I was listening yesterday to Benjamin Netenyahu's speech at the UN general assembly and I heard him talking about how the world and Palestinians should acknowledge Israel as a Hebrew and Jewish state. For you who believe that Israel is a progressive, secular and democratic state, what's your take on this? Supposedly, the truly progressive and civilized states have long adopted secularism and do not affiliate themselves with a religion or an ethnicity as this would contradict and undermine the values of nondiscrimination based on any particular attribute of any human being. I believe this is to be the general consensus around the world.
Before you comment on this, let's not go the "its all just formalities and it does not affect the values of the state or how it's run" routine. You do not affiliate your state with a religion or an ethnicity for no reason. A country that deliberately affiliates itself with Christianity will be influenced to varying degrees by the Church and the same goes with Islam and Sharia law.
Israel as a Hebrew, Jewish state
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'd rather have it be seen as a secular state. Some of the ultra orthodox Jewish communities in Israel can be kind of scary. HoolaHoopManWhich hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict.
Bibi is a loon and I feel bad for the moderate and pragmatic Israeli politicians because it seems like he's going to be in control for a long time.
he points those attributes out to make it look like that he talks on behalf of the whole jewish population of the world which is not true but i don't think it affects them as a democratic state.
It's an island of hope in a sea of trash.
He and other prominent Israeli politicians and figures of influence seem not to be able to emphasize enough on the Jewish identity of Israel. However, what you're saying may be right. But still, doesn't it go against the image of a true progressive, secular and civilized state that the Israeli government has always been advocating to the world? Doesn't it go against the direction all developed and 2nd world states took/are taking? Besides that, who knows what may happen in the future and how the adoption of the Jewish identity of the state of Israel might affect Israeli politics and social order. The right wing has been garnering support and popularity in the past 15 years or so. The same goes for orthodox Jewish communities and parties though maybe to lesser extents. While right wing=/=religious, in the case of Israel they seem to be in an ever rising harmony. It wouldn't be the first time in history where the rise of religious identification mixed with politics resulted in an ass backwards theocracy...he points those attributes out to make it look like that he talks on behalf of the whole jewish population of the world which is not true but i don't think it affects them as a democratic state.
VaguelyTagged
Is Israel supposed to be a homeland State for Jews, or not? If it is, liberal democracy is inimical to that goal, since you can't synthesize that with nationalism, not effectively at least. Say what you want about Meir Kahane, he understood the fundamental question of Israel that liberal Israelis and most Israeli right wingers can't answer.RhazaknaCould you explain/elaborate?
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'd rather have it be seen as a secular state. Some of the ultra orthodox Jewish communities in Israel can be kind of scary. GazaAliWhich hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict. I'll admit I'm a bit indifferent/ignorant to the intricacies of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I just generally see the issue of proclaiming that a country is of X nationality or Y religion as a bad thing.
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'd rather have it be seen as a secular state. Some of the ultra orthodox Jewish communities in Israel can be kind of scary. HoolaHoopManWhich hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict. I'll admit I'm a bit indifferent/ignorant to the intricacies of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I just generally see the issue of proclaiming that a country is of X nationality or Y religion as a bad thing. Exactly that's my point. I thought this was the general consensus and prevailing opinion among those who claim to be of democratic and progressive nature.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] Which hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict.GazaAliI'll admit I'm a bit indifferent/ignorant to the intricacies of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I just generally see the issue of proclaiming that a country is of X nationality or Y religion as a bad thing. Exactly that's my point. I thought this was the general consensus and prevailing opinion among those who claim to be of democratic and progressive nature.
It is the general consensus. Having said, not every country is the same and there is a continuum. If you proclaim yourself as X or Y but also have well established protections for minorities then that is better than having limited or no protections.
