rf15 1y ago
    m8 they literally swear on the bible /s
  - otikik 1y ago
    You… don’t see it?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    The USA is not a theocracy, though. The majority-Christian senators are not generally enacting theocratic laws and regulations (though there are some tendencies and influences, as seen with the recent repeal of Roe v Wade, for example). However, Israel does have highly theocratic tendencies. Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. They have even more religious influence on public life than the USA does (which is already somewhat high by European standards), with businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays (not selling risen bread during Passover, making elevators stop automatically on every floor during days of rest, observing kosher restrictions on food etc). Many of their foreign policy decisions are explicitly influenced by religious tenets, such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god (which includes modern day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and several parts of modern day Syria, Lebanon, and others). They're nowhere near the level of religous rule and/or fanaticism as Saudi Arabia, but they have much more religious influence and control of public life then a modern European/US-style democracy.
    - 9dev 1y ago
      > The USA is not a theocracy, though. Hence I brought it up, yes. > Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution; that doesn't make them theocracies. Even in the USA, presidents swear their oath on the bible! > businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays Try purchasing something on a Christian holiday in Germany. Did you know it's prohibited by law to play Life of Brian in public on Easter Sunday there? > such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several. Now I'm very much in opposition to a lot of what the Israeli government does, but they're really not what the term Theocracy means. That claim is just ridiculous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_God#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_G...
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- motorest 1y ago
  > Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. OP referred to democratic votes, whereas you talk about "popular uprising". Can you explain in your own words why you believe these are even comparable?
  - brabel 1y ago
    Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 2014 was somehow democratic. That should show that depending on who is being ousted and your opinion on them, yes the two things can be comparable.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...) You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship. The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia. > That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...) Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.
      - lenkite 1y ago
        And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual. But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
- baxtr 1y ago
  This is not how it played out if you talk to Iranians. They will tell you that the theocracy folks were a small minority of the entire resistance and first built a government of unity. Once in charge they started annihilating all other opposition factions one by one.
hiddencost 1y ago
Liar
- 9dev 1y ago
  Enlighten me, which part of my comment was a lie?
ngcazz 1y ago
your selective definition of democracy accommodates a country - whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state - where 50% of the population doesn't have the right to vote, land ownership, or travel on the same roads - and faces 99% conviction rates in military, not civil, courts - where parties can be banned directly by government decision if it arbitrarily deems them to be anti-Jewish
- samjones33 1y ago
  The problems of Israeli democracy are not the ones you list. The fundamental issue is the population of the West Bank, who, outside of Palestinian Authority areas (aka "Area A"), are largely controlled by Israel but cannot vote. Note that 1-2 million West Bank Palestinians live in Area A under the Palestinian Authority. - Within Israel, there is a Communist Party (which rejects religion and ethnicity) and other parties (including two Arab parties). - A key problem in Israeli democracy, which it would be helpful if you noted, is that although there are two Arab parties (and majority Jewish parties who welcome Arabs), the Arab population of Israel votes at a low rate. This results in their being under-represented in the Knesset. - The Basic Law you refer to made zero change to who can have political power. - The 50% you refer to is neither the right percentage, nor does it take into account areas of great Palestinian autonomy. - Function of the legal system has never been relevant to who can vote or hold office. If you want to reflect what is on the ground, I suggest you take in the whole picture.
- xdennis 1y ago
  > whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state The Basic Law which passed with 62 for and 55 against, just states what the constitution of pretty much any European country does. Most European countries are nation states. It's countries like Switzerland, Russia and Belgium which are outliers. (Hopefully, one day, they will be broken up too.)
UncleMeat 1y ago
Is it a fair democratic vote when a very substantial number of the people that Israel claims are residents cannot participate in this vote?

motorest 1y ago

> Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state (...) I think the "Jewish state" refers to how the country serves as the homeland for the jewish people, not how they force a religion upon others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state Israel's legal definition is "Jewish and Democratic state", which explicitly ensures "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state

hiddencost 1y ago
Absurd.
CalChris 1y ago
The Basic Law (their Constitution) of Israel defines it as a Jewish state. Its first page says: The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established. (b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. (c) The realization of the right to national self- determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People. Not irrespective of religion, exclusive to the Jewish People.
- spwa4 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ngcazz 1y ago
    Even if you take those statements at face value, Israel is the only apartheid country being discussed here.
    - samjones33 1y ago
      Have you paid attention to who can hold power in, say, Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Syria? Or Jordan? Israel isn't any more apartheid than any of those places. Given that Israeli Arabs can and do vote (and become Medical Doctors), Israel is a heck of a lot _less_ apartheid than those places. Consider travel... it can help you get outside the "american" box.

djfivyvusn 1y ago

Who cares if they are? They're not out here calling for the destruction of all the Islamic states. Well, at least not the ones not already actively bombing them.

CactusRocket 1y ago

> In what sense Israel is not a theocracy. I find this very disingenuous because the person you replied to was talking only about Iran, and stating that Iran is a theocracy in their opinion. They never mentioned anything about Iran, let alone stating that Israel isn't a theocracy. So asking this question, this way, is quite strange in my opinion.

amenhotep 1y ago
They said "theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first". If this is true - and it is their stated position - then, since Israel has nukes, either they are not a theocracy or they are begging to be nuked. The commenter has, I think reasonably, concluded that the other commenter doesn't think Israel is begging to be nuked, and is therefore addressing the apparent contradiction. It seems entirely genuous.

vixen99 1y ago

Not any longer but one might have thought of Britain as a theocracy at some point in the recent past insofar as members of the governing party would have put down Christian in the box marked Religion. On the other hand, in 2025, formal occasions in the UK usually take place in Christian cathedrals and churches. The King (albeit with no executive powers in the Government) is head of the Church of England - the 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. Interesting that 20% of Israelis do not believe in a deity. 18% are Muslim. In Iran, Jews are 0.03% of the population.

dekelpilli 1y ago

It would quite concerning if Israel had non-Zionist (read: not in favour of the existence of Israel) parties.