Can Israel be “categorized”?

12/06/2004

Every country is unique, there is no combination of history and culture which is not radically single. However, almost all countries can be classified in diverse categories that share a certain number of characteristics: Germany and Italy are two results of the nineteenth century nationalism; Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria are the outsets of the French decolonisation, they all belong to the third World and have in common an historical background, associated with present resemblances. What about Israel? Its ideological basis, Zionism, was born with the nineteenth nationalism, its Independence is close from the ones of Morocco or Tunisia. This is not is only point where Israel, if not unique, belong to both categories, or neither. It seems that Israel can not entirely suit to any of the socio political categories existing. Our claim is not to pretend that Israel politics are beyond comparative studies, but to assert that if every development of the Israeli politics can be compared roughly to one other politics, the combination of all developments makes Israel unsuitable to any socio political family. Our first argument will be to compare Zionism, the Israeli politics basis, with some other national movements, explaining the feeling of uniqueness that can be developed concerning the Israeli politics. Then, we will see that the Israeli system can be compared to consociational democracies, with some differences however, this will led us to the thesis that Israel may have more characteristics of an “ethnic democracy”. Eventually, we will try to determine to which “family” of states Israel belongs.

Zionism was born in the nineteenth century under the influence of the nationalist movements and thinkers like Ernest Renan, or Fichte. Leo Pinsker, as well as Theodore Hertzl are men of their time, seeing in the nation state the solution for all problems, the best form of human organization. They built their ideology upon the glorification of Zion, like the Italians were exalting the renaissance of the ancient Rome. What is the difference then? The difference is that Zionism was calling for the unification of a people that has been dispersed for 2000 years. The difference was that Zionism called for the “return” in a land that almost no Jew had seen. And even if Zionism, like every nationalism, wanted to revive the original language, and recreate the ancient greatness of a people, which nationalism has reunify people coming for more than sixty countries? Zionism in itself quite different from any other nationalism in the 19^th century, it is not built upon the a desire of acquiring a military greatness, it is not built upon the identification of an enemy ( like the German nationalism for example), Zionism is built upon the idea that the Jewish people needs a secure place to defend itself against persecution, it is a kind of self defending nationalism.

In its practical developments, Zionism is more close to the North African countries independence, the period is the same, the struggle against the occupant is quite comparable. The differences are huge, in Palestine, the ones who are combating the British are not “natives” but new immigrants. Even after independence, developments are still without comparison, not any of the new decolonised country has seen its population doubling in three years like it was the case in Israel between 1948 and 1951. Those elements cannot been considered as details, they are constitutive of the Israeli society until now, they are the reason why lot of Israeli feel that their history is unique. This feeling of uniqueness is of course reinforced by the Holocaust.

If the history of Israel and the Jewish people can hardly be comparable. The Israeli political system is not unique. It shares a lot features with the consociational model: it has a multiparty organization. The number of parties in Israel is close from the ones in the Netherlands, or in Denmark. Then, Israel does have oversized coalitions, and a proportional representation, like other consociational regimes. According to Lipjhart, Israel fulfils almost all conditions that are favourable to consocionalism, such as: the small size of the country, the serious external threats to existence…However there are some elements that do not fit the consociational model, one of them is that Israel does not have a federal organization of its territory. Then, it does not have any written and rigid constitution, eventually, Israel has a unicameralist system, all those elements are characteristic of majoritarian regimes, therefore, Israel cannot be classified clearly in any model- type of democracy. Maybe we have to envisage a new of definition of a democracy, Sammy Smooha asserts that Israel is an ethnic democracy, it gives the supremacy to one ethnic majority, the Jewish one, but grants to the minorities some rights, and therefore would be comparable with the countries issues from former Yugoslavia.

Israel as a state can be comparable to the Western countries, it is modern, democratic, relatively rich. But, by its geographical position it is part of the Arab world, it has a high rate of militarization, does not have defined borders, is in a perpetual security alert, all those elements are reminders of the Third World. The Israeli population is also more religious than any Western country, only 20% of the Israelis define themselves as non observant at all. This is even not comparable to a “religious” Western country like the United States. Because of the great influence of religion and tradition within the Israeli society, Israel cannot be classified clearly in one side of the differentiation between modern/ traditional country.

It seems that the radical ambivalence of the Israeli case is even existing in its very definition as a “Jewish and democratic State”, both traditional and politically progressive. Both the result of an old thought, the Jewish one, and the outcome of a new ideology Zionism. In conclusion, if Jewish history is unique, Israel is comparable in terms of political institutions and organization, but it cannot fit fully any of the categories established until now to characterize a country.

Emanuelle Girsowicz

Aucun commentaire.

Dernière mise à jour : ( 30-08-2005 )

< Précédent		Suivant >

[ Retour ]