Monday, March 25, 2013

A Lily of the Valley


A Lily of the Valley

Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Israel-America Renaissance Institute 
1) Aristotle studies some 150 regimes before he composed The Politics, the greatest work in political science.  In Book IV of that classic, he set forth a myriad of political regimes by varying the parameters—tenure, powers, size, and mode of election—that shape their governing institutions.

2) Not until Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote The Federalist Papers, did there appear a text on how to design political institutions comparable to that which Aristotle's Politics can teach us. Unfortunately, this wisdom was ignored by the founders of the modern State of Israel--and it shows, to the Jew’s disadvantage and embarrassment, despite the vain boast that Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East—sink-hole of corruption and despotism

3) Aristotle describes five different types of democracy. All are based on the rule of the many, the poor. Since the many rule in their own interests, democracy is a bad or unjust regime, but not as bad as oligarchy, the rule of the few, primarily the rich. 

4) Aristotle shows that a "mixed regime" that combines various ingredients of democracy and oligarchy is the best practical regime. He calls this a “polity,” say a “republic.” A republic is the best practical because it’s stable, moderate, and favorable to the rule of law as opposed to the arbitrary will of men. Properly designed, a republic should give the appearance of being a democracy.

5) Of the five types of democracy, the worst, says Aristotle, lacks the rule of law and therefore approaches anarchy. The latter can hardly be called a "regime," since the term "regime" implies a distinctive way of life and a more or less stable relationship between the rulers and the ruled, where the former are accountable to the latter. 

6) Apart from other shortcomings, democracy exalts change. This undermines reverence for the law. The law can hardly be deemed venerable when it is here today and gone tomorrow.

7) According to Aristotle, the only type of democracy that can rightly be called a regime is one that has a constitution, a structure of institutions that regulates the power and alternating relationship of rulers and ruled.  

The preceding information casts some doubtful on whether Israel is a regime in the Aristotelian sense of the term. This doubt is intensified by plethora of parties in the Knesset. Seats are distributed on the basis of Proportional Representation with a very low electoral threshold, in consequence of which Israel has never had a majority party in control of the Government. Indeed, the Government has ever consisted of five or six rival parties, each with its own agenda, which cannot but undermine the cultivation of a strong sense of national unity and purpose characteristic of anarchy.
The question arises, how does Israel survive? It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Israel today is not a political regime so must as a sociological potpourri lacking any ruling principle. It’s more accurately defined economic and technological society devoid any Jewish philosophy. Its Zionism evaporated with the policy of “territory for peace.” As for Israel’s religious veneer, it has worn so thin as to be an embarrassment. 

All talk about Zionism and Jewish identity, either by old parties such as the Likud, or new parties such as Jewish Home and Yesh Atid, is sheer flapdoodle.

Not a single party leader in Israel has the brains to formulate a philosophy of government that could yield a genuine synthesis of Jewish and democratic principles—a synthesis which can actually be found in the Hebraic Republic of antiquity.

That synthesis recurred in colonial America, where it not only enriched the political thought of Harvard president Samuel Langdon and Yale president Ezra Styles. It also fructified the political creativity of America’s Founding Fathers. That synthesis once blossomed in the Land of Israel.

Dare we believe it can blossom again like a Lily of the Valley?

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Time to teach Turkey a lesson

Time to teach Turkey a lesson
Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:05 am (PST) . Posted by: "Yaacov Levi" jlevi_us

Time to teach Turkey a lesson

Michael Freund
Time to teach Turkey a lesson
by Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post
March 4, 2013
Send RSS Share:
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done it again. Despite his extensive efforts to masquerade as an enlightened and civilized statesman, his temper got the best of him last week, peeling away the veil to reveal for all to see his profound hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.
Speaking at the Fifth Alliance of Civilizations Forum in Vienna's Hofburg Palace, in the very same country where Hitler was born, the Turkish leader declared Zionism to be a "crime against humanity" and equated it with anti- Semitism, fascism and Islamophobia. This from a man whose country continues to deny its own acts of genocide against the Armenian people a century ago, and its brazen oppression of its Kurdish minority today.
Needless to say, this is hardly the first time Erdogan has shown his true colors. On more than one occasion in recent years, he has hurled venom and vitriol at the Jewish state. Just four months ago, on November 19, at a conference of the Eurasian Islamic Council in Istanbul, Erdogan accused Israel of carrying out the "mass killing of Muslims" and massacring children in Gaza.
"For this reason," he explained, "I say that Israel is a terrorist state and its acts are terrorist acts." And who can possibly forget his dramatic performance at the World Economic Forum in Davos four years ago? On January 29, 2009, Erdogan shared the stage with President Shimon Peres, and the two clashed over the IDF's counterterrorism operation in Gaza aimed at halting Palestinian rocket attacks. At a certain point in the discussion, the Turkish prime minister became incensed and got up from his seat. He was, the New York Times reported, "red-faced, and with one hand grasping the arm of the moderator." Erdogan then turned to Peres, one of Israel's biggest political doves, and said to him, "Your voice comes out in a very loud tone and the loudness of your voice has to do with a guilty conscience.
When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," before storming out of the room.
And how about the Mavi Marmara affair, when Turkey facilitated the attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza? ERDOGAN'S RHETORIC and behavior is more befitting of a neighborhood thug than a regional power with diplomatic ambitions. As a member of NATO and a would-be EU candidate, Turkey clearly needs to be taught a lesson by the West, which cannot and must not tolerate such disgraceful behavior. Erdogan's radicalism and rancor only contribute to the further destabilization of the region, and undermine any chances of bringing about peace and understanding.
There are various political, economic and diplomatic levers that the US and European countries can use to bring about a change in Erdogan's conduct. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. If the virtual apathy which greeted Erdogan's eruption last week is any indication, Israel and its supporters should be very worried.
Take, for example, US Secretary of State John Kerry, who happened to be visiting Turkey the day after Erdogan's outburst. Speaking at a news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu at his side, Kerry offered a mealy-mouthed denunciation, saying that, "We not only disagree with it, we found it objectionable."
Objectionable? When you are served the wrong soup in a restaurant, that would be considered objectionable.
But when someone says that the ideological underpinning of your nation's closest ally in the Middle East is akin to fascism, it is far more than merely objectionable.
It is loathsome and repugnant, Mr. Secretary.
Similarly, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who was present during Erdogan's speech, waited nearly 24 hours before dispatching his spokesman to mumble a few words of disagreement to the press regarding Erdogan's characterization of Zionism.
This cannot be allowed to stand. Hence, Israel should consider withdrawing its ambassador from Ankara, downgrading relations with Turkey and cutting back on Israeli tourism and investment, until Erdogan apologizes for his slur. We need to make it clear that any assault on Zionism is an attack on the very conceptual foundation of the Jewish state and its right to exist.
After all, Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, the set of ideas that give expression to our age-old hope of regaining sovereignty in the land of our ancestors. If someone opposes Zionism, it means they aim to deny freedom and self-determination to the Jewish people, which is akin to anti-Semitism. And that, Mr. Erdogan needs to learn, is the real "crime against humanity" which will not be tolerated.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
* Jacoby: Europe's Hezbollah cowardice
* Troy: From LBJ to Nixon to Obama, why the White House may 'regret' hassling the press
* Schanzer: It's Not An Intifada

You are subscribed to this list as
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to
To subscribe to the Michael Freund mailing list, go to