Home » Jewish State
→ 6 August 2018
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Israeli PM defends Jewish nation-state law after protest | NZ Herald

Benjamin Netanyahu

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel’s prime minister is defending a divisive new law enshrining the country’s Jewish character after tens of thousands of people demonstrated against it in Tel Aviv.

Benjamin Netanyahu said at Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting that the law doesn’t harm any citizens, and is needed to “ensure the future of Israel as the state of the Jewish people for generations to come.”

Members of Israel’s Arabic-speaking Druze minority, which is known for supporting the state and serving in the military, organized a major protest Saturday against the law. Opponents say the law passed last month relegates non-Jewish citizens to a second-class status.

Netanyahu said the “deep connection with the Druze community” was essential and that a ministerial committee would “advance the connection and these commitments.”

Read more

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , ,
→ 3 August 2018
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Critics of nation-state law misunderstand Israel’s constitutional system | JNS

Israel’s new nation-state law has elicited a storm of criticism since it passed on July 19.

Evelyn Gordon JNS

Some of this criticism is justified; a law that manages to unite virtually the entire Druze community against it, despite this community’s longstanding support for Israel as a Jewish state in principle, clearly wasn’t drafted with sufficient care, as even the heads of two parties that backed the law (Jewish Home’s Naftali Bennett and Kulanu’s Moshe Kahlon) now admit. Nevertheless, much of the criticism stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Israel’s constitutional system.

Israel doesn’t have a constitution. What it has is a series of Basic Laws to which the Supreme Court unilaterally accorded constitutional status. Many people, myself included, disagree with that decision, inter alia because constitutional legislation should reflect a broad consensus, whereas many Basic Laws were approved by only narrow majorities or even minorities of the Knesset. Nevertheless, both sides in this dispute agree on one thing: Each Basic Law is merely one article in Israel’s constitution or constitution-to-be. They cannot be read in isolation, but only as part of a greater whole.

Consequently, it’s ridiculous to claim that the nation-state law undermines democracy, equality or minority rights merely because those terms don’t appear in it, given that several other Basic Laws already address these issues. The new law doesn’t supersede the earlier ones; it’s meant to be read in concert with them.

Several Basic Laws, including those on the Knesset, the government and the judiciary, detail the mechanisms of Israeli democracy and enshrine fundamental democratic principles like free elections and judicial independence. There are also two Basic Laws on human rights, both of which explicitly define Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.”

Of these human rights laws, the more important is the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. It includes general protections like “There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such” and “All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity,” as well as specific protections for liberty, property and privacy. Though the law doesn’t mention “equality” or “minority rights,” the courts have consistently interpreted it as barring discrimination on the eminently reasonable grounds that discrimination fundamentally violates a person’s dignity (the one exception, which all legal systems make, is if discrimination has pertinent cause, like barring pedophiles from teaching).

Granted, there are things this law can’t do, such as breaking the rabbinate’s monopoly on marriage and divorce, because it explicitly grandfathers all pre-existing legislation. But it applies to all legislation passed after 1992.

Thus to argue that the nation-state law is undemocratic because it doesn’t mention equality or minority rights is like arguing that the U.S. Constitution is undemocratic because Articles I and II confer broad powers on the legislature and executive without mentioning the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Everyone understands that the Constitution’s provisions on governmental power aren’t supposed to be read in isolation, but in concert with the first 10 amendments, so there’s no need to reiterate those rights in every other article. Similarly, the nation-state law isn’t meant to be read in isolation, but only in concert with other Basic Laws enshrining Israel’s democratic system and basic human rights. Thus there’s no reason for it to reiterate protections already found in those other laws.

Nor are any of the law’s specific provisions undemocratic. For instance, the provision stating that “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people” doesn’t deprive Arabs of individual rights within Israel, nor does it bar the possibility of Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza, which aren’t part of the State of Israel. The only thing it prohibits is an Arab state within Israel’s borders, which is problematic only if you favor replacing Israel with another Arab state.

As for the provision making Hebrew the state’s only official language, many other democracies also have a single official language despite having large minorities with different mother tongues. For instance, 17 percent of America’s population is Hispanic, only slightly less than the 21 percent of Israel’s population that’s Arab, yet Spanish isn’t an official language in America, and few people would argue that this makes America undemocratic.

Indeed, Israel’s new law goes much farther than many other democracies in guaranteeing minority language rights, thanks to one provision according Arabic “special status” and another stating that nothing in the law “undermines the status enjoyed by the Arabic language in practice before this Basic Law came into effect.” The latter provision actually preserves Arabic’s status as an official language de facto. It may have been stupid not to preserve it de jure as well, but “stupid” isn’t the same as “undemocratic.”

