In my post noting the attempted disenfranchisement of Arab citizens of Israel through banning their political parties, I made a careful distinction between democracy and "just government", before explaining why I made that distinction. But suffice it to say that if disenfranchising large portions of the population meant that a country was not a democracy, then the history of America as a democracy begins in 1965.
Incitement to violence is an individual act, and it should be punished individually. Banning parties from elections is simply not something that a strong democracy does. To the extent that Israel faces the possibility of parties being elected who deny its right to exist, that is a symptom of a larger problem within their society that banning Arab parties from elections will not solve. Being given the choice to vote for the parties the government chooses for you is disenfranchisement. It also isn't a choice. Jamie Kirchick concedes that banning the two parties would be a bad idea, because it would lead to "violence and discontent." But if this act is merely a minor inconvenience, not at all an act of racism or disenfranchisement, what exactly would Israel's Arabs have to be upset about?
-- A. Serwer