Moreover, the primary issue is whether or not the Rule of Law trumps all other sociopolitical forces. If so, you can accomodate a wide range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. For instance, a great many people would accept describing the US as a primarily Christian country. However, that is not particularly meaningful as it is a Rule of Law state and inherently secular as a result...where Rule of Law is the primary force and secular state is just one of the outcomes.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Is Israel supposed to be a homeland State for Jews, or not? If it is, liberal democracy is inimical to that goal, since you can't synthesize that with nationalism, not effectively at least. Say what you want about Meir Kahane, he understood the fundamental question of Israel that liberal Israelis and most Israeli right wingers can't answer.GazaAliCould you explain/elaborate? Liberal democracy can't be combined with nationalism, because nationalism can be undone through democratic processes. Meir Kahane asked liberal Israeli democrats a simple question; do the Arabs have a right to outbreed Jews in Israel, and then fundamentally change and perhaps even control the Israeli state therough democratic means? It's an important question, if you're trying to give Jews the safe homeland they've lacked throughout history. The two goals are conflicting-is Israel a Jewish nation, or the only democracy in the Middle East? At the moment, it's straddling the line between both, but that can't and won't continue-the demographics alone point to that,
Exactly that's my point. I thought this was the general consensus and prevailing opinion among those who claim to be of democratic and progressive nature.[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I'll admit I'm a bit indifferent/ignorant to the intricacies of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I just generally see the issue of proclaiming that a country is of X nationality or Y religion as a bad thing. SUD123456
It is the general consensus. Having said, not every country is the same and there is a continuum. If you proclaim yourself as X or Y but also have well established protections for minorities then that is better than having limited or no protections.
Moreover, the primary issue is whether or not the Rule of Law trumps all other sociopolitical forces. If so, you can accomodate a wide range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. For instance, a great many people would accept describing the US as a primarily Christian country. However, that is not particularly meaningful as it is a Rule of Law state and inherently secular as a result...where Rule of Law is the primary force and secular state is just one of the outcomes.
In the case of Israel, its already discriminating against a whooping 15-20% of its population, the Arabs. Generally speaking, Arabs cities are less developed than their Jewish counterparts, receive less state's attention and resources and are marginalized. The majority of the Arab population is marginalized and have little to no saying in the state's policies and its social order. Having said that, the rule of law that would supposedly protect the secular, progressive and nondiscriminatory features of Israel in case of the adoption of the Jewish identity is already allowing marginalization and discrimination against a considerable portion of Israel's population. Not to mention that the same rule of law has always backed the IDF and its countless violations against the Palestinians including acts of war that resulted in a large number of civilian casualties AND the actions of IDF personnel in times of no war (unjustified shootings at checkpoints, protecting settlers attacking nearby Palestinian villages and farms...etc). When you put these things together, I don't think it would be unreasonable to worry about or expect the worst of such a sociopolitical move. You're saying that the rule of law would allow you to accommodate a range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. Isn't that an oxymoron (I'm not sure if this is the right word to use here). The rule of law should not allow the existence of "otherwise marginalizing labels" in the first place, again in a true progressive, secular and civilized state. In such a state, the law does not discriminate against any citizen, prevents the existence of any marginalizing or discriminatory labels, does not label its citizen according to any label or attribute whether its religion, race, sexuality, ethnicity, social class...etc and is simply neutral to all these factors. And I don't think your example of the U.S is completely accurate. Many Americans seem to disagree with how the U.S is one way or another identifies itself as a Christian state. They are under the impression that the separation of church and state is not fully realized. This can actually be observed in legislations and policies regarding education, social issues (gay marriage for instance), foreign policies among others. Quick question: why isn't gay marriage legalized in the U.S? Don't homosexuals feel discriminated against in the U.S because they can't marry there? In a nutshell, you can either deny the original premise in my OP about a true secular, progressive and civilized state or deny your own premise that the identification of the state with a certain religion/ethnicity does not affect its progressiveness and secular nature that is supposed to protect its citizens of all kinds of discrimination and make the rule of law the sole authority in society.[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Is Israel supposed to be a homeland State for Jews, or not? If it is, liberal democracy is inimical to that goal, since you can't synthesize that with nationalism, not effectively at least. Say what you want about Meir Kahane, he understood the fundamental question of Israel that liberal Israelis and most Israeli right wingers can't answer.RhazaknaCould you explain/elaborate? Liberal democracy can't be combined with nationalism, because nationalism can be undone through democratic processes. Meir Kahane asked liberal Israeli democrats a simple question; do the Arabs have a right to outbreed Jews in Israel, and then fundamentally change and perhaps even control the Israeli state therough democratic means? It's an important question, if you're trying to give Jews the safe homeland they've lacked throughout history. The two goals are conflicting-is Israel a Jewish nation, or the only democracy in the Middle East? At the moment, it's straddling the line between both, but that can't and won't continue-the demographics alone point to that, This makes a whole lot of sense yes.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Its such a downer that the moderate Israelis have little to no leverage or base in Israeli politics.Bibi is a loon and I feel bad for the moderate and pragmatic Israeli politicians because it seems like he's going to be in control for a long time.
