Liza Levko Blog 3

This week we went so many places and have so many things to choose from to blog about I don’t really know where to begin. I think I am just going to focus on our visit to the Israel Democracy Institute where we talk with a Ph.D. candidate Amir Fox. The institute is a think tank which focuses on research the extent to which Israel is a democracy and they also work to keep it a thriving democracy. In the last year, Mr. Fox told us of legislation which has and has not been passed which has been seen as limiting to the democracy of Israel. One in particular, the boycott act, is one I find disturbing. All of this legislation has been passed by right wing groups to further their agenda. I wonder what will happen when left wing groups use this legislation against those who wanted it passed in the first place. No one has actually used this law to their advantage, though. I ask the question is this just another part of nation building? The US has the alien and sedition acts which were limiting to our democracy and there has been various times during US history where civil liberties have been suspended or even revoked. I think that since Israel is trying to define itself during the modern era when many states whom are the same age aren’t as successful it is under harsher criticism to learn from the mistakes of history. Unfortunately, Israel seems to be a stubborn nation and wants to make its own way and mark in the world. Or is it that in a democracy the modern era is redefining what it means to be a democracy? That citizens have rights only to a certain point? I think that is a more pessimistic view of the situation and think these policies are eventually going to have test cases and the meaning of them will be clarified. People can protest in Israel, but I think this law is trying to hold them responsible for the actions which go on during these protest to make sure they are going to be productive and not destructive. Although, maybe not the intent this I feel is how the Israeli Supreme Court might look at the law when trying to adjudicate cases dealing with the boycott law.