All of the above explains why even the heads of the Israel Democracy Institute—a left-leaning organization usually harshly critical of the current government—said at a media briefing this week that the law “doesn’t change anything practically,” “won’t change how the country is run,” and is merely “symbolic and educational.”

The law was meant to solve a specific constitutional problem: The courts have frequently interpreted the Jewish half of “Jewish and democratic” at a “level of abstraction so high that it becomes identical to the state’s democratic nature,” as former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak famously said. Yet no definition of “Jewish” can be complete without recognizing that Judaism has particularist, as well as universal, aspects because it’s the religion of a particular people with a particular history, culture and traditions. By emphasizing some of those particularist aspects, the law is supposed to restore the intended balance between the Jewish and democratic components of Israel’s identity. But it doesn’t eliminate those democratic components, which are enshrined in numerous other Basic Laws, nor was it intended to do so.

I’m skeptical that the law will achieve its intended purpose, but I see no good reason why it shouldn’t exist in principle. Israel isn’t just a generic Western democracy; it’s also the world’s only Jewish state. And its constitution-in-the-making should reflect both halves of its complex identity.

Evelyn Gordon is a journalist and commentator living in Israel.

Source

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , , ,
→ 29 July 2018
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Israeli-Arab lawmaker resigns over Jewish nation bill | NZ Herald

Zuhair Bahloul

JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli Arab lawmaker says he is resigning from parliament for “ideological reasons” to protest the recent passage of a controversial law enshrining the state’s Jewish character.

Labor lawmaker Zuhair Bahloul says Sunday he can no longer serve in a country that officially marginalizes the 20 percent Arab minority he represents.

Bahloul, a former popular sports broadcaster, is regarded as a symbol of Jewish and Arab coexistence.

His departure marks further fallout from the explosive bill, which has also seen strong opposition from a Druze minority that serves in the military and feels slighted by the legislation.

Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence defined its nature as a Jewish and democratic state. The government says the bill merely enshrines the country’s existing character but critics say it undercuts its democratic values.

Source

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , ,
→ 21 June 2018
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

‘Fauda’ Creators Talk BDS, Critics, and Whether There Will Ever Be Peace | Algemeiner

When Lior Raz and Avi Issacharoff pitched their TV series about an undercover Israeli unit that hunts Palestinians preparing to launch terror attacks, Israel’s Keshet network told them to write a comedy about the conflict instead.

Now, the creators of the hit series Fauda — who stuck to their guns — are having the last laugh. Speaking at the 92nd Street Y on the Upper East Side of Manhattan to promote the release of the show’s second season, they addressed their critics, including the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement’s call for Netflix to drop the show.

“But it was a kind of a good PR for us,” Issacharoff said.

The show, while fictional, pulls from the experiences of both Raz — who served in an undercover unit similar to the one on the show — and Issacharoff, a longtime journalist who spent a lot of time in Gaza and met with top Hamas officials.

Issacharoff said that much of the criticism he sees isn’t “about Fauda as a TV show,” but based on “a political issue with the State of Israel.”

Raz also addressed those who say that Palestinian writers should be added to the show, to give their perspective.

“I really want to tell … all those critics who ask us to bring Palestinian writers, if Palestinians want to write a show, they should write a show,” Raz said.

Asked if there will be peace between Israelis and Palestinians — and if there could be a two-state solution — Raz said that he has hope, since Germany and Israel are now friendly nations.

Issacharoff said he is both pessimistic and optimistic.

Read more

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , ,
→ 2 May 2014
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Recognising Reality: The debate over Israel as a “Jewish State”

JewishStateIsraeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s position that a permanent status agreement resulting in a two state solution must include explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is rejected by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, and is a key point of contention in the peace process.

For Netanyahu, and for most Israeli Jews, mutual recognition of Jewish and Palestinian national rights is integral to the logic of a lasting agreement based on two states for two peoples.

Most Israeli Jews wish to preserve Israel’s current character as a democratic state with a Jewish majority; a state that allows Jews to express the universal legal right to national self-determination, but which also protects fully the rights of non-Jewish minorities.
At the Davos Summit in January, US Secretary of State John Kerry said: “We all know what the endgame looks like: … mutual recognition of the nation-state of the Palestinian people and the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

 

Why is this an issue now?

Since accepting the principle of creating a sovereign Palestinian state in 2009, Binyamin Netanyahu has stressed that a permanent status agreement must include Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. In a recent statement he clarified that he wanted the Palestinians to “recognise the national rights of the Jewish people in the State of Israel.” While stating that this must be part of the final agreement, at no point has Netanyahu made this a precondition for talks with the Palestinians.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas has taken a firm stance against this demand, creating a significant obstacle in John Kerry’s search for an agreed framework for continuing talks.

