Elections (or not)

Posted on December 7, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

Right now, the domestic political scene in Israel is in total chaos. Although there will supposedly be a final vote to dissolve the Knesset tomorrow, which — if it happens — will bring elections in March, it’s possible that either the Right or the Left can piece together coalitions from the present Knesset that will enable one side to form a government.

Americans may think that it’s weird that we can completely change the government with zero input from voters, but that’s a consequence of Israel’s parliamentary system and the fact that no party comes close to a majority by itself. I hope — despite the fact that it will paralyze the nation for 3 months and drive everyone nuts — that neither side succeeds and we go to elections.

If the Left succeeds in forming a new government (unlikely but possible), it will be obsequious to the Obama Administration and bring us back to the never-ending death by a thousand cuts of negotiations with the PLO, with concession after concession made to strengthen supposedly ‘moderate’ elements, which nevertheless want to eat the Jewish State (which the government will be too weak and cowardly to affirm) alive.

The Arabs, smelling weakness, will increase the pressure, ramp up terrorism and continue to pursue our dissolution via the UN, regardless of the concessions we make. The best we can hope for is that a leftist government won’t last, and we will get back to square one.

On the other hand, the only way for the Right to assemble a government today would be to include the Haredi parties, which would cynically use their newly-gained leverage to put an end to the idea that Haredim should be required to do some kind of military or civilian national service, and to increase subsidies to a massive and growing community of ‘scholars’ who do nothing but study in yeshivot.

The elimination of Haredi privilege is a principle that I think must not be abandoned, and not only because of the elementary unfairness of a situation in which a large part of society gets a free ride. It is also true that there is a dangerous divide between the Haredim and the rest of the Jewish population that is widened by the separation that they want to enforce (which is reminiscent of the separation between Jews and non-Jews in the medieval European Diaspora that they seem to yearn for). Although the Haredim don’t think so, more interaction would strengthen both sides.

Polls today, for what they are worth (not much) show that the overall trend since the last election benefits the right-wing parties. This means that after elections we could see a right-wing coalition without the Haredim. That’s the best outcome, in my opinion, and the one which most accurately represents the wishes of the majority of the electorate today.

Perhaps it’s my immigrant bias, but I don’t like the Israeli system in which we vote for parties rather than directly for representatives. This system dates back to the pre-state struggle between the various Zionist factions, and emphasizes ideology over the character and accomplishments of candidates. This has several disadvantages. Since candidates are elected nationally, they don’t represent a district, which allows for particular areas to be neglected and makes it hard for a citizen to get recourse against bureaucratic oppression.

And since the parties pick the candidates to be placed on their lists, ideological purity and adherence to party discipline trump imagination and pragmatic ability. On the other hand, it eliminates gerrymandering, the bane of democracy in the US and Britain.

Meanwhile we are in for three months and millions of shekels worth of negative campaigning, wild accusations, rumors of cabals and plots, unbelievable promises, etc.

It is also to be expected that the Obama Administration and the EU will do their best to influence the outcome of the election — as if they don’t have their own problems to deal with — while pretending to be neutral.

I have one piece of advice for them: go right ahead, because if you get caught (and you will), it will help the side you oppose.

 

Posted in Israeli Politics | 1 Comment

Secret White House transcript revealed

Posted on December 4, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

WhitehouseNews item:

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is examining taking action against the construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, rather than making do with issuing denunciatory statements.

Senior Israeli officials said that White House officials held a classified discussion a few weeks ago about the possibility of taking active measures against the settlements.

A few senior American officials approached by Haaretz did not deny this, but refused to disclose more details. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan refused to comment.

A discussion on such a sensitive and politically-loaded issue in the White House is extremely irregular and shows to what extent relations between the Obama administration and Netanyahu government have deteriorated. …

The White House has not yet decided on steps against the settlements and when, if at all, to carry them out. Significant steps against the settlements may exact a heavy political price from Obama, while symbolic steps would be meaningless and have no effect.

In addition, it isn’t yet clear how the decision to hold early elections will affect the White House’s decisions regarding the settlements. One of the aspects of this that is being looked into by the U.S. government is whether American action against the settlements at this point would weaken Netanyahu in Israeli public opinion, or do just the opposite, by portraying him as one who doesn’t cave in to international pressure.

