A blog about the struggle to keep the Jewish state
by Victor Rosenthal June 27, 2021
Gideon Levy, the hateful Ha’aretz writer who reaches new depths of loathing for the state that protects and nurtures him with every column he writes, has gotten something right this week. But he is wrong about the implications of his discovery.
Last week, I wrote about the State of Israel’s reason for being: the Zionist principle that “a sovereign state in the Land of Israel is a necessity to protect and preserve the Jewish people – and that their preservation is an objective worth attaining.” Such a state, of, by, and for the Jewish people, is what the founders meant by a Jewish state.
This Wednesday there will be a vote to extend (or not) a law that prevents Arabs from the territories or enemy countries from obtaining Israeli residence by marrying an Israeli Arab citizen. The official justification for this law is the large number of children from such families that committed terrorist acts. But that’s only a small part of it: the truth is that without a Jewish majority, we can’t have a Jewish state. Control of non-Jewish immigration is essential to maintain it. And don’t think the Arabs don’t understand that.
The founders also wanted the state to be democratic, and for all its citizens to have equal rights. What Gideon Levy has correctly noted is that sometimes these objectives conflict with one another:
There is no such thing as Jewish and democratic, because on Wednesday the Knesset will have to decide between the two. Those who prefer a Jewish state will vote to extend the discriminatory and infuriating amendment that marks a clear gap between the rights of a Jewish citizen and the rights of an Arab citizen, with outright Jewish supremacy in the legal code. Those who prefer a democratic state will of course vote against the law.
But our real state, unlike the one in Levy’s imagination, is neither fully Jewish nor fully democratic. That’s because some 21% of our population is not Jewish. In this particular case, the Jewish ones can invite their relatives to join them, and the non-Jews can’t. That’s not fair, but it’s necessary. And it is not self-contradictory, as Levy suggests.
Levy demands perfect democracy (more precisely, perfect equality of rights), and insists that any deviation is “intolerable nationalism.” That is nonsense. There is no state in the world that is a perfect democracy, and most are far less democratic than Israel. He should consider that the other side can also demand perfection, that is, a state that has no non-Jewish citizens. That is also an alternative.
Last month Israel was attacked by Hamas in Gaza, on the pretext that Israeli police violated the sanctity of a mosque on the Temple Mount (where Arabs were stockpiling fireworks and rocks to throw down on Jews at the Kotel and at police) and because some Arabs were being evicted from homes in Jerusalem for non-payment of rent. In response, Hamas launched 4,350 rockets at Israeli towns and cities. At the same time, incited primarily by Hamas, some Arab citizens of Israel began an insurrection in cities with mixed populations, which not only included fighting with the authorities, but also the beating and murder of random Jews, and the burning of Jewish homes, vehicles, and businesses.
In other words, some of Israel’s Arab citizens became a fifth column, fighting on the side of the enemy on the home front.
The solution to this problem doesn’t involve more “democracy” in the form of rights for Arab citizens to bring in more Arabs. Indeed, it’s easy to argue that the best solution to the problem, even the only one, is the opposite – for as much of the Arab population as possible to emigrate to other Arab countries or the West.
It is unlikely that our government will choose that alternative. What it will do, and probably what the majority of Israelis would prefer, is to continue trying to walk a compromise path that makes it possible for the state to keep its Jewish character and majority, while impinging as little as possible on the rights of minorities. Even many Israeli Arabs will accept this, albeit without applause.
Why isn’t this real-world solution obvious to Gideon Levy?
He claims that he rejects Zionism because it conflicts with democracy. That is not true, because he supports a far less democratic “one-state solution,” an unstable fantasy that would become a totalitarian Muslim state. As is obvious from his countless columns vilifying the state and especially its defenders, his real reason for opposing Zionism is that he does not believe that the Jewish people, as a people, are worth preserving. The explanation for this lies in the realm of aberrant psychology, not logic.
Citizenship Based on Torah: The Alternative
Citizenship is not discussed in the Torah – because the issue was rather clear: The Israelites were the citizens of the Land. Op-ed.
Tags: Citizenship
Yshai Amichai , Jun 13 , 2021 10:04 PM
Share
Sovereignty
SovereigntyiStock
In the previous article in this series, Part I, we discussed the demographic dilemma, that there are almost as many Arabs as Jews in the Holy Land, and that if you count other population groups, Jews are not the majority in the Land of Israel. The “Jewish State” is only a “Jewish” state in the places where it chooses to apply its legal jurisdiction, the rest of the Land has been abandoned to the Arabs. This is counter to the Torah in many ways which will forthwith be enumerated and discussed:
“Beware lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the Land to which you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst.” (Exodus 34: 12). “And you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the Land from before you … For unto you have I Given the Land to possess it. And you shall inherit the Land by lot according to your families … But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those who you let remain will be as thorns in your eyes and as pricks in your sides, and they will harass you in the Land wherein you dwell. And it shall come to pass that I will Do to you as I thought to do to them.” (Number 33: 52-56).
