Awesome username/post combo.
Sorry, but there’s just too much noise there — the causal mechanisms that generate birth rates may as well be in a sealed black box. One might reasonably use trends to predict population in the near future, but just a few years ago those same trends would’ve led you to a completely different vision of future Israeli demographics. The proof’ll have to be in the eating.
I disagree, the most important mechanism is laying around in plain sight, which is that very observant Jews tend to have a lot of children and then teach those children to be very observant Jews.
I disagree with this too.
It’ll be 4 or 5 hours before our Israeli friends wake up and contribute to this thread. I’ll let them explain the issues surround Arab Israelis.
Felons have the same voting rights as the rest of us, until a deliberate action on their part. The loss of voting rights is a known consequence of a felony conviction, after all.
Probably so, but I can’t resist a challenge.
I’d say so. Trump has a bigger bullhorn, but that’s all it is. He still just gets the one vote.
That’s more what I was getting at. I know Israeli law allows a government institution to disqualify candidates (and parties, IIRC) for office if they advocate certain views, I’ll have to look up precisely what the criteria for disqualification are.
That is true. I’m highly critical of the idea, but it’s not unique to Israel.
I would. I think a democratic nation’s character is determined by its citizens and their values, and efforts to legally peg this character to a certain ethnicity are morally wrong, as the demographics of the citizenry are certain to fluctuate, barring government favoritism toward the chosen ethnicity, which is also wrong.
I was unaware the practice was so widespread. Even taking the stricter definition of “repatriation” laws, which are specific to a diaspora and ethnicity, there are at least 13 other nations with similar laws.
I look at these issues from an American perspective, that nationality is independent of, and should supersede, ethnicity.
The situations do appear to be analogous. As you noted, Israeli practices are more publicized because Israel is more publicized.
In name, but not in practice. Surely the Arabs would still be legal residents, entitled to citizenship and representation.
Does the Basic Law not function as a Constitution? Upon further reading, I see that it’s considered an “uncodified constitution” like Great Britain’s. So, it functions as one in some ways, but not others.
Perhaps unfair, but so long as the elections were free and uncorrupted, such a nation would be a democracy, just not a very good one.
This is true, though the Justices are confirmed by elected representatives.
I hope they do, I’m very interested in the role of Arabs in Israel.
So far, I’ve concluded that while I disagree with the practice of legally defining a nation as being “for” a certain ethnicity of religion, it is seemingly widespread, and so long as other ethnicities and religions are, as much as possible, treated as legal equals, it seems to be a tolerable practice.
Thanks to all who have contributed, as I said, my views on Israel are unsettled, and the “Jewish and democratic” definition perplexed me.
No, in reality. At least according to your definition of “democracy.” You may recall that when I first posted in this thread I asked you for a clear, precise definition of “democracy” which you are willing to apply universally.
See, “democracy” is a loaded word. When people assert that Israel is not a “democracy,” they are hiding their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.
If you want to criticize Israel, I would prefer that you do so in a way which is clear and unambiguous. For example, you could say “I disagree with Israel’s policy of giving preferential immigration treatment to one group over other groups.” Of course, most of Israel’s critics would prefer not to do it this way. Since then it would be clear that they are subjecting Israel to a double-standard. Instead, Israel’s critics would prefer to scream vague generalities about “democracy” and “apartheid,” and “stolen land” without providing specifics.
Well the question on the table is whether Israel is a democracy or not. Which it would seem to be, by your standard.
If you believe that Israel is a bad country, then you are of course free to argue it. Again, I would ask for a clear, precise definition of “bad” which you are willing to apply universally.
Well, it’s not like we haven’t had a bazillion threads where this subject was discussed over the years, so you can always do a search.
Right, hence “in name.” I say “not in practice”, because annexing land, then denying citizenship to the current residents, is to deny self-determination and equal say.
That’s not what I want to do. I do disagree with the idea of preferential immigration policies for certain ethnicities, and with the idea of a nation as defined by an ethnicity, but these aren’t specific criticisms of Israel, as the practice is far more widespread than I knew.
I wanted to discuss whether such policies are hostile to democracy. I think they are, but not fatally so. Germany, Israel, France, et al, clearly have a democratic process and legal equality despite their ethnic policies.
I’m not interested in crypto-bashing Israel through such generalities.
Agreed.
I don’t, except to the extent that “bad” can mean “deviation from the American model of nation before ethnicity and religion.” I understand that the American model is fairly unique, of course.
Good point, though I’d want to post new comments. What’s the policy on zombie threads around here?
It is, isn’t it. 
Israel lacks a “state religion”. The leaders of Israel are not also the leaders of Judaism, like the UK Queen is head of the Anglican Church. In fact, the Zionists who declared the Basic Law that Israel was “Jewish and democratic” were largely athiest socialists. They meant “Jewish” in the ethnic sense, rather than religious.
That said, the religiously Jewish have a big say in Israeli politics because of the oddities of the Israeli electoral system - too big, if you ask secular Israelis.
Ideed, religion in Israel is still organized under the pre-Israeli “millet” system inherited from the Turks and the British Mandate. Under this system, each religious community is recognized as living under its own jurisdiction - so, in point of fact, Israel has “Sharia law” (for Muslims) in matters of “personal status” (I know, Sharia law is a big bugaboo in the West - so it is sort of ironic that it exists in Israel).
The main “victims” of this system are not religious Muslims, who in fact enjoy more legal religious rights in Israel than pretty well anywhere in the West, but non-religious (or at least, non-Othodox religious) Jews (and other athiests), and those wishing to inter-marry between the officially recognized religious communities . Secular Jews can only “legally” get married in Orthodox Jewish marriages, so many secular Jews (who are, in point of fact, the majoritry of the population) have to either suck it up and get married in Orthodox ceremonies, or fly to somewhere like Cypris (which has made an industry out of marrying secular, and/or gay, Israelis) - because Israel recognizes marriages performed abroad!
So the system is creaky and full of problems, but they are not the problems of a “Jewish state religion” lording it over other religions. That doesn’t happen.
Yup. Many of these issues - including Israel’s - arose out of the disasters of WW2, which made giving potentially-persecuted minorities a “haven” seem like a good idea.
Ideally, it should. But in a world in which ethnicity is not irrelevant, those ethnicities faced with extermination tend to feel safer if they have their own army.
In the case of Israelis, the whoe impetus behind Zionism was the feeling, in the late 19th century, that European-based civilization (meaning, broadly, what we call “the West”) would not protect the minority population of Jews living among them - may, in fact, attempt to exterminate them. This was a feeling caused by many incidents - ironically perhaps, not in Germany: the main catalyst was the French “Dreyfus Affair”.
This shocked intellectual and secular “westernized” Jews who had assumed that ethnicity was increasingly irrellevant in late 19th century France.
Again, the early Zionists were mostly not religious - they were more likely to be socialist-inspired intellectuals.
Many people, including many Jews, though then what people would think now if one boldly stated the proposition that Jews were in danger of persecution or even extermination in the West: that the notion was completely nuts, or at least, only applied in backwards places like Czarist Russia - never in the more modern nations. Indeed, had it not turned out to be true, it is unlikely that Israel would have ever succeeded as a country. WW2 and the Nazis (and the complete failure of countries like the US, Canada, and the UK to give a shit what happened to Jews living in Europe) convinced many Jews that they were, indeed, safer having their own army, rather than relying on the ostensibly “ethnically irrelevant” countries of the West to protect them.
So? Show us the math.
And that basic reason would be . . . ?
Ah, I see. So they are “ahead” of much of Europe in this regard, given that I find a state religion to be a bad thing.
That’s fascinating. I suppose that isn’t a terrible system for a region with so much religious conflict, except for this part, which you referenced:
Being again a fan of the American way, I think self-identification is a better practice. Of course, the ethnicity-and-religion aspect of Judaism complicates matters.
Yes, it’s hard to argue with that. I’ve read that Europe remains much more anti-semitic than the United States, so Israel’s list of potential staunch allies in the West is a fairly short one.
Thanks for the informative post!
Moving on a bit, Wikipedia also has this information about Israel’s millet system:
What might the counter-arguement to the Aloni/Avnery proposals be? Is it simple inertia to change, or do the majority wish to keep the millet system, and if so, why? Is it perceived to minimize inter-faith conflict?
There are a couple of reasons why the (very sensible) proposal to move to a more “modern” system (I use scare quotes because that’s my personal judgment) has been resisted, I think.
Religious and ethnic issues in Israel are, as you would guess, very controversial matters. Moving to a “modern” system would upset many, many vested interests, and those interests are among the most likely to violently protest - it would, for example, upset both Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims and religious Christians. It could very easily be seen as “taking rights away” from the Arab-Israeli minority (both Christian and Muslim - not to mention outliers like the Druze), and the press as you probably know is very keen to pick up on any hint of Israeli persecution of its Arab minorities.
One can understand nothing about Israeli politics unless one understands that the ultra-Orthodox wield unproportional power - as the vote as a block on issues of religious interest. Stripping the millet system would be staunchly resisted by them (and they would have as allies the Arabic members).
The issue simply isn’t as important to secular/athiest Israelis - they see it as an irritant but one that has “work-arounds” like going abroad to get married.
Malthus gave a terrific answer.
Additionally though, the Israelis would rather not have Muslim boys marrying Jewish girls. Islam allows interfaith marriages, so long as the male involved is a Muslim and the girl is a member of one of the accepted faiths(which is why Arafat and King Hussein both were able to marry Christians), but under the current system the government of Israel can refuse to recognize marriages between Muslims and Jews even when performed at an Islamic ceremony unless it takes place in Cyprus.
It’s one of the changes they made to the Ottoman system since, for obvious reasons, the Ottomans had no problems with Muslim boys marrying Christian or Jewish girls, though they weren’t keen on Jewish or Christian boys marrying Muslim girls.
Is the reason for this because presumably the kids will be raised in whatever the mans faith is?
In Islam, generally, you are considered to be the faith of your father. And as most of us know, in many branches of Judaism, it’s the mother who determines the default faith of the children.
Yes, I’d imagine it would be reported as Israel removing legal protections from its minorities, leaving them isolated and vulnerable to the Jewish majority. Or something along those lines.
I see, so these ultra-Orthodox view the system as both reinforcing their power over religious matters, and exposing secular Jews to more religious practice, in the hope of inspiring more devotion?
Makes sense, unless they’ve lived somewhere like the United States, I’d say that a certain amount of work-around of the state and religion is just assumed to be part of life for an atheist / non-practicing person.
Is the presumption that the children of such a couple would be raised Muslim, thus threatening a Jewish majority, or is it just the good old-fashioned “keep to your kind, and we’ll keep to ours” that pretty much every culture has?
Do you know how Israel would classify the children, then? Say they were married in Cyprus to avoid a legal refusal and returned, what would the classification be under the millet system?
Well then what’s your definition of “democracy in practice”?
Note that “self-determination” and “equal say” can potentially conflict with each other. An Arab in Gaza has self-determination in the sense that he is governed by other Arabs. But he cannot vote them out of office or even criticize them publicly. So he would seem to lack “equal say.”
On the other hand, an Arab in Israel lacks self-determination in the sense that his leaders are not Arabs. But he still has the right to vote in elections and publicly criticize the government.
Ok, as you might guess it’s a sensitive issue. Much of the criticism of Israel is biased in the way I described.