Some years ago, Israeli intelligence developed a tiny drone, the size and appearance of a common housefly. Equipped with a microphone and Internet access, it has enabled the Mossad to eavesdrop on supposedly secret meetings in Tehran, Gaza and now Washington. Thanks to its unparallelled access to anonymous sources, Abu Yehuda brings you an exclusive look at the transcript of one such meeting. Since we can’t be sure of the identity of the speakers, we’ve given them numbers.

Speaker 1: This may shock some of you, but we’ve learned that seven — seven — Jewish families have purchased apartments in East Jerusalem. Do you realize what this means?

Speaker 2: That Jews can finally afford apartments in Jerusalem?

S1: No, you idiot. That they are contaminating Palestinian land. They are defiling it!

Speaker 3: Er, I think you are referring to the Temple Mount, sir. Abu Mazen says —

S1: The what?

S3: Um, Haram al Sharif, sir. You know. It was members of their Knesset that went up there while the Arab kids were playing football. Abu Mazen was furious at the desecration.

S1: Oh. Well, that’s bad too. Imagine if members of Congress went up to my golf course! Anyway, I heard somebody say that they they were thinking about planning to prepare to start someday building 2,600 new apartments in Givat Hamatos. Now I’m furious!

S2: Givat Hamatos? Isn’t that already a Jewish neighborhood, right next to the Green Line that everyone agrees would remain part of Israel in any peace agreement?

S1: Why are you so dumb? Don’t you understand that everything over the Green Line is Palestinian land? You can’t have Jews there! What good is Palestinian land if there are Jews in it?

S3: Yeah, Abu Mazen said…

S2: But the Mandate declared that the land from the river to the sea was intended for Jewish settlement. What changed that?

S1: Did you flunk History? I went to Columbia and Harvard! I took courses from Rashid Khalidi! It was Jordanian land and they, er, gave it to the Palestinians.

S2: Actually I majored in History with a minor in International law. The Jordanians illegally invaded the territory in 1948. And UNSC resolution 242…

S3: Now, gentlemen. Let’s not quibble. We know that settlers on the wrong side of the line are the biggest obstacle to world peace. Ban Ki Moon explained that the reason Hizballah is about to launch 100,000 rockets at Israel is because there isn’t a peace agreement with the PA! And what about ISIS? It’s their best recruiting tool, after sex slaves. We need to get them out of there so we can have peace.

Speaker 4 (appears to wake up from nap): Yess! Get dem oudt of dere! Give dem a USS Liberty in reverze! Bumb ze zhit oudt of dem! Ve get pees!

S1: Calm down, Zbig. We don’t want to go too far. Bombing settlements might encourage Israelis to vote for Bibi. And that would be tragic. But maybe just one or two Tomahawks…

S3: That’s right. They aren’t paying attention to my denunciatory statements! Who do they think they are? Don’t they know we’re their bosses? We’ll stop buying their bananas!

S2: But what if Congress…

S4: Cungress? To hell vit Cungress! Ve’ll bumb [unintelligible] Cungress too…

S1: Zbig, calm down. You’ll wake the girls. And you, Kerry — swat that damn fly on the wall.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

Posted in US-Israel Relations | 1 Comment

Yes, we need a Basic Law: the Jewish State

Posted on December 1, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal
The symbol of the State of Israel, as defined in the proposed Jewish State law

The symbol of the State of Israel, as defined in the proposed Jewish State law

One of the reasons I haven’t written anything for a week is that I’ve been thinking about the “Jewish State Law.” I wrote about it here, but since then there has been vicious criticism of the idea from the Left, which is calling its proponents anti-democracy, fascists, racists, destroyers of Zionism, and more. There have also been practical objections from the Right, which argues that the proposed law won’t solve the real problem, which is the growing imbalance between the unaccountable Israeli Supreme Court and the elected Knesset. The fight seems to be developing into a full-blown coalition crisis, which might lead to the dissolution of the Knesset and early elections.

The argument is over whether a law that declares that “The right to realize national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People” is a good idea. You can (and should) read the full text of PM Netanyahu’s version of the law at this link.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence, its existing Basic Laws and the proposed law all describe Israel as both Jewish and democratic. In the broadest sense, democracy means that the actions of a government are an expression of the collective will of the majority, usually through elected representatives.

