Explaining the Nation State Law

21 Comments / 21 Comments

1. @ steve_the_yid:

   The Balfour Letter, which has been included in all subsequent Declarations and International Agreement about Palestine, specify the “religious and civil rights” only, of the non-Jewish population. Any mention of “political rights” are in the part referring to Jews living in other countries.

   So Ben Gurion and the compilers of the Declaration of Independence themselves, had no real idea as to the makeup of the Arab character, had no need to give the Arabs political rights, but bestowed on them those political rights, with the same gush of “benevolence” (read “pinheaded” or/and “foolishness) that impelled Dayan in 1967 and the Peres, Rabin, Beilin Mafia in the Oslo Accord.

   It’s on record many times,…. Jews, in a flush of …I don’t know what we should call it.. maybe overjoyed at being recognised as human beings, (really, “thinking” they’ve been recognised as such) tend to “give away the store”, and, having done so in haste, “repent at leisure”…every time.

2. @ steve_the_yid:
   Site does not take Hebrew lettering

3. I give up!

4. Hope this works now.

   ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??, ??? ????

5. Sorry, Hebrew excerpt from the Declaration did not print as I expected.

6. I believe the authors of the Israel Declaration of Independence made a mistake in granting the Arabs equal political rights as follows:

   ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??, ??? ????

   Democracy has within it the seeds of its own destruction and the Israeli Arabs seem to be using democracy for that purpose. For a Jewish state, the non-Jewish residents could have been granted all civil rights but not political rights which should have been restricted to the Jewish nation. Could it be that Ben Gurion’s socialist mentality could not conceive that the Arabs would never accept the existence of a Jewish State regardless of how much equality was granted to them?

7. When Mike Diamand first wrote, he prefaced his critique with this:

   There is so much to this law, and its background and relationship to other laws and processes in Israel that I do not know, that I hesitate to make any pronouncements prior to reading a totality of arguments, for and against. As a first step, however, I felt it would be useful to read the actual English text of the law, and comment on its contents.

   As a side comment, this is what is known in Israel as a Basic Law which is intended to make it operate at a high level, as if it were part of the Constitution. Having said that, the rules to pass (or presumably change, amend or replace) a basic law only require a majority of the Knesset…and indeed the law passed without only about 60% of the votes, which is not what I would have expected. So my first point is- this is odd, but at the same time, it means that what has been passed is not final, and can be changed by a future government. So it is up to the people of Israel to decide if they wish to elect a government that may modify some of the more problematic clauses in the Law.

   It is also not clear how the law will be implemented. There is a good deal of hysteria right now, with a focus on worst or poor case scenarios. Those scenarios may never unfold.

   There was also a good deal of evolution of this Law from its original presentation a decade ago, and a good deal of negotiation in the final week prior to it being passed. The result is that it is, from the perspective of the Diaspora at least, less bad than before. That does not make it a good law, but as we often say “it could have been worse!”

   I would also suggest that, while it is fair to juxtapose this law against what one might expect in a Western Democracy, comparing it to laws in the majority of the world’s countries would, comparably, make it seem quite good! So I suppose it depends on what your expectations are.

   I am not sure who you will be able to read who would provide an objective response. There is so much politics involved with this law- both internal and external – that much of what is said and written will be oriented around Israel’s next election in a little over a year, and will also relate to the demonizing of Israel processes such as BDS, which will undoubtedly use this Law as a basis for further attack.

   I have included the english translation of the Law below, and added some comments in CAPS (not yelling!)….. much of it is no big deal….but there are two areas of complaint which I will highlight.

8. I brought your comments to Mike’s attention and he replied,

   I went to the site, but realized that you just posted the few sections where you had a comment. You did not post my mea culpa introduction, nor the positives.

   I would suggest you post the entire article for the benefit of the quick to judge crowd you hang with, so they can perhaps get a little more insight as to where I was at at the time I wrote the article.