Making a covenant with the inhabitants of the Land, which in our times are Arabs, would mean making an agreement with them to let them remain in the Land, whether under their jurisdiction or ours. Such an agreement is a trap, for counter to its objective of living peacefully with the Arabs, it leads to perpetual hostility, and ultimately to our own expulsion from the Land.
They will remain as thorns in our eyes and as barbs in our sides, to constantly harass and attack us in our own country, because that is what God has Ordained for us. Our desire to live peacefully with the Arabs and to be accepted by the nations, is ultimately a rejection of God. Our covenant with them is a breach of our Covenant with God.
“Rather you shall smash their altars and break apart their monuments … For you shall not bow down to any other god, for the Lord, Whose Name is Jealous, is a Jealous God.” (Exodus 34: 13-14). “You shall not seal a covenant with them or their gods. They shall not dwell in your Land, lest they cause you to sin to Me, for you will serve their gods, as it will be a snare for you.” (Exodus 23: 32-33). The very act of sealing a covenant with the Arabs in Israel is a service to their beliefs and their religions. A service that is akin to serving other gods, as it negates God’s Authority in the Land of Israel and His Covenant with us.
Israel has sealed covenants with the Arabs in Israel, and it has ceded legal jurisdiction over its Territory to them. Israel has sealed covenants concerning the Land of Israel, committing itself to keep laws which negate its Covenant with God. Israel has even granted citizenship to about 2 million Arabs, giving them a say as to how the Jewish state should be governed and which laws it should keep. All these things are clearly antithetical to the Torah and God’s Commandments to Israel, placing Israel at odds with God.
Citizenship is not specifically discussed in the Torah, because the issue was rather clear: The children of Israel, the Israelites, were the natives and citizens of the Land. Anyone else was either a foreigner or a convert, whether a resident, slave, or worker. His path to citizenship was an uncertain and long one. The citizens were landowners, they had an ancestral tribal inheritance. They were counted in the army and were members of the congregation. This theme is repeated throughout the Torah, for example Numbers 15 and 26, although one passage is particularly informative, one concerning the Paschal lamb:
“This is the Law of the Passover: No foreigner may eat of it; but any slave of a man, his legal property, he shall be circumcised, then he may eat of it. A resident and a worker shall not eat of it. … All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And if a convert shall reside with you, he shall keep the Passover to the Lord; all his males shall be circumcised and then he shall approach to perform it, and he shall be as a citizen of the Land, but no uncircumcised male may eat of it. One Law shall apply to the citizen and to the convert who resides among you.” (Exodus 12: 43-45, 47-49).
The Hebrew word “Ezrach” (????) is usually translated as “native” or “native born” but a better translation of this word would be “citizen.” A native-born Jew or Israelite is one who would be considered worthy of citizenship in a Jewish State or in Israel, and he must keep the Passover. A convert is considered like a citizen, until he is able to become a citizen, and he must keep the Passover as well. A slave of a citizen is his possession and is a legal extension of himself, like a child, so he may eat of it, but this is only an exception to the general rule that no foreigner may eat of it, therefore a foreign resident or worker may not partake of the Paschal lamb. According to this understanding, the Arabs in Israel can be classified as foreigners or foreign residents or even foreign workers, but not as citizens. A citizen, which is the next step up from a convert, would clearly have to keep the Passover, along with all the other Commandments of God.
If Israel were a Jewish State, it would not be able to grant its Arabs citizenship, as it does now. Citizenship in the Jewish nation, the Jewish congregation, is the next step up from conversion, which would require them to be a native and absorbed segment of the Jewish population, which they clearly are not. The fact that Israel has Arab “Israeli” citizens, who are clearly not Jewish by religion or birth, and who are not a part of Israel, shows us that we are not speaking of a Jewish State, and not even of Israel, but of a nation of its people, an estimation of its traits. The government of Israel is not a Jewish government, and its laws are not Jewish Laws, so what we are left with is the people and their Land. The Land is the Land of Israel, although the Arabs call it something else. The people are mostly Jewish in many parts of the Land, although in many other parts they are not. And yet, even those who are, by definition, Jewish, do not lead Jewish lives as prescribed by their religion, and those who do, do so as Jews in foreign lands, in their communal spheres and in their private lives, clearly not as a nation. Therefore, calling Israel a Jewish State is a fiction, a mere consolation. What we have fought for and built is not really Israel, but it is a good mold for what must very soon become Israel.
To become Israel, we must keep God’s Commandments as a nation, meaning His Torah must become our Constitution, our laws must be subservient to God’s Laws, our government must be subservient to God, and our people must keep its Covenant with God. To become Israel, obviously, our people and citizens must be a people of God, not a people removed from God that reject His Laws, or an Arab nation that seeks to destroy it, but a people as God Created us, out of the descendants of prophets and the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, when He Took us out into the desert through the parting of the sea, when our host nation gave birth to us so to speak: God Took this newborn nation of Israel unto Himself and Fed and Nurtured it. He Gave us Laws to keep and Raised us as His own children. We are the nation of God and we must repeat this and internalize it until we truly live by it. The State of Israel must become a nation of God!
-Yshai Amichai is a father of six and the author of the Hebrew book, “The Constitution of Israel” (“???? ?????”), and the English book, “The Upright One,” both of which will be made available to the public soon. You may contact him by email: yshaia@gmail.com
This is an earlier column on the subject of citizenship in Israel, by the same author. It is interesting that there are some similarities between his ideas concerning citizenship and those of John Locke.
This is a proposal published in Arutz Sheva foor a revised citizenship law based on the commandments in the Jewish scriptures:
While I believe my defense of John Locke’s conception of democracy is accurate, it is also true that the definition of “democracy” since 1679-89, when Locke wrote the treatise, and 1776, when the founding fathers were influenced by it. In particular, nearly all democracies have now abolished property qualifications for voters. Although they lingered into well into the twentieth century in England, and in Northern Ireland, until nearly the end of that century.
However, affirmative action programs are common in the democracies, and in particular, the United States. And all that the Law of the Return and other immigration legislation does in Israel is affirmative action for Jews. And it is far more justified affirmative action than any other such programs.
Jews have been subjected to persecution and outright genocide in much of the inhabited world for nearly two thousand years. Thiis includes massive property qualifications and frequent expulsions. It is therefore wholly appropriate affirmative action for Jews to be given immigration preferences in Israel, since Jews deserve one country at any rate where they are guaranteed freedom from persecution because of their religion and race, where their right to immigrate (denied them in all countries during the Holocaust). where they cannot and where their property is protected from confiscation. Unfortunately, the Israeli government has confiscated some Jewish-Jewish owned property, or refused to recognize their ownership of their own property, and allowed Arab squatters and false claimants to seize it. Even in Israel, then Jews deserve more affirmative action than the Israeli government has granted them.
More later.
Brilliant observation, Adam! Very thoughtful analysis. As Plato once noted, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms”. Indeed, define the terms and and use the definition for all. Again, well noted, Adam.
Victor and so many others think that the existence of some laws in Israel that privilege Jews over others in some specific circumstances makes Israel undemocratic. I think they misunderstand the true and original meaning of ‘democracy.” Historically, the term did not mean that everyone who is subject to the government of a state is entitled to participate in the government of the state. The ancient Athenians, who originally coined the term “democracy,” meaning “rule by the people,” did not think that every individual who lived in Athenian territory were members of “the people” in the political sense of the term. Slaves and those of “foreign” (meaning non-Athenian) origin were not considered members of the “political nation” (the latter term coined by twentieth century historians of constitutional government) of Athens. You had to be able to prove that your parents and grandparents had been born in Athens; otherwise you were a foreigner and could not vote.
Years later, the British philospher John Locke, whose Second Treatise of Government defined the meaning of “democracy” as the term was understood by America’s founding fathers, and whose ideas informed the preamble to the Declation of Independence, also did not think that everyone who lived in a country was entitled to vote, hold public office, or exercise other citizenship rights. For one thing, anyone who is at war with the state was not entitled to citizenship or even many basic human rights. And he defined being at war with the state as having a ‘fixed, settled design” to destroy it, even if they were not involved in physical violence against the state most of the time. It was enough that they did not recognize the legitimacy of the state and were resolved to help overthrow or destroy it, by one means or another, when they opportunity arose.
According to this Lockean definition of democracy, most Arabs within Israel, and the overwhelming majority living in the unincorporated territories of Eretz Israel, are certainly not entitled to Israeli citizenship or even basic human rights. The “Israeli” Arabs who rioted an attacked their Jewish neighbors in support of Hamas’ Gaza-based eleven-day war against Israel was abundent evidence of their disloyalty to the state and their “giving aid and comfort” to their enemies,.” So was the refusal of the “Israeli” Arabs’ political leaders to condemn this violence against the state by many members of their own community.
Locke also believed that only those inhabitants of the country who owned land should have citizenship rights, since in general it was only the owners of land who had a right to administer it and develop its resources. And it was the landowners who payed the taxes that supported the government, which gave them a right to control it.
In terms of modern Israel, this Lockean conception of democracy would mean that only Jews had an inherant right to vote and serve in public office in Israel, since both the Biblical text, which is the ultimate source of Israeli law, the Mandate document, which was never repealed, and some of whose provisions remain law to this day, as well as Israel’s declaration of Independence, all describe the “Jewish people” as the sovereign of the land as a whole. Arabs and other non-Jews have a right to own privately owned land. But according to Lockean principles, only Jews should have the right to exercise sovereign rights over the land, including the right to vote and serve in public office, the right to settle and aquire title “state or waste” lands, or to requisition or nationalize land.
Israel should adopt the Lockean definition of democracy, not the leftist definition favored by Haaretz writers and other leftists. In any case, whenever leftists actually hold power, they throw their own definition democracy out the window. In fact Ieftists do rule Israel, and have limited real voting rights to the 850 members of the Bar Association. The votes cast by other citizens for the Knesset have little meaning, since any law passed by the Knesset can be vetoed by the Supreme Court, which is composed overwhelmingly of Bar Association appointees. The executive branch of the government is controlled not by elected politicians in the Knesset but by civil servants vetted by the Bar Association. Thus the same people who decry Israel for not meeting their standards of democracy ignore their own standards when they actually government israel–which they do.
More later.