This implies that the government must protect the individual rights of members of the majority and minorities as well, since it would be impossible for the will of the people to be expressed if they were not free to think, speak, associate, etc. as they choose. Freedom, in other words, is essential to democracy. The proposed law states that

The State of Israel is democratic, based on the foundations of freedom, justice and peace in light of the visions of the prophets of Israel, and upholds the individual rights of all its citizens according to law.

It makes a clear distinction between individual rights and the “right to realize national self-determination.” The former apply to all citizens, while the latter is reserved for the Jewish people. There is no doubt in my mind that this agrees with the Zionist ideas expressed by Herzl, Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion, Begin, Rabin, and others. And I also think the majority of Israel’s population would agree as well (notable exceptions are Palestinian nationalists and Ha’aretz columnists).

The more difficult question is about collective rights of minorities. Palestinian nationalists among Israel’s Arab citizens insist that in addition to individual rights they also have national rights as a group. In the Haifa Declaration of 2007, an influential group of Israeli Arabs (they dislike being called this) demanded that Israel accept full responsibility for the conflict, eliminate all Jewish symbolism (flag, national anthem, etc.), replace the Law of Return for Jews with one for “Palestinians,” establish a Palestinian state in the territories, and give the Arab sector a veto over all decisions of the government.

Partly in response to these demands, the proposed law specifies the kind of collective rights for minorities that the state must preserve:

The State will act to enable all residents of Israel, regardless of religion, race or nationality, to preserve their culture, heritage, language and identity.

At the same time, it explicitly defines the national anthem, the flag and national holidays as those of the Jewish people. It also enshrines the Law of Return in a Basic Law. It does not envision granting national rights to minority groups, or, in other words, creating a multinational state.

With apologies to The Rolling Stones, Democracy means that you can’t always get what you want (your own country) — but you can get what you need (your civil rights).

The Haifa Declaration seems extreme. But Israel does not have a constitution, there is nothing in the existing Basic Laws which contradicts any of the Haifa declaration’s demands, and the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty states that “All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity [כבוד האדם].” It’s easy to imagine an activist Supreme Court deciding that the Jewish symbolism of the state violates the ‘dignity’ of Arab residents.

And Israel has such an activist court. In the 1990’s the former President of the court, Aharon Barak, decreed that the court would have the right of judicial review of laws passed by the Knesset. He did this on the basis of a tenuous theory that nothing is beyond the scope of legal control:

In my eyes, the world is filled with law. Every human behavior is subject to a legal norm. Even when a certain type of activity-such as friendship or subjective thoughts-is ruled by the autonomy of the individual will, this autonomy exists, because it is recognized by the law…. Wherever there are living human beings, law is there. There are no areas in life which are outside of law. [Aharon Barak, 1992, quoted by Neuer (linked above)].

Recently, the Court voided two versions of a law that allows Israel to detain illegal immigrants. Supporters of the law see uncontrolled illegal immigration imperiling the Jewish character of the state and are unhappy that this is subordinated to the ‘rights’ of the migrants.

The aforementioned Basic Laws are far short of a constitution. For example, there is no mention of freedom of the press, and the same people who are fulminating against the Jewish State law are trying to pass one to put a particular newspaper out of business because of its political point of view. And the power grab by Justice Barak was enabled by the lack of any explication in the Basic Laws of the relationship of the Court to the Knesset.

The 9 member selection committee for the Court includes three justices of the existing court, the Minister of Justice and two representatives of the Bar Association, along with another minister and two members of the Knesset. This almost guarantees a majority to perpetuate the left-leaning ideological direction of the Court.

Caroline Glick believes that rather than passing a Jewish State law, it’s more important to rein in the High Court:

The unavoidable fact is that the only way to curb the power of the court is to take direct action against the sources of its arrogated powers. The Knesset must amend Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the basis for the Supreme Court’s post-Zionist actions.

It must change the selection process for justices.

It must end the anomalous and anti-democratic situation in which the state prosecutors and attorney- general are above elected leaders.

It must end the devastating trend in which every senior government appointment, and many Knesset decisions, must receive prior approval from a judge or from a committee led by judges.

I think she’s right about this, but I also think the new Basic Law should be passed. Most of the objections boil down to the observation that it will annoy (or infuriate) minorities, the EU, the UN, the Obama Administration, etc. But surely any loyal-to-the-state member of a minority group who actually reads it will not find it objectionable, since it does no more than make explicit the nature of the state as it is; and those who want to de-Zionize the state are already permanently furious.