GazaAli
You could change "Israeli" to "American" and you would find a similar situation.
The new Iranian president could be doing all the for show, but it might be genuine, and peace with Iran would benefit everyone, including Israel.
Its such a downer that the moderate Israelis have little to no leverage or base in Israeli politics.[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]
Bibi is a loon and I feel bad for the moderate and pragmatic Israeli politicians because it seems like he's going to be in control for a long time.
jimkabrhel
You could change "Israeli" to "American" and you would find a similar situation.
The new Iranian president could be doing all the for show, but it might be genuine, and peace with Iran would benefit everyone, including Israel.
Netenyahu did a number on him in that speech though rofl
[QUOTE="SUD123456"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] Exactly that's my point. I thought this was the general consensus and prevailing opinion among those who claim to be of democratic and progressive nature.GazaAli
It is the general consensus. Having said, not every country is the same and there is a continuum. If you proclaim yourself as X or Y but also have well established protections for minorities then that is better than having limited or no protections.
Moreover, the primary issue is whether or not the Rule of Law trumps all other sociopolitical forces. If so, you can accomodate a wide range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. For instance, a great many people would accept describing the US as a primarily Christian country. However, that is not particularly meaningful as it is a Rule of Law state and inherently secular as a result...where Rule of Law is the primary force and secular state is just one of the outcomes.
In the case of Israel, its already discriminating against a whooping 15-20% of its population, the Arabs. Generally speaking, Arabs cities are less developed than their Jewish counterparts, receive less state's attention and resources and are marginalized. The majority of the Arab population is marginalized and have little to no saying in the state's policies and its social order. Having said that, the rule of law that would supposedly protect the secular, progressive and nondiscriminatory features of Israel in case of the adoption of the Jewish identity is already allowing marginalization and discrimination against a considerable portion of Israel's population. Not to mention that the same rule of law has always backed the IDF and its countless violations against the Palestinians including acts of war that resulted in a large number of civilian casualties AND the actions of IDF personnel in times of no war (unjustified shootings at checkpoints, protecting settlers attacking nearby Palestinian villages and farms...etc). When you put these things together, I don't think it would be unreasonable to worry about or expect the worst of such a sociopolitical move. You're saying that the rule of law would allow you to accommodate a range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. Isn't that an oxymoron (I'm not sure if this is the right word to use here). The rule of law should not allow the existence of "otherwise marginalizing labels" in the first place, again in a true progressive, secular and civilized state. In such a state, the law does not discriminate against any citizen, prevents the existence of any marginalizing or discriminatory labels, does not label its citizen according to any label or attribute whether its religion, race, sexuality, ethnicity, social class...etc and is simply neutral to all these factors. And I don't think your example of the U.S is completely accurate. Many Americans seem to disagree with how the U.S is one way or another identifies itself as a Christian state. They are under the impression that the separation of church and state is not fully realized. This can actually be observed in legislations and policies regarding education, social issues (gay marriage for instance), foreign policies among others. Quick question: why isn't gay marriage legalized in the U.S? Don't homosexuals feel discriminated against in the U.S because they can't marry there? In a nutshell, you can either deny the original premise in my OP about a true secular, progressive and civilized state or deny your own premise that the identification of the state with a certain religion/ethnicity does not affect its progressiveness and secular nature that is supposed to protect its citizens of all kinds of discrimination and make the rule of law the sole authority in society.I think you missed my point. Secularism is not the defining issue. There are plenty of despotic secular states. The rule of law is the issue and secularism is just an outcome. You cannot have rule of law without having secularism, but you can have secularism without the rule of la.
