Let Them Rage: Why Anti-Zionists Should Be Allowed to Run

As someone who doesn't live in Israel and hasn't been there in quite some time it's hard for me to have a good idea on how these debates should play out. But I think this is a great essay. I do know that the lack of integration of Israeli Arabs - (culturally, politically and legally) - is a big problem and one that has to be reckoned with sooner rather than later. Hopefully answering the current crisis in the manner you propose might be an important part of that.

If Israel was founded as both a Jewish country and a democracy (as I suppose you'll agree), it seems to me that one can make an argument from first principles that it is equally treasonous to advocate the repeal of either aspect.  I take the point that a democracy ended can't re-democratize through the former system, which might make an end to democracy more serious.  (Though I'd be interested to know whether you think that Judaism could be any more easily restored, once lost.)  But I don't see how that makes advocacy of an end to democracy less treasonous than advocacy for an end to Jewishness, in and of itself.

You treat of self-determination as both a right and a market force.  But is that necessarily the case when it comes to Israel?  The founding of the country seems to me to set those two ways of determining at odds with one another -- "you can be whatever you want, as long as you are Jewish; otherwise you cannot be what you want."  A contradiction in terms that Jews and Israelis have been talking about for decades.  But they are the terms, nonetheless.

 I think Lebanon makes an interesting case study for this kind of contradiction -- a majority-Christian country that, in its transition into majority-Muslim, is suddenly subject to laws that preserve a majority-Christian government.  The result?  Years and years of brutal civil war.

 In light of the example I'd think it would be an Israeli duty either to renounce all interest in nationalized religion sooner rather than later (that is, well before any demographic crisis); or collectively agree to hold that ideal sacrosanct, and adopt immigration/deportation/treason-standards policy accordingly.

haim, i liked your article and thought that the distinction that you drew between anti zionism and anti democracy was quite interesting. 

but i propose to do away with the law in total and allow anybody and any party to run for the knesset.  designing a  law on what is allowed in a party's charter is anti democratic.  and even if we hand the anti democrats the rope to hang us with, we oughta let marzel or the sons of kahane to run for the knesset no matter what is written in their charters.  if likud wants to figure out some way to ban feiglin from their party, that's likud's business, but it shouldn't be the knesset's business figuring out how to exclude him or the 1% or the 15% of the people who support him from being represented.  if the knesset wants to do away with immunity for its members, that's one thing, but otherwise let tibi praise syria and hezbollah and hamas and iran and hitler for that matter and let him run for the knesset.  certainly there are ways to improve israel's governance, like providing half (or all) the knesset members are voted from districts rather than from the entire electorate.  but party platforms should not be grounds for exclusion. 

Kremnitzer says in his position paper:

A comparison to other legal systems shows that in the older democracies, which are well-established and self-confident, there is generally no concept of value-based disqualifications, either of candidates or of political parties. There are such disqualifications, however, in relatively young democracies that have experienced a period of authoritarian rule. A common denominator among those countries is the type of grounds for disqualification – these include threats to the adoption of a platform seeking to inflict damage on the state’s existence, or support for the use of violence, and for damage to the democratic nature of the regime. There is no analogy in these countries to the aspect of Israeli law which allows for disqualification based on opposition to the country’s Jewish character. 

Democracy in the U.S. is strong enough to allow racists, Communists, and various other kinds of totalitarians to run for office--precisely because they have no hope of succeeding. Israel's democracy is not so strong. So I would argue that laws that prevent virulent anti-democrats of the Kahane stripe from running in Israeli elections are a necessity--although they should be applied with great caution and only when a threat seems imminent.

 Lebanon is indeed a textbook case about how *not* to run an ethnic state. Precisely because ethnic majorities can be lost (and more than that, identities can change in from and content), the system of government must offer a way in which the country's identity can change through the democratic process. If we Zionists want Israel to remain a Jewish state we need to make tough choices about establishing borders in which the Jewish majority is clear and large, so that the state's Jewish character will emerge naturally from its demography.

aim Watzman

South Jerusalem

What does it mean to be Israeli?  Since there have always been secular Zionists, what, exactly, was their aim in establishing Israel?  A refuge?  Then what? 

Seems to me the problem for Israel has always been, how to be a Jewish state without being a theocracy.  This has led to a kind of cultural dichotomy. For example, in my limited stay in Israel what struck me wasn't the religious discrimination but the racial segregation.  Ashkenazi versus the rest -- all second-class citizens.  In fact, it mattered little if Iraqis or Yeminis were Jews, not to mention the hapless Betas.  In the eyes of the "whites," they were all niggers.  As for the Arabs . . .

Israelis must face the fact that short of ethinic cleansing they are confronted with Jimmy Carter's indictment of apartheid, which outraged so many.

And speaking of Kahane, my signature is just giving the devil his due:  integration is a fool's errand.

כהנא צדק

But even in a state gerrymandered for maximal Jewishness, you must agree that we won't know what it looks like ten or fifteen years down the line, unless we're willing also to adopt strict immigration/deportation policies.  I think Livni hinted at as much when she suggested that, on the creation of a Palestinian state, Israeli Arabs would be expected to emigrate.  There was a lot of outrage at her remarks, but isn't that essentially true?  And if you disagree with that kind of policy (since it is, essentially, racist, and it definitely makes me uncomfortable), I wonder how you reconcile that with your hope that Israel remain Jewish?