 

What do Israelis mean by a Jewish state?

For Netanyahu, and for most Israeli Jews, mutual recognition of Jewish and Palestinian national rights in the territory west of the Jordan River is integral to the logic of a lasting peace based on two states for two peoples.

Most Israeli Jews want to preserve Israel’s character as it is today, as both democratic and Jewish. Israel today is ‘Jewish’ in the sense that it has a Jewish majority, allows that majority to express the universal legal right to national self-determination, and is open to Jews who wish to immigrate. This is no different to most other states which express the right of the ethnic majority to self-determination, whilst still protecting the rights of minorities.

Reference to a ‘Jewish state’ does not mean a state based on religious precepts, or a state which discriminates against non-Jews.

All Israelis today – both the 75% Jewish majority and non-Jewish minorities – enjoy equal rights before the law and freedom of religion. Non-Jewish minorities enjoy collective rights in education, language and religion. Discrimination based on religious or ethnic identity is illegal.

To maintain Israel’s Jewish majority, and its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, Israel wants Palestinian refugee claims to be resolved through the creation of a Palestinian state.

 

Why are the Palestinians resistant to this idea?

Rejection of Jewish national rights – indeed rejection of the idea that the Jews constitute a distinct national group – is deeply rooted in the Palestinian-Arab narrative. It is linked to the belief that all of Palestine is rightfully an Arab territory and that Arab refugees from the 1948 war and their descendants should have the ‘right of return’ to territory now within Israel’s borders.

However, Palestinians have not always been so opposed to recognition of the Jewish state. The Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988 referenced the UN 1947 Partition Plan, which explicitly refers to the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state side by side.

When former US President Bill Clinton addressed the refugee issue in his parameters for a peace agreement in 2000, he noted Israel could not accept a right to immigrate that would “threaten the Jewish character of the state,” adding that, “A new State of Palestine is about to be created as the homeland of the Palestinian people, just as Israel was established as the homeland of the Jewish people.” The PLO’s detailed response raised no challenge to this basic principle.

In a June 2004 interview with Haaretz, the late PA President Yasser Arafat was asked explicitly whether he understood that “Israel has to keep being a Jewish state.” He responded, “Definitely, definitely, I told them we had accepted [this] openly and officially in 1988.”

However, since Netanyahu has raised the profile of the issue, the PA leadership has become very resistant. They claim not only that it prejudices Palestinian refugee claims but that Israel’s demand threatens minority rights in Israel, or involves asking Palestinians to renounce their identity or history. Israel rejects these latter two objections.

 

What have world leaders said?

Secretary of State John Kerry: “We all know what the endgame looks like: … mutual recognition of the nation-state of the Palestinian people and the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

US President Barack Obama: “Palestinians must recognise that Israel will be a Jewish state.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: “We in the federal government support a two-state solution – a Palestinian state and a Jewish state of Israel.”

French President François Hollande: “France’s position is known. It is that of a negotiated solution for the State of Israel and the State of Palestine – both with Jerusalem for a capital – can coexist in peace and security. Two States for two peoples.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron: “Britain has played a proud and vital role in helping to secure Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people… imagine, as John Kerry put it: ‘mutual recognition of the nation state of the Palestinian people and the nation state of the Jewish people.'”

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “We share with Israel a sincere hope that the Palestinian people and their leaders will choose a viable, democratic, Palestinian state, committed to living peacefully alongside the Jewish state of Israel … Our view on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is absolute and non-negotiable.”

 

What is the historical background?

• The founder of modern political Zionism Theodore Herzl helped launch the movement with a pamphlet published in 1896 entitled Der Judenstaat (“The State of the Jews”). Following many centuries of antisemitic persecution in Europe, he and most other Zionist leaders envisaged a secular, democratic, Jewish majority state in which non-Jews would live as full and equal citizens.

• The British government committed to support “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This goal received international legal sanction under the League of Nations Mandate granted to Britain in 1922, which gave recognition to, “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

• In 1947 the United Nations General Assembly approved with a two thirds majority a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The proposal was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs, who then launched the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli War.

• Israel declared its independence on the basis of the UN resolution on May 1948. Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion declared the establishment of: “A Jewish State in Eretz-Israel [the Land of Israel], to be known as the State of Israel,” which would ensure “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants.” The State of Israel was admitted to the United Nations in May 1949.

Source:  BICOM (British-Israel Communications and Research Centre)

Filed Under: FAQ, Opinion Tagged With: , , , ,