   You are correct.. I will be coming around to some extent…on the detail of the law, I think it will end up being fine. And useful. But from the perspective of a Jew who constantly fights for Israel in the Diaspora, there are aspects of the Law which are going to cause us more grief in our fight. It’s Israel’s right to pass the law… its a democracy, but that does not mean I need to like all of the outcomes, some of which will make my life as a defender of Israel any easier.

   Anyway, please post the whole thing. Thanks for your support.

   He has since distributed a second Email which included both the WSJ and the NYT articles. Here it is.

   A number of opinion pieces have been written in response to the new Basic Law = two are below, the first positive from the WSJ and the second very negative from- you will never guess- the NYT.

   The first article actually negates a number of the criticisms levelled in the second article (maybe read the second one first!).

   I have moved from….its not great but its not so bad if you read it….to a polarized position. On one hand, there is nothing on the face of it that is all that terrible. No, it does not include references to democracy or equality, but those values are enshrined in other basic laws or the Declaration of Independence. And it will to some extent constrain the Supreme Court, which in Israel has been highly active, and is very much on the Left, in contrast to the current government that is very much on the Right- as elected by the people of Israel.

   Most Israelis will tell you that the courts were getting far too brazen with their rulings, and this new law simply levels the playing field, in that the Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, will have to refer to this new Basic Law in making its rulings. But perhaps that is as it should be. The basis of democracy is the rule of those elected, not the rule of appointed judges. Moreover, most of the provisions in the Law are self-evident…that is, we already knew that ISrael was the nation state of the Jewish people, that we need Israel because increasingly, we are becoming unsafe in most of the countries in which we live internationally, that the language is Hebrew, that ISrael wants more Jews and while it will treat its minorities fairly, for the most part, Israel wants more Jews, not more non-Jews. There are a few hundred countries in the world which will be happy to take non-Jews (many of which will not take Jews at all). We would like to have our one little state as much to ourselves as possible. Would anyone deny that is the objective? And if it is, and we nevertheless see Israel treating its minorities reasonably well (although not entirely equal, one could argue), perhaps we Jews especially, should be appreciative of the availability of a homeland to escape to if needed, one that is committed (in this law) to protecting us worldwide.

   On the other hand, being pragmatic, there are things about this law which will be used to make the Arab Minority less comfortable. Similarly, the accommodation, once again to the ultra-orthodox religious despots is an ongoing sore spot for all of us who believe in pluralistic Judaism. To say that the law has created a major irritation to many within Israel, and outside, is an understatement.

   So was it worth it to rub salt in the wounds of Arab Israelis who are already feeling like second class citizens in many cases (although they would not, if given the choice, move anywhere else!)… ? Or was it worth it to remind, once again, the progressive Jews of the world that they are not valued nor respected by the religious leadership (despots) of Israel? At a time when tensions are already high, did we really need this? Or if there was going to be a Basic Law passed, why could it not erred on the side of support for Progressive Judaism as opposed to the accommodation, once again, of the narrow minded, intolerance of the ultra-orthodoc Rabbinical leadership and politicians?

   It is going to take some time for this to settle down to see what has really changed. According to Bibi, nothing has really changed. He may be right. But feelings are even more hurt than before, and at a time when even Israel has recognized that there is a growing gulf between Israel and the Diaspora, one which does not seem that problematic now because of the Trump Presidency, this would be have offered an opportunity for an olive branch as opposed to yet another arrow shot at the hearts of the majority of the Diaspora.

   I would have preferred it if the politicians would have worked harder at softening the blow to the Diaspora before passing the bill.

   But at the same time, I understand that the politics of Israel make this difficult, and to reference the WSJ article below, what is so terrible about Israel stating the obvious—it is the nation state of the Jewish people and wants to be exactly that. Perhaps, as several have suggested, we need to get over it and move on to focus on specific challenges for which we need solutions, starting with the intolerance of the ultra-orthodox rabbinate that so undermines too many of the Jews in the Diaspora.