In any case, the rule of law is not an all encompassing concept that guarantees perfection, fairness, and equality of outcome for everyone. The minimal definition is essentially rule by man made laws and no one is above the law and with some protections for all. A broader definition includes presumed rights, but the amount and extent of those rights is up for debate and usually enshrined in other mechanisms like bills of rights, constitutions etc.
The point of the rule of law is that no one is above it and that change occurs through a defined set of legal rules. The rules themselves change minimally, but they are applied to an ever evolving macro social landscape and over time the application of the rules reflects changing social values.
In the case of things like gay marriage, or abortion, etc those things change when society reaches a tipping point. For gay marriage, that has already occurred in my country, but is not quite fully there in the US. However, when I was your age my country was not yet ready, nor was pretty much any country. Yet to you it seems so obvious, and I understand why. The reverse is true for abortion where the US was well ahead of my country.
Where I think you miss the mark is in assuming a static view on what is a list of progressive rights. Not too many years ago women couldn't vote. Think about that. Today that is an alien concept. Not too long ago gay marriage was a non starter and you couldn't even hold a gov't job with a security clearance. Changed in my country, changing in the US. No matter how wide you cast your net today, 100 years from now people will look back at this era and laugh at how closed minded we are about so many things that you and I are not even discussing today. Things can and will evolve. The rule of law is the process by which change is codified. It isn't a list of rights.
As for Israel, it is imperfect as is everywhere.
it's an apartheid state, and will continue to be one especially in coming years as Israelis citizens of Palestinian origin who are growing in population pretty quick threaten to take a majority and politically they can alter the state if they're not stripped of their right to vote, it's future is either to embrace a secular nation, or to become an unquestionable apartheid theocracylamprey263This post is filled with so much wrong. Like really every word in there.
What a racist thing to say.the Ashkenazi Jews that occupy israel today do not belong there.. they originated from europe and have no more claim to the land than a baptist would
Flubbbs
[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]What a racist thing to say.the Ashkenazi Jews that occupy israel today do not belong there.. they originated from europe and have no more claim to the land than a baptist would
charlesdarwin55
jew isnt a race so how is it racist and yes israel is an apartheid state
I was listening yesterday to Benjamin Netenyahu's speech at the UN general assembly and I heard him talking about how the world and Palestinians should acknowledge Israel as a Hebrew and Jewish state. For you who believe that Israel is a progressive, secular and democratic state, what's your take on this? Supposedly, the truly progressive and civilized states have long adopted secularism and do not affiliate themselves with a religion or an ethnicity as this would contradict and undermine the values of nondiscrimination based on any particular attribute of any human being. I believe this is to be the general consensus around the world.
Before you comment on this, let's not go the "its all just formalities and it does not affect the values of the state or how it's run" routine. You do not affiliate your state with a religion or an ethnicity for no reason. A country that deliberately affiliates itself with Christianity will be influenced to varying degrees by the Church and the same goes with Islam and Sharia law.GazaAli
mhm
You've just edged the majority of europe, a place you seem intent on moving to, from your progressive world.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'd rather have it be seen as a secular state. Some of the ultra orthodox Jewish communities in Israel can be kind of scary. GazaAliWhich hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict. The ultra orthodox are predominantly anti-zionist. So I guess you would likely take it as a positive development.
