Can Israel be both democratic and Jewish. Discuss.
By Ted Belman
[Gershon Baskin wrote a major piece on this subject which I have inserted below. Here are my thoughts in response.]
The present law states “The Knesset Member shall fulfill his position out of loyalty to the basic values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
The proposed law according to Baskin “requires loyalty to the State of Israel as a “Jewish democratic state””.
There is no difference unless the existing law just requires them to act in a loyal manner whereas the proposed legislation requires an oath. Baskin argues “The current laws are more than sufficient to ensure loyalty to the state.”
But getting beyond the question of the oath, the problem lies in the potential conflict between being a democratic state and being a Jewish state.
When these values are opposed to each other, one must trump the other. So the first question is which one trumps the other. If the legislation does so provide then that’s the end of it until new legislation says otherwise. In the absence of any such provision, the Courts would favour democracy because for them that is the most important value. The Knesset must so determine if it wants the highest value to be a Jewish state even if it violates democratic norms.
But that is not the end of it. We must ask, what is meant by “democratic”? And what is meant by “Jewish”? In both cases there is a huge spectrum for each idea. The Knesset must decide on behalf of the people, the questions of how democratic and how Jewish.
Every country defines democracy for itself. To what extent do you protect the minority from the will of the majority. To what extent to you favour the rights of the individual over the rights of the group, to what extend to you protect private property from expropriation by taxation, to what extent are residents entitled to citizenship and what demands can you place on citizenship or citizens.
If the majority of the citizens decide that the demands of a state being Jewish take precedent over the demands of democracy, is that not democratic.
Baskin and all those on the left, deny this right to the people and want to adopt the norms of the western world. But even within that world there are many exceptions. They ignore that the majority of countries in the world don’t especially in Israel’s neighbourhood. They also don’t want the state to be a Jewish state. Thus they are biased and should recuse themselves from the discussion.
The issue isn’t whether the state is democratic, it really is about equal rights before the law. The two ideas should not be conflated. Human rights eschew discrimination and rightly so. But why can’t individuals be equal but separate.
As a democratic ideal why can’t you foster a system of three types of cities or neighbourhoods i.e. one for Arabs and one for Jews and other denominations and one for anyone. Thus why can’t the JNF support Jewish neighbourhoods with Jewish charity. Israel would be obligated to support each neighbourhood on the same per capita basis. But much of the revenue for neighborhoods and cities, comes from local real estate taxes. Thus some communities would be richer that others.
Why can’t the Law of Return be a Basic Law that all laws must be subject to just as they are subject to a constitution. Baskin is blowing the discrimination of the other citizens way out of proportion. He also bolsters his position by quoting from a number of luminaries.
Be that as it may, its for the people to decide.
30
Encountering Peace: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and all its citizens
By GERSHON BASKIN
Why is the Knesset debating a new bill, proposed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beiteinu Party, that suggests changing the wording of the oath taken by MKs so that instead of swearing loyalty to “the State of Israel and its laws,” they will be required to vow loyalty to the State of Israel as a “Jewish democratic state”? The current laws are more than sufficient to ensure loyalty to the state. The initiative is little more than demagoguery, populism and a cheap political move aimed at getting headlines.
The current status of law on the issue of loyalty to the state is based on the “Rules of Ethics for Members of the Knesset, Chapter B: Basic Rules,” which states:
-
“The Knesset Member shall fulfill his position out of loyalty to the basic values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Furthermore, the Basic Law: The Knesset (Amendment No. 9) states: “Prevention of participation of candidates’ list: A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people; (2) negation of the democratic character of the state; (3) incitement to racism.”
In 1992, the Knesset passed the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. Section 1a declares that
-
“the purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
Former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak offered the following interpretation of Israel as Jewish and democratic:
-
“The expression ‘Jewish and democratic’ does not imply two opposites, but rather their being complementary and harmonious… Indeed, the state is Jewish not in the religious-halachic sense, but in the sense that Jews have the right to migrate there, and that their national being is reflected in the being of the state (the matter finds expression, inter alia, in language and in days of rest). The fundamental values of Judaism are the fundamental values of the state – namely, love of man, the sanctity of life, social justice, doing what is good and right, preserving human dignity, the rule of law, etc. – values bequeathed by Judaism to the entire world… the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish state cannot be identified with Jewish law. One must not forget that a sizable non-Jewish population lives in Israel. Indeed, the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish state are those same universal values that are common to democratic societies, which emerged from Jewish tradition and history.”
