Issue 1: Israel’s “Jewish and democratic” character
Jew and Arabs in the Jewish Democracy; Defining the state in the Constitution; Jewish vs. Democratic; Historical Definition of the State vs. Minority Rights
Issue 1: Israel’s “Jewish and democratic” character
Jews and Arabs in the Jewish democracy Knesset Speaker MK Reuven Rivlin (Likud) called Israel an unparalleled democracy, but warned of the ideological gaps between mainstream Jewish-Israelis and the Arab minority, such as affiliation with the national anthem. He recommended defining the terms “Jewish” and “democracy.” Defining the state in the constitution Dr. Adel Mana’, a historian at the Van Leer Institute, asserted that a constitution is not simply a list of Basic Laws; it will include important statements on the character and identity of the state, and will address the question of to whom the state belongs. He assumed that parts of the Declaration of Independence will be incorporated into the constitution, and that the state will be defined as Jewish before democratic. Merely calling Israel a “state of all its citizens,” he said, is insufficient. The words must be entrenched in the constitution. The constitution must not frustrate 20% of the state, so its protection of human and minority rights is very important. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar pointed out that Israel’s Declaration of Independence is important, symbolic, and expresses many things about Israel’s national character; but it has no legal standing or constitutional power. “Jewish Democracy”: Oxymoron or Paradox? MK Avraham Burg (Labor) questioned the co-existence of the terms “Jewish” and “democracy” when describing the State of Israel. He considered two questions: 1.Where does democracy end and theocracy begin? 2.Where does Judaism end and democracy begin?
"What is the state?" Burg asked. Is it an instrument of the people to take care of public issues, or is it a conceptual, ideological expression of its citizens? This is a question the constitution cannot ignore. The definition of the state as Jewish has its roots in religion. MK Burg said that Judaism can only come to its full fruition in Israel, and there is no other place for a Jew to express his or her Judaism and independence in that sense. However, he opined, “Jewish” and “democratic” are as incomparable as apples and oranges. Democracy is a method based on liberties that say that all is permitted except that which is forbidden. Judaism, on the other hand, is a system of responsibilities, which says that all is forbidden except that which is permitted. The Committee must recognize the inherent contradiction in the constitution if it says Israel can be simultaneously Jewish and democratic. “Jewish democracy”: An Arab perspective is not yet possible Dr. Michael Karayanni of the Hebrew University explained to the Committee that the Arabs cannot possibly give their reaction to the term “Jewish democracy” because the term has not yet been clarified. Although Judaism in the state can have positive aspects, he said that Arabs have only encountered the negative. MK Whbee: No objection to “Jewish” state As a member of an Israeli minority [Druze],MK Majalli Whbee (Likud) stated that he derives no benefit from the Jewish character of the state, but he does not ask that the Jewish character be removed. He said that he has no interest in standing in the way of the constitution’s inclusion of the Jewish nature of Israel. Jewish nationalism over democracy and religion MK Reshef Chayne (Shinui) opined that “Jewish-democratic” should not be the highest characteristic describing Israel. The first, main attribute should be Israel’s identity as the national home of the Jewish nation, and the Jewish nature of Israel should be defined by the cultural life in Israel. The second-highest characteristic should be that of a Jewish democracy. The Jewish aspects in the state, such as language, symbols, and holidays, are inseparable from Israel, as are democracy and equality. In the event of a conflict between democracy and Judaism, MK Chayne said that the Jewish nationalism should win. In all other cases, equality must come first. Nationalism comes before religion. Jewish over democratic MK Ronnie Bar-On (Likud) explained that the word order of the term “Jewish and democratic” is neither coincidental nor temporary. Israel is firstly Jewish. This is the only place the Jewish people have ever had self-determination. Second, Israel is democratic because, after being Jewish, it is a place where minorities are given the right to equality, he said. Israel’s Jewish character must be maintained MK Gideon Sa’ar (Likud)said that Israel must maintain its Jewish character in order to prevent a “state and a half solution” situation in which there would be one state which is fully Palestinian and one state which is half-Jewish. “The state of the Jewish people” MK Eti Livni (Shinui) preferred the phrase “State of the Jewish people” to “Jewish state.” There are certain issues and bodies that are clearly at the center of the Israel’s Jewish nature (the law of return, symbols and flags, the Jewish Agency, the Israel Lands Authority, etc.) but most of the major issues are democratic matters. These include giving more rights to minorities. Giving more lands to Arabs, for instance, is a democratic issue, and has naught to do with the Jewishness of the state. “A state of all its citizens” MK Chaim Oron (Yachad) said that this argument is not just between Jews and Arabs; it involves all Israelis. He refused to give either “Jewish” or “democratic” priority in characterizing Israel, lest one be used to narrow the scope of the other. He recommended that Israel be firstly Jewish and democratic, and secondly a state of all its citizens. In the case of a conflict between the first two concepts, Jewish and democratic compromise when there are group rights at stake. Professor Asher Maoz of Tel Aviv University warned that “a state of all its citizens” is a Trojan horse. He asked why there could be a Palestinian state but not a Jewish state? The “Jewish and democratic” definition of the state MK Jamal Zachalka (National Democratic Assembly) called for greater Arab involvement in the constitutional process. We cannot afford, he said, to ignore even the smallest opportunity to improve the country for our children. He continued by stating that we need to reconsider the Jewish-democratic definition as well as the laws preventing MKs from objecting to Israel as a Jewish democratic state. Historical definition of the state versus minority rights Professor Ruth Gavison of the Hebrew University Law School stated that defining the nature of the Jewish state is a vital issue that must be worked though. (Is it just a nation with a Jewish majority?) At the same time a democracy must allow anyone, including the majority, to change the character of the state. MK Ahmad Tibi (Hadash-Ta`al) agreed, complaining that Jewish and democratic is inherently unequal, that the status quo of the state of Israel as Jewish and democratic means that it is democratic for Jews, and Jewish for Arabs. Jabarin added that he prefers Israel’s Jewish nature to derive solely from the Jews’ perhaps temporary numerical superiority. Professor Gavison continued by stating that the majority may use many means – legal, constitutional, pr, educational, etc. – to protect itself. Furthermore, she believes the majority must protect individual and minority rights but notes the inescapable paradox: that Israel was established in order to protect the individual and collective rights of only the Jewish people.
Bookmark
Print
Send to Friend
Post a comment