What a racist thing to say.[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="Flubbbs"]
the Ashkenazi Jews that occupy israel today do not belong there.. they originated from europe and have no more claim to the land than a baptist would
Flubbbs
jew isnt a race so how is it racist and yes israel is an apartheid state
Don't deflect with semantics now. lol of course it is notAnd what's this nonsense about discrimination? Of course there is alot to a very great extent. Just like in every country. But tbh being a minority in Israel you have greater rights than in Europe. In Israel muslims can wear hijab, have minarets, have adhan, use their own langauge in every situation etc.charlesdarwin55
lol
it's an apartheid state, and will continue to be one especially in coming years as Israelis citizens of Palestinian origin who are growing in population pretty quick threaten to take a majority and politically they can alter the state if they're not stripped of their right to vote, it's future is either to embrace a secular nation, or to become an unquestionable apartheid theocracylamprey263
INB4 Darkman excoriates you for saying that. Â :P
Liberal democracy can't be combined with nationalism, because nationalism can be undone through democratic processes. Meir Kahane asked liberal Israeli democrats a simple question; do the Arabs have a right to outbreed Jews in Israel, and then fundamentally change and perhaps even control the Israeli state therough democratic means? It's an important question, if you're trying to give Jews the safe homeland they've lacked throughout history. The two goals are conflicting-is Israel a Jewish nation, or the only democracy in the Middle East? At the moment, it's straddling the line between both, but that can't and won't continue-the demographics alone point to that,Rhazakna
States are not static entities. the constitutional ideals governing their political process do not have to cater for every possible contingency. The french do not have to ask themselves if they are willing to let muslim immigration and population growth subvert their constitutional combination of francoise cultural unity and a democratic system; the same as the, currently unsubstantiated, 'demographic threat' of an arabic population takeover doesn't necessarily have to preplex the Israeli political system. When paradigm shifts happen- they induce change.
Meir Kahane was a racist alarmist. The, seemingly, accepted Idea that jews are on the losing end of a demographic battle is only true if you account for UNRWA palestinian 'refugees' and west bank palestinians. There is no real 'internal' demographic threat for Israel from its Israeli arab population.
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'd rather have it be seen as a secular state. Some of the ultra orthodox Jewish communities in Israel can be kind of scary. pie-juniorWhich hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict. The ultra orthodox are predominantly anti-zionist. So I guess you would likely take it as a positive development.
Aren't they the ones that are settling on the West Bank though and have extremely hardline rhetoric?
The ultra orthodox are predominantly anti-zionist. So I guess you would likely take it as a positive development.[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] Which hits the nail in this context. If Israel would identify itself as a Jewish state, who knows the scale and extent of power those ultra orthodox Jewish communities would have and how that would influence the region and ongoing conflict.sSubZerOo
Aren't they the ones that are settling on the West Bank though and have extremely hardline rhetoric?
NoÂ
You're saying that the rule of law would allow you to accommodate a range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. Isn't that an oxymoron (I'm not sure if this is the right word to use here). The rule of law should not allow the existence of "otherwise marginalizing labels" in the first place, again in a true progressive, secular and civilized state. In such a state, the law does not discriminate against any citizen, prevents the existence of any marginalizing or discriminatory labels, does not label its citizen according to any label or attribute whether its religion, race, sexuality, ethnicity, social class...etc and is simply neutral to all these factors. And I don't think your example of the U.S is completely accurate. Many Americans seem to disagree with how the U.S is one way or another identifies itself as a Christian state. They are under the impression that the separation of church and state is not fully realized. This can actually be observed in legislations and policies regarding education, social issues (gay marriage for instance), foreign policies among others. GazaAli
There is a difference between the legal frame being 'neutral' and the legal order making to reach remedial justice, namely 'preventing the existence of any marginalizing or discriminatory labels'. The legal system in Israel, contrary to what you may think, does not 'marginalise' arabs directly (with the one exception being the 'law of return'), but allows marginalisation by factors that exist in the space, delimited by the legal frame, where public and private actors operate. EG- there is a lot of discrimination in Israel with regards to building permits for arab settlements relative to jewish settlements. This occurs because the initial allocation of land administration favoured the labour oriented settlements movement (ie kibbutzes) and allowed them significant land spatial control through the marking of jurisdictional lines of local authorities. meaning- A local authority representing only jewish population often controls land near arab villages- and can marginalise the village's interest in land usage because the village belongs to another loacl authority, and its residents don't vote in the elections for local government in the 'jewish' local administration.
Â
This is not unique to Israel, however. social phenomenon and past allocation of resources often lead to marginalisation of different groups. your definitions, ITT, would suggest that no country on earth is a truly progressive, secular and civilized state.
Â
There shouldn't be a Jewish population and an Arab population.
It should be an Israeli population.
There shouldn't be millions of "Palestinians" outside the gates, those people are indigenous, they're not foreigners.
And finally it shouldn't be "Israel" it should be whatever the native people who live there want to call it.
All of them, of whatever ethnicity or faith.
