John R. Houk
© August 2, 2018
On July 19, 2018 the Israel Knesset (Israel’s form of Parliament/Congress)
passed the Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People.
As an American this might be understood as an Amendment process with the force
of constitutional law. In essence the law defines the Land of Israel as a
Jewish State. A fact the Israeli government has maintained since the 1948
independence from the British Mandate for Palestine and the ensuing war to
fight for a national existence against roughly six invading Arab armies intent
on Israel’s destruction and the genocide of repatriated Jews determined to free
their land from foreign control.
Despite the idiocy of Leftist Multiculturalist and
self-loathing Jewish Leftists who are screaming Apartheid racism, this Basic
Law changes nothing to the legal Rights of non-Jewish Israeli citizens. I
should add Jew-hating Muslims to the list of misinformed whiners spreading and
listening to the propaganda.
Below are articles explaining the truth of how the Basic
Law of Israel the Nation State of the Jewish People actually affects
individual rights of ALL Israeli citizens. There is NOT even a hint of
Apartheid racism making non-Jews second class discriminated people as Black
people were in old South Africa, the Jim Crow laws of pre-Civil Rights USA or
even as non-Muslims
are treated TODAY in Muslim dominated nations!
JRH 8/2/18
*************************
By Phyllis Singer
August 2, 2018
The following information from AICE (American-Israeli
Cooperative Enterprise) explains the new Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State.
There has been much controversy about the new law, and I think this information
from AICE helps to clarify it. Israel has no constitution; instead a series of
Basic Laws determines the legal aspects of the country.
On July 19, 2018, Israel adopted a new Basic Law: Israel –
The Nation State of the Jewish People. The law provoked controversy inside and
outside of Israel. After the vote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said:
“This is a defining moment in the
annals of Zionism and in the history of the State of Israel. Today, 122 years
after [Theodor] Herzl shared his vision, we have established into law the basic
principles of our existence. Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. A
nation state that respects the individual rights of all its citizens and, in
the Middle East, only Israel respects these rights. This is our state, the
state of the Jews. In recent years there have been some who have attempted to
cast doubt on this, and so to undercut the foundations of our existence and our
rights. Today we etched in the stone of law: This is our state, this is our
language, this is our anthem, and this is our flag (extracted from multiple
news sources with slightly different translations).”
As Netanyahu said, this law codifies Israel’s status as the
“national home of the Jewish people.” The law also declares Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel, sets the Hebrew calendar as the state’s official calendar
and confirms Shabbat and Jewish holidays as official days of rest while
allowing non-Jews to determine their own rest days and holidays. It recognizes
the current national flag as the official one, the menorah as the state’s
symbol and “Hatikvah”
as the national anthem. It also states that Israel will endeavor to ensure the safety
of all Jews and “preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of the
Jewish people among the Jewish diaspora.”
Some critics have suggested the law should have included the
word equality. For example, Amir Fuchs, head of the Defending Democratic Values
Program at the Israel Democracy Institute, said, “It is difficult to understand
why the authors of this bill insist not to include this important value.”
Supporters of the law counter the existing Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
defines Israel’s democratic character, but the new law was needed because
Israel’s Jewish character was not embedded in constitutional law.
The law also enshrines the Zionist idea upon which the
nation was founded, namely that Israel is a country established to fulfill the
Jewish people’s “right to national self-determination.” Legal scholar Eugene
Kontorovich notes that seven European states have similar “nationhood”
constitutional provisions. … Furthermore, no nation grants a right to
self-determination to a minority within its borders; otherwise the Basques in
Spain and Kurds in Turkey or Iraq would have their own states. This clause is
also a response to Israel’s detractors, such as advocates of the boycott,
divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, who assert this right belongs to the
Palestinians and not the Jewish people.
Much of the criticism of the law focused on the
establishment of Hebrew as Israel’s sole official language. Formerly Arabic was
also an official state language (as was English). Any alteration of a
long-established status quo is jarring; however, the recognition of Hebrew is
consistent with the policies of other countries which give official status only
to the majority language. The previous recognition of Arabic was a remnant of
the British Mandatory period and does not reflect today’s reality in which 80
[percent] of Israelis, including most Arabs, speak Hebrew. The law specifically
states that it “does not change the status given to the Arabic language before
the basic law was created” in any other way. Hence, Arabic speakers are no more
discriminated against than minorities in more than 100 countries that have a
single national language. ...
Another clause that sparked controversy states that Israel
will “encourage and promote” Jewish settlement around the country. The language
was deliberately altered so as not to suggest this would lead to the creation
of Jewish-only towns, however, some critics feared it would be interpreted as
if that was the intention. Indeed, Israel’s enemies interpreted it that way,
arguing the law promotes segregation.
David Hazony, executive director of the Israel Innovation
Fund, noted that some critics have interpreted this clause as promoting Jewish
settlement in Judea and Samaria. While that may be the political goal of some
of its supporters, Hazony said the “word being translated as settlement is hityashvut,
which to any Israeli ear refers more to the Galilee and the Negev and the
history of building new Jewish communities a century ago across the country
than it does to the West Bank.”
Kontorovich adds that this clause is consistent with the League of Nations
Mandate for Palestine, which sought to “encourage … close
settlement by Jews.” More important, he says it does not “prescribe or
authorize any particular policies” unlike, for example, the state constitution
of Hawaii, which Kontorovich notes “authorizes land policies to promote homesteading
by ethnic Hawaiians, and provides preferential land policies for them.”
Kontorovich adds that Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that Arabs have a right
to create residential communities in Israel that exclude Jews, but Jews do not
have the same right to exclude Arabs.
One indication of the double standard applied to Israel is
that no international uproar followed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas’ declaration that not “a single
Israeli” would be permitted to live in a Palestinian state. ...
The law did provoke negative reactions around the world and
angered many non-Jews in Israel. This does not make it either undemocratic or
discriminatory. Kontorovich explained:
“In reality, Israel’s Basic Law
would not be out of place among the liberal democratic constitutions of Europe
– which include similar provisions that have not aroused controversy. The law
does not infringe on the individual rights of any Israeli citizen, including
Arabs; nor does it create individual privileges. The illiberalism here lies
with the law’s critics, who would deny the Jewish state the freedom to
legislate like a normal country.”
In the case of the Nation State Law, members of Knesset
voted by a 62-55 majority to approve the legislation. This is democracy in
action. Still, like Americans, Israelis can challenge laws in court, and three
Knesset members have already done so, one sign of the health of Israel’s
democracy. ... Another indication is the ability of Israelis to vote for new
representatives who could revoke or alter the law if they can convince a
majority of all Knesset members a change is warranted.
Even a critic of the law, IDI President Yohanan Plesner,
admitted the practical impact of the bill was currently merely “symbolic and
educational.” He said it “won’t have immediate concrete implications.” IDI vice
president Yuval Shani added, “It is not a game changer and has very little
problematic implications. … It won’t change how the country is run.”
[**Blog Editor: Source links added by blog Editor.]
++++++++++++++++++++
Excerpt of Times
of Israel post: “Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the
Jewish People”
1 — Basic principles
A. The land of Israel is the
historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was
established.
B. The State of Israel is the
national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its
natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national
self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
2 — The symbols of the state
A. The name of the state is
“Israel.”
B. The state flag is white with two
blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.
C. The state emblem is a
seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel”
beneath it.
D. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”
E. Details regarding state symbols
will be determined by the law.
3 — The capital of the state
Jerusalem, complete and
united, is the capital of Israel.
4 — Language
A. The state’s language is Hebrew.
B. The Arabic language has a
special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions
or by them will be set in law.
C. This clause does not harm the
status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.
5 — Ingathering of the exiles
The state will be open for Jewish
immigration and the ingathering of exiles
6 — Connection to the Jewish people
A. The state will strive to ensure
the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due
to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.
B. The state shall act within the
Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish
people.
C. The state shall act to preserve
the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews
in the Diaspora.
7 — Jewish settlement
A. The state views the
development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage
and promote its establishment and consolidation.
8 — Official calendar
The Hebrew calendar is the official
calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as
an official calendar. Use of the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian
calendar will be determined by law.
9 — Independence Day and memorial days
A. Independence Day is the official
national holiday of the state.
B. Memorial Day for the Fallen in
Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial
days of the State.
10 — Days of rest and sabbath
The Sabbath and the festivals of
Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to
maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue
will be determined by law.
11 — Immutability
This Basic Law shall not be
amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.
(From: Final
text of Jewish nation-state law, approved by the Knesset early on July 19;
By RAOUL WOOTLIFF; Times of Israel;
7/18/18 2:45 pm – Updated 7/19/18 3:27 am)
++++++++++++++++++++
Bogus Apartheid Claims Follow Passage of Israel
Nation-State Law
By Ariel Behar
Aug 1, 2018 1:45 pm
Anti-Israel groups in the United States are using a
recently passed Israeli law to ramp up false claims of
apartheid. The "nation-state" bill defines Israel as "the
national home of the Jewish people" with Jerusalem as its capital.