   (And just a p.s. for many who assertively state that Progressive Judaism is weak and useless because of the level of assimilation in the US in particular. Cause and effect maybe, but maybe the cause is the existence of Progressive Judaism, and the effect is that we still have non-Orthodox Jews at all! I dont like to see the assimilation, and have worked against it here in Toronto, but I do not think it is caused by Progressive Judaism. If anything, Progressive Judaism is a major asset in fighting assimilation. )

   So yes- I do think we should get over it, and move on. But in doing so, we need to focus on those issues and problems which have been exacerbated by this new law.

9. Email rec’d,

   Your answers to Mr. Diamond were superb ! As I’ve said before he is a moderate liberal and as such lacks passion for real Zionism. He is only too worried about what the rest of the world thinks. Reminds me of the propaganda against Israel espoused by Kerry and Obama: “Using disproportionate force will backfire and cause the Palestinians to rise up uncontrollably.” ie. the fear factor used by “progressives” haunts our liberal Jews. They’ve had far too much to say in the past so this declaration of sovereignty by Israel puts an end to that game and to the equally evil progressive promotion of Israel to be a bi-national state. This demented agenda to undermine and destroy Israel by the Democrat Party, EU and UN is now buried (provided there is no return of a left wing government in Israel) !

10. @ adamdalgliesh:

    Adam Hello- That Law of the Palestine Mandate was made at a time when although if Arab hostility was open, it was only open a “crack”, by comparison with today, when we undergo daily bombings, knifings, truck murders, sneak attacks into Israel settlements to slaughter babies in their cribs, unprovoked in all cases, except, the provocation asserted by the slaughterers is that WE, the Jewish People are here in Israel, and they want us to be dead.. ..

    NO ..today it’s very different, and I differ with all of you others. I support the original Smotrich clause, even if only out of sheer self-defence and to save our lives. All over the world, and in America too, there are Communities and Groups of peoples who, for cultural, traditional and religious grounds . isolate themselves, and bar newcomers from entering into their communities to live. This seems perfectly normal as is evidenced that there are never any outcries against the Hutterites, or the Mennonites or the many others………..only against the Jews. There are areas in the US where Haredim pnly, live and they are also exclusive….but of course, against many protests from time to time. Legal cases seem to grow never endingly around them…they are Jews.

    I suppose we’d feel very strange if there WAS something we did against which there was NO outcry.
    Let’s be clear on this. The calls against this Law are not to help US, nor for our security or benefit. They are against US, using the vehicle of the Nationality Law as an excuse. I suppose the Goyim resent our becoming a bit less cowardly and a bit more assertive of our Rights as a Nation and a Sovereign State.

    This morning, Professor Konterovich, in his excellent article about this Law, which, straight to the point, covered a sample set of similar laws enacted by many of the EU States which are criticising OUR Law. In fact, he selected a sample of 7, in which the Religion of the State was defined also.

    Nothing could show the blatant hypocrisy of the Goyim and the assimilated Jews more than the Professor’s very important article.

11. @ adamdalgliesh:
    The Israeli Courts have upheld that Arabs can have a segregated community. There are many segregated communities in Israel.

    The Law that was passed encourages Jewish Settlement in all parts of Israel. This should not be an issue to anyone who is pro Israel and a believer in the Zionist Vision. After all creating a Jewish State is what is all about. It was not about creating a new Canada or USA.

    Israel has clauses for human rights for all its citizens in earlier basic laws. So Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and democratic.

12. @ Ted Belman:

    His attitude shows that he not only does not understand the Law, and doesn’t know it, but that he believe s he DOES understand it, and he has given it a falsely pejorative meaning and effect. He seems to be shooting from the hip, not uncommon for Jews everywhere, who open their mouths wide before their ears have transported the info to their brains for processing. He seems to represent himself as speaking for all Diaspora Jews. Nice, decent, and a good friend as he may be, he is wrong, and I look forward to seeing that your assessment of his character vis a vis Israel, fairness and Zionism is accurate.

13. @ Ted Belman:
    Is he related to the diamond family of Cadillac Fairview?

14. @ Edgar G.: Absolutely true.

