The Jewish democratic state

[Donald Ian Rankin]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3958373,00.html

The Jewish democratic state

Op-ed: Israel must make a choice, as it cannot be both truly Jewish and democratic

Yoel Meltzer


Roughly 60 years after the establishment of the modern State of Israel, by far the most ubiquitous term employed today to describe the political and social nature of the country is that Israel is a Jewish democratic state. Be it in the media or on the lips of politicians, the use of the term has become so widespread that most people in Israel simply accept it as a given truth without so much as a passing thought. Nonetheless, despite the extensive usage of the phrase, it should be clear to anyone with a discerning eye that the term resonates with cognitive dissonance.


The term, or more properly the confusion that led to the term, started in the early days of the state. In May 1948, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel proclaimed the Jewish nature of the country by declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael." However, the same declaration also promised to “ensure complete equality of…. political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion….”

Thus, on the one hand Israel was to be a Jewish state while on the other hand it was declared to be a state of all its citizens regardless of religion. As a result of this ambiguity, right from the start there was a built-in contradiction of terms. Namely, was Israel to be a Jewish state that would incorporate some democratic aspects or was it to be a democratic state with a “Jewish feel?" Since these terms describe situations that are mutually exclusive, Israel could not possibly be both.

----Large snip here - read the whole thing at the link----

At the end of the day, Israel must choose. Either it is a Jewish state with some democratic aspects or it is democratic state with a Jewish flavor. It cannot be both. The continued use of the term “Jewish democratic state” is simply a way to avoid making this choice. Moreover, it represents a state of denial that underlies all the confusion and weakness that abound here. For the survival of the country, the term “Jewish democratic state” must be discarded and in its place the real “Jewish state” must rise.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Absolute garbage

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

2. So basically be a Jewish state or return to the traditional status quo: becoming a hated minority.

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. So what you're saying is that you acknowledge Israel is not a genuine democracy?

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

Also, I note that the only chance Jews have to avoid becoming a hated minority in the land they rule over without resorting to wholescale ethnic cleansing (as advocated by several of the current Israeli government) is to allow the foundation of a viable Palestinian state, something most Israeli Jews are determined to prevent, as witnessed by the results of the last election.

[proteus_lives]

5. No, Israel is the only geniune democracy in the region.

It wouldn't be if folks like you had their way.

The only viable option is two states.

"is to allow the foundation of a viable Palestinian state, something most Israeli Jews are determined to prevent"

Really? Glad you know most Israeli Jews. And of course the Palestinians have not responbility in this sitution. Yep, nothing they've done has ever damaged the situation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I don't know them, I just know how they vote. N.T.

[Ken Burch]

28. If you want two states, you have GOT to call for the removal of all settlements

And the permanent end to all settlement construction. Israel can have peace. OR it can have all the good parts of the West Bank. It has no right to expect both.

It's enough to expect Palestinians to accept Israel's existence within the 1967 borders. If they accepted that, it would be the end of the war and "defensive perimeters" would be an irrelevant consideration.

[Ken Burch]

26. No.

Israel could become an officially secular state and the Jewish population would be just as safe as they are now...if not safer, since this would almost certainly mean the end of the settlements, and thus the end of 90% of the cause of the conflict.

This has never been about Palestinians "hating Jews". And Arabs never treated Jews like the Europeans whose actions inspired Zionism did.

You can't simply assume that all Arabs are psychopaths.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Yes he can :-s

[proteus_lives]

39. I agree, the settlements have to go.

"You can't simply assume that all Arabs are psychopaths."

I don't. I see how you and Donald do it with Israel and I'm not interested.

[oberliner]

7. The author of this piece is a far RW supporter of the National Union party

Just FYI.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Which currently has more MKs than Meretz...

[oberliner]

9. And the "Tea Party Caucus" has over fifty members in the House

Doesn't mean we want to read editorials by fans of Michelle Bachmann.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I posted this for two reasons.

1) I think his diagnosis is spot on.
2) I think his proposed treatment is 100% wrong, but becoming dangerously popular in Israel.

A state cannot both be genuinely democratic and priviledge one ethnic group over others. Trying to be a genuinely Jewish and Democratic state is trying to square the circle - Israel can either be a genuinely democratic state with religious ceremonies, like the UK, or a genuinely Jewish state with the trappings of democracy; you cannot square the circle. This post op-ed that up rather well.

I think it is absolutely vital that Israel chooses to be a democracy rather than a Jewish state and that the circles beat the squares; this op-ed is evidence of how the square movement is gaining ground.

[Jim Sagle]

12. This world contains dozens of nations with an established or state religion.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion for exhaustive details.

Considering that state of world affairs, to say that it is vital that Israel not be a Jewish state, is the MOST hypocritical statement one could ever make.

[oberliner]

15. Strange that you would find his diagnosis to be spot on

It seems odd that you would think so considering some of his other positions which are clearly antithetical to everything you've demonstrated support for on this board.

