Posted on 12/06/2011 4:00:58 PM PST by SJackson
In the Obama administrations latest salvo against Israel (see here and here for previous rounds), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly accused Israel of behaving like undemocratic regimes, even comparing it directly to Iran.
This is so outrageous it shouldnt need refuting. But since the secretary of state is clearly confused about what distinguishes democracies from non-democracies, allow me to help: Democracies, like non-democracies, consist of human beings, and human beings everywhere sometimes produce bad ideas. But unlike non-democracies, democracies have numerous self-correcting mechanisms to keep such bad ideas in check. And nothing better proves this than the very examples she cited.
Take, for instance, the segregated buses. Some years ago, a few extremist ultra-Orthodox communities decided that buses should be segregated, with men sitting in front and women in back. Shockingly, the public bus company serving these communities complied. Like Clinton, I find this outrageous, as did most Israelis when they learned of it. But heres the part of the story Clinton didnt tell:
Israels vibrant free press reported on the issue, creating a public outcry. The issue was taken up by Israels democratically elected government. Ordinary individuals joined with some of Israels numerous civil-society organizations to petition Israels independent High Court of Justice, which unsurprisingly ruled the segregation illegal. Now, civil-society activists are monitoring the rulings enforcement. The verdict so far, as per one activists account in Haaretz last month: Some ultra-Orthodox passengers are palpably hostile, but women can sit in the front of the bus without suffering harassment.
In short, the self-correcting mechanisms of Israels democracy worked exactly the way they were supposed to: Instead of receiving official sanction, as it does in, say, Saudi Arabia, gender segregation was legally quashed.
Or take the proposals to restrict foreign governments funding of left-wing NGOs. As I explain here, these bills sought to address a real problem, but were indeed undemocratic as originally worded.
But heres the part of the story Clinton didnt tell: The bills sparked an outcry, both in Israels free press and its democratically elected parliament, and the swelling opposition caused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ice the legislation even before it reached the Knesset. Once again, the self-correcting mechanisms of Israels democracy worked exactly as they were supposed to. Now, a revised version of the bill has been submitted, but it, too, has sparked fierce opposition and will likely be killed unless it undergoes further substantial changes.
Granted, the NGOs America supports in Israel are generally worthy apolitical ones, engaged in causes (like empowering Bedouin women) to which Clinton justly sees no reason for Israel to object. But that isnt true of European governments which, for instance, actively fund efforts to get Israeli soldiers indicted in international courts. Try imagining Americas reaction if supposedly friendly governments were funding NGOs that sought to haul American soldiers before the International Criminal Court, and the Israeli bills look much more justifiable.
Clintons behavior, in contrast, has no justification whatsoever. After all, she is the secretary of state. Shouldnt she at least bother to check the facts before launching broadsides.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Facts get slippery when they're around a Clinton. In this instance Hillary thought the conversation was private, so she let her animus toward Orthodox Jews slip out.
Has Clinton EVER slammed an Arab country without any facts to back her up? Just saying...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.