15. Mike’s comment is typical of how most diaspora Jews, not to mention Gentiles who are on the whole sympathetic to Israel, can be expected to react to the original Smotrich draft of Article 7. Not only Canadian but American Jews worked hard to illrgalize housing segregation, and all segregation or discrimination of any kind based on race, religion, national origin, etc. etc. It is inevitable that this draft left a bad taste in their mouth, whether the objections to it are fair or not. It was therefore prudent of the Knesset to amend this draft with more positive wording, modeled on the promises made to the Jews in the original Palestine Mandate document. That document, which is worded very similarly to the new law, is in my opinion still binding Israeli law, since the laws adopted by previous governments remain law in Israel unless specifically repealed, and the Mandate document was the Basic Law or constitution of “Palestine” under the British mandate.

    It is true that conditions in Israel are very different from the diaspora nations, and that there are legitimate reasons why many Jewish communities don’t want Arab, especially Muslim residents. Because of the state of war between Jews and Arabs, and the support for the Arab side of the war by many “Israeli” Arabs, many of whom regard themselves as “Palestinians” rather than Israelis. I believe, however, that it would be more prudent to address this issue in a separate law that permitted communities to exclude prosepective residents on security grounds, and to require all applicants for housing in their communities, Jewish, Arab or otherwise, to undergo a security check. That could include a personal interview. Evidence of “anti-Zionist” or anti-Israel opinions, or support for Fatah or Hamas, national identification with “Palestine,” owing allegiance to “the State of Palestine,” or “Hamastan,” close relatives living in the disputed territories, etc. could all be listed in such a proposed law as legitimate grounds for excluding prospective residents from communities. In practice, very few Arabs would agree to such a security check other than, perhaps, those with honorable records of service in the army, or the border police, or the Shabak (which does have some Arab officers who have done legitimate counter-terrorism work).

    Listing discouraging intermarriage as a legally sanctioned reason for excluding people would be waving a red flag in from of the American and other Western public’s “bull.” In all Western countries, including the U.S. and Canada, the idea has taken firm hold that marriage is a purely personal matter, and the state has no business interfering in individual’s choicetheir marriage partners. Even same-sex marriages are now considered “OK.” Only incest is still forbidden. Any Israeli law that openly aimed even at discouraging interfaith or interethnic marriages would anger many people in the West, both Jews and Gentiles, who are generally sympathetic towards Israel. In any case, a residential exclusion law would be totally ineffective in discouraging intermarriage, since Arabs looking for Jewish spouses or hook-ups nearly all live in towns or villages only a mile or two from the nearest Jewish community, or they live in communities (like Upper Nazareth) that are already integrated. Intermarriage is and will remain common in Israel even if some communities exclude Arab residents. The only way to prevent it is to give Jewish children and youth a thorough Jewish religious education. The government should certainly make every effort to ensure such an education to every Jewish child–no matter how angrily the secularists howl.

16. @ Ted Belman:
    I looked him up and he does care about Israel and tries to be fair.

    That his perspective from his writings are naturally as a Jew living outside of Israel. So that is what his approach was to the Nationality Law how does it apply to me in Canada mostly. Not the Israeli perspective or big picture either.

17. Mike Diamond is a friend of mine and very knowledgeable about Israel. He has a strong following and people seek his opinion. He is very fair minded and bases his opinions on facts.

    He was more negative about this law than I expected him to be. He will come around quickly. I will post his reply as soon as I get it.

18. To me it is obvious that Mike Diamond himself is already long ago, in the clutches of assimilation, and perhaps his parents also were. I wonder about his children if he has any. Baigel and lox Judaism is very convenient, easy, with no need to perform any of the 613 mitzvot.

    So, unless he has been brought up in an Arab family, inculcated with their bloodthirsty sharia laws, taught from birth how to set out to conquer the world, etc He has NO CLUE as to what he’s talking about. He doesn’t live in Israel, so is not au fait with the grinding pressure of daily terrorist acts which Israelis suffer from, even though they have probably the most highly developed sense for danger in the world.

    He’s living in Canada where all he has to deal with are the inanities of his baby Prime Minister, and the inconvenience of commuting to work through heavy traffic, although he may has retired, comfortably wealthy with no need to work.

    Ted could have invited him to come to Israel for 2 years to live in the Land and see exactly what goes on with his own eyes and ears, and not depend on the Anti-Israeli news that he seems to have been feeding on , obviously for many years. Important as the Diaspora is, it is disappearing but he seems unaware of this, He is unaware of much, including the actual Nationality Law itself, and it’s actual and intended meaning, plus the projected effect it will have on future events in Israel. He seems to feel that the Diaspora is the “big brother” of the Jewish World, although he didn’t say so in so many words.
    *******************************************************************************************************************Commenting on a post by BEAR KLEIN at the same time:

    BEAR mentioned the Arabs in Parliament. They are each and every one of them , anti-Zionist, mostly not Jews, and strongly support the terrorists who are the deadly enemies of the Jewish People and all Jewish Israelis. It could be said that they are Jew Haters. They actually represent the terrorists. They have been voted in by the Arab citizens of Israel….This means a lot more than is evident at a casual glance. It means that Israeli Democracy has gone completely crazy, in allowing them the freedom of the Knesset. It also means that the Arab Israel citizens, who supported and elected them, feel the same way that they do about the Jewish People, State and it’s hoped for future disappearance.

    So they have no moral right to be in the Knesset, other than that Israel, being democratic, gives them this right as the reps of citizens. If they had any consciences they would not be there, but terrorist supporters have none. The mere fact of their presence in the Knesset, and the publication of their aggressive, violent speeches, shows the world, that is, the part that want’s to be shown and that listens with open minds, that Israel is a painfully FREE society.

    Just yesterday 2 Arab families, living in houses they illegally built, ON JEWISH OWNED LAND, although offered large sums to vacate, rather PAID to have them demolished so that Jews would not be able to live there. This was in JERUSALEM the Holy Capital of Israel, (and all Jews everywhere) and it took 42 years.. yes folks,,, FORTY TWO YEARS, to get them out, through the Israeli legal system.. (if it can be called a system). They had Title Deeds….naturally…. but they were shown to have been palpably forgeries. Yet it took a whole lifetime. Just ONE example of Arab Israeli citizen’s HATE of the Jews. and by inference, the State in which he has been safely nurtured all his life.

    For me, this is what Jews suffer from Jewish Judges and the Israel legal brotherhood. So if Israel is a country of negative discrimination, it’s discrimination against Jews.

19. Mike, should be informed that the essence of Zionism is Jewish Settlement in the Land of Israel. Article 7 is emphasizing that and the writers of the article want to encourage more settlement in the Galilee, Negev, and elsewhere in the periphery which would include Judea and Samaria. All of Israel is open for Jewish Settlement.

    The article and Nation-State Bill where needed because the Supreme Court were eroding the Jewish nature of Israel. The bill offers protections to the nature of the state, which is the Zionist State of Israel with human rights equal for all its citizens but nationality rights only for Jews.

20. A very good article in the WSJ about the Israeli Nation State Law

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-over-itisrael-is-the-jewish-state-1532039000

21. From the tone of the questions by Mike Diamond it appears he does not approve of Israel. This is his right. Looks like he is looking for a reason to attack Israel.

    He attacks Israel for clause that does not exist. He then attacks Israel for the passed Article 7 which says Jewish settlement is encouraged in Israel. He asks where in Israel. All of Israel is the answer.

    No reason to object to the Nationality Law if one is pro Israel and the Jewish State of Israel. This is the latest Basic Law in Israel saying Israel is the Jewish State and defining it.

    The Human Rights provisions were passed in a much earlier basic law.

    Maybe Mike thinks like the Arabs in the parliament who say Israel is apartheid. Which is so ironic as they are members of the parliament (Knesset). In apartheid countries like most of the Arab countries minorities are not allowed to be elected and do not work in all the professions. In fact they do not vote or have freedom of speech, assembly or other basic human rights as in Israel.

    Israel is the Jewish Nation-State and is democratic. Is it perfect? No but given that it has been in various states of war with the Arabs for its entire history it does a great job balancing civil rights, security and the growth of the state both demographically, economically and technologically.