"Israel arrogantly enshrines Jim Crow laws," the
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at New York's New School blasted on Facebook.
"Apartheid is a legal term, not an insult. It's the
most suitable label to describe Israel's treatment of millions of Palestinians
over the last seven decades," read a graphic shared via Facebook by Jewish
Voice for Peace (JVP).
SJP and JVP are known for their animosity towards Israel.
The groups normalize hate, promote anti-Semitism, and previously hosted convicted-terrorist Rasmieh
Odeh at a national conference in 2017.
"What this law really does is it enshrines racisms and
discrimination and like you said apartheid into the foundational constitutional
law of the state of Israel," JVP Executive Director Rebecca
Vilkomerson said in an interview with MSNBC's Ayman
Mohyeldin. "So that means the 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are not
Jewish are being told, and the state is actually now obligated with this law to
treat them unequally."
"Formalizing de facto apartheid, the Israeli Knesset
passes the racist nation-state law, which officially designates Palestinian
citizens of Israel...along with all other Palestinians living in historic
Palestine under Israeli sovereign power—as second-class citizens," claimed Columbia University's Students for
Justice in Palestine chapter.
Apartheid is a term used by anti-Israel activists and groups
to smear and delegitimize Israel. And unlike
apartheid South Africa, both Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis receive full voting
rights, hold elected office, serve in the military and prominently on Israeli courts.
The nation-state bill passed the Knesset in a 62-55 vote.
Israel's Druze community voiced concern over the bill. But President Reuven
Rivlin assured a delegation "that is the basis of the state we founded –
the Zionist movement in full partnership with all who live here in this good
land, which is good for all of us and where we can exist in equality without
any problem."
Still, the bill's passage prompted Stanford University SJP
member Hamzeh Daoud, a residential assistant, to threaten to "physically fight"
pro-Israel students. He later changed the wording in his Facebook post from
"physically" to "intellectually" and noted that "I
edited this post because I realize intellectually beating Zionists is the only
way to go. Physical fighting is never an answer to when trying to prove people
wrong."
Both Daoud's Facebook and Twitter accounts have been deactivated.
Most analyses conclude the law is more symbolic than
substantial. It does nothing to change the rights of Israeli Arabs, although
many are displeased at its recognition of Hebrew as the country's official
language, seeing it as downgrading Arabic.
People are free to criticize Israel and the bill. But it's
clear that groups like SJP and JVP will do anything to bash Israel and
delegitimize its existence.
++++++++++++++++++
Understanding “Israel – the
Nation State” Basic Law
By Mida
19 Av 5778 – July 31, 2018
{Originally posted to the MIDA website}
Feelings are running high on the latest addition to
Israel’s Basic Laws or
“constitution on the installment plan”, but I would like to try and shed a bit more
light on the subject and a little less heat.
The Basic
Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People, passed by the
Israeli Knesset this week, declares that Israel is the nation-state of the
Jewish people and determines specific matters which demonstrate the Jewish
character of the nation. These include the county’s official language,
the national anthem, the national flag, the state emblem, as well as the
calendar along with holidays and days of rest. This is normal and appears in
law in many democracies.
The special situation of the Jewish diaspora means that it
also takes notice of the State’s connection to Jews abroad as well as policies
on immigration and settlement.
It is important to stress that the law offers no privileges
of any kind, nor does it reserve any particular rights, for individual Jews.
It certainly does not deny any rights or privileges to individual non-Jews.
All Israelis, regardless of the religion they follow or ethnic background,
continue to enjoy all the human and civil rights customarily accorded to
citizens of free countries. Those rights have not been diminished in any way by
the passing of this law.
This new law seeks to codify the rights laid down in a much
older document. The Mandate
for Palestine, the international legal instrument, recognized the
national rights of the Jewish people in our ancient homeland. The text of the
Mandate includes, by reference, the Balfour
declaration. That document reads:
“His Majesty’s Government view
with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of
this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may
prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other
country.”
A few points arising from this text:
1. The only people recognized as having “national” rights in the
Land of Israel are the Jews.
2. Non Jews in the Land of Israel are to enjoy protection of their
civil and religious rights.
3. Jews throughout the Diaspora are to continue to enjoy the rights
and political status of citizens of the countries they live in.
4. In addition, the Mandate also requires the facilitation of
Jewish immigration and the close settlement by Jews on the land (Article 6).
The new law is clearly an application of the principles of
the Mandate to the sovereign Jewish state:
1. It specifies how the state will express the national rights of
the Jews.
2. It draws attention to the special role the State has to play in
safeguarding the rights of Jews abroad.
