A Decade of Anti-Democratic Legislation According to the Left

T. Belman. The Left in Israel often claim that right wing policies threaten Israel as a democratic country. They get on their high horse and demand that Israel be both democratic and Jewish. Just as there are different definitions of what constitutes being Jewish, there are different understandings of what constitutes being a democracy. In all democracies, majority rules but all majorities are constrained in what they can legislate by certain minority rights and by the constitution or basic laws.

The Democracy Institute, a left leaning NGO, published this article. I have taken the trouble to show what it claims in paragraph one as undemocratic, is a biased view.

This is a prime example of bias. Admissions Committees Law, people should be able to live in segregated communities if they so choose. But the Democracy Institute says its undemocratic because its discriminatory. People should be able to live wherever they want, it says. I say people should have the right to create their own environment in which to live. I do not accept that people don’t have that right in a democracy. Certainly a government, voted in by a majority, has the right to give precedence to the right to live in your own community rather than the right to live anywhere.

The same goes for the Anti-Boycott Law, The government has the right to restrict freedom of expression and to do so is not undemocratic. Should there not be laws in the US which prohibit organized boycotts against trade with Israel. The same goes for Israel.

The Naqba Law also is acceptable in a democracy.  Its a matter of self defense. In my opinion, Israel should pass laws that prevent promoting the Arab Narrative and Arab resistance for the same reason. Ultimately such laws prevent sedition. After all Democracy isn’t a suicide pact..

By Dr. Amir Fuchs, DEMOCRACY INSTITUTE    1.1.20

The last decade in Israel has been marked by a wave of legislation that has dealt a blow to the country’s democratic values, the rule of law, and separation of powers. Several significant laws were passed as early as 2011. These included the Admissions Committees Law, allowing small settlements to maintain admissions committees to vet potential residents, in order to keep out Arabs and other “undesirables,” thus infringing on their right to equality; and the Anti-Boycott Law, to prevent calling for boycotts of businesses or public institutions over the Green Line, thus infringing on the right to freedom of expression. Another law passed in 2011, was the Nakba Law, which enables the Minister of Finance to withdraw funding from institutions commemorating the Nakba (the Arabic term for the Palestinians’ catastrophic defeat in the 1948 war), support terror, or hold events counter to Israel’s character as a Jewish state—though it should be noted that since this law was passed, it has remained almost entirely unimplemented in practice.

This stream of legislation also brought with it dozens of additional bills, none of which were passed, but which paved the way for other laws that came later: These included bills which would make citizenship and the receipt of official documents contingent on a “declaration of loyalty” to the state as a “Jewish and democratic state”; bills designed to restrict the freedom of expression and the activity of civil society organizations; and bills seeking to limit the power of the Supreme Court, to change the processes for appointing justices, and to constrain the authority of the Attorney General. This wave of bills has been unrelenting since 2011, but reached a peak between 2015 and 2019, when many laws inflicting substantial damage on democratic values in Israel, were passed. Among others, these included a law allowing Knesset members to remove from office (albeit with a large majority of 90 out of 120) any Knesset member, thus bestowing upon the Knesset, the right to prosecute, judge, and execute –with regard to criminal felonies. Similarly, a “softer” version was passed of a law designed to discredit NGOs receiving support from foreign governments, as well as a law giving the Minister of Education the power to curtail the freedom of school principals to invite representatives of NGOs to participate in school events.

The crowning glory of the last decade’s anti-democratic legislation was, in my opinion, the Basic Law: Israel—The Nation-State of the Jewish People, passed in 2018. Though many believe that the law merely “declares” the State of Israel to be the nation-state of the Jewish people, in a similar way to the Declaration of Independence, this is in fact, a misconception. The Declaration of Independence is a worthy and balanced Zionist document, which on the one hand defines Israel as a Jewish state, but at the same time — also defines it as a state affording equality to all its citizens. While we can debate whether the Basic Law has changed the legal status of non-Jews in Israel or their right to equality, there is no doubt that on a symbolic level, it has been extremely painful to Israel’s minorities—and this should not to be underestimated or treated lightly. As a proxy for a constitution, Israel’s Basic Laws play a critical role in reflecting and promoting national s values; thus the lack of recognition given by the law to the equal status of minorities cries out to the heavens.

However, it should also be noted that most of the bills put forward with the aim of undermining the rule of law (such as the “French law”) and the powers of the courts (such as the override clause and other proposals), as well as those seeking to change the processes for appointing justices – failed – due to opposition from within the governing coalition. Hardly by coincidence, public opinion polls also revealed that they were opposed by a majority of Israeli citizens. Similarly, the results of the most recent elections indicate that the assault on the rule of law and on the courts, has failed to gain significant popularity, even if gaining growing—and very vocal– support. There have also been last-minute defeats of bills designed to curtail the independence of legal advisors in government ministries, and of a bill which would give the Minister of Culture the power to deny public funding to cultural institutions, based on political considerations.

We can only hope that in the coming decade we will see less –or even a complete halt—of bills such as these, and that Knesset members will find a way to establish the proper balance between the branches of government and to anchor human rights in Basic Laws that are stable and bolstered by a large Knesset majority. In this way, the majority of legislative time and effort in the Knesset could be devoted to solving the everyday challenges facing Israel, rather than to populist legislation seeking to change the rules of the game and to persecute the country’s minorities.

The article was published in the Times of Israel.

***

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities — whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate — enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country’s democratic institutions.

Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved — only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.