Except that there isn't any consistent political view shared by Jews. — Hanover

Or religions in general. One of the distinguishing factors between a religion and a cult I would say.

It's also not like there's a single monolithic political view among Jewish Israelis. — Hanover

To link back to the original conversation, this and the previous comment illustrate why political positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are separable from the issue of anti-semitism. In fact, it's usually the anti-semite who ascribes some monolithic political view to Jews - generally an avaricious or malicious one.

To be fair (because I take your statement as a bit of a dig at Israel), the law of return is for non-citizens, not a right reserved only for some citizens as you're implying. — shmik

That would be true if a lot of other laws didn't tie into this one and its definition of Jew and then continue to reserve rights for Jewish Israelis only. A lot of institutionalised discrimination is the result.

I find it all the more remarkable considering Hanover just argued there isn't consensus on "who's a Jew" between the various interpretations of Judaism. Well, maybe not so remarkable as it was made up by politicians. That's just asking for trouble.

Any example of a law in Israel that is only applied to Jewish citizens that have not converted to another religion?

There is plenty of discrimination in Israel but no need to exaggerate it. The law of return itself makes a lot of sense considering history. Yes only those of a specific religion get to take advantage of it and immigrate to Israel with Israeli government help. They can't just have open immigration borders, and as an example, it was about 3/4 of the Dutch Jewish population (roughly 100, 000 people) that died in the Holocaust.

Shmik, you're from the old forum and I've set out those laws time and again. If you don't care to remember them or at least the thrust of it then why on earth would I bother spelling it out again? This has been discussed ad nauseum. Zionism and democracy are simply incompatible and the Israeli high court has done nothing to stop the rightward tilt of Israeli politics.

I hardly ever read posts from the politics section of the old forum, and most likely stayed out of political conversations over the years.

Equally happy to generally avoid them here. Let's call it a day then.

Zionism and democracy are simply incompatible and the Israeli high court has done nothing to stop the rightward tilt of Israeli politics. — Benkei

Well, this makes the point of why the question of who is a Jew so significant, or maybe more generally, what makes the concept of Jewishness so significant. It's one thing to say that you must be Jewish to be significant in Israeli society and quite another to say that the culture must remain distinctly Jewish. The former is exclusionary, while the latter only dictates the cultural norms. If the French wish to set forth how the French ought to preserve their culture, no one will claim they are undemocratic, although it's clear their Muslim population (for example) might have its objection.

So, if Israel wishes to legislate that their nation is to have Jewish values and norms and to be identified as a Jewish state, that will not be undemocratic per se, but it will obviously create a culture entirely unpalatable to its Palestinian population, as they'll look at it as just another act of imperialism.

Obviously Arab nations identify themselves as Arab nations, and Jews would not be permitted to alter the culture in those nations, which is not an aside. It offers a reason for Israel's existence, namely that a historically oppressed people be given a haven for self-determination that they would otherwise not have. And truly, if not for the US likely providing a safer haven for Jews than Israel, Israel would be all that more important. It's also fairly clear at this point that without the US, there'd likely be no Israel at all.

I find it all the more remarkable considering Hanover just argued there isn't consensus on "who's a Jew" between the various interpretations of Judaism. Well, maybe not so remarkable as it was made up by politicians. That's just asking for trouble. — Benkei

It's not really arguable. The Reform Jews define Jews one way and the Orthodox another. It's a matter of fact. If you convert through the Reform synagogue, no Orthodox rabbi is going to let you lead any part of the service in synagogue (or any other Jewish rite for that matter). The reason he wouldn't is because you're not Jewish to him. You'd just be some strange blonde haired guy wearing a yarmulke.

Well, this makes the point of why the question of who is a Jew so significant, or maybe more generally, what makes the concept of Jewishness so significant. It's one thing to say that you must be Jewish to be significant in Israeli society and quite another to say that the culture must remain distinctly Jewish. The former is exclusionary, while the latter only dictates the cultural norms. If the French wish to set forth how the French ought to preserve their culture, no one will claim they are undemocratic, although it's clear their Muslim population (for example) might have its objection. — Hanover

I agree up to the sentence "the former is exclusionary..." provided these cultural norms aren't institutionalised through law. It's one thing to say "our political party represents Jewish interests" and another if the State enforces narrow interests at the expense of others. I'm not clear how it's in the Israeli Jewish community's interest to prohibit non-Jewish Israelis from buying land in order to protect "Jewish" culture (after the civil war if 1948 this includes land of displaced Palestinians). Or to give certain Jewish Israelis the right to refuse non-Jewish Israelis to live next door. Or to refuse the right of family life for non-Jewish Israelis, meaning they cannot reunite with their families in Israel (of course the right wing is happy for them to leave). It's quite obviously not about culture but about power.

