AFF's Doublethink

Freddie — October 27, 2009 at 1:32 pm

There is a difference, of course, between supporting the state called Israel and of supporting the notion of ethnically and religiously defined states. I support the safety and prosperity of Israel as strongly as you do, frankly. But I am opposed to states that have fundamentally religious or ethnic characters, just like I am opposed to efforts to label the United States a Christian nation, just like I am opposed to the Islamic republic of Iran. Why? Because of John Stuart Mill, the Enlightenment, the basic meaning of democracy and egalitarianism, the fundamental rights of man, and other things I thought most Americans agreed with. Perhaps you don’t. But the continued support of ethnic and religious identity for Israel but for no one else, and with no philosophical or ethical explanation of why that’s permissible, is neither fair nor productive.

Sonny Bunch — October 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Here’s my problem with that formulation…I think it’s incredibly awkward to say “I support Israel’s right to exist, but I do not support how they choose to exist.” What you’re saying, either implicitly or explicitly, is that you don’t support Israel’s right to exist.

I go back and forth on how I feel about explicitly religious states. I don’t think I have a problem with a country defining itself as a religious state. I think I have a problem with that state then making it a punishable offense to be another religion and stripping rights away from members of that other group. I think Israel (and also America, at least for those who argue that America is “Christian country”) largely passes that standard (i.e., they do a good job of protecting the rights of their citizens who happen to be Muslim) while many of the explicitly Muslim countries fail that test. Israel isn’t perfect, but I’d rather be a Muslim citizen of that country than a Jew (or a Christian, for that matter) in Saudi Arabia.

Freddie — October 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm

I would too.

Personally I don’t think that’s very awkward if you simply think of it like this: there’s a state that exists called Israel which has an imperfect but strong history of liberal democratic (small l small d) governance, which happens to have an officially Jewish character. It’s a brick-and-mortar state, a functioning unit. I want the unit, the existing government and infrastructure, to proceed in peace. I just want it to abandon its official Jewish identity, with the sole and limited exception of its immigration law, which should always provide for an opportunity for Jews around the world to come to Israel for safe haven and solace. Because history tells us it’s necessary.

Is that holding Israel to a high standard? Of course. I’d like to think that it’s a similar standard that I hold my own country and other functioning, robust democracies to. Israel really is the beacon of hope in the Middle East. But that comes with a heavy burden of expectations. Perhaps that’s quietly bigoted of me, I don’t know.

Jason — October 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Freddie, Israel is not defined as a Jewish state in the same way that Iran is defined as an Islamic state. Israel is defined as a Jewish state in the way that France is a French State. This is a national distinction, not a religious one. It means that the language of conversation is Hebrew, that the day of rest is Saturday, and that Jewish culture has a formative role. It does not mean that Jewish law (Halakhah) governs.

There is a contradiction between the idea of a liberal democratic state and a Halakhic religious state, but there is no contradiction between Israel as a liberal democratic state and as a national Jewish state. That said, if you take issue with the nation-state in general then you have bigger fish to fry.

Chris Dierkes — October 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Except that there are rules whereby non-Jewish Arab Israelis are treated as second class citizens relative to the rest of the population. You can certainly say it’s better than being a minority in Saudi Arabia (which I’m sure is true), but the Israeli case is still the Israeli case regardless of their neighbors.

Sonny Bunch — October 28, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Chris, my understanding is that that’s just not true, that Israeli Arabs have all the same rights as Israeli Jews. To which rules are you referring?

Freddie — October 30, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Among other things, there are literally “Jew only” highways in Israel (not Israeli only highways, but literally Jew only) and similar. But the most pressing and obvious are vastly more rigorous rules regarding security checks and free passage. Check Mazin Qumseyah, among others.

Sonny Bunch — October 30, 2009 at 2:29 pm

It seems to me that this rumor is not quite right:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2008/05/ap_cnncom_correct_jewishonly_r.html

There are definitely roads in the West Bank and elsewhere that are “Israeli Only,” but I haven’t seen anything outside of Ha’aretz’s reports that suggests that only Israeli Jews are allowed to travel on them.

And given what the Israelis had to deal with in the various intifadas, I can’t say I blame them too harshly for relying on profiling for security reasons.