Seen thru the glasses of what we now know about the US elections, one might wonder if the current government reflects the Israeli opinion. At the time it was elected, of course - now the war-effect kicks in, and just as in the US, a lot of people support whatever the govt does out of natnl. security needs.
If we rewind back to 2003 and another invasion, only 46% of Israelis was for the Iraqi invasion by the US-led coalition (survey January/February 2003). Taking into account the enormous level of WMD BS prior to the war and the history of Israel vs. Saddam Hussein, this is remarkable.
Going into that survey, following numbers are very interesting:
20% was against invasion, even if the UN was involved (which it wasn't), and an additional 23% was against invasion before 'every diplomatic solution was tried'. 55% thought that Israel should respond to attack if Iraq attacked Israel, while 23% thought this should be dependent on the seriousness of the Iraqi attack. 48% of Israeli Arabs thought Israel should respond immediately with retaliatory attacks if Israel was attacked.
I only have a Norw. link for this, but it was a survey by the Ha'aretz.
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article489805.eceI have so total control of the People opinion on that subject in various countries (and especially Norway) after doing a lot of research :D
Whatever the diverse Govt's opinion (and political manouvering), the People across Europe, in the US, in the Arab world and also in Israel, was firmly against (or at least heavily split on) the desicion to invade. Despite heavy propaganda from the US/UK governments.
Democracy has a wider aspect than just elections, and the media carry a responsibility in exposing the seduction of fear going on towards us all, but instead only forward it. Or too many forward it. I remember one of the most scary moments during the election campaign in 2004; an interview I heard at BBC Radio in my car while driving through the summer night, where a BBC reporter interviewed a Republican official at the Republican National Convention in New York. They had a long exchange about the RNC, and the conversation turned to the way the Bush supporters behaved, the undying way they totally endorsed Bush and the manipulation by the Republican party to keep it that way, to stimulate it, stimulate the fear to acheive militarism/nationalism. And the media participation in doing so. In short: the 'feel good' effect.
The Repub blatantly told the reporter they had no moral limits to keeping people in oblivion as far as truth is concerned, as long as it served their needs. It was all up for grabs. When the BBC reporter said he had problems in understanding this ethics, the Repub replied: - Well,
you wouldn't understand - you're a
journalist!
This contempt for the ideals of journalism really reflects a deep contempt for the People; if you lie to them and they buy it, you're morally covered. It is individualism gone berserk, lacking even the most basic community feeling and responsibility. The electorate is your power battery, to be recharged with fear at regular intervals and the power released by stimulating nationalism and glorious victories. I mean, did somebody study how power was maintained in the old empires or something? ;-)
It is one of the many redefinitions of democracy going on, of which the election process - the right to cheat if you can get away with it - is but one of the problems.
At the root of it all lies extremism propelled by religion or greed (or both - the leaders want their 'feel good' as well), and if you look at it from their point of view, democracy is just an obstacle on the way to their God given power, and does not carry any values of it's own.
Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that.