Although perhaps this author resides in that strange intersection where extremist Israeli right-wingers join their ideological opposites in opposing a two-state solution (for very different reasons - and with a very different version of a "one-state solution" in mind).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Zionism and antisemitism are blood brothers.

The shared myth of the two - that being Jewish means that one is Jewish first and a citizen of the country one was born and bred in only second, and hence that one owes loyalty to Israel and not to ones own homelans - is something that, as a British Jew (not assimilated; not integrated; just British - with no connection to Israel beyond the fact that some of my ancestors probably lived there a couple of thousand years ago and some people from the same ethnic group as me conquered it a few decades ago), infuriates me. This is arguably the flip side of that.

Incidentally, I think there are far fewer leftwingers who oppose a two-state solution than support a one-state one - a lot (including me) think that a one-state solution would be ideal but is unattainable while a two-state solution would be a good second best which (unlike me) they haven't given up hope of. Which is not to say I in any way don't support a two-state solution, just that I don't think there's any chance of one happening.

[Jim Sagle]

19. Five million of the world's 14 million Jews live in Israel. Do the math.

[shira]

22. And they live in a sea of totalitarian states, which Israel's harshest critics rarely ever...

...condemn or criticize.

I question the motives of any pro-Palestinian more concerned about Israel than the way in which a future Palestine will or will not protect the basic human rights of its own citizens.

[Ken Burch]

27. That's an accurate count...IF we assume that those one million Russians who turned up

a few years ago are actually Jewish...rather than just a bunch of Slavic grifters with an eye for the main chance.

And nine million of the world's Jews DON'T live in Israel.

Plus, a significant minority of the Israeli Jewish population continues to reject YOUR "the Palestinians are all bastards who deserve everything they get" mindset.

If you really love Israel, speak out against the Wall, the Occupation and the collective repression of Palestinians. Those acts are the greatest threats to Israeli security, and those are the kind of actions that give groups like Hamas and Hezbollah their big breaks in show business.

[Jim Sagle]

30. If you concentrated less on me and more on the world as it stands,

your conclusions might be different. In any event it would be a sounder thinking process.

[Ken Burch]

31. Actually, I appreciate the fact that you've chosen to engage people in this thread

rather than your normal approach.

Why don't you just stick with that from now on, instead of your typical trying-to-shut-down-I/P-by-any-means-necessary schticklach.

And I live in the world as it is. It's a world with some good things, some bad things, some amazing things, and some horrific things.

It's a world where people can change and good can defeat bad, on a good day.

I get it that you support Israel. Fine.

All I'm saying is that the way to support it is to call on its government to stop oppressing Palestinians(and stop treating the Palestinian population WITHIN Israel as second-class citizens). The things that will do the most to make that state secure will be for it to act with humanity and justice, rather than focus endlessly on "winning" and "creating 'facts on the ground'". In this conflict, the former isn't possible anymore, for either side, and the latter achieves nothing positive.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Thanks for clearing all that up for me.

;)

[oberliner]

23. I don't agree with that assessment

I think Zionism stems for the experience of anti-semitism - which, unfortunately, is no myth.

Were Jews not subject to persecution so universally (and, in many cases, so brutally) for such an extended period of time, I doubt that the Zionist movement would have evolved in the manner that it did.

With respect to one-state vs. two-state, I was just pointing out that there is an interesting overlap between those who have aligned themselves with the one-state approach coming from the left and ones who have done so from the right.

[Ken Burch]

29. And if the Israeli government actually WANTS a two-state solution

(remember that prior to 1994 it ananathemized anyone who supported a two-state solution as "anti-Israel" and "antisemitic")
that government MUST give up trying to make the Palestinian state too small to survive. It has got to give up on trying to strangle such a state at birth.

It needs to accept that what matters is peace, not being able to say "we won and THEY lost".

[Violet_Crumble]

11. It's important that we do read opinions of those on the extremes...

I'm not really sure why the opinion of extremists in the Israeli parliament would be seen as any less needed to be read here as the opinion of Ahmanutjob is...

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Sorry, have to correct something in my post....

It should read as the opinions of supporters of extremists and the extremists themselves.....

[oberliner]

14. Have you not argued that sites like Arutz Sheva ought to be banned here?

I am not sure why we need to post screeds from far RW op-ed writers such as the ones who write for Arutz Sheva and some who write for other more mainstream sources.

I would point out that the author in the OP is not a member of the Israeli parliament - just an opinion writer who supports the extreme far-right party.

Posting something from this hack seems as helpful as posting an op-ed piece from Joseph Farrah of World Net Daily or some other similar author.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Ynet is an ultra-mainstream Israeli news source - I think it's the most widely circulated.

If it's publishing articles like this then they have to be taken seriously.

Also, while I disagree passionately with most of the other things the author believes, I think that on its own merits about two-thirds of this article is actually pretty good.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Absolutely right...