If the Basic Laws must serve as a surrogate constitution — and I think they must, because I can’t imagine the disparate elements in Israeli society agreeing on the terms of a constitution — then a Jewish state law is both necessary and appropriate.

Posted in Israeli Arabs, Israeli Politics | 1 Comment

Don’t give them the narrative

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

DryBonesQuizNarrative is everything in information warfare.

If you give your enemy the narrative, then the game is tilted in his favor from the start.

Palestinian Arabs constantly repeat the myth that they are an indigenous people and we stole their land. This is an article of faith in Europe, the UK, American campuses, Tel Aviv coffee houses and the White House.

Our officials act as though they believe this. They offer to ‘return’ land to the ‘Palestinians’ in return for security from their terrorism. They feel guilty about ‘Palestinian refugees’ whose ancestors mostly left to escape a war that they and their allies started and who were kept in refugee camps because the Arab states and (later) the PLO wanted them there to be an army against Israel.

The myth is made-up history. They aren’t indigenous. They are mostly Arabs from Syria, Egypt and other places whose ancestors arrived here in the 19th and 20th centuries. And they would have lost nothing if they and their allies hadn’t waged war against us. We don’t owe them anything.

The PLO pretended to want a peaceful state alongside Israel. Our leaders, again, acted as though the believed this. We brought it back from the dead, gave it a base next door to us, armed and funded it. But it is the same terrorist gang that it was in 1972, when it murdered our athletes in Munich. Thousands of Jews (and not a few Arabs) died because of this monumental stupidity.

Two myths — the existence of a wronged “Palestinian people” and the peaceful intentions of the PLO. They are the received wisdom in most of the world. Why shouldn’t they be? We and most of our leaders don’t dispute it!

Even PM Netanyahu, who certainly knows that he can’t trust the PLO, acts as though it is possible to give up land to some kind of ‘demilitarized’ Palestinian entity in return for quiet.

It isn’t. Give them a base and they will fortify it and attack us from it. But more important, give them anything and it legitimizes their always-escalating demands. The so-called “peace process” was nothing but an extortion process.

We need to recover from the mistake of Oslo, to tell the world over and over that we do not recognize the “Palestinian people” as an entity that has the right to demand anything from us, and that we consider the PLO (and Hamas and all the other factions waving their AKs in the air) as terrorists who are guilty of multiple murders and crimes against humanity.

Many people say there is value in cooperating with the PLO against Hamas. They are enemies and the enemy of our enemy, etc. I think it’s not worth it. Our relationship to both the PLO and Hamas should be the same: massively disproportionate response to terrorism.

It is also important to tell the Arab citizens of Israel that we won’t treat them as a national minority. They are an ethnic and religious minority, Arabs and Muslims or Christians, who have civil rights as citizens of the state. They are not “Palestinians” who have special political rights. Unlike virtually all the Arab states, who have treated Jews as a (hated) national minority and expelled them, we will not expel them just for being Arabs. We do require that they don’t try to murder us.

So they feel oppressed living in a Jewish state? Where on earth is the Arab or Muslim state in which Arabs are as free to do as they please as Israel? What kind of rights do they have in Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Is the fact that we sing Hatikva more painful than the real repression in those countries? This shows that it is not a question of wanting to be free of oppression, but rather a desire to be free of Jews.

Finally, we needn’t be ashamed of our own identity as a Jewish state, the state of the Jewish people. Unlike the “Palestinians,” we do have a history. This does not agree with what Natan Sharansky calls the “post-identity” philosophy, but who cares? The Europeans, who are the great proponents of eliminating national identities and becoming world citizens, are watching their formerly great civilization die, both by demographic attrition and the thousand cuts of terrorism, murder and rape.

I am for telling the truth, and negotiating on the basis of the truth. If we don’t do this, who will?

Posted in 'Peace' Process, Information war, Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Zionism | 4 Comments

Four Jews and a policeman

Posted on November 21, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

The policeman woke before dawn to go to work.
Maybe he kissed his beautiful daughter.
Their picture would be on everyone’s newspaper and TV.

The Jews also rose early to daven shacharis before starting their day.
Sometime before the conclusion of the shmon esreh,
It could have been the first Tisha b’Av, or York, England in 1190 CE.
Or Kishniev in 1903, or Hevron in 1929, or Poland in 1943.

The pictures on the newspapers and TV were unbearable.

History is like this, but
We’re not giving up.

Posted in Terrorism | Comments Off on Four Jews and a policeman

Israel’s War of Survival

Posted on November 19, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

You don’t win wars until you know who the enemy is or what you are fighting for. Sometimes it’s not clear, even when the war you are called on to fight is one of self-defense. We are presently engaged in what could be called Israel’s second war of independence, or as I prefer, the War of Survival. We are fighting in at least two different theaters of warfare.

In one we are confronting Iran and its Hizballah proxy. This is hard to do but not hard to understand: they have lots of missiles and will have nuclear weapons. We need to destroy these capabilities while protecting ourselves. This will be a painful and difficult struggle, but it is a struggle whose dimensions our leaders grasp and are preparing for. It is job for the IDF, and we can only provide it with resources and hope that it succeeds.

The other enemy, one might say, is the ‘Palestinians’, in the form of the PLO, Hamas and other factions. But this is inaccurate. The Palestinian Arabs do not have the ability to directly challenge Israel, much as they would like to. They, like Hizballah, are a proxy. I’ve called them “the point of the spear.” The real enemies that we are confronting in the Palestinian theater of the War of Survival are the much more powerful forces that fund and support the Palestinians while carrying out diplomatic warfare to weaken Israel and make it harder to defend in the military stages of the conflict.

Yes, I am talking about Europe and the Obama Administration. And yes, I am quite consciously calling them ‘enemies’ because that is what they are.

None of our enemies are stupid. The Iranians are smart enough to develop nuclear weapons while pretending to negotiate a deal that theoretically would prevent them from doing so. And the Obama Administration is smart enough to use carrots as well as sticks in its campaign to weaken Israel.

Our Western enemies understand that a sovereign Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would be a strategic disaster for Israel. They understand that the geography of the land is such that Israel must control the Jordan Valley, the high ground overlooking its population centers, and the airspace from the river to the sea in order to protect itself (watch this short video). So they do their best to create a sovereign Palestinian state there.

They also understand the importance of Jerusalem as Israel’s spiritual center. So they do their best to divide our capital city and place the most important holy places in the hands of the Arabs. And they support the Arabs in their efforts to weaken our sovereignty there.

They know that Israel couldn’t expect another 6-day war-type miracle if forced to give up its strategic depth. And they know that the Arabs would not respect the Jewish holy places or allow Jews to visit them once they had control.

They know these things and they continue their diplomatic warfare because they do not want a Jewish state to exist any more than the Arabs or Iranians do. And this is despite the fact, which they also know, that Israel is the last outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East!

You may well ask why. The Europeans, in my opinion, are driven by a deep psychological dysfunction that springs from their colonialist history and the complicity of many non-Nazis throughout the continent with Hitler’s program. Only the complete disappearance of the Jews will entirely solve their problem, but eliminating our state would go a long way.

The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has simply accepted the narrative pushed by the KGB in the 1960s that portrays Israel as colonialist, racist and anti-human rights. This is exactly the opposite of the truth, but the university environments in which these folks came of age emphasized ‘Ethnic Studies’ and similar ‘relevant’ disciplines more than old-fashioned History. Of course the European Left bought the KGB story too.

There are also other factors at work, like a US State Department which still sides with George Marshall over Harry Truman about the desirability of a Jewish state.

At this time, the Palestinian theater isn’t at the stage of open warfare, although it is at a simmering boil with a huge upsurge in small-scale but remarkably ugly terrorism. How should Israel respond?

Naturally, Israel has no choice but to do its best to implement security measures against terrorism. But on a strategic level it is also necessary to oppose the initiatives of its enemies in Europe and America.

The policy of pretending to pursue an unobtainable ‘peace’ with the PLO plays directly into their hands. It enables Israel to be caught between the pincers of Arab terrorism and Western pressure to make concessions to the same terrorists (which the US and Europe pretend are not the same). The intention is to chip away at Jewish sovereignty. Other tactics include legal and media pressure from EU-funded NGOs, various UN activities, interference in Israeli internal affairs, etc.

The best way to fight any war is to take the offensive, as every good general knows. This means that Israel should aggressively assert its sovereignty in all the places where it is being challenged: in Judea and Samaria (at least in Area C where Jewish communities are located and almost no Arabs live), in Jerusalem — particularly on the Temple Mount — and in the Arab towns inside the Green Line where almost any pretext is taken for violent riots. As I suggested yesterday, passing a Basic Law defining Israel as the state of the Jewish people would be a good start.

