Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people

[Shusha]

What does "protected status mean" ... ? Wasn't part of the various mandates and charters to not impinge on Arab culture in the Arab communities...?

What does "protected status" mean? Well, I think it means putting a fence around certain cultural qualities such as language, celebration of holidays, religious rituals, etc so as to preserve them from destruction. In Canada, as examples, official signage must be in both English and French in the English-speaking provinces and in French only in the French-speaking provinces. In my area of Western Canada we also have signage in local First Nations language as well as English, and other local conventions honoring the First Nations peoples. This is done in order to protect those minorities.

Israel has done an EXCELLENT job of preserving the Arabic culture and religion in Israel. I don't see any reason for this to change.

You do bring up an interesting point, though. "Protected status" is exactly what Israel is trying to do in this Basic Law. As a globally insignificant culture, she is trying to create a small space in the world where the Jewish culture is protected. And protected against a very real, very hostile and very concerted Arab and global effort to erase or deny it. This law is a statement of intent -- "We, the Jewish people, will not permit our culture to disappear." In practice, Israel is sensitive enough to understand how to put this into practice.

 

[Shusha]

Every nation is unique to some degree, some more than others - I don't think you can justify actions against a nation's minority communities by justifying that the majority is a world minority and needs to be protected.

There is NOTHING in this Basic Law which is "against a nation's minority communities". The Basic Law is a preservation of Jewish culture. Its no different than dozens of other nations who preserve their culture within their constitutions. But I also disagree with you that being a global minority is justification for protection. Of course it is. All minorities should be protected. And it is the basis of all nationalities. Why should Israel be excluded from those protections and forming a nationality around a particular culture? Everyone else does it.

But it also depends on how minorities - long standing residents who's communities preceded the creation of the nation - are treated. I think as long as Arabic enjoys a protected status, recognizing it's importance - it's workable.

We agree then.

Here is the language portion of the bill:

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.

Seems to me that Israel took special pains to ensure Arabic is protected.

What is questionable to me (and I don't think this is normative in most western nations) is legally segregated communities where minorities are barred from living But I'm not clear on whether that measure is part of the bill.

This was not part of the bill that passed.

 

[Coyote]

Israel Legislates Apartheid into Law

The video states that having Hebrew as the only official language makes non-Jews "second class citizens" (which they are equating with apartheid).

And yet where is the uproar of Palestine being apartheid? Spain? Finland? France? Hungary? Indonesia? Pakistan? Portugal?

For that matter where is the uproar that 31 US States have English as their only official language? Is the US an apartheid State?

I think it depends on how Arabic is treated. What does "protected status mean" and what does it mean in relation to an "official language"?. Wasn't part of the various mandates and charters to not impinge on Arab culture in the Arab communities...? Israel is somewhat unique in that these issues are occurring TODAY, not centuries ago, as in Spain. Or France.

Well, I think you dodged my question. Some of these countries developed and formed their constitutions, or renewed them, within the past hundred years. And we have nations from former countries like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR, and even the Ottoman Empire over the same time period who did not face the same level of scrutiny and hostility.

I wasn't aware that I did - but, I think that a nation declaring an official language isn't comparable to apartheid in and of itself. I don't see Israel as doing anything different in regard to language as many other countries. Where I put a caveat is - it depends on what happens with Arabic in the country. USSR did not just make Russian the official language, it did everything it could to wipe out minority languages and cultures. Language is tied to culture, wiping out a language is wiping out a culture (I am not saying that is what is happening with Israel but how it can be viewed by those who feel threatened).

Here is an interesting conversation on it: Is language key to resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict?

I appreciate your question about how Arabic will be treated going into the future, and I will address it, but first, please address my point -- that there is a double standard about how Israel's Basic Law is treated vs. the SAME LAWS in other countries. (Including Palestine and Gaza, which are highly relevant).

Yes, there is a double standard.

 

[Coyote]

Every nation is unique to some degree, some more than others - I don't think you can justify actions against a nation's minority communities by justifying that the majority is a world minority and needs to be protected.

There is NOTHING in this Basic Law which is "against a nation's minority communities". The Basic Law is a preservation of Jewish culture. Its no different than dozens of other nations who preserve their culture within their constitutions. But I also disagree with you that being a global minority is justification for protection. Of course it is. All minorities should be protected. And it is the basis of all nationalities. Why should Israel be excluded from those protections and forming a nationality around a particular culture? Everyone else does it.

But it also depends on how minorities - long standing residents who's communities preceded the creation of the nation - are treated. I think as long as Arabic enjoys a protected status, recognizing it's importance - it's workable.

We agree then.

Here is the language portion of the bill:

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.

Seems to me that Israel took special pains to ensure Arabic is protected.

What is questionable to me (and I don't think this is normative in most western nations) is legally segregated communities where minorities are barred from living But I'm not clear on whether that measure is part of the bill.

This was not part of the bill that passed.

I was wondering about that - I wasn't clear on what parts passed and what parts did not. There were some disturbing portions that did not make it through, such as falling back on religious law in situations where existing law did not address. That did not pass but it's shocking it got that far.

 

[Shusha]

[
USSR did not just make Russian the official language, it did everything it could to wipe out minority languages and cultures. Language is tied to culture, wiping out a language is wiping out a culture (I am not saying that is what is happening with Israel but how it can be viewed by those who feel threatened).

Yes. We agree. And Israel, has done an excellent job of preserving and protecting its Arabic culture in difficult circumstances, while having to push back against Arabs trying to erase Jewish culture. I feel as though we can trust Israel to continue to do that.

 

[admonit]

As expected, the new law caused a hysterical response from anti-Semites and haters of Israel. They react to the words "Jewish People" and "Israel" like a bull to a red rag.

Perhaps but I also think there is more to it than that. Clearly in the eyes of some there is nothing Israel can do that is acceptable even though other countries do the same. But there are also other issues.

What was particularly informing were the parts of the new law that were eventually removed.

Particularly informing? Democracy supposes different opinions and discussions. But only the result, the law, is relevant.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Voluntary segregation

It seems to me that voluntary segregation, done right, is a very good thing, especially with respect to cultural values and traditions. A couple of personal comments:

Living in a culture not your own isn't necessarily hard, per se (though it can be) but it is a bit alienating. In a society where Sunday is the "day of rest", being unavailable for Saturday activities (work, shopping, sports activities, having your dishwasher fixed, etc) is complicated. Its constantly explaining yourself to people, and outing yourself as "other". And speaking in a language, literally and figuratively, that is different than everyone around you. Its a cultural disability, in a way.

On the other hand, being in a space where everyone is doing the same things, and moving to the same music is safe and comfortable and relaxing. Imagine how different Ramadan must be in a Muslim country vs a Christian one? Imagine how it feels to watch the whole city shut down for Shabbat, if you belong to that culture rather than alien to it.

I think there is a measure of security and safety in that sort of voluntary segregation. And though it may seem counter-intuitive, I think that security and safety is what gives access to tolerance for others. If we feel safe and secure in our own communities, we feel safe and secure to explore other communities. There is no threat.

And then, an invitation to another community becomes a wonderful celebration of what is special to them and you become a special guest and there is a joy in becoming, even temporarily, a part of another community. I once had the very great pleasure of being invited to a Chinese New Year feast by an extended family member. Yes, I felt awkward and out of place but they knew that and they worked very hard to include me and explain things to me and help me feel welcome. They weren't threatened to have me in their space, because they invited me there. I see this all the time in Israel with neighbors from different communities coming together to share celebrations and weddings and feasts and things.

Now, all that said, voluntary segregation can also be done poorly, especially in places of conflict or perceived conflict.

 

[rylah]

It sounds middle eastern.

Such is impossible in Syria.

This is how middle eastern society has lived for millennias. Jewish, Druze and Kurdish villages in different countries. A natural human instinct is to gather around people with similar behavior.
Actually it's the basis of every society/country.

I don't have a problem with either mixed or homogeneous villages and towns.
It's actually nice to have both.

I agree as long people have the freedom to choose and are not barred.

Now tell me what happens when an Arab family sues Israel for not being allowed into a Druze village?

Why should be legally barred from living somewhere based on ethnicity, race or religion?

Why should Afghani Muslims or Hindu priests be legally forced into Amish communities?
It's a question with two sides which I frankly have no answer to.

I think liberalism in this case is not bad, the correct proportion of personal vs public vs security rights should applied. With that said how does one apply liberalism on hardcore-conservative communities without using the same force these minority communities might apply against the other minority in their village?

 

[Coyote]

[
USSR did not just make Russian the official language, it did everything it could to wipe out minority languages and cultures. Language is tied to culture, wiping out a language is wiping out a culture (I am not saying that is what is happening with Israel but how it can be viewed by those who feel threatened).

Yes. We agree. And Israel, has done an excellent job of preserving and protecting its Arabic culture in difficult circumstances, while having to push back against Arabs trying to erase Jewish culture. I feel as though we can trust Israel to continue to do that.

I *think* so...but I won't say for certainty. There are a lot of different factions within the government, there is discrimination against Israeli Arabs, and there is inequity.

 

[Coyote]

Such is impossible in Syria.

This is how middle eastern society has lived for millennias. Jewish, Druze and Kurdish villages in different countries. A natural human instinct is to gather around people with similar behavior.
Actually it's the basis of every society/country.

I don't have a problem with either mixed or homogeneous villages and towns.
It's actually nice to have both.

I agree as long people have the freedom to choose and are not barred.

Now tell me what happens when an Arab family sues Israel for not being allowed into a Druze village?

Why should be legally barred from living somewhere based on ethnicity, race or religion?

Why should Afghani Muslims or Hindu priests be legally forced into Amish communities?
It's a question with two sides which I frankly have no answer to.

I think liberalism in this case is not bad, the correct proportion of personal vs public vs security rights should applied. With that said how does one apply liberalism on hardcore-conservative communities without using the same force these minority communities might apply against the another minority?

I don't think anyone should be legally forced to live where they do not wish to based on their ethnicity, religion or race - they should be free to choose based on their ability to afford to live there. But you are aright - no easy or "right" answers.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking - can you expand?

 

[Shusha]

[
USSR did not just make Russian the official language, it did everything it could to wipe out minority languages and cultures. Language is tied to culture, wiping out a language is wiping out a culture (I am not saying that is what is happening with Israel but how it can be viewed by those who feel threatened).

Yes. We agree. And Israel, has done an excellent job of preserving and protecting its Arabic culture in difficult circumstances, while having to push back against Arabs trying to erase Jewish culture. I feel as though we can trust Israel to continue to do that.

I *think* so...but I won't say for certainty. There are a lot of different factions within the government, there is discrimination against Israeli Arabs, and there is inequity.

Well, there is discrimination EVERYWHERE and Israel is in the middle of a conflict.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Voluntary segregation

It seems to me that voluntary segregation, done right, is a very good thing, especially with respect to cultural values and traditions. A couple of personal comments:

Living in a culture not your own isn't necessarily hard, per se (though it can be) but it is a bit alienating. In a society where Sunday is the "day of rest", being unavailable for Saturday activities (work, shopping, sports activities, having your dishwasher fixed, etc) is complicated. Its constantly explaining yourself to people, and outing yourself as "other". And speaking in a language, literally and figuratively, that is different than everyone around you. Its a cultural disability, in a way.

On the other hand, being in a space where everyone is doing the same things, and moving to the same music is safe and comfortable and relaxing. Imagine how different Ramadan must be in a Muslim country vs a Christian one? Imagine how it feels to watch the whole city shut down for Shabbat, if you belong to that culture rather than alien to it.

I think there is a measure of security and safety in that sort of voluntary segregation. And though it may seem counter-intuitive, I think that security and safety is what gives access to tolerance for others. If we feel safe and secure in our own communities, we feel safe and secure to explore other communities. There is no threat.

And then, an invitation to another community becomes a wonderful celebration of what is special to them and you become a special guest and there is a joy in becoming, even temporarily, a part of another community. I once had the very great pleasure of being invited to a Chinese New Year feast by an extended family member. Yes, I felt awkward and out of place but they knew that and they worked very hard to include me and explain things to me and help me feel welcome. They weren't threatened to have me in their space, because they invited me there. I see this all the time in Israel with neighbors from different communities coming together to share celebrations and weddings and feasts and things.

Now, all that said, voluntary segregation can also be done poorly, especially in places of conflict or perceived conflict.

Really good points Shusha! I hadn't thought of it from that perspective, and I agree with your points. I don't think voluntary segregation is necessarily bad, and it's wrong to force people to live in communities they do not wish to. What matters is freedom of choice.

 

[Coyote]

[
USSR did not just make Russian the official language, it did everything it could to wipe out minority languages and cultures. Language is tied to culture, wiping out a language is wiping out a culture (I am not saying that is what is happening with Israel but how it can be viewed by those who feel threatened).

Yes. We agree. And Israel, has done an excellent job of preserving and protecting its Arabic culture in difficult circumstances, while having to push back against Arabs trying to erase Jewish culture. I feel as though we can trust Israel to continue to do that.

I *think* so...but I won't say for certainty. There are a lot of different factions within the government, there is discrimination against Israeli Arabs, and there is inequity.

Well, there is discrimination EVERYWHERE and Israel is in the middle of a conflict.

Yes, but I don't think that can be used as an excuse. Or rather it is to readily used as an excuse. At some point Israel will have to address it, the question is when? And why not now? Inequity, lack of opportunity, discrimmination - all that creates resentment and an underclass that is undeniable. Israel is not alone - the US has the same problems. And for a while we were addressing it. Now not so much.

 

[Shusha]

Really good points Shusha! I hadn't thought of it from that perspective, and I agree with your points. I don't think voluntary segregation is necessarily bad, and it's wrong to force people to live in communities they do not wish to. What matters is freedom of choice.

Well, here's where you aren't going to like me so much, grin. I think that forced segregation is sometimes a good thing too. But I mean that in the context of giving both people space to preserve and develop and celebrate their culture. On the surface it seems bad, but its ultimately beneficial for both peoples.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, but I don't think that can be used as an excuse. Or rather it is to readily used as an excuse. At some point Israel will have to address it, the question is when? And why not now? Inequity, lack of opportunity, discrimmination - all that creates resentment and an underclass that is undeniable. Israel is not alone - the US has the same problems. And for a while we were addressing it. Now not so much.

Trying to end discrimination while living alongside a hostile population who keeps trying to kill innocents? Its impossible. It can't be addressed under hostile circumstances. And its just another refrain of "Its Israel's responsibility to fix it".

 

[Coyote]

Really good points Shusha! I hadn't thought of it from that perspective, and I agree with your points. I don't think voluntary segregation is necessarily bad, and it's wrong to force people to live in communities they do not wish to. What matters is freedom of choice.

Well, here's where you aren't going to like me so much, grin. I think that forced segregation is sometimes a good thing too. But I mean that in the context of giving both people space to preserve and develop and celebrate their culture. On the surface it seems bad, but its ultimately beneficial for both peoples.

In most incidents that come to mind - one group usually becomes disenfranchised as a result - economically impoverished, less resources invested in it, less opportunity for economic mobility...how do you get around that?

There is another thing with segregation, both forced and voluntary that can be an issue - less knowledge of "the other". The less everyday contact you have with the "other" the easier it is to believe myths and conspiracy theories about the other. There is nothing like sitting down to dinner with "the other" and realizing hey - maybe we aren't so different after all. This is a bit off topic but it's similar: Black Man Gets KKK Members To Disavow By Befriending Them | HuffPost

 

[Coyote]

Yes, but I don't think that can be used as an excuse. Or rather it is to readily used as an excuse. At some point Israel will have to address it, the question is when? And why not now? Inequity, lack of opportunity, discrimmination - all that creates resentment and an underclass that is undeniable. Israel is not alone - the US has the same problems. And for a while we were addressing it. Now not so much.

Trying to end discrimination while living alongside a hostile population who keeps trying to kill innocents? Its impossible. It can't be addressed under hostile circumstances. And its just another refrain of "Its Israel's responsibility to fix it".

I'm not talking about Palestinians but Arab Israeli's. Who should be equal citizens. don't you think that discrimination FEEDS hostility?

It IS Israel's responsibility to fix social injustice within it's nation.

 

[Shusha]

[
In most incidents that come to mind - one group usually becomes disenfranchised as a result - economically impoverished, less resources invested in it, less opportunity for economic mobility...how do you get around that?

Ah well, I was thinking more of separating the squabbling siblings of Israel and Palestine, along the lines of Yugoslavia, etc but..

 

[Roudy]

70 years after the establishment of a Jewish state was declared, now it became a basic (constitutional) law.

The full text of the law:

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.

The intention from the very beginning. Going back over 3000 years and once again in 1948.

 

[rylah]

Update:
An important part of the law was rejected, among the opponents was President Rivlin.
The law was about to allow municipalities to reject non-Jewish residents.

The clause would allow for communities, including "of a single religion or a single nationality", to build separate towns.
http://www.iataskforce.org/sites/default/files/resource/resource-1586.pdf

This includes Arab municipalities.

I think it is bad idea for communities to be legally segregated. For one thing, it almost always seems to lead to inequitable division of resources. Minority communities, usually poorer and fighting discrimination, end up with substandard infrastructure and education. Lest you think I am picking on Israel, it’s true of many countries including the US.

Minorities are supposed to be "weak" by default in a stigmatic liberal doctrine.
In this case too it's hard to measure where a systematic focus on eliminating discrimination turns into an evident privilege in the face of the law in practice.
In my opinion, the Arab community is privileged in many ways.

Without going into a cliché line of accusations, this is a very interesting subject of safeguarding culture vs city planning and all around it.

I agree that it's a bad idea for a state to segregate communities, but at the same time it raises other comparable issues. For example should a state force communities to mix? Should a state at the same time enable safeguarding the cultural diversity/distinction for developing tourism, and simply the tradition of the inhabitants?
If we put in percentage - how does a state develop a plan where it can assure the proportion between promoting minorities move into mixed cities, versus the existing number of homogeneous villages for each minority?

The Arab minority is not priveledged, their communities often suffer from a lack of resources, including government spending, infrastructure and education. Those are the sort of things that segregation reinforces.

But you actually make a really good point on protecting minority culture and communities in the face of large scale development and expansion and I don’t know the answer to that, it is a problem faced by many countries trying to balance indiginous communities with development. Should you force desegregation? No. But that raises questions.

How do you protect minority communities from being overtaken by majority expansion? Gentrification? Cultural dominance?

How do you do it in a fair way? You can legally prevent outside cultures from living there, but then to be fair you need to allow everyone to do that? If the dominant culture can bar minorities from their communities what does that lead to? De facto segregation and usually a lack of upward mobility and entrenched poverty for minority communities. America is a good example of this. The only way I see it working would be to allow minority communities to be protected in order to preserve their culture and viability, but keep the majority communities open as their culture is the culture of the nation. But that would be seen as unfair I am sure. I think America is a good example as to how these things have played out.

The Arab community lives in a democratic state, in which they chose strong Arab MP's who deal with nothing but the PA and Gaza issues, and blaming Israel for all ills of the world.
When their leaders choose to invest time in Israeli Arabs change might happen, until then no matter how much the govt invests in the community, there won't be any more result than just complaining and buying sports cars.

Here's Arabe, an Arab village in the north, those multi stories buildings are for one family,
the usual landscape of Arab communities, most Jews live in small apartments and spend 3 years serving the country, during which the former conveniently goes through a privileged education system to get a degree.

In practice, minorities are privileged in most modern democracies today.