As a diversion from the 12 or so gun threads in GD at the moment, I’ve turned to an Israel/Palestine thread. I have only a basic working knowledge of the situation, being generally content to keep up with domestic, American affairs.
Does this, by itself, rule out a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Furthermore, what other practical effects does this legal definition have on life in Israel? Has consideration been given to a future in which Jews form a minority in Israel?
More broadly, is being a Jewish state reconcilable with a democratic state? It seems to me that it is not, as democracy presumes legal equality for citizens.
At least you picked a topic that is not at all controversial.
Yep. A one-state solution would not be majority Jewish.
I let the several Israeli posters answer. At least you didn’t post this on Saturday, Israeli time.
Not really. Is the US not a democracy because SSM is generally not legal? Was the US not a Democracy until after the Civil War? Until after woman’s suffrage was approved? And being a Jewish State doesn’t mean non-Jewish citizens need to be treated differently. It really affects immigration law the most. Any other laws affecting daily life wouldn’t be much different from Christmas being a holiday in the US.
But only its citizens. The citizens can be a minority of the total resident population and still make up a democracy, as in ancient Athens. (You can see how democratic and egalitarian the Athenian republic was, as among its citizens, when you compare it with an aristocratic republic like the Roman Republic, with its ruling Senatorial/noble class, and its effectively-disfranchised poor “Head Count” class of citizens, and its incessant “Conflict of the Orders”.) Israel is a very democratic state/society/culture as among its citizens – isn’t it?
I’d say a one state solution is pretty much impossible, regardless. That, alone, doesn’t rule it out however, since there are Israeli citizens who are not Jewish, and even some who are in fact ‘Palestinian’, so if that was the only factor it could happen. Sadly, it’s not the only factor.
Not sure about this one. I think that the Jewish Israelis would be highly uncomfortable if they weren’t in the majority, but not sure if it would be a show stopper for them. I suppose it depends on how this all would play out (it’s pretty much a moot point, since the Palestinians wouldn’t agree to such a thing regardless).
They have rough equality that is based on more than being Jewish…and they are a democracy. Basically, from memory, Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent have the same exact rights as other Israeli citizens, with the exception that they aren’t required by law to serve in the military. AFAIK, they can run for office, and pretty much do everything else that Jewish Israeli citizens can do…including paying taxes.
Not necessarily since, as I’ve pointed out in other threads, the Jewish population is likely to grow to a point where it is far larger than the Arab populations in Judea & Samaria, and Gaza.
Seems to me your question is more about how “democracy” should be defined than what is going on in Israel.
Would you care to provide a clear, precise definition of “democracy” which you are willing to apply to all countries in the world to see who is and isn’t democratic?
The latter two sentences are more what I’m trying to gauge: what are the differences under Israeli law between Jews and gentiles? You mention immigration law, is that it?
To my mind, then, neither Athens, nor Rome would be a democracy in the modern sense.
OK, so in in addition to immigration law, there’s a difference of obligation to serve in the military. I know that some non-Jews serve in the IDF as well, are these volunteers?
I’d have to say that South Africa as a nation was not a democracy.
Sure! “A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.” That’s from the wiki article on the subject, but it sums up my feelings pretty well.
Do all citizens have an equal say if the nation defines itself legally as Jewish?
I know, but any port in a storm. My views on gun rights are pretty settled, my views on Israel are not.
Condition one is presently in effect, yes?
Condition two is not, as there are gentile Israelis.
It’s condition three that interests me most, hence the thread. What does it mean to be a Jewish country? So far I’ve gathered it’s easier for Jews to immigrate, and non-Jews are not required to serve in the military. Obviously, the Star of David is on the flag. What else makes Israel a legally Jewish country?
I think the United States qualifies, for one, if we take “equal say” as “equal vote in a fair election.” To be denied your vote requires being a child (in which case it’s not denied so much as deferred, a felon (a reasonable consequence of a choice to break the law, not an inherent quality), and in some states, mentally ill or unfit (also reasonable, as a “say” might be impossible for these groups due to a lack of reason).
I’ll go ahead and revise: Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the proposal, development, and creation of the laws they live under, either directly or through elected representatives.
“Equal say” is the squishy concept in your definition. Does everyone in America have equal say? Or do some people–say, people who have money and connections–have more say than poor atomized citizens? Does the homeless guy on the corner have equal say with Donald Trump?
If we get around the “equal say” criteria by saying that the homeless guy and Donald Trump have formal legal equality, and the laws are fair because both the rich and the poor are forbidden from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread, then the United States is a democracy by your definition. And therefore so is Israel because the Arab Israeli citizens have formal equality, can vote, have their own political parties, and so on. The people who live in the West Bank and Gaza aren’t Israeli citizens, and so don’t have equal say in Israel, just like people who live in Egypt and Lebanon and Jordan don’t have an equal say in Israel.
Note also that plenty of European states have state religions. You might remember Henry VIII and his disagreement with the Pope, and now Anglicanism is the state religion of the United Kingdom, the head of state is also head of the Anglican church, bishops are approved by the house of commons, and on and on. All of which would be anathema in the United States. However, people in the UK have freedom of religion, despite having a state church. No one is made to attend services or profess any creed, people are free to worship or not as they please, and so on.
So declaring a particular religion the official religion of a country doesn’t mean that country can’t be a democracy.