I said that the war with Hizballah and Iran would be painful, and the diplomatic war with Europe and the Obama administration will be so as well. The Europeans already have a plan for sanctions against Israel if it will not do their bidding. The Obama Administration has a whole laundry list of ways it can punish Israel, as we saw during Operation Protective Edge. Nevertheless we can’t win this kind of war when nobody knows what we are fighting for.

The answer is a fully sovereign Jewish state.

Posted in Europe and Israel, Israel and Palestinian Arabs, US-Israel Relations, War | 2 Comments

This is the Jewish state — get used to it

Posted on November 18, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

This morning, I took two of my grandchildren to their preschools. On the way back, a few minutes before 8, I walked past a little market. In front there was a TV, and on the TV a headline: Attack at Jerusalem Synagogue, 5 dead

Palestinian social media responds to the synagogue murders

Palestinian social media responds to the synagogue murders

The radio reports that two or three Arab terrorists — at least one from the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Jebel Mukhaber — walked into the Kehillat Bnei Torah synagogue on Agassi St., where they carried out a slaughter with guns, knives and axes. Four of the worshipers were killed outright, one (a policeman) is in the hospital in extremely critical condition, and some 13 (per current reports) were injured. Two terrorists were shot dead by police in a firefight on the steps of the synagogue, but not before they fired on first responders coming to the aid of victims. Police are searching for a possible third terrorist.

I cannot remember a sight as shocking as the scene in the synagogue. Jews wrapped in prayer shawls and [tefillin] wallowing in puddles of blood … images we saw only in the Holocaust. — Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, head of Zaka emergency service [from Avi Mayer via Twitter]

More details will be forthcoming, but we know enough. More than enough.

We know that despite the fact that last week John Kerry announced after meeting with Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinian leader “restated his commitment to nonviolence and to restoring calm,” official Palestinian Authority media continues to broadcast incitement against Israel and Jews (see also here).

We know that Hamas and Islamic Jihad praised the “heroic act,” which they claimed was in response to the alleged ‘murder’ of an Arab bus driver in Jerusalem. The driver was found hanged in his bus, and police ruled it a suicide. Of course, even if they are wrong, there is no evidence that he was murdered by Jews. But anything, or nothing, is a reason to kill us.

We know that the Palestinian Authority as well as Hamas-linked media have been stirring up trouble by claiming that Israel intends to take over or destroy the al-Aqsa mosque. PM Netanyahu has reiterated that Israel has absolutely no intention to change the so-called ‘status quo’, in which the Temple Mount is under Muslim administration and Jews are not allowed to pray (or even move their lips suggestively) there. But disturbances continue there almost daily, and the ‘Jewish plot’ is used as an excuse for terrorism like the shooting of Rabbi Yehuda Glick, whose ‘crime’ was to advocate that Jews, too, might pray on the mount.

In other words, we know that the present epidemic of violence against Jews — both by Arabs from the territories or, like today, by Arab residents of Israel — is a creature of the Palestinian leadership.

It’s time for a reevaluation of the relationship between Israel and the PA, as well as its Arab residents. I suggest that we start with the passage of the Basic Law that defines Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and follow up with the annexation of Area C, the parts of Judea and Samaria that are under Israeli control and where all the Jewish communities are. Areas A and B, where 97% of the Arabs live, can be granted political autonomy, but must remain under Israeli security control — borders, airspace, etc.

Is this a problem? Too bad. A completely sovereign ‘Palestine’ in the territories is inconsistent with the continued existence of a Jewish state. This is true regardless of the “aspirations of the Palestinian people.” This isn’t something that can be negotiated; it’s a fact of geography.

That’s it. No more ‘peace process’ that envisions a sovereign ‘Palestine’ in Judea and Samaria. The Palestinian Arabs were on the losing side of several wars and intifadas that they or their allies started. Those are the consequences. They can call it “Nakba 2.0” if they want.

It should also be understood that Israel is sovereign in Jerusalem, including on the Temple Mount. It is outrageous that Jews should be prevented from praying or harassed by mobs of screaming Muslims when they set foot on the holiest place in Judaism. All faiths should be allowed to access their holy places, period. And it is outrageous that some neighborhoods should be no-go zones for Jews. Many IDF soldiers lost their lives in the battles for Jerusalem — it is unacceptable that we should allow our hard-won sovereignty to slip away.