3. It accepts the obligation of settling Jews on the Land as now
falling on the Israeli state.
There are those who argue that the provisions of the Mandate
and the Balfour declaration are irrelevant to the state created in Israel’s Declaration
of Independence in 1948. It seems that the framers of Israel’s
Declaration may have felt otherwise.
1. The Declaration references the recognition of Jewish national
rights included in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.
2. It also refers to UNGA Resolution 181. Specifically that it,
“required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary
on their part for the implementation of that resolution”.
3. The Declaration implies (rather strongly) that this
“requirement” was binding on the Jews.
4. Resolution 181 explicitly positions itself to be the culmination
of the Mandate.
What links the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, UNGA
Resolution 181and the Declaration of Independence is that they all draw
their legitimacy from the actualization of the rights of the Jews. I would
go as far as to say that the legitimacy of the State of Israel itself is
dependent on it fulfilling the national rights of the Jews.
I am finding it hard to understand how anyone who accepts
the Mandate and the Balfour declaration that is contained in it, could have a problem
with any of these points.
Of course, there are those who have never accepted the
Declaration nor the Mandate and I would expect them to oppose the law simply
because they oppose Israel’s basic legitimacy. Unfortunately, many people
who do recognize the legitimacy of Jewish national rights in
the Land of Israel seem to be troubled by the law, something which I find
puzzling.
It is clear that the law does not contain a clause
explicitly guaranteeing the rights of non-Jews and I can understand why some
might see that as presenting potential problems for the future. In terms of the
here and now though, the only mention of non-Jews in the law is to guarantee
that the new law will not damage the status that the Arabic language has
enjoyed up till now, despite no longer being an official language of the state.
(Interesting point to note is that the English language was
also one of the three official languages of the State of Israel and the new law
offers no guarantees for its status, but for some reason I don’t see Anglos up
in arms about that!)
Why is there no formal minority rights clause in the law?
One might hypothesize dark ulterior motives, but I think that it is quite as
plausible to suggest that equality is already so entrenched in Israeli
jurisprudence, that there is no need for it.
This new law does not stand on its own, but is part of the
entire group of Basic Laws, each of which is supposed to be a chapter in the
eventual constitution. The Basic Law:
Human Dignity and Freedom along with The Basic Law: the Freedom
of Occupation, lay out many (some would say too many!) individual
rights and offers the necessary protection of the rights of individuals in
Israel. Although all this is true, none of the Basic Laws explicitly addresses
the issue of minority rights, i.e. of minority communities. Although Israeli
Arabs are guaranteed the right to an Arabic language school system in which
Arabic culture is taught, this promise is made only in “regular” legislation,
not in any Basic Law.
Professor Moshe
Koppel of Bar Ilan University has an
interesting explanation which he presented in a Facebook post: “Since
1993, Israel’s Supreme Court has used the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom
to rule on the constitutionality of a variety of statutes and government
policies involving Israel’s Jewish character, including laws regarding
allocation of JNF land, the primacy of Hebrew as Israel’s language, rights to
residency and citizenship, draft deferments and stipends of yeshiva students,
and commerce on Shabbat. In principle, these cases called for delicate balance
between Israel’s democratic character and its Jewish character, but in fact no
such balance was achieved, precisely because Israel’s Jewish character, unlike
its democratic character, is not anchored in any basic law. The proposed law is
intended to address this asymmetry and to encourage a more sophisticated legal
discourse regarding the tension between universal and national considerations.”
Whether one feels that the rights of non-Jews in Israel are
already afforded sufficient protection in law or not, the new law only defines
Israel’s Jewish character. If someone feels that there is a gap there that
needs to be filled, then they should campaign for a Basic Law that adds the
protections that they think necessary. Doing so is more likely to build a
consensus than seemingly attacking the Jewish nature of the Jewish state.
(David Olesker is the
Founder and Director of the Jerusalem Center for Communication and Advocacy
Training)
Mida is a news and
intellectual daily magazine, which aims to present the public with information
and opinions not common in the Israeli media.
____________________
The Land of the Jews is
NON-Discriminatory!
John R. Houk
© August 2, 2018
___________________
This Year in Jerusalem
– explaining the new Basic Law: Israel - The Nation State
__________________
Final text of Jewish
nation-state law, approved by the Knesset early on July 19
About
The Times of Israel
____________________
Bogus Apartheid Claims
Follow Passage of Israel Nation-State Law
About The Investigative Project on Terrorism
___________________
Understanding “Israel –
the Nation State” Basic Law
About
The Jewish Press
No comments:
Post a Comment