But note that “Jewish” is both a religious and an ethnic term. You wouldn’t have a problem with Germany being declared a German state, would you? Or Austria declaring itself a German state? There are plenty of states in the world with an explicitly ethnic character.
What you should understand is that Israel is a “Jewish” country in the same way as Greece is a “Greek” country and Germany is a “German” country. All are modern democracies based on ethno-nationalism. This fact creates some issues, but these are by no means issues that are unique to Israel.
Take for example immigration, or the “right of return”. The Israeli immigration laws get the most press for the simple reason that everything to do with Israel is controversial, but in fact, “rights of return” based on ethnic nationality are pretty common.
The Israeli situation in respect of conscription is complex, as historically various groups are not conscripted which are non-Jewish (such as Arab-Israelis) while others are not conscripted who are Jewish (the Ultra-Orthodox); on the other hand, some non-Jewish groups do serve in the army (Druze, Circassians, Bedouins).
In short, the declaration that Israel is a “Jewish” nation is simply a declaration of ethno-nationalism. It doesn’t have any “legal” function, and non-Jews are not accorded lesser status simply because of that any more than non-Germans have lesser status in Germany because it is called “Germany” and ethnic Germans have a “right of return” denied non-ethnic Germans.
That is not to say Israel doesn’t have problems with ethnic bigotry. It does (as does other nations). But it clearly can be both “democratic” and a “Jewish nation”. The Israeli version of parliament in fact has Arab representatives, and nothing prevents Arab Israelis from voting for them (though some Jewish Israeli bigots don’t like this fact).
Agreed. But in principle, Israel could annex Judea & Samaria and simply declare that the Arabs there are not citizens. Under this approach, Israel could still potentially be a “democracy” under your definition.
As far as I know, Israel does not have a constitution per se. In theory the Knesset could vote tomorrow to change the any law which favors Judaism.
I think that’s pretty much it. Note that a number of countries give preferential immigration status to certain groups of people.
Perhaps, but defining “fair” is not all that easy. Most people would agree that it’s “fair” to deny the vote to children, but after that it can get a bit murky. Is it “fair” if the citizenry consists of 55% people from Group X and 45% of people from Group Y and the people from Group X consistently use their numerical advantage to pass laws which favor Group X at the expense of Group Y?
Note also that if a citizen happens to be a member of the United States Supreme Court, he will have a much larger say in how the country is run than your average citizen. Even though “Supreme Court Justice” is not an elected position. It can and does happen that the majority of the citizenry wants some law and the Supreme Court rejects them.
It’s … possible, I suppose; the fertility rate for Jewish Israelis has increased in recent years while Arab rates in the region have declined. But extrapolating these trends out far enough into the future that the Jewish population becomes
[QUOTe=Human Action]
OK, so in in addition to immigration law, there’s a difference of obligation to serve in the military. I know that some non-Jews serve in the IDF as well, are these volunteers?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, most are volunteers. Malthus’s answer was much more indepth than I could be though, so I’ll just repost it here to answer your question:
[QUOTE=Malthus]
What you should understand is that Israel is a “Jewish” country in the same way as Greece is a “Greek” country and Germany is a “German” country. All are modern democracies based on ethno-nationalism. This fact creates some issues, but these are by no means issues that are unique to Israel.
Take for example immigration, or the “right of return”. The Israeli immigration laws get the most press for the simple reason that everything to do with Israel is controversial, but in fact, “rights of return” based on ethnic nationality are pretty common.
The Israeli situation in respect of conscription is complex, as historically various groups are not conscripted which are non-Jewish (such as Arab-Israelis) while others are not conscripted who are Jewish (the Ultra-Orthodox); on the other hand, some non-Jewish groups do serve in the army (Druze, Circassians, Bedouins).
In short, the declaration that Israel is a “Jewish” nation is simply a declaration of ethno-nationalism. It doesn’t have any “legal” function, and non-Jews are not accorded lesser status simply because of that any more than non-Germans have lesser status in Germany because it is called “Germany” and ethnic Germans have a “right of return” denied non-ethnic Germans.
That is not to say Israel doesn’t have problems with ethnic bigotry. It does (as does other nations). But it clearly can be both “democratic” and a “Jewish nation”. The Israeli version of parliament in fact has Arab representatives, and nothing prevents Arab Israelis from voting for them (though some Jewish Israeli bigots don’t like this fact).
[/QUOTE]
There is one thing you can see even today, which is that the percentage of Jewish births in Israel declined year after year for decades. But then, about 10 years ago, the trend reversed itself and has been steadily trending in the opposite direction since then.
Also, the basic reason for the reversal in the trend is something that seems likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
Yup, I feel that way about all claims of impending demographic disaster.
Notably, within Israel itself the “concern” has shifted from the demographic “threat” posed by Arab Israelis, to the demographic “threat” posed by Orthodox Jewish Israelis.
I regard all such claims as, basically, nonsense. The future is completely unknowable and every past prediction has turned out wrong. For example, it is impossible to know if birth rates will remain constant (evidence suggests it will not), if the children of ultra-orthodox will remain ultra-orthodox, etc.
Amusingly, one still occasionally encounters claims that the Arab-Israeli population will “bury” the Jewish-Israeli population through demographic increase … based on birth rates in the 1950s-60s.