This is similar to the leader of Hamas writing an article for The Guardian. Or the interviews of people with very unsavoury views that have appeared in other credible media. It would be an entirely different thing if such articles were to only be found at sites known for bigotry and intolerance, but that's not the case here.

fwiw, I found the OP you posted interesting, though clearly the author is an extremist. I think if anyone has issues with opinions of only Israeli extremists being posted, they take it up with the mods. I'm totally opposed to further restriction of what we're allowed to read in this forum...

[oberliner]

24. So is Fox News in the US

Yet generally, it seems that DUers tend to avoid posting op-eds from that source, especially ones emanating from its most extreme fringe.

In the rare cases that such editorials are posted - almost never would one find the conclusions to be deemed "spot on".

Although I believe I have something of that sort of assessment with respect to an article by Pat Buchanan on a similar topic.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. Disengenuous as usual.

Let's not post something for YNET so that we can all pretend that a large chunk of Israelis don't hold that position.

That is helpful how?

[oberliner]

43. Welcome back to the forum!

Haven't seen you posting here in a while. Glad to have you back.

A large chunk of Palestinians hold the position that violent attacks against Israeli civilians is perfectly justified.

Is it helpful to read editorials from Palestinian op-ed writers who endorse that position?

Many of them, of course, cannot be posted here as they are not written in English and have not been translated (except occasionally by the dreaded "MEMRI").

FYI, more than half of Palestinians support armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel according to a March 2009 survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. No, I haven't argued that at all...

I would also point out that while Arutz Sheva is a disgustingly bigoted source, ynet isn't. It's a credible and reliable source. As it stands, I totally disagree with any who believes that articles such as the OP shouldn't be posted here, as I've noticed there are those who try to ignore Israeli extremism or as I saw recently, to minimise it...

I would also point out that I already know that the OP is not a member of the Israel parliament - please see my other post.

I can't say I find anything much posted in this forum helpful in any way, shape or form. Being 'helpful' has never been a criteria for something being acceptable to be posted here, and it should never be.

[oberliner]

25. When you were posting articles from Arutz Sheva - what point were you making?

I thought it was that it was ridiculous that sites like Electronic Intifada were banned while sites that should be banned, like Arutz Sheva were not.

[shaayecanaan]

33. I don't think sites like Arutz Sheva should be banned

nor do I think Electronic Intifada should be banned either. I may have cast aspersions on the people who read those websites but I have never alerted on them (nor have I ever alerted on any post or thread, I tend to believe in sunlight being the best disinfectant and all that).

Machiavelli said that men must be either treated generously or destroyed. Both the left and the right in Israel believe this to be true. Of course, the left advocate that they should be treated generously, and the right advocate that they should be destroyed. But inasmuch as they both believe in the above statement they are both capable of being simultaneously correct. Accordingly, both the left and the right in Israel believe that Israel cannot be Jewish and democratic, and they are both correct in that analysis.

One of the right wing blogs I occasionally read is the Samson Blinded blog http://samsonblinded.org. The author suffers from religion, which clouds his judgment on a lot of things, but he is capable of striking honesty from time to time. For example, on one occasion he said that the Western powers were no more morally obliged to stop the holocaust than Israel was to stop the Rwandan genocide.

It is more interesting, frankly, to read these things than to read the centrist press, which constantly equivocates and vacillates. People accuse the media of having a left or right wing bias when in fact they have a profoundly centrist bias.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. I think that was her point, but that you've taken it in the wrong direction.

I think the point was that EI should not be banned, not that AS should be.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. It wasn't what you claimed I was arguing...

I'm not sure why yr claiming I was arguing that Arutz Sheva should be banned when I recall telling you in a PM what my point was. I'm not going to waste my time repeating it yet again, especially considering it has zero to do with what I was commenting on originally - that I'm totally opposed to further restrictions based on what can or should be posted in this forum...

[oberliner]

38. Well I don't think op-eds from Arutz Sheva ought to be posted

Ditto op-eds from Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan in the forums upstairs.

There are plenty of far RW sites where people can read far RW editorials.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Since when has ynet been a far RW site?

That's the source the OP is from.

[oberliner]

41. This particular op-ed writer is a far right extremist

His pieces are regularly published at Arutz Sheva.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Meltzer is a loathsome nutcase

He endorses and supports the far-right National Union, and is a vehement opponent of any sort of Palestinian state. Like many, but not all, such people, he is also rather obsessed with Jews having a 'Jewish mindset' which includes but is not limited to the intrusion of religion into politics.

Imagine a BNP activist with an admixture of Pat Robertson, and you'll get the idea.

Of course, we can quote extremists, but this man is neither a person with any valid ideas, nor representative even of most right-wing Israelis.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. I agree with the author to the extent

that I think the notion of a Jewish state (in a multi-ethnic country) and a democratic state are mutually contradictory. Ultimately it's going to be one or the other. I don't agree with him on which one it should be.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.