1. Some thoughts on Israel's new "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People", which has thrown the government's relations with many minority communities, and to a degree, with Diaspora Jewish communities, into turmoil.
2. First, a fair reading shows it's mostly symbolic. It largely codifies things that already exist, and/or are perfectly well understood: Israel is the national home of the Jewish people; the flag, anthem, & calendar reflect the state's Jewish character, as they always have, etc.
3. That raises the significant question of why the law was necessary. Israel has always defined itself as a Jewish state, or the nation-state of the Jewish people. That is as it should be, and there is no imaginable circumstance in which that would change.
4. What has set off opposition to the law is primarily what it lacks: any reference to Israel as a democracy, or the equality of all of its citizens. Those are also immutable characteristics of Israel, since its founding. So what would have been the harm in adding them?
5. Amendments to add these words were rejected, so it's not that surprising that Israel's minorities find their absence upsetting, even if they appear in other Basic Laws. The most articulate, & clearly wounded, minority are the Druze, who serve in the IDF & are deeply patriotic.
6. The change of Arabic from one of Israel's official languages (a holdover from pre-state British rule) to a language with "special status" underscores their fears, even though it goes on to say that there would be no harm to the status of Arabic before the law came into effect.
7. Again, it raises the question, why? Hebrew will always be dominant, but if there's no change in the state's relationship to Arabic, why downgrade its status? How should Arabic speakers understand it? Just because something is symbolic, doesn't mean that it can do no damage.
8. There are other sources of concern in the law's opaque language: could the encouragement of "Jewish settlement" (consistent with Israel's longstanding push for Israeli Jews to live throughout the country) signal approval of depriving nonJewish communities of budgets &services?
9. Does the reference to "act[ing] within the Diaspora" to strengthen ties between Israel and the Jewish people signal that the state, as Israel's ultra-Orthodox parties want, will not extend recognition to Israel's Reform, Conservative, and other non-Orthodox Jewish communities?
10. So it is not that surprising that minority communities, not a small number of Jewish Israelis, and many of Israel's friends and supporters in the US and elsewhere, express concern about measures that could upset the balance between Israel's Jewish and democratic character.
11. That has always been the genius, & also the challenge, of Zionism. Ensuring that Israel is both a Jewish state, the fulfillment of centuries of longing for the return to Jewish sovereignty in the ancient Jewish homeland, & a full member of the democratic community of nations.
12. Israel has managed those tensions admirably over the years, starting with its Declaration of Independence. (A separate challenge arises if efforts to achieve a 2 state solution meet a dead end.) But this law, which has some clear political intent behind it, raises questions.
13. The legislation, kicking around for several years, could have been much worse. There were many proposals for far less symbolic, more discriminatory provisions, that were discarded or significantly watered down. It's not the end of Israeli democracy. But it could be fixed.
14. But in addition to domestic tensions, it poses a reputational challenge for Israel. When I speak to an Israeli audience, I am often asked if Israel is losing the support of young or liberal American Jews, of Democrats, of progressives in the US. My answer is always two-fold:
15. First, there are some trends in that direction, although they should not be overstated. But the first responsibility to deal with them is on my shoulders. People like me (Democrats, progressives, non-Orthodox Jews) should educate our communities about Israel.
16. Context, history, the reality of Zionism as a legitimate expression of the Jewish people's right to sovereignty, the Palestinians' share of responsibility for the conflict, the threats Israel faces. Criticizing Israeli policy should not include questioning its legitimacy.
17. But second, Israel can make it harder or easier for people like me to do that. Disrespect nonOrthodox Jewish practices &identity? Harder. Expand settlements in ways that would prevent 2states? Harder. Expel African asylum-seekers? Harder. Alienate Israel's minorities? Harder.
18. I also ask Israelis how important it is to them. Are they interested in maintaining close ties to non-Orthodox Jews in the diaspora? Is it a priority to maintain the broad bipartisan support in the United States that Israel has traditionally enjoyed?
19. Maybe it's not. That is up to Israelis to decide. I think it would be tragic for the Jewish people and shortsighted for US-Israel ties. The political pendulum in the US swings both ways. It is in the US interest, no less than Israel's, that Israel retain bipartisan support.
20. Non-Israelis don't really have a say in Israeli laws and policy. We need to respect that reality. But IF those things are important to Israelis, bearing in mind how Israel's actions sit with the values of some of its strongest supporters seems worthwhile. END