That's a secular, democratic state.
I love how the liberals and anti-semites agree 100% on this issue. Some will argue this and that about the reasoning behind it, I will simply state I don't care about that, all I care about is the bottom line.jcknapier711What is this bottom line anyhow? Let's also not go the antisemitism route, it really devalues the whole concept to use it haphazardly like this.
Israel has no official religion. Israel being Jewish is in the ethnic sense. Something wich is defintely not in contradiction with being democratic, secular, progressive etc. However there are religious elements thart I would like to see diminished. Again though states being based in some way around ethnicities is nothing wrong, at least considering how our society looks like today. I think it's pretty much established in the wider populus, having one of the basic rights that every people have the right to self determination. Anyone that supports a Palestinian state should also support a Jewish state's right to exist.charlesdarwin55The concept that Judaism is an ethnicity confuses me, frankly it makes no sense to me. I think Hebrew is an ethnicity and Judaism is a religion. If Israel has no official religion, then why the desire to make it a Jewish state now? I'm not saying that one's identification with an ethnicity or a religion is wrong, but the identification of the state with such attributes surely undermines its endeavor to be a true secular and progressive democracy. The very notion that the state chose an ethnic or religious attribute to identify itself with opens the door for possible discrimination and compromising the rights of all of its citizens. In the context of Israel. all of the aforementioned holds to great extents given that 20% of Israel's population are Arabs. I'm not sure how you fail to see that in today's world. Palestinian is a nationality and nationalities do exist and have nothing to do with secularism or progressiveness. From your point of view, anyone who supports a Palestinian state should also supports an Israeli state. For people to equally support a Jewish state, they must support an Islamic state in the OPT which is something I don't see people around the world calling for.
Â
[QUOTE="GazaAli"]
You're saying that the rule of law would allow you to accommodate a range of otherwise marginalizing labels while preserving the primary principles at play. Isn't that an oxymoron (I'm not sure if this is the right word to use here). The rule of law should not allow the existence of "otherwise marginalizing labels" in the first place, again in a true progressive, secular and civilized state. In such a state, the law does not discriminate against any citizen, prevents the existence of any marginalizing or discriminatory labels, does not label its citizen according to any label or attribute whether its religion, race, sexuality, ethnicity, social class...etc and is simply neutral to all these factors. And I don't think your example of the U.S is completely accurate. Many Americans seem to disagree with how the U.S is one way or another identifies itself as a Christian state. They are under the impression that the separation of church and state is not fully realized. This can actually be observed in legislations and policies regarding education, social issues (gay marriage for instance), foreign policies among others. pie-junior
There is a difference between the legal frame being 'neutral' and the legal order making to reach remedial justice, namely 'preventing the existence of any marginalizing or discriminatory labels'. The legal system in Israel, contrary to what you may think, does not 'marginalise' arabs directly (with the one exception being the 'law of return'), but allows marginalisation by factors that exist in the space, delimited by the legal frame, where public and private actors operate. EG- there is a lot of discrimination in Israel with regards to building permits for arab settlements relative to jewish settlements. This occurs because the initial allocation of land administration favoured the labour oriented settlements movement (ie kibbutzes) and allowed them significant land spatial control through the marking of jurisdictional lines of local authorities. meaning- A local authority representing only jewish population often controls land near arab villages- and can marginalise the village's interest in land usage because the village belongs to another loacl authority, and its residents don't vote in the elections for local government in the 'jewish' local administration.
Â
This is not unique to Israel, however. social phenomenon and past allocation of resources often lead to marginalisation of different groups. your definitions, ITT, would suggest that no country on earth is a truly progressive, secular and civilized state.
