(5) Poor David is such a sloppy reader and so ignorant to boot that he even got my point about the Court wrong: "As for your mention of the courts in Israel as a "uniquely Israeli second face of power" (as if the strictly Orthodox rabbinical network is not a uniquely Israeli second face of power"), ..." But I did not say that the courts WERE "the second face of power," but that their "omission pointed to a uniquely Israeli second face of power." Thus, I did not say that there were no uniquely powerful "networks" other than the legal "network," despite Davy's assertion to the contrary. Nor, if Davy knew what I was alluding to, could he have possibly believed that an INSTITUTION such as the Court could be "a second face of power." For institutions are part of the FIRST face of power, in the framework developed by Bachrach and Baratz. (6) Finally, I do not know if Sheffer is familiar with CWM's work. My point was that Sheffer seemed to be regurgitating Mills's framework, and that he should actually referenced both Mills and the vast literature that bears on Sheffer's thesis. The process of regurgitation, of course, does imply some changing of specifics. BTW, it is certainly possible to "regurgitate" someone by accident, as arguments that flow around in academic circles sometimes lose their footnotes. This professor is blathering well outside his (official) area of expertise, and it shows. David, honey, you can go back now to your sociology textbook now.

There is a complication here: both the media and the Court seem to have gained vastly in power over the last 15 years, especially the Court. Two issues then come up. (1) The professor fails to mention two of the key sets of players. (2) The professor's static analysis is itself inapt. Very clearly, there is a more complex power-related PROCESS going on. By the way, I certainly do not claim to have a good handle on Israeli power dynamics. Israel is a very peculiar case. It is not quite a democracy (or a republic), but it isn't a typical authoritarian regime either. While all countries are embedded in an international environment, Israel's relation to this environment is extreme. So, even the domestic/international politics distinction is problematic in Israel's case. I think it's very clear that conventional typologies of types of regimes just don't fit Israel very well. If so, surely warmed-over political sociology is not going to tell us very much.

Wow they all answer to the Cartel of Rotscilde and gang,,

I AM CONSIDERING TAKING A BREAK FOR A FEW WEEKS,...SO PUT EVERYTHING ON HOLD ... UNFORTUNATELY ,! DONT THINK I WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY DURING THAT TIME... SO OLMART WILL HAVE TO DO! ...THE BEST OF LUCK TO ALL

I have been very clear in my criticisms of the nonsense you wrote. There is no need for Sheffer to offer sources, because he does not rely on any, or at least any of the ones you mention. Elite theory predates Mills, and merely writing about the elites that operate in a particular place does NOT require referencing anyone. What Sheffer has written has nothing to do with C. Wright Mills' framework. And if, as you now state, you did not claim that Mills "originated anything" then why should Sheffer credit him as you demand? You make no sense at all. And the elites and "faces of power" that Bachrach and Baratz write about have nothing to do with Israel. You cannot automatically use time-and-place-specific analyses and just apply them anywhere. Mill's whole point is that there is movement between ALL the networks. Not just SOME of them (a distinction which you try to define as "slippage" from Mills - what rubbish). There are no movements from the Orthodox Rabbinical network to the capitalist or defense networks etc. Nothing that Sheffer has written borrows from Mills or B&B. He has no reason to reference them as sources. And finally, since you insist upon talking about the Israeli courts (which courts?), why don't you describe for us how they are so important and why Sheffer should have mentioned them? All you have said is that he left them out, not why he should have included them. I suspect you are incapable of doing this, and that your insistence on the power of "the courts" is nothing more than your own regurgitation of propaganda from the extreme Right-Wing that hates the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court makes some decisions they can't stand. If this is not the case then answer the question why Sheffer SHOULD have included them in his analysis.

This article hardly captures the dynamics of Israel's society and governance. No wonder that Harvard does not accepts the existence of a discipliene called "political science".

Since this was a superficial treatment of the problem it is only necessary to point out a couple of big flaws. First, the four networks are too large. Not even the 20 big families are one homogenous group, and secondly the four networks are not evenly matched. For example in the media market the control is much more focused. Haaretz along with Yedioth control almost all the printed media. While the defense network s spread out over thousands of people.

but israil is not like any country .. in history there is many new countries on the map ,, but it is on the same land and same people all has the same law .. even in america different people from all the world and the indians ,many different religions but all are in the same pot ,all are american ,, but israil was initiated for one religion the law first is for this religion but not for the people // the fault is not in the religion but it is on the people do not follow the order of their religion but sure want the benifit to be of that religion ,i think becouse in the past history they suffer becouse of their religion from the others ..and now they want all benifits from this religion even if all the world suffer .. this is the problem in israil even its age is not more than 60 years

In Israel, if the government wants, it can (and does) deny free speech; it overturns the people's will by completely ignoring its election mandates and doing whatever it wants in relation to "peace" agreements, land giveaways, etc. The court is a bully that makes laws instead of interpreting them so even if the Knesset does reflect the will of the people, it can be overturned in court. And, since there is no constitution, there is no true "rule of law", only mob rule, the rule of the majority of the Knesset. This is democracy in its worst incarnation.

He forgot the fifth establishment, that of the settlers, another tail that wags the dog.

Why do you hate Israel?

#40 Shows all the signs of a ick racist and hater .

"Like coursing streams of water is a king's heart in the hand of Ha"Shem; He turns it wherever He wishes." - Proverbs 21:1 Chag Sukkot Sameach!

because, apparently coincidentally and at times when the government appears moving towards an opening with an adversary as, for example, some months age on the same day Olmert was to meet Abbas (at Jericho?) Tsahal, without apparent provocation launched an operation to arrest Palestinians. Nothing appeared in the press before or after the operation to indicate a provocation, but the move served to throw a pall over the political meeting. I was reminded at the time of the tactics used by the Damascus-based Palestinian rejectionists: at times that the Palestinian leadership within the Territories appear to get serious about a diplomatic solution a terror strike serves to derail the process. While the other hidden constituents (business, orthodox etc.) clearly serve selfish purposes, at least the military believe they are serving a higher good. But it still corrupts the political process, selectively overriding the democratically-elected civilian leadership, flawed as it may appear or be, in decisions of national import.

We're on the same page regarding Sheffer. The thing is, while what Sheffer offers is much closer to "government" (the name of the department at Harvard) than to "political science," it doesn't follow that "political science" in general is impossible or even problematic. I suspect that Harvard's department would not be named "government" today. The controversy over the role of quantification has been mostly won by the quantifiers, or so it seems to me. If I tell you that educational level is a powerful predictor of the likelihood of turning out for an election, I am not giving you my impressions, but established science. Anyway, Sheffer's offering here doesn't qualify as serious, no matter what the standard.

>>>Four informal "networks," which are unelected and often act surreptitiously, rule Israel, with "strong leaders" associated with them to some extent and even being controlled by them.<<< This is called the ILLUMINATI and is well known (they rule the united states and europe too)

I'm sure for those who have considered it, it has been noted that essentially the same "group types" rule the US as well. Hopefully, in Israel, the "elites" are less criminal, and far less shallow and psychopathic than our "masters". Because of their low consciousness and their dysfunction we, here, in the US, are quite concerned about whether we will be experiencing a "bright" future -- one unmarred by dictatorship and rampant oppression.