Israel: the gleaming beacon of unwavering democracy in the middle east

It's a line we've heard repeated, over and over again.

"Israel is the only democracy in the middle east" 

Along with other dangerously ironic lines that make you laugh and cry so hard, your heart feels like it might rip through your chest and force you on the floor, pleading with Uzi Shmueli to "please put my bloody heart back down where you found it!".

Who in the world could believe such a thing apart from ignoramuses and lunatics? Where would these ignoramuses and lunatics congregate?

The answer is simple and obvious--they're in the United States of America.

The claim originates from a '[don't you dare] think tank' called Freedom House which actually places Cyprus as the country with highest level of democracy in the middle east, but seeing as most don't really recognise Cyprus as a middle eastern country, Israel - the second place holder of the 'load of crap' trophy - has taken its place. How convenient!

There are many, many reasons why one could say the people at Freedom House (try reading that without face-palming) are nothing but Washington propaganda peddlers with very little credibility. For one, they think Saudi Arabia (yes, Saudi Arabia!) is more of a democracy than Syria (yes, Syria!).

Wait, what!?

Yeah, "Freedom House" (does your face hurt yet?) has placed Saudi Arabia above Syria - a secular country which democratically voted for Assad in 2014 - on their little 'democracy' chart. If you know Saudi Arabia you're aware that it's not only a theocratic country ruled by an extreme form of Sharia law, it's also an absolute monarchy. What does that mean? It means democracy isn't skimpy, it's NON-EXISTENT. Then there's the matter of severe oppression against women and minorities; daily public beheadings, crucifixions and lashings; the absence of freedom of speech, or thought; and the war-crimes against Yemeni civilians, but let's not get carried away with pesky details.

Now, let's get back to Israel and its own absurd "democracy" ranking.

Democracy .... democracy .... what is democracy?

According to a whole bunch of dictionary sources, democracy is ruled by two factors:

1. The right to vote, and,
2. Social equality

So what is a state that's illegally occupying land and oppressing 4.5 million Palestinians doing on top of the list? Why is an illegitimate country that denies natives their right of return to their homeland and families, whilst granting automatic citizenship to any Jew that wishes to settle in Palestine, considered "democratic" let alone "the only democracy in the middle east"?  And those poor Jewish settlers, does Israel inform them of the risks before granting them illegal settlements on Arab land? Don't they understand how dangerous it is, for a Jewish European, to live on land with such harsh and threatening sun rays? Skin cancer is not a joke!

Voting only a right for some

What is democracy if not a system in which every single person affected plays a role in choosing government? Well, that's not how it works in Israel. Their version of "democracy" is a little different. 

Even though Palestinians in the territories under military occupation are actually the most impacted by decisions of the Knesset, they are not allowed to participate in its elections. How is this justified? Well, you're probably aware by now how much Israel simply ADORES shady loopholes. Technically, under International law, those under temporary military rule don't have a right to vote in the elections of the government that occupies them. So, um, how many more decades do Palestinians need to live under occupation before they're deemed permanent? You'd think half a century sufficed.

But wait! That's not even the worst part. 

Did you know that Jewish settlers illegally residing on Palestinian land ARE allowed to vote in Israeli elections? What kind of system allows your neighbour to vote and not you, just because of your race and religion? That's an easy one—apartheid.

Israel's second-class citizens

As discussed above, only 1 in 7 Palestinians (those living outside occupation) are allowed to vote, while their Jewish counterparts can vote whether they live in Israel's pre-1967 borders or in Palestinian territories. But surely Arabs within the borders have all the rights that Jews do, right?

Guess again.

Arab citizens of Israel are not free from institutionalised discrimination. Certain Israeli laws are so calculatedly prejudiced, they'd bring a gratifying tear to Hitler's eye; one such law being the 'Admissions Committee Law' which was put into place in 2011 and later upheld in 2014, despite protest and petitioning. The law officially gives small rural communities in Israel the permission to reject residency applicants based on "social and cultural suitability", a vague description for minorities, and particularly Arabs, no doubt. But then, what do you expect from a state that feigns its desire for a "two-state solution" whilst also processing a bill that could officially declare Israel as "the nation state of the Jewish people". Not exactly ambiguous, is it. 

'Dry those tears, it's independence day'

And then there's the "Nakba law", an amendment that means Palestinian Israelis aren't even allowed to officially commemorate the day that hundreds of thousands of them were driven from their homes and instantly displaced. Why? Because it's an insult to Israel to mourn the day that lead to its unlawful inception. How dare Palestinians not want to celebrate, but lament the day 700,000 of them lost absolutely everything—those ingrates!  But seriously, the day of Nakba (which means catastrophe) is historically and culturally significant to 20 percent of the Israeli population, and last time I checked, freedom of speech was a major function of democracy, so.... what the Israhell! 

Freedom.... to dabble in corruption? 

There we have it. It's plain to see the institutionalised oppression, inequality and lack of freedom of speech couldn't possibly make Israel the "only democracy in the middle east", in fact it's barely a democracy at all. So what's with Freedom House? Is it yet another corrupt organisation that lies about its neutrality?

The answer is yes. Yes, it is. 

Freedom House doesn't just practice favouritism in its bogus reports and assessments, it also enjoys meddling in other countries' sovereignty. As a matter of fact, Freedom house has published a research study especially on that subject called 'How Freedom is Won'. Here are its conclusions:

"Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."

Sounds lovely, right? A nice go-to guide on how to topple your government. Except, the US department gets to choose which country would benefit from a good dose of American style "freedom" and "democracy". In the past Freedom House has been funded by the US government for covert activities in Iran as well as Ukraine, and several people on their board of trustees have been involved in the promotion of illegal US wars, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the ousting of Libya's Gaddafi in 2011.

With reputability like that, it's no wonder Israel aced the democracy test.

US motives behind the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

"It was so bright I had my hands over my eyes closed, and I could see the bones like you were looking at an X-ray."

The weather was fine and the skies were clear; the people of Hiroshima went about their business like any other day on the morning of August 6th, 1945. At around 8:00AM, not more than three planes were heard approaching the city at very high altitude. They did not cause any alarm as the Japanese by this time had become accustomed to the presence of American planes, and a mere two or three bombers did not indicate a full-scale air raid as other parts of Japan had recently experienced. At approximately 8:15AM, a nuclear bomb was released from one of three B-29s and detonated six-hundred meters in the air above Hiroshima's city centre. Three days later, on the morning of August 9, another nuclear bomb was dropped over the city of Nagasaki. 

What instantly ensued was devastation on a grand-scale, the likes of which had never been seen before, and has not been experienced since.The United States remains the only nation in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare and, most notably, against a civilian population. 

The reasons Little Boy and Fat Man were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been up for very little debate considering how unnecessary it was at the time. Japan's allies were defeated, and of course - the colossal elephant in the room - targets had a dense civilian population and very little military importance, which was admitted to being a "secondary" purpose anyway.

Prime location for experimentation 

According to the Summary of Target Committee Meetings,  Hiroshima had been very early decided upon as a target, mainly because it was, at the time, an "untouched" region of Japan. Its large size and isolation from the bombardment other parts of the country were facing made it an ideal location for testing out brand new weaponry. 

As the infrastructure was unmarked and the people were mostly uninfluenced by physical and mental trauma up until the bombings, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were subject to extensive examination in the weeks following the attacks. The effects of plutonium compared to uranium as well as the effects of radiation were at the forefront of the investigation.

"Greatest Psychological effect"

The Target Committee meeting notes also reveal that potential targets were being assessed on how effectively their populations would be able to "appreciate the significance of the weapon". The Committee wanted to make sure that when publicity was eventually released internationally, the magnitude of the atomic bombs was articulated well by those who did not die horrifically.

One of the cities they thought they could acquire this outcome was Kyoto which had the "advantage of the people being highly intelligent". But, in the end, Hiroshima was agreed on, as its topography and size had capacity for much greater damage.

The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been - as previously mentioned - impacted very little by past attacks was ideal for achieving this objective. It meant that civilian reactions would not be reduced by the influence of previous experiences, and that the attacks would cause full-scale hysteria.

Showing off to the Soviets 

Even after the US acquired the USSR as an ally, the atomic bomb project was kept secret from them. At the same time, Britain - a much less formidable military ally - was informed of the project and backed its use against Japan. According to declassified documents in the US National Archive and Records Administration, the prospect of dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan was first communicated to Winston Churchill by Franklin Roosevelt at a meeting in September, 1944 and by ten months later the British had given it full support.

Disapproval and skepticism over motives behind the proposed use of nuclear attacks were expressed by high-profile players before and after the bombings, including the architects behind the atomic bomb themselves. A New York Times article, 'Einstein Deplores use of Atom Bomb (1946)' quotes Einstein as saying "the bombing was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate.". In May, 1944, just months before the weapons were deployed, Leo Szilard requested a meeting with James Byrnes, the US Secretary of State, to discuss the ethical implications the weapons could create if internationally exposed. According to Szilard, Byrnes was not interested in the implications. Instead, he expressed his concerns of Russia's increasing post-war dominance, particularly their presence in Hungary and Romania, and thought that controlling them would be easier if the Russians were made aware of US military might.

What the US demonstrated was not superiority (the soviets had already secured that status without the use of weapons of mass destruction) but their unchecked desire to dominate at whatever cost, a sinister trait that continues to plague the world 72 years later.