My definitions ITT may suggest that there is no truly progressive, secular and civilized state that exists today in the sense that these concepts are relative rather than absolute which is the case with pretty much everything in the world. However, the relative nature of these concepts do not justify that a state that attributes itself with secularism and progressiveness may take the opposite direction in relation to these values. States now are moving from religious and ethnic identities to secular and accommodating pluralist ones. In a previous comment you said that I excluded most of Europe from being secular and progressive by my own definitions. I may have done that and I see no problem with it as it can be interpreted that majority of Europe is not there yet, but at least they're getting there. As long as a state is moving forward in its endeavor to fully realize the values of progressiveness and secularism it claims to identify itself with, that state has the right to attribute itself with these values since the act itself of moving forward towards progressiveness and secularism is progressive and secular in nature. It cannot exist unless it is secular and progressive in nature. The point is, there are people who support Israel as a democratic and progressive state in a sea of theocracies and ass backwards totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. I naturally do not support Israel, I think that's easily understandable. But the point I'm trying to make here is that people should be consistent. if you want to support Israel as a pluralist, secular and progressive democracy, by these definitions and conventions any supporter of such an Israel should object to the voices calling for a Jewish and Hebrew Israel.Israel is quite nationalistic and discriminatory even compared to other Eurasian countries. Ironic considering the circumstances of the country's founding though.
Â
There shouldn't be a Jewish population and an Arab population.
Ok Adolf
It should be an Israeli population.
There is. They are the 8 million Israeli citizens.
There shouldn't be millions of "Palestinians" outside the gates, those people are indigenous, they're not foreigners.
Well
And finally it shouldn't be "Israel" it should be whatever the native people who live there want to call it.
And they want to call it Israel.
All of them, of whatever ethnicity or faith.
I think it's hard to get all 8 million people to agree on a name. That's what happens in a democracy.
That's a secular, democratic state.
How come nothing in your post was related to religion and way of rule?
LazySloth718
[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]Israel has no official religion. Israel being Jewish is in the ethnic sense. Something wich is defintely not in contradiction with being democratic, secular, progressive etc. However there are religious elements thart I would like to see diminished. Again though states being based in some way around ethnicities is nothing wrong, at least considering how our society looks like today. I think it's pretty much established in the wider populus, having one of the basic rights that every people have the right to self determination. Anyone that supports a Palestinian state should also support a Jewish state's right to exist.GazaAliThe concept that Judaism is an ethnicity confuses me, frankly it makes no sense to me. I think Hebrew is an ethnicity and Judaism is a religion. If Israel has no official religion, then why the desire to make it a Jewish state now? I'm not saying that one's identification with an ethnicity or a religion is wrong, but the identification of the state with such attributes surely undermines its endeavor to be a true secular and progressive democracy. The very notion that the state chose an ethnic or religious attribute to identify itself with opens the door for possible discrimination and compromising the rights of all of its citizens. In the context of Israel. all of the aforementioned holds to great extents given that 20% of Israel's population are Arabs. I'm not sure how you fail to see that in today's world. Palestinian is a nationality and nationalities do exist and have nothing to do with secularism or progressiveness. From your point of view, anyone who supports a Palestinian state should also supports an Israeli state. For people to equally support a Jewish state, they must support an Islamic state in the OPT which is something I don't see people around the world calling for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion
Â
Judaism is a religion. Jews are a people/ethnic group and Judaism is closely interrelated to that group. Jews have a common religion, language, heritage, culture, genetics etc. All of which are related to being an ethnic group. You can say Hebrews too, but really that's just another word for Jew. Maybe an older one.
Â
Cause Jews are an etnic group as I said. So Israel doesn't need an official religion to be Jewish. As I said they are closely connected, but there is no contradiction in being an atheist Jew for example-
Â
I don't see why chosing an ethnic attribute contributes to discrimination or compromising of rights. Israel is the state of the Jewish people, but it's also a state for all its citizens, nothing mutually exclusive. If you have Israeli citizen you are just as much Israeli regardless of your ethnicity. That's what being Israeli mean. The only "discrimination" is against non-citizens where Jews have an easier time getting citizenship, something I 100% support, and something other states have no qualms about doing either (Germany granting citizenship for ethnic Germans for example). At least considering how the world looks today it's something necessary and desirable. A right I support the Palestinian state to eventually use as well.
Â
"Nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". Something which can apply to both Jews and Palestinians. So no I still support a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.
Again a Jewish state can't be compared to an Islamic state. Israel is a Jewish state and has no official religion and is not governed by Halacha so I don't see how this comparison is valid. Again I do think religion has too much influence in Israel but it's nothing which is a prerequisite to being a Jewish state.
Israel is one of the least discriminatory country in Euro-AsiaIsrael is quite nationalistic and discriminatory even compared to other Eurasian countries. Ironic considering the circumstances of the country's founding though.
Barbariser
@pie_junior I agree with the premise of your last post. Any state that has a shred of respect for itself would not publicly devise discriminatory legislations to directly marginalize a portion of its population. Like you said marginalization of Israeli Arabs exist not through clear public legislations, but rather through loopholes and other subtle ways. Though the end result is the same, and the introduction of a Jewish identity of Israel to the formula would exacerbate the already existing marginalization and discrimination. This again reinforces the point I made earlier. Israel should be moving in the opposite direction if it is what it claims to be.GazaAliWhy are you always talking about introducing? It was introduced the day Israel was founded 65 years ago.
You're really making it hard to engage you in a meaningful discussion mayor bro. You're pushing the "Jews are an ethnic group" concept too far. An atheist Hebrew makes sense, but an atheist Jew? That's really pushing the envelope. I don't understand how you can't see that the attribution or identification of a state with a specific ethnicity would be inimical to its endeavor to be a progressive, pluralist, liberal and secular democracy in the broadest sense possible. Don't these values call for the equal treatment and (acknowledgment) of all citizens regardless of any attributions or differences among citizens of a state? Why does ethnicity as an attribute differ from race or religion? By your logic the U.S or any other European state has the right to claim itself to be a "white state". Would you still look at such a state the same way you're looking at Israel in the context of this topic? In a democratic state that respects the values I mentioned previously, the only attribution it will recognize and acknowledge is nationality, and even that would need to be kept in check so that it won't be used in a discriminatory manner. Finally, if you actually believe that Israel is a non-discriminating state then you need a serious reality check as you wouldn't know what you're talking about. Even Israelis from all sects, classes and varying backgrounds believe Israel to be a discriminating state, whether they be Ashkenaz, Sephardim, Orthodox Jews, Arabs, Falasha, Russian immigrants...etc. Of course each in they're own way and according to their own criteria. But you'll mostly find that the general consensus among the majority that discrimination is a huge part of the Israeli society. Its just how the country is due to a multitude of reasons. That does not necessarily mean its a shitty country to live in. I for one think the quality of life and the standard of living in Israel are pretty damn good, even great. The point is, try to stay objective ;)GazaAli
What's the problem with Jews being an ethno-religious group? If you want to call us Hebrews than that's fine with me but I still don't see the problem. Look like semantics to me.
As I said before. I think Israel should be the state for the Jewish people but also of course for all its non-Jewish citizen. As long as you have Israeli citizenship it shouldn't matter what religion or ethnicity you have. To me (and to Israel) they are all just as much Israeli. The Arabs (and other non-Jews) in Israel are just as important and just as much a part of Israel.
Let's look at Germany. Germany is a state for the German ethnicity pretty much in the same way as Israel is for Jews. And I have no problem whatsoever. As I said it is even neccesary for every ethnic group to have a state of their own. And it does sound a bit weird  with a "white state" but if it's the same principle than I also have no problem with that.
And what is nationality exactly?
I stated quiet clearly I think that there's lots of discrimination in Israel. Way too much. However I have seen much more in Europe. Not so strange considering that I've spent much more time in Europe. But I do think it's weird that I personally have heard more people saying explicitely anti-semitic stuff in a country with 20,000 well integrated Jews, than people saying bad stuff about arabs in a country where there is a conflict with arab states and groups and the almost 2,000,000 arab population is not very well integrated. Now it is still deplorable and unjustifable, but I would think it would be very weird if there is more anti-semitism or any kind of racism in northern Europe than anti-arabism in Israel, or anti-semitism in the Palestinian territories for that matter. Don't you think?
The difference though is that in Israel I see arab signs everywhere, I see minarets, I hear call to prayer, I see women in Hijab etc. etc. Where I live now I live a few blocks away from the big mosque and I never hear anything, meanwhile you hear church bells all the time. People looking to ban hijab and in Switzerland they already banned minarets. Etc.
It's an island of hope in a sea of trash.
MakeMeaSammitch
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment