# Israel - Democracy or Theocracy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937 "2009-02-22T13:04:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/41 "2009-02-23T21:38:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > one can become a “Jew” by conversion - but the latter is as a matter of fact very, very rare. Judaism is not a prostheletizing religion and it actively discourages conversion. Sure, but the law is about what is permitted, not about what is usual. If somebody with no ethnic Jewish heritage converts to the **religion** of Judaism, that person is covered by the provisions of the Law of Return, just as ethnic Jews are. Yes, there is a lot of blurring between ethnicity and religion in the case of Judaism, but it’s not true that they’re precisely the same thing. > [@Malthus](#): > > Edit: I see you have no response to the Israeli army point. ? What response does it need? It is true that non-Jewish Druze are required to serve in the Israeli army and many ultra-Orthodox Jews do not, but that doesn’t invalidate the point that the military service law draws distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. Again, the attempt to interpret Israeli law as considering **only** ethnicity rather than religion in its differential treatment of citizens is a bit creaky. For another thing, many Israeli Jews and Arabs are not that different ethnically; some are certainly much more ethnically similar than, say, some Jews with Middle Eastern heritage are to some Russian Jews (which reflects, among other things, the fact that a number of Middle Eastern Muslims are descended from Jewish-born converts to Islam). Judaism is a unique and separate religion, but it is not a unique and separate ethnic category. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/42 "2009-02-23T22:05:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure, but the law is about what is permitted, not about what is usual. If somebody with no ethnic Jewish heritage converts to the **religion** of Judaism, that person is covered by the provisions of the Law of Return, just as ethnic Jews are. > > Yes, there is a lot of blurring between ethnicity and religion in the case of Judaism, but it’s not true that they’re precisely the same thing. What, to you, is “ethnicity”? You seem to be of the view that they are dichotomous - that if something is a “religion”, it cannot also be an “ethnicity”. This, however, is not how Jews view Judaism, and it is not how anthropologists view ethnicity. More to the point, it does not demonstrate some sort of fundamental difference in terms of “laws of return” to what many other countries do. > [@](#): > > ? What response does it need? It is true that non-Jewish Druze are required to serve in the Israeli army and many ultra-Orthodox Jews do not, but that doesn’t invalidate the point that the military service law draws distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. On the contrary. It quite clearly invalidates the point that there is “fundamental religious discrimination”. The “discrimination” here is that _some groups within Israel, Jewish or not, object to serving in the military, and the state accomodates them; others do not - Jewish or not_. This is no different than handing out “conciencious objector” status to Quakers. > [@](#): > > Again, the attempt to interpret Israeli law as considering **only** ethnicity rather than religion in its differential treatment of citizens is a bit creaky. For another thing, many Israeli Jews and Arabs are not that different ethnically; some are certainly much more ethnically similar than, say, some Jews with Middle Eastern heritage are to some Russian Jews (which reflects, among other things, the fact that a number of Middle Eastern Muslims are descended from Jewish-born converts to Islam). Judaism is a unique and separate religion, but it is not a unique and separate ethnic category. Again, you make these statements, but what exactly are you basing them on? What, in your opinion, is “ethnicity”? Obviously a Black Jew from Etheopia is not _racially_ the same as a Jew from Poland, but they are of the same _ethnicity_. “Ethnicity” is not “race”; it may not even be “culture”. What it is, is that organizing, centralizing principle of allegiance or belonging to a group identity that is chosen by the members - such as, for example, Judaism. A Mizrai Jew and an Arab may have many cultural traits in common, and even a common ancestry; they do not however consider each other as being part of the same “ethnicity”, any more that the (equally similar) Greeks and Turks do. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/43 "2009-02-23T22:36:35Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > one can become a “Jew” by conversion - but the latter is as a matter of fact very, very rare. Not so rare, these days. There are an estimated 200,000 of us who have converted to Judaism in the US, and others in other countries. That’s around 1% of the total world population of Jews. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/44 "2009-02-23T22:53:08Z")
> [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > Not so rare, these days. There are an estimated 200,000 of us who have converted to Judaism in the US, and others in other countries. That’s around 1% of the total world population of Jews. Anecdotally, the majority of people who convert do so because their SO is Jewish (and that number is matched by the number of Jews converting the other way) - I could be wrong on this, but I doubt it. Under the “law of return”, these people would have been eligible anyway, even if they did _not_ convert: > [@](#): > > A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, “The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law… are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew”. > **[Law of Return](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_return#Eligibility_requirements)** > > The Law of Return (Hebrew: חוק השבות, romanized: ḥok ha-shvūt) is an Israeli law, passed on 5 July 1950, which gives Jews, people with one or more Jewish grandparent, and their spouses the right to relocate to Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship. Section 1 of the Law of Return declares that "every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh \[immigrant\]". In the Law of Return, the State of Israel gave effect to the Zionist movement's aim for the establishment of Israel as a Jewish s O... Thus, the only people who are in contention here are those who convert but who are not married to a Jew or have any family relationship to a Jew. Those numbers are gonna be pretty small - I’d say a fraction of that 1%. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/45 "2009-02-25T02:17:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You seem to be of the view that they are dichotomous - that if something is a “religion”, it cannot also be an “ethnicity”. No, I’m not. I acknowledged quite clearly that “there is a lot of blurring between ethnicity and religion in the case of Judaism”. Judaism is a religion and also an ethnicity, but that doesn’t mean that ethnicity and religion are indistinguishable entities. > [@Malthus](#): > > More to the point, it does not demonstrate some sort of fundamental difference in terms of “laws of return” to what many other countries do. Sorry, but it does. For example, a person with no traceable German heritage who is not a German citizen cannot somehow “convert to Germanhood” and thereby acquire special immigration status under German law. However, a non-Jewish person with no traceable Jewish heritage can convert to Judaism and thereby receive the same special status as other Jews under Israeli immigration law. That’s a fundamental difference. > [@Malthus](#): > > Thus, the only people who are in contention here are those who convert but who are not married to a Jew or have any family relationship to a Jew. Those numbers are gonna be pretty small - I’d say a fraction of that 1%. The size of the number is irrelevant to my point. The point is that there is a class of people who have converted to the Jewish religion who have no traceable Jewish genetic/family heritage, and that those people are awarded the same preferential status in Israeli immigration laws as other Jews. That is qualitatively different from the “national heritage” preferences that many other countries apply to immigration candidates. > [@Malthus](#): > > The “discrimination” here is that some groups within Israel, Jewish or not, object to serving in the military, and the state accomodates them; others do not - Jewish or not. > > This is no different than handing out “conciencious objector” status to Quakers. Yes, it is. Quakers are given conscientious objector status because they share a belief system in which violence, and hence military service, is prohibited. But Israeli Muslims and Christians as a group are not ideologically opposed to military service in the abstract: in fact, some of them even serve in the Israeli army as volunteers. So according to your definitions, the Israeli conscription laws manifest not religious discrimination, but ethnic discrimination. Mind you, I’m not arguing that Israel is necessarily wrong in its choices about applying certain laws differently to different groups of people. I’m just pointing out that it’s not true that there is no meaningful difference between Israel’s practice and the practices of many other self-described democracies. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/46 "2009-02-25T15:04:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, I’m not. I acknowledged quite clearly that “there is a lot of blurring between ethnicity and religion in the case of Judaism”. Judaism is a religion and also an ethnicity, but that doesn’t mean that ethnicity and religion are indistinguishable entities. Except that in this case Israel is quite clearly using the category as an _ethnic_ category. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but it does. For example, a person with no traceable German heritage who is not a German citizen cannot somehow “convert to Germanhood” and thereby acquire special immigration status under German law. However, a non-Jewish person with no traceable Jewish heritage can convert to Judaism and thereby receive the same special status as other Jews under Israeli immigration law. That’s a fundamental difference. Nonsense. All they must do, in many cases, to “convert” to whatever “ethnicity” is to … marry someone of that ethnicity. Proof: > [@](#): > > German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler (“late emigrants”; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the “return” to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone “who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the **spouse** or descendant of such person”. [Emphasis added] > **[Right of return | Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany)** > > German law allows (1) people descending from German nationals of any ethnicity or (2) people of ethnic German descent and living in countries of the former Warsaw Pact (as well as Yugoslavia) the right to "return" to Germany and ("re")claim German citizenship (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler, "late emigrants"). After legislative changes in late 1992 this right is de facto restricted to ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union. As with many legal implementations of the right of return, the "return" t... A non-ethnically-German person married to a German exactly fulfills your stated criteria. This statement … “…a person with no traceable German heritage who is not a German citizen cannot somehow “convert to Germanhood” and thereby acquire special immigration status under German law”. … is proven 100% **wrong**. The Ukranian wife of an ethnic German is a “person with no tracable German heritage…” who has somehow “…converted to Germanhood…” and thus “…acquire[d] special immigration status under German law”. Certainly there are differences - some tiny minority of people can, without any family connection to a Jew, become a Jew by conversion - but just how long are you going to continue to move the goalposts before conceding that the differences are vanishingly minor? > [@](#): > > The size of the number is irrelevant to my point. The point is that there is a class of people who have converted to the Jewish religion who have no traceable Jewish genetic/family heritage, and that those people are awarded the same preferential status in Israeli immigration laws as other Jews. … as are “spouses” of “ethnic Germans”, who are equally _not German_ - yet are treated as such by law. > [@](#): > > That is qualitatively different from the “national heritage” preferences that many other countries apply to immigration candidates. No, it is not. As can be seen by actually examining the facts, plenty of “non-ethnic-Germans” are considered “Germans” for reasons of the law. > [@](#): > > Yes, it is. Quakers are given conscientious objector status because they share a belief system in which violence, and hence military service, is prohibited. But Israeli Muslims and Christians as a group are not ideologically opposed to military service in the abstract: in fact, some of them even serve in the Israeli army as volunteers. They are presumed (usually quite correctly) to have ideological opposition to serving in the _Israel military_. They can volunteer if this presumption is incorrect. > [@](#): > > So according to your definitions, the Israeli conscription laws manifest not religious discrimination, but ethnic discrimination. No, for two reasons. First, you have once again confused ethnicity with religion - Ultra-Orthodox Jews are not _ethnically_ different from other Jews, for example. The imporatnt distinction in this case is ideology. Second, because “accomodation” does not have the same perjorative meaning as “discrimination”. Your original post stated that Israel was engaged in (your words) “fundamental religious discrimination” - one example given was conscription. This strongly implies an _invidious_ or _negative_ “discrimination” based on religion - that is, that certain _disfavoured_ groups are harmed by the official policy, as in “Jim Crow” laws. The impression of an _invidious_ discrimination is strengthened by the insistance that no other Western Democracy does the same: the notion would appear to be that the Israeli state sets out to deny members of certain religious or ethnic groups rights on the basis of their religion or ethnicity - something which we in the West, rightly, set ourselves against. However, when the actual facts are examined, the truth is in this case turns out to be 100% the opposite. The Israeli state does not, in this case, give rights to Jews that it denies to non-Jews. Rather, it relieves certain groups, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, of the obligation of conscription based on the fact that the ideology generally held by these particular groups is opposed to military service in the Israeli state. Thus, what is in fact a somewhat admirable _accomodation of difference_ is turned, somehow, into an example of “fundamental religious discrimination”. The proof? The groups affected (such as ultra-Orthodox Jews) are all _in favour_ of the so-called “discrimination”. I am quite certain that any attempt made to remove said “discrimination” would result in serious unhappiness among those allegedly “discriminated against”. > [@](#): > > Mind you, I’m not arguing that Israel is necessarily wrong in its choices about applying certain laws differently to different groups of people. I’m just pointing out that it’s not true that there is no meaningful difference between Israel’s practice and the practices of many other self-described democracies. And in that you are wrong, on the examples you have cited. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/47 "2009-02-25T16:10:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Nonsense. All they must do, in many cases, to “convert” to whatever “ethnicity” is to … marry someone of that ethnicity. You’re desperately reaching here. Yes, one can get preferential immigration status in many countries just by marrying someone who already has preferential status in that country. But that is not the same as independently converting. Would-be German immigrants can marry Germans. Would-be Israeli immigrants can marry Jews **or** independently convert to Judaism. That’s a difference. > [@Malthus](#): > > Certainly there are differences - some tiny minority of people can, without any family connection to a Jew, become a Jew by conversion - but just how long are you going to continue to move the goalposts before conceding that the differences are vanishingly minor? There is no goalpost-moving here, at least not by me. I never made any claim about the **statistical significance** of the number of non-Jewish people unrelated to Jews who convert to Judaism. All that I noted, and what I still rightly insist on, is that the very **existence** of such a category of persons, and the fact that they have special status in Israeli immigration law, makes Israeli immigration law in this respect **fundamentally different** from, say, German immigration law. > [@Malthus](#): > > Your original post stated that Israel was engaged in (your words) “fundamental religious discrimination” - one example given was conscription. This strongly implies an invidious or negative “discrimination” based on religion Okay, if the negative connotations of “discrimination” are what’s really been the bug up your butt in this discussion, I’m happy to replace the term by “differential treatment”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/48 "2009-02-25T16:29:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re desperately reaching here. Yes, one can get preferential immigration status in many countries just by marrying someone who already has preferential status in that country. But that is not the same as independently converting. > > Would-be German immigrants can marry Germans. Would-be Israeli immigrants can marry Jews **or** independently convert to Judaism. That’s a difference. > > There is no goalpost-moving here, at least not by me. I never made any claim about the **statistical significance** of the number of non-Jewish people unrelated to Jews who convert to Judaism. You are the one who laid down the criteria: that someone who is not of a particular ethnicity can nevertheless be considered to be of that ethnicity for purposes of immigration law. Marriage is one way of doing that. If there is some sort of extraordinarily significant difference between marriage and conversion, please make a case for it. To my mind, both are of a kind: a self-chosen act that can make a person self-identify with a particular ethnic group they were not born into. > [@](#): > > All that I noted, and what I still rightly insist on, is that the very **existence** of such a category of persons, and the fact that they have special status in Israeli immigration law, makes Israeli immigration law in this respect **fundamentally different** from, say, German immigration law. You keep “insisting” on it, but you have not said why this difference is of any significance at all - other than that you _think_ it is. > [@](#): > > Okay, if the negative connotations of “discrimination” are what’s really been the bug up your butt in this discussion, I’m happy to replace the term by “differential treatment”. Of course it is the “bug up [my] butt”, since it is hard to honestly interpret “fundamental religious discriminiation” that is “fundamentally different” from what anyone else in the West does as being anything but a negative characterization; which in these particular cases are not warranted. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/49 "2009-02-25T16:49:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Marriage is one way of doing that. If there is some sort of extraordinarily significant difference between marriage and conversion, please make a case for it. Marriage changes one’s immigration status based on an individual’s establishment of a close family association with another person, not based on the individual’s own identity. Conversion, on the other hand, actually **changes** the individual’s own identity, irrespective of any family associations whatever. You can marry a German, or marry a Jew. You can independently convert to Judaism, but you cannot independently convert to “Germanity”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/50 "2009-02-25T17:40:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Marriage changes one’s immigration status based on an individual’s establishment of a close family association with another person, not based on the individual’s own identity. Conversion, on the other hand, actually **changes** the individual’s own identity, irrespective of any family associations whatever. > > You can marry a German, or marry a Jew. You can independently convert to Judaism, but you cannot independently convert to “Germanity”. You have not said why the difference is _significant_ - you are merely restating what the difference _is_. To my mind, the significant issue is that a person in both cases is, of their own free actions, capable of obtaining the _legal status_ required for immigration. They need not be “born” to it; they can acquire it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937/51 "2009-02-25T19:47:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, the significant issue is that a person in both cases is, of their own free actions, capable of obtaining the legal status required for immigration. Nope. Marriage is not just about one individual’s “own free actions”; it’s about the association of the individual with another individual who **already** has that legal status. No matter how much one individual may **wish** to freely marry a person with the desired legal status, they can’t do it unless some such person wishes to marry them. Conversion, on the other hand, really **is** dependent on the individual’s own free actions. In other words, the spouse is piggybacking on another person’s existing status, as a member of a couple. The convert is independently **changing** his/her **own** status as an individual. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-democracy-or-theocracy/486937.md?page=2)