Our Western Media’s Blind Bias Against Israeli Democracy.

There Is No Broadcast Associated With This Editorial:

I can’t fully express how flabbergasted I am at the Western media, who are continuously asking about Israeli government stability in the wake of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s debilitating illness.

Are these media “geniuses” not aware of the fact that Israel is a 100% Democracy; probably more so than the countries they call home?

In a tyranny ruled by a President-for-life, or at least until he is overthrown by another wannabe President-for-life. Or a nation ruled by a Monarch which is a tyranny nonetheless. There is always hyper-instability between leaders.

But in Democracies, where leaders represent political Parties voted into office by the people during preset elections, there is never instability between leaders.

The Prime Minister of Israel, like the elected leader of any real Democracy is answerable to his Cabinet, his Caucus and the Electorate. His decisions are not passed by decree, but rather by consensus.

ARIEL SHARON IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is the leader of a political Party that won enough seats to form the government. But just as he was elected, he could be unelected in a confidence vote, and/or turfed out in a subsequent election.

It was not Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s arbitrary decision to build the Security Wall. Nor was it his unilateral decision to vacate from Gaza. Those were decisions that needed a consensus in Cabinet and a majority vote in the Knesset (Parliament).

To suggest that Israel will have some kind of political upheaval because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s illness, shows stupidity, political ignorance, and a phenomenal level of disrespect for Israel.

Canada is having a national election on January 23, 2006 to pick a governing Party and possibly a new Prime Minister. If the current Prime Minister is defeated in the election: will one Western media ask about Canadian political instability because of a change of leadership?

When President Kennedy was assassinated: was there any talk about political instability in the American government?

When President Nixon was forced to step-down from office under disgraceful circumstances: did the American political system skip a beat?

To suggest that Israel’s political system is somehow less resilient than the systems of other Western style true-Democracies shows yet another anti-Israel bent.

The most insulting thing I’ve read so far: is a question posed by an American editorialist asking if Israel will suspend its March election because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s condition?

Would the American’s suspend their election if it’s President fell deathly ill?

The Palestinian Authority is looking at every way possible, to yet again postpone their “national” election because of a great, and a legitimate fear that Hamas might actually win.

But that’s the Arab way.

If the Arab government in power isn’t guaranteed a victory, they simply don’t hold the vote. But they call themselves a Democracy anyway. And the rest of the world pretends right along with them.

Somehow the pundits and editorialists in the West seem to have Israel and her Arab neighbors confused.

It’s easy to tell the difference: Israel doesn’t have a pretend Democracy.

But then again; why should I, or anyone else be surprised with just another media-created equivalence between Democratic Israel and its tyrannical Arab neighbors?