  I do think you're right to emphasize Israel's instability as a democracy, and yonah would do well to remember that a multi-party system like Israel's (especially with such a ridiculous electoral process) is a great deal more tumultuous than anything capable of emerging from America's two-party tradition.  It doesn't seem wise to me to give carte blanche to parties here like we do there.

The situation will become impossible and either Jewish priviledge or democracy will be out the window in Israel. It is untenable to have it both ways unless there is a significant change in circumstances. Which raises some really cringe-worthy questions about theocracy, possible deportations based on race/religion (which I cannot reconcile with Jewish values, apparently others can), and the big question of whether you can have a democracy anywhere in the Middle East given the propensity for the wing-nut section of the population (Muslim or Jewish) to vote religious fanatics with an Armageddon complex into power.

Look around the world and you'll see plenty of examples of dictators whose first move after being democratically elected is to put an end to democracy. Just look at Hamas (and don't think I don't know that a hard right Haredi government would be just as wretched)! So...is democracy intrinsically a good idea in cultures and settings where extremism and intolerance can sweep an election? These are some things Israel needs to think about & wrestle with before they pass a point where demographics force their hand. I wish them well, because it looks like all the possible options currently being discussed stink.

Shalom!

 "On the creation of a Palestinian state, Israeli Arabs would be expected to emigrate." Of course not! Israel needs its minorities, and not simply as a tool for proving its democratic credentials. All societies and cultures--especially those established on ethnic/national grounds--must have others in their midst if they are to maintain their vibrancy. And the state can take reasonable measures to maintain its Jewish majority--that is, by encouraging Jewish immigration (see LB's comment on this post over at South Jerusalem), and by fostering Jewish education and identity and culture. It certainly cannot deport minority citizens or bar non-Jews from entering the country.

And on another matter--a number of people in this discussion seem to assume that a Jewish state is necessarily a religious state--that is, that religious affiliation is the sine qua non of being Jewish. While I'm an observant Jew and think that our religious tradition is an essential part of our heritage, I could not disagree more.

Haim Watzman

South Jerusalem

I don't know if you're including me in that number, but that hasn't been my assumption.  Though I'm surprised that you simultaneously disagree with the role of religious tradition as fundamental to the state on the one hand, and on the other suggest that "Jewish education" is a way of shoring up demographics.  Am I missing something?  Of what else would that education consist?

 I'm definitely not denying the value that minority populations bring to any country, Israel included.   But surely you recognize that encouraging immigration and Jewish education are essentially stop-gaps with respect to demographics, and while they are goods in and of themselves they still aren't 100% reliable, as the decision to immigrate or become Jewish (culturally, religiously, however you mean) ultimately rests in the hands of the individual.  (Another way of posing the problem would be to ask you what you think Israel could be doing that it is not already doing now, at a time when immigrations is falling off by multiple percentage points, and the Israeli Arab and Palestinian populations growing so much faster than the Jewish.)

Maybe on the creation of a Palestinian state, there would be a serious uptick in Jewish immigration.  Or maybe many Israeli Arabs would be interested in moving to such a state (though I highly doubt it).  But I think the point is that those are not sure things, and if the Israeli government is serious about a  Jewish majority, it has to recognize that.

Max, given that Israel was founded by adamant secularists and most of its children are (still) educated in its secular school system, it would seem that there's a lot that Jewish education could consist of outside of religion. Culture, literature, even traditional texts studied from a historical and literary perspective all go under this rubric--not to mention the Hebrew langauge itself and Jewish history.

And you're right, the future of the Jewish state does depend ultimately on the decisions of individuals. If not enough Jews think the Jewish state is worth their trouble, then indeed it will fade away. What did Benjamin Franklin tell the crowd outside Independence Hall when they asked what kind of regime the Constitutional Convention had decided on? "A republic--if you can keep it." So we've got a Jewish state--if we can keep it.

Haim Watzman

South Jerusalem

"Max, given that Israel was founded by adamant secularists and most of its children are (still) educated in its secular school system, it would seem that there's a lot that Jewish education could consist of outside of religion. Culture, literature, even traditional texts studied from a historical and literary perspective all go under this rubric--not to mention the Hebrew langauge itself and Jewish history."

Exactly right, Mr. Watzman. And not only would this go a long way in ameliorating the fractious Arab-Jewish divide within Israel, but it's the appropriate tonic to all those who claim that Jews should be denied statehood because they are (just) a religious group.

I agree with all of that (although I think there's a lot more exploring to do when it comes to how 'Jewish' Judaism from a historical/cultural perspective actually is.  Another time). 

 Personally I prefer your approach to the hypotheticals I was giving above.  But I do think you have to admit that it's only one approach to what it means for the state to be Jewish -- and it's probably a bit more fatalistic than many Israelis would prefer.

Livni did not say that when there is a Palestinian state Arabs will have to move. She did say that the establishment of such a state is the solution for the national aspirations of all Palestinains. In other words, if Palestinians want GROUP  rights, (as opposed to civil rights or human rights) those rights will be respected in the Palestinian state which will be the national home of the Palestinians. If not, they will be (to some extent) marginalized as a minority in Israel.

Jews in Scandinavia do not demand that the cross in the various national flags be combined with a star of David. They are aware of their minority status and are willing to prefer that status (for asuumingly good reasons) over being part of a majority culture in teh Jewish state.

I also think this is an effort to damage Israeli democracy and one which will rebound on everyone - though probably not on those proposing it who can expect to gain a few votes. 

My question is this: why didn't they try to ban Hadash, the communist party? They are also opposed to Israel being a Jewish state. It sounds like a discriminatory attitude.