After that you're a bit unclear. Are you saying that the French are right to ban the burkini?

I think H.L.A. Hart basically had the right idea about what makes good law and the ban isn't good law.

I'm not clear how it's in the Israeli Jewish community's interest to prohibit non-Jewish Israelis from buying land in order to protect "Jewish" culture (after the civil war if 1948 this includes land of displaced Palestinians). — Benkei

I've not looked up all of the claims you've made except this one, mostly because I'm at work and can't spend the time. This one in particular isn't exactly correct. 93% of all of the land in Israel is not privately owned, but is subject to long term leases. The 7% of privately held land can be sold to any citizen, Jewish or not. 69% of the land is owned by the State and 12% is owned by the Development Authority. All of this land can be leased long term to any citizen, Jewish or not. The Jewish National Fund owns the final 12%, and only this land is restricted to be leased long term to Jewish citizens. http://www.buypropertyinisrael.com/article/types-of-land-in-israel

So, 88% of the land is open to every citizen, Jewish or not. The other 12% is owned by the JNF and it apparently is imposing its rules on the leasing of the land. It is a matter of personal opinion I suppose (and how you want to spin this) as to whether this is non-Jewish discrimination or a Jewish set aside to assure Jews, a historically oppressed people, a place to live.

After that you're a bit unclear. Are you saying that the French are right to ban the burkini? — Benkei

If it is acceptable for Islamic/Arab, Islamic/Persian, Islamic/Asian, or Islamic/African states to define for themselves what an appropriate culture is, why is it unacceptable for Israel to define for itself what an appropriate Jewish culture is?

If it is acceptable for many countries to say, "women must be covered up", and various other things, why is it unacceptable for many other countries to say "women must not be covered up"? What is it about Italian, French, Swiss, Russian, English, Indian, Ugandan, or Dutch culture that rules out efforts of said cultures to maintain themselves in the kind of consistency they wish to have?

There is a tyranny of the minority which is overlooked. If one is having a dinner party for 20, and 2 of the invited guests announce gluten intolerance and veganism, their dietary requirements/preferences are likely to skew the menu significantly. Some shelters in Minnesota specify "no pork" in the donated meals they depend on. The chances of an observant Jew or Moslem eating at a shelter are not zero, but are statistically very small. "No pork" rules out a host of familiar foods which pork eating clients enjoy.

I've not looked up all of the claims you've made except this one, mostly because I'm at work and can't spend the time. This one in particular isn't exactly correct. 93% of all of the land in Israel is not privately owned, but is subject to long term leases. The 7% of privately held land can be sold to any citizen, Jewish or not. 69% of the land is owned by the State and 12% is owned by the Development Authority. All of this land can be leased long term to any citizen, Jewish or not. The Jewish National Fund owns the final 12%, and only this land is restricted to be leased long term to Jewish citizens. — Hanover

That 93% can be sold to Jewish Israelis but not to non-Jewish Israelis. I did say buy not rent or lease. So the statement was indeed inaccurate but I wouldn't say incorrect. I suppose I shall copy-paste the list of discriminatory laws that was collected here as well. Again.

Here's the first law relevant to this by the way: DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY) LAW

So there's the Development Authority which sold/transferred so that the JNF now owns approximately 13.1% of land in Israel. The Development Authority (later replaced by the Israel Land Administration agency) received land through that law that included land of former non-Jewish inhabitants of the area, that were displaced in 1948. (Or as Ben Gurion already noted in 1948: “There is not a single Jewish village in this country that has not been built on the site of an Arab village.”)

The JNF charter states it can only sell, lease or mortage land to Jewish Isrealis (or just Jews, I'm not sure). So that goes a bit further.

In 2005 there was a ruling that this was discriminatory with regard to leasing. And now, if a non-Jewish Israeli wins a lease from a JNF tender, it must be compensated by the government with an equal size of land. However, the sale of land of 93% of Israel still isn't possible except to Jewish Israelis (and in practice everything is a long lease).

f it is acceptable for many countries to say, "women must be covered up", and various other things, why is it unacceptable for many other countries to say "women must not be covered up"? — Bitter Crank

To say that "women must be covered up" is acceptable for them but not for us because it's an unnecