Eugene Kontorovich: Basic truths about the Basic Law
Ironically, the loudest critics of the law are those that are most eager to infringe on individual rights in the name of Jewish statehood. They expelled thousands of Jews from their homes because they said we need to do so to have a Jewish state. They wish to expel hundreds of thousands more – because they say they we want a Jewish state. What is the meaning of a Jewish self-determination if it cannot be articulated as a positive value, only as an excuse for expulsion?
Some critics object to the law not because of what is in it, but because of what is not. But their argument is disingenuous. Indeed, Meretz has challenged the Basic Law in court based on the existing protection of equality – and then turn around and say there is no constitutional protection of equality.
People talk broadly of “equality,” but no one knows what “equality” means. Does it mean the Law of Return is unconstitutional? Does it mean that those who serve the nation in the Army, such as our brothers the Druze, are not eligible for veterans’ benefits? Does it mean that the exemption of Arabs from compulsory from military service is unconstitutional? It can mean all of those things – and none of them. Without an agreement on what equality means in Knesset and society, including such a provision is simply writing a blank check to the Supreme Court to decide the most contentious social issues based purely on their opinion. That is undemocratic, and that is why it was not done.
Nothing imperils the status quo for Israel’s minorities than the suggestions cynically tossed around by the law’s opponents.
I must say a terrible word, because the critics have cynically used it in relation to the law: Apartheid. This debases the meaning and memory of Apartheid, and is as disgusting as Nazi analogies, which we know have no place in political discussions. The law does not give any group special access to public facilities. It does not change the full political and electoral rights of Israeli citizens of all ethnic groups. If this is apartheid, the word is meaningless. Indeed, the same “right-wing” parties that supported this law passed a historic 10- to 15-billion-shekel development plan for Arab communities.
Israel properly does not compare itself to neighboring regimes. But we know that the constitution adopted by the Palestinian Authority declares their entity to be Palestinian in character; with Arabic as the official language, and Islam as the official religion. If this is apartheid, why are the opponents of the law so eager to create an apartheid state?
JPost Editorial: Red Flags
The site of the rally was a message in itself. The Palestinian flags were not being raised in an Israeli Arab town such as Umm el-Fahm or Sakhnin, or even in a mixed city like Haifa. They were fluttering in the bastion of secular Israel.Ben-Dror Yemini: Shooting themselves in the flag
The calls were not to amend the Nation-State Law or to cancel it and turn the Declaration of Independence into law instead. The slogans were negating Israel’s very existence as the Jewish state.
This was not a rally of solidarity with the state, like the Druze held. It was a demonstration against the Zionist entity and enterprise.
The protest was organized by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, a self-appointed non-governmental umbrella organization that is meant to coordinate representation of Israel’s Arab community. Arab parliamentarians, including Ayman Odeh, Ahmad Tibi and Yousef Jabareen, were present. It showed yet again that the Arab MKs do not always best serve the interests of the public they are meant to represent.
Jabareen, who earlier this year submitted a counter bill dubbed “The Palestinian-State Law,” was quoted by Israel Hayom as demanding the complete abolition of the new Nation-State Law. “Adding the word ‘equality’ won’t save it and it will sow the seeds of racism in any form. Those who would be satisfied with amending the law want to mask it. No less.”
Arabs comprise some 20% of Israel’s population and have enjoyed full citizenship rights, both before and after the passage of the Nation-State Law. The rally was not aimed at achieving certain socio-economic goals, such as improved housing, education, employment or infrastructure in the Arab sector; it was aimed at taking away the right of the Jewish majority to say that Israel is a Jewish state. The call to turn Israel into a “state for all its citizens” sounds innocent and politically correct – but the underlying meaning is the end of the world’s only Jewish state.
The Nation-State Law defined the Blue-and-White stripes and Star of David as the Israeli flag. Despite the rhetoric, even after the law passed, it is not illegal to raise the Palestinian flag in Israel. But as Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid tweeted, “It’s interesting what would happen were someone to try to march in central Ramallah carrying the Israeli flag.”
The red, green, black and white flags waved at Saturday night’s rally were all red flags for the Jewish state.
There wasn't one protest on Saturday night, but two. One was of those who waved the Palestine flag, mostly in defiance. They are not seeking equality or coexistence, but the rejection of Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The second protest was of those protesting the discrimination and fighting for equality, and they think the Nation-State Law is going to make their situation worse. The first group wants to deepen the conflict; the second group wants change through legitimate protest.
The great majority of Israeli Arabs vote for the Joint List, whose leadership supports the former group. This leadership provokes. This leadership rejects Israel's right to exist. This leadership's comments and actions lead to slogans being shouted such as: "In spirit and in blood we'll save you Palestine." And on Saturday night—what a shame—these slogans were being shouted at Rabin Square.
On the other hand, all of the polls conducted in recent years indicate that 50-53 percent of Joint List voters support the definition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. They don't support every foolish thing the party's leadership does, just like Likud voters don't support every irksome declaration of constructions outside the main settlement blocs and/or outside the separation barrier. Voting for a party is about identity, not about agreeing with every statement.
The protest organizers asked not to wave Palestinian flags. They wanted to appeal to the Israeli public. It was a worthy decision. Because anyone who waves the Palestine flag at this protest is there to show defiance against Israeli flags, supports Palestinian nationalism and opposes Jewish nationalism.