More than 1 in 3 people living under Isreali rule did not have the right to vote..

[freepalestine]

Israeli Election 2013: Who is represented? Who is disenfranchised?

On January 22, Israelis went to the polls to chose a new government. Yet more than 1 in 3 people living under Israeli rule did not have the right to vote.

For the IMEU backgrounder on the Israeli Election:http://imeu.net/news/article0023442.shtml


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8368/8406120971_1048154030_b.jpg




.

[goalkeeper]

Those living in the West Bank voting in Israeli elections, though, would mean citizenship and ultimately annexation - which i assume you wouldn't find acceptable.

[redblood_blackflag]

This is of course based on the presumtion that the state is "legitimate," or that "voting" is something which accomplishes anything, or is actually a "right."
An individual surely has the "right" to pick a leader for themselves, but the statist system is not that, the statist system is picking a "leader," for others, and in that case, a ruler.
Picking a leader for someone else is not a "right" anybody can possibly have.
It doesn't even make any sense, but that is the common belief of the statists.
They don't necessarily view it that way all the time, if ever.
On top of it, a "vote" for the state is against ones own interests, always, for a "vote" for the state is essentially an admission that they have the "right" to rule you. It is the admission that their commands are at least "justified" enough to have to use their own voting system to attempt to repeal or change them.
To "consent to be governed," which is essentially the belief in "voting," is in essence to say "I agree to let you forcibly control me, even if I disagree with what you order me to do." It's utter insanity, honesty.
Here is an excerpt from a book called There's No Government Like No Government, by Jackney Sneeb, which deals with ritual of "voting."



Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where-
A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.
Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in 'government,' thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A.' The problem is that George already has right 'A' -- the right to rule himself- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B'- the right to rule others (i.e., Bob). Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B,' he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.
Bob might be able to delegate 'A,' the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A,' while actually attempting to delegate right 'B,' he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A,' voting is really just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.

[Red Commissar]

Those living in the West Bank voting in Israeli elections, though, would mean citizenship and ultimately annexation - which i assume you wouldn't find acceptable.

That oversimplifies what the point of this is. Of course the obvious solution here'd be for Israel to annex these areas and grant them citizenship, but Israel is unlikely to do that because of the nature of Israel. An ideal country, even a bourgeois democracy, should have voting across its population. In Israel's case, there's an religious-ethnic basis to its creation which would preclude citizenship towards Arabs living in its borders. And yet it considers itself to be democratic.

Israel as far as the government is concerned is for Jewish people and they plan their policies accordingly. If they would extend voting rights to Palestinians in areas they effectively rule, the political arena in Israel would change completely. Where as now we see Israel creating right-wing religious governments, a large influx of Arab voters would throw a wrench into forming such governments.

The same logic dictated apartheid in South Africa. Basically that they have a precarious position in the region, and it is in their interest to intentionally keep the electorate restricted to their part of the population. Any deviation would mean the end of the system they built up. This kind of information is also meant to illustrate a hypocrisy in defenders of Israel, which laud it as a functioning democracy but ignore how it handles its citizenship.

It could also be seen as a justification for a one-state solution to the problem, one founded on secular principles that goes beyond Arab and Israeli nationalism. Admittedly a difficult ideal to reach, but still.