Finally, we need to send the message to our Israeli-Arab residents, particularly in eastern Jerusalem: this is the Jewish state — get used to it. We own it. The descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees are not coming back. The flag is the Magen David and the national anthem is Hatikva. If you can’t stand the lack of Arab or Muslim sovereignty, you can go to the PA areas or Gaza, or 22 other Arab states, or even Sweden for all we care. But if you want to live here and enjoy the benefits provided by the State of Israel to all of its citizens, Jews and Arabs, then you have to stop trying to kill Jews or overthrowing our state.

Posted in 'Peace' Process, Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Arabs, Terrorism | 6 Comments

Who’s afraid of admitting that it’s a Jewish state?

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Victor Rosenthal

News item:

The Ministerial Committee for Legislation was scheduled to debate and vote Sunday on a legislation proposal seeking to declare Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The bill, presented to the committee as “Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” has already been labeled a potential catalyst for a coalition crisis.

The proposal, sponsored by Coalition Chairman MK Zeev Elkin (Likud), and backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was presented to the committee soon after the government was formed in 2013, but was shelved due to the objections of Yesh Atid and Hatnuah.

The bill seeks to cement, for the first time, Israel’s nature at the Jewish nation-state. It states that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, and where it has the historical right to realize its aspiration for self-determination. The proposal further states that the right to national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

The legislation proposal also includes articles regulating the status of Hebrew as Israel’s primary official language, while affording Arabic a special status; as well as the mandatory teaching of the Jewish people’s history and traditions in all state schools.

Israel does not have a constitution. The role of a constitution is taken by several “Basic Laws,” which define the structure of the Knesset and how it is elected, the budget, the relationship of the state to the military, a partial ‘bill of rights’, and other things. But they do not (yet) describe the nature of the state that they regulate.

A constitution normally starts with a preamble or initial articles which define the nature of the state and the authority by which sovereignty is asserted. It is usually followed by statements about the national languages, state religions (if any), etc. This proposed Basic Law would do this for Israel.

Unlike states which were formed by accretion, conquest or colonial fiat, the state of Israel was created in a conscious act as a concrete realization of the philosophy of Zionism. This is expressed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, but that document doesn’t have the force of law.

Most Israelis agree with the conception in the Declaration of Independence that Israel will be both a Jewish and democratic state. Naturally there are various definitions of both of these ideas. But as yet there is no explication at all of the Jewish nature of the state in the Basic Laws, and only a partial one of Israeli democracy (for example, there is no explicit statement about freedom of speech and press).

Since the 1990s, several new Basic Laws have been enacted: in particular one entitled Human Dignity and Liberty and another called Freedom of Occupation. These laws are the beginning of a “bill of rights” which, when completed, will express the ‘democratic’ part of the idea of the state.

Some Israeli leaders, for example Naftali Bennett, are concerned that the ‘democratic’ part will be legislated in such a way as to preclude the ‘Jewish’ part, resulting in a “state of its citizens” — a secular, democratic state. In such a state, it would be wrong to have a Law of Return that treats Jews differently than Arabs. It would not be possible to consider the national demographics of the state when making decisions about immigration and granting asylum to migrants. The national anthem and flag, which relate specifically to the Jewish people, would be inappropriate. [Here is a Hebrew video in which Bennett explains his position].

The opponents of the new Basic Law (the Left and Arab parties) claim the opposite, that it is anti-democracy.

It is also the case that Israel’s Supreme Court judges proposed legislation and government actions on the basis of conformity with the Basic Laws (although, interestingly, there is nothing in the Basic Laws that gives it the right to do this!) Bennett and others think that the present situation is unbalanced, and so want to make it necessary for the high court — which has historically leaned to the left — to consider the Jewish part of of the equation in its deliberations.

PM Netanyahu has said that he supports the law, but wants further consideration of details. I think this is a reasonable position.

I understand that the Arabs and the extreme anti-Zionist Left are opposed. But I would say this to those opponents (like Tzipi Livni) who consider themselves Zionists:

We know what you think democracy is. But please explain exactly what you mean by Zionism.

Posted in Israeli Politics, Zionism | Comments Off on Who’s afraid of admitting that it’s a Jewish state?