If you refer to the Holyland affair and its criticism in Israel as an indicator of Israeli democracy, this argument has the same fallacy as the one about Athenian democracy. It had democratic features, which however combined massive slave system. Absence of, or conflict with the democratic features is the real indicator of democracy today. According to your argument, Iran can claim the title of democracy on the basis of its elective mechanisms. Regardless if you referred to Holyland affair, the municipal (local) and state authorities around the globe stand in one hierarchy the first being subject to other. Roughly put, the state power deals with political issues while city council - with pragmatic ones. If fact, the party adherence in many municipal elections is de-emphasized (and AFIK, in Minneapolis is eliminated in primary municipal elections). Jerusalem town authority routinely behaves as if this order was reverse, and the mayor dictates the PM. Netanyahu is far from being against mayor's Judaisation of Jerusalem district, but it causes embarrassing conflicts with the official state policy abroad, with the political self-image of the state. The reason of this paradox of Jerusalem local authority subjecting city to the political interests of the state authority is the fact that Jerusalem's political status is unresolved. This conflict dates back to the first British Mandate plan for the city (McLean) in 1917. All the city land purchase in the beginning of twenties was a one sordid political story. The difference is that back then the Zionist geopolitical domination in the city had to face the "neutral" British mandatory administration, whereas today the State of Israel wages this territorial battle against the powers of the world that refuse to acknowledge Israel's occupation of the East Jerusalem & territories.
- 12:43 PM
from the article: Mayor defends plan to raze Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem