Last Monday in vaadat chukah in the Knesset, the cat came out of the bag. The discussion involved minority rights in the constitution. The offer put on the table was full equality for all citizens, collective rights for minorities (Arabs) in exchange for recognition that Israel is a Jewish State. All the Arabs -- including MKs and reps of groups funded by American Jews through the New Israel Fund -- declined the offer. It's time liberal Jews who think they're funding the Arab equivalents of Martin Luther King wake up to reality.I don't mean to sound like Al Jazeera here, but maybe the Arab MK's turned down this offer because they are sohphisticated enough to see the inherent contradiction between the notions of equality and the Jewishness of the state (not to mention the fact that that the conservative and religious parties, and certainly not the Arab MKs, will have the ultimate say in producing a solid and immutable definition of what it means to be a Jewish state.)
Israel can't have it's cake and eat it, too. If it wants to be a better democracy, this means becoming less of a Jewish state. And vice versa. (*)
I don't know if the Arab MKs are "the Arab equivalents of Martin Luther King" (probably not, but I don't know) but I do know that MLK would never have taken the back-of-the-bus deal the Arab MK's were offered.
Ben Chorin needs to think this through a bit more carefully.
Correction December 7, 2004: The original sentance said "If it's a democracy, it isn't a Jewish state. And if it's a Jewish state, it can't, with a straight-face, offer full-equality to non-Jews. " Sarah (in the comments) pointed out the innacuracy. (Return to the original sentance)
6 comments:
The State of Israel is so far from being either a Jewish or democratic state that any attempt in either direction is worth the trip. Sharon's affiliation with Bush makes him a registered Banana Republican.
How can Israel go in both directions at the same time, though?
Sure it can be a democracy and a Jewish state at the same time.
A country can choose its leaders through popular elections (democracy) and simultaneously choose not to separate church and state (Jewish state).
If Israel's elected leaders have decided that Jewish holidays should be national holidays, that tax money can go to yeshivot, that government offices should have mezuzot, etc, then how does that make it "not a democracy"?
What would make it "not a democracy" is if they annexed the territories and then didn't give Arab citizens the right to vote. Actually, it would still be a democracy, just not a very good one, just as America was a democracy before women and blacks were allowed to vote.
Furthermore, many people confuse "separation of church and state" with "freedom of religion," which are NOT the same. But that's a different thing not discussed in your blog post.
Yes, yes, but how can Israel simultaneously become a better democracy and a better Jewish state?
It can be something of both at the same time, but becoming a better democracy means becoming less of a Jewish state, and vice versa.
I've responded at http://benchorin.blogspot.com/2004/12/dovbear-reacts-to-my-previous-post.html
What do you mean by "civil war enthusiast"?
Civil war enthusiast...
In your posts you sometimes seem eager for a final showdown in Israel.
Post a Comment