ALL MODERN nation-states have minorities living in their midst. France is the nation-state of the French people, but it is also the state of all of the descendents of former Algerians born there. Likewise, Germany is the nation-state of the German people, as well as all of the children of former citizens of Turkey who were born there.
Twenty percent of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish by national or religious definition, but they were born here, and the State of Israel is theirs as well. That is why David Ben-Gurion included in the Declaration of Independence:
-
“We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the up-building of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
The country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, said:
-
“I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish state by what it will do with the Arabs, just as the Jewish people at large will be judged by what we do or fail to do in this state where we have been given such a wonderful opportunity after thousands of years of wandering and suffering.”
The Palestinian citizens of Israel cannot identify with it as the state of the Jewish people. They can, however, accept it, if their basic rights as full citizens are in turn accepted by the state. The Jewish nation-state must relate to its non-Jewish citizens as equal in all respects. It must recognize the particular difficulties faced by its Palestinian citizens as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and must demand that they remain law-abiding citizens – this is reasonable and is, in fact, the reality. To demand “loyalty,” meaning identification with the Jewish flag and national anthem, is not only impractical, it is asking for them to voice disloyalty at a time when their fundamental demand from the state is to recognize them as full citizens. Palestinian citizens, in their complaints of discrimination, are essentially demanding the right to be Israelis.
THIS DISCUSSION begs for us to clarify what is meant by the notion of a Jewish state. There is too much confusion in Israel not only on the questions concerning the axis of Jewish and democratic, but also on the concept of Jewish state or state of the Jews. In his book The Jewish State Theodor Herzl wrote: “We are a people – one people… I think the Jewish question is no more a social than a religious one, notwithstanding that it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question.”
The Declaration of Independence states: “The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped… the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country… The Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its national home…”
ISRAEL IS a nation-state; it is not a religious state or the state of a religious group. The intention of the Zionist movement in calling for the creation of a state for the Jewish people was not to create a state for the Jewish religion. Israel is a civil state, and its laws are civil laws, not religious laws (with the exception of laws of personal status which have been inherited from the Ottoman Empire, and the time has come to remove that exception).
The confusion between Israel as a Jewish state and Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is one shared by Jews and non-Jews alike. The terms are used almost interchangeably, and that has caused confusion. There is also an ideological argument between those who use the differing terms, even if at times they are not fully aware of the differences. Those, such as the current minister of justice, who would like to see the laws of the state be based on Halacha, refer to the Jewish state with its religious connotation. Those who understand modern international law and have a comprehension of the legal basis on which Israel was founded understand the importance of the definition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
THE DECLARATIONS of the State of Israel and the state of Palestine both base their legal right to exist on UN Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into two states – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The UN resolution was speaking about two nation-states, and in that context former foreign minister Tzipi Livni declared: “That’s why I support the establishment of a Palestinian state, on condition that it will be the national solution for all the Palestinians, just as Israel is the national solution for all the Jews.”
And why in his Bar-Ilan speech, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu repeatedly referred to Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and called on Palestinians to recognize it as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Peace between the State of Israel and the future state of Palestine will be based on two nation-states for two peoples, and just as there is a sizable Palestinian minority in the state of the Jewish people, we can all hope that there will be a sizable Jewish minority in the state of the Palestinian people, all living in peace, democracy and equality.
The writer is co-CEO the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, and an elected member of the leadership of the Green Movement party (www.ipcri.org).
Gordon Baskin is only slightly to the right of Peskin, that being he lives here. The Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, is funded 100% by the EU and the Saudis. Two of our most supportive national groups.
The JP I think keeps him like Ted keeps Peskin, They both are so vile, Obtuse and with ideological blinders that cover both eyes rendering them totally blind moonbats but they do draw the ire of their respective readerships.
The main reasons it seems to keep these two reprobates on, so they can generate action in the talkbacks. Everybody likes action.
At least Baskin is a Professional Israel traitor and appeaser and gets paid well to spout his siren message. They are our modern day Orpheus who sing so sweetly in order to draw us to the shoals and deadly rocks to our destruction.
I wonder if Peskin is getting paid or is it a involuntary compulsion that he can’t control?
Gordon Baskin is only slightly to the right of Peskin, that being he lives here. The Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, is funded 100% by the EU and the Saudis. Two of our most supportive national groups.
The JP I think keeps him like Ted keeps Peskin, They both are so vile, Obtuse and with ideological blinders that cover both eyes rendering them totally blind moonbats but they do draw the ire of their respective readerships.
The main reasons it seems to keep these two reprobates on, so they can generate action in the talkbacks. Everybody likes action.
At least Baskin is a Professional Israel traitor and appeaser and gets paid well to spout his siren message. They are our modern day Orpheus who sing so sweetly in order to draw us to the shoals and deadly rocks to our destruction.
I wonder if Peskin is getting paid or is it an involuntary compulsion that he can’t control?
Jewish and democratic:
This term is orwellian doublespeak. It is the Israeli leftist equivalent of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and post-nationalistic.
The original atheistic zionists who founded Israel believed the Jews needed a nation of their own to protect themselves from the rabid nationalistic Jew-hating goyim of Europe.
Now that Europe has “evolved” to ultra-liberal multi-cultural, multi-ethnic post-nationalism, Israel no longer needs to exist as a safe haven for the Jews. So the post-zionist Israeli leftists promote “Jewish and democratic” as an easy way to bring about the dissolution of Jewish Israel.
The day “Jewish and democratic” Israel becomes 51% muslim and christian, it also becomes the Islamic Republic of Palestine.
The Israeli leftists are completely correct that there is no need for a “Jewish and democratic” Israel. There are only 5.5 million Jews in Israel. They could disperse and emigrate tomorrow to Europe, America, Canada and Australia, and live happily ever after.
On the other hand, a truly Jewish Israel, living under Torah law, with no citizenship for non-Jews, is a whole different story.
On paper, it would be like Saudia Arabia or Iran.
The crucial difference is: is a Jewish Israel living under Torah law better in every way than evil and corrupt Saudi Arabia and Iran living under islamic law?
I sure hope so. If it is not, then who needs Jewish Israel (or Judaism?).
Fistel:
What were Hashem’s first words to Avraham? “Get thee forth OUT OF THY COUNTRY, and FROM THY BIRTHPLACE, and FROM THY FATHER’S HOUSE to the Land that I will show thee.”
G-d didn’t tell Avraham to put on tefillin. He didn’t tell Avraham to keep Shabbos. G-d didn’t explain to him the laws of kashrut. G-d told him to go to Israel. If you want to serve Me, if you want to come closer to Me, if you want to be a holy Jew, go to Israel.
This was G-d’s very first teaching to Avraham, the father of the Jewish People. G-d wants His People to be in the Land of Israel. G-d doesn’t want the Jewish People to be gentile lands. G-d told Avraham, and all of his descendants who were to come after him, if a Jew really wants to serve Hashem, he has to be in the Land of Israel. If a Jew really wants to get closer to Hashem, he has to be in the Land of Israel. The Land of Israel is step Number One. The Jewish People can only be the “great NATION” that we are supposed to be in the Land of Israel.
That’s right. G-d’s plan for Avraham is to make a great NATION out of his descendants, not a bunch of gefilta-fish eaters scattered all over the globe, as G-d told Avraham, “and I will make of thee a great NATION.”
Remember classes in Citizenship? A nation needs a land. Its own land. You cannot be a great nation if you are unwanted steppinfetchits in someone else’s land. And a special HOLY NATION needs a special HOLY LAND.
Think about it.
The Arabs do.
Absent their unifying desire to kill the Jews, they would be killing each other.
And liberals do.
Who would they scapegoat for…well, everything?
What We Need Is A King
by Dr. Israel Eldad
For many years now we, a group of ideological Zionists, have been struggling to have Zionism defined as a Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Israel. It is hard to believe just how much ridicule and enmity this term has been received!
“That’s all we need — a king!?”
It was once said that all Judaism needed was a “spiritual center”. The great and culturally profound English people and the small but creative Norwegian people feel comfortable with their king or queen, symbolically, but tangibly representing their unique being. Only the Jewish People, the truly great Nation of Israel, needs no more than professors or — lehavdil [no comparision should be made]– Chief Rabbis.
One of the greatest hours of our history was the hour when King David was chosen, even against the express wishes of the prophet, Samuel. The situation that prevailed at the time was one of absolute anarchy, of a type we seem not to have experienced again, except for the present day. With all our senses we feel the pain we suffer from having lost the ideological element in Zionism. There is no need to explain the insult and self-degradation we feel in the way we choose our rulers. It is certainly not by chance that we have gazed in admiration at the figure of the Jordanian king who was loved by his people in the simplest, most straightforward way.
Among the waves of yearning we feel, despite it all, for a beautiful life of modesty and love, from time to time we experience yearning for . . . yearning. Vulgarity is not freedom, pornography is hardly aesthetics, and aristocracy is not dignity — and it is a certainty that we do not have to learn the regal qualities of love and modesty from the King of Rabbat Ammon.
In one of the Jewish Nation’s more extraordinary poems we read: “Lord of the Universe who reigned before any being was created… and after it is all over, He alone will reign Supreme.” In the past, I was deeply shaken by these words: He alone will reign Supreme? Who reigned before any being was created? Over whom will He reign, if that is so? Today I understand. A King is a Force that creates His kingdom independently, even before any being has been created — and this is the kind of King for whom we yearn.
Where today are waves of such faithful longing created, yearning for true beauty? This Zionism, of yearning for redemption, for brotherly love, for love of Israel, for love of the Land of Israel — this Zionism is gradually disappearing. But the potential still survives. “David, the King of Israel, is still alive” — potentially, He still reigns over us and in our midst.
Two words:
Queen Laura.
Queen laura
If anything like Queen Shelamziyyon Alexandra, We will be in good hands!
Queen Shelamziyyon Alexandra, Hasmonean Queen (76–67 B.C.E.), wife and successor of King Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus) (c. 126–76 B.C.E.). Our knowledge of her is principally derived from the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, but she is also mentioned in rabbinic literature and in the Dead Sea scrolls. Her Hebrew name—Shelamziyyon—is a unique Second Temple invention, meaning peace of Zion, or wholeness of Zion. It is never recorded by Josephus, who only knows the queen by her Greek name—Alexandra—and it is usually preserved in odd ways in rabbinic literature (Shelamzi; Shelamzo; Shel Ziyyon). Only in the Dead Sea scrolls is the queen’s original Hebrew name preserved.
That’s a no brainer. Being a Jewish state trumps being a democratic state.
I’m ready to take charge.
Your Highness,
Please insist that American Secretary of State Hillary Rotten Clinton be as obsequious to you as she is to Arab monarchs:
I don’t have much of say as an outsider having said that, I agree wholeheartedly.
A Jewish state with the Torah the constitution.
Well I am an outsider myself since I am not Israeli.
Laura, you may be an outsider but correct me if I am wrong, at least your are Jewish.
Unfortunately I am not Jewish and others may not appreciate my comments.
I hope not.
I can probably get Yamit (Uncle Nahum) to declare me Jewish.
That’s a first LOL!
But we can fix that, ron.
Drop your trousers…I’ll go get my tomahawk.
No one on this site resents your Gentile-ness.
Even peskin has a man crush on you.
We can remedy that, ron.
Drop your trousers…I’ll get my tomahawk.
No one resents your Gentile-ness, so don’t be so self-conscious.
Even peskin has a man crush on you.
There must be another way!!!!!!!!
ayn/rongrand
WARNING: YOU HAVE BEEN BOTH CITED FOR EXPRESSING WHAT MAY BE REGARDED AS SEXUAL INNUENDO- YOU MAY BE IN FOR A LIFETIME BAN. PULL UP YPUR SOX AND CLEAN UP YOUR ACT.
Peskin’s problems all began here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHzC6Lsby6o
Hmmm Lets see If I had a choice whether to accept a Jewish peskin or a gentile ron; After a pico-second of deep thought, I hereby excommunicate peskin from the big tent he called Judaism and accept ron as a holy righteous gentile. This gives you any of our benefits without any of the myriad obligations Jews take upon ourselves. Jews historically remember our friends as well as our enemies. Since being our friend is such an anomaly. I tend to elevate a true friend above most non supportive and traitorous Jews, no contest. Ron wins on merit. Peskin has no merit even as a Human no less as a Jew. On second thought even Neanderthals had rights. Ask peskin!
Saw a save the little birdies by the grandfather of Hymie Aron Peskin,, what a dysfunctional effete family. Actually the Birds seem to be more advanced as a species over what seems to be evident from seeing and reading of Family peskin, in that Lizard/ amphibian eating Provence of Canada.
Welcome Ron!!!!!: Friend of the Jews and Israel
Peskin has all he can handle with a little man who isn’t there.
I salute our Jewish Women who keep us in the fold
Keeping The Faith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKis54dAn5g&feature=related
Yes I am.
Your comments are welcome and you are a better friend to Israel then liberal Jews.
I love your sense of humor, Yamit.
Thanks,
Narvey thinks me humorless. LoL
Why does the Torah prescribe a system of judges? Upon entering Canaan, the Hebrews were told to set up judges in each township to decide all matters. The Torah acts on the presumption that a mini-monarchy is already there: Hebrew clans have hereditary leaders. A strong judiciary, therefore, mitigates the power of hereditary executives. Hebrew judges had very little latitude. The number of legislative acts was minuscule, as the judges only relied on the commandments. Religious laws were interpreted similarly among townships, and the religious interpretation was very conservative, leaving no room for judicial activism. Hebrew society was a clan-level constitutional monarchy with laissez-faire legislation.
The current system is worse.
Mass democracy usually fails as People hate responsibility, and political demagogues urge them to trust the government.
Small groups are still reasoning entities, but reason disappears from large populations. The major reason for that is the tendency of a mob to sink to the lowest common denominator: people shrink from offending others, realizing subconsciously that that may be dangerous, and seek common ground with them. The common point is the lowest common denominator, and for a large country this denominator is really low.
If the problems are serious but not imminent, people prefer avoiding them. So the sweet-talking demagogues are voted into office even though their promises are evidently absurd. “The sleep of reason produces monsters.” Any candidate who tells the unpleasant truth to the mob has no chance of being elected.
In the era of mass media, election campaigns are expensive. Grassroots financing is a fairy tale: once a candidate becomes widely known and his chances appear somewhat realistic, large donors flock to him. That is venture financing in the political sphere: the risks are large, but the potential profits are staggering, as the first large donors will likely remain the new ruler’s closest confidants throughout his career. And so we saw German industrialists financing Hitler, and Jewish American businessmen backing Obama. An honest candidate stands no chance of securing sufficient financing, as he is not sufficiently corrupt to shower his benefactors with government contracts and subsidies upon reaching office.
In large countries with a history of freedom, mass media are somewhat able to check corrupt and obviously wrong policies. The minuscule Israel, with its history of socialist oppression, is exactly the opposite. A few oligarchs who control the Israeli media critically depend on the government for contracts, permits, and non-extradition. Israeli media are therefore completely subservient to the establishment.
Democracy is a very accidental political system. It was never practiced on a large scale in antiquity, but only in small cities where participatory democracy remains viable. In all cases, democracy quickly eroded into demagoguery, tyranny, and then monarchy. Modern states erroneously identified as democracies are actually republics, the difference being that some basic values in republics are closed to democratic discourse; on the other hand, even theocracy allows democratic decision-making on mundane issues while the core values are kept non-negotiable. Democracy gained popularity during the Renaissance, when westerners marveled at everything ancient. Unlike the classic art, democracy remained popular because it allowed the ruling classes to rule as if by popular consent (manufacturing and twisting that consent) and provided academics with the opportunity to legitimately influence societies with social theories.
There are three viable alternatives to democracy. Two of them are biblically sanctioned: anarchy and monarchy, while the third was employed by Jews throughout most of our history—theocracy. Anarchy operates as a network of townships bonded together by mutual defense agreements, common and criminal law. The legal system is kept to a minimum, and people are free to a great extent.
Jewish monarchy is a constitutional one, in which the king is bounded by myriad restrictions. Short of a very bad king, such a system is well suited for opinionated Jews, whose perpetual debates and vacillations it crushes. If the king proves very bad, he can be removed both on religious grounds (as a traitor) or simply by the masses exercising their right of insurrection.
Theocracy is also not bad. Someone like Ovadia Yosef, for all his shortcomings, wouldn’t be a worse leader of Israel than Olmert or Netanyahu. At least, Rabbi Ovadia has Jewish ideas and convictions. Theocracy served the Jews well for nineteen centuries. It wasn’t perfect, but it was workable.
Democracy: the best of the worst?
Liberals automatically say that democracy always works well under any circumstances (similar to conservatives saying that an unrestricted free market will always work well and self-adjust).
Liberals then go on to say that because democracy worked well in early America, it will always work well at all times in all places.
Of course, that’s crap. Democracy works well if all the people are well intentioned with relatively minor differences.
But if the “democracy” is composed of two groups with radically different agendas, then it inevitably breaks down. Think of a “democratic ” Israel which is 51% Jewish and 49% muslim versus a “democratic” Israel which is 49% Jewish and 51% muslim. Or the Quebecois wanting to leave Canada, or Belgium breaking up.
Jewish Israel should do everything reasonable to ensure that Israel remains predominantly (or exclusively?) Jewish. And you don’t have to physically wall out the Israeli muslims (maybe in Um-al-Fahm). Take away their citizenship and make them permanent legal residents without voting rights, limit their access to welfare payments coming from Jews, and, if they love their palestinian brothers so much, subsidize their moving to palestine or anywhere outside of Israel.
Has anyone heard of East Prussia? It is a chunk of land lying between current Poland and Lithuania. For seven or eight hundred years, it was an extension of Germany. Hitler had his eastern headquarters there (and his generals tried to assassinate him there in 1944 when they saw the germans losing). It was one of the first areas conquered by the Russians. They raped evey single german woman, expelled evey single german back to germany, and incorporated the place into Russia (it is now called Kaliningrad). This all took place at the same time Israel was being established. Do you ever hear anyone complaining about Russian treatment of germans, or the “right of return” of germans to East Prussia?
peskin,
The only people ever to become sexually aroused by a bris are you and Michael Jackson.
Baskin mite be right about Lieberman’s motives for calling for a new loyalty oath, but that might well be an astute politician positioning himself to accord with the growing, if not already majority view of Israelis.
Perhaps Ted and Yamit can advise in that regard.
As for Baskin’s claim that the laws on the issue of loyalty to Israel are adequate, he has pointed to the “Rules of Ethics for Members of the Knesset, Chapter B: Basic Rules, which states:
Has Baskin conflated Knesset ethic rules with law? The two are quite different. In Israel, do Rules of Ethics amount to law, the transgression of which can lead to criminal charges being laid and criminal sanctions imposed on findings of guilt? Again Yamit and Ted might offer an answer.
Baskin then notes:
Has this statement been defined in both contexts or does it gloss over differences that have been alluded to on these pages?
Though Netanyahu has insisted that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, has there been much if anything from the GOI to define what a Jewish state means?
Has a national debate begun on the meaning of a Jewish state, whether a “Jewish state” and “democratic state” are synonymous phrases within the context of Israel’s politically development and what the Israeli people want to define themselves as a Jewish Democratic state? If there has been no political or national debate on these issues, is Israel ripe for such debate?
Again, Ted and Yamit might cast some light on these questions as well.
Jewish and democratic: the peace plan of the Israeli left
Yasser Arafat proposed a peace plan that would lead to the destruction of Jewish Israel in stages.
The Israeli left apparently proposes a similar plan, consisting of a series of withdrawals in stages.
When the demographics in any area shifts towards the muslims, then Israel will withdraw. First to go will be the West Bank, then the Galilee, then the Negev, and finally, Jerusalem. These areas predominantly contain settlers and Jews who still believe in G-d, all of whom the Israeli leftists despise. As Israel withdraws, the Jews left behind will either have to move to what remains of Israel at their own expense, or be abandoned to the tender mercies of the muslims.
At last, all that will be left is the only place the Israeli leftists consider valuable and worthwhile: atheistic, pork-eating “Jewish” Tel Aviv, surrounded by savage muslim “peace partners” deciding when to finish the job.
That’s why the greatest threat to Israel’s survival is not Iran, the arabs, the palestinians, the EU, or the UN; it is Israel’s own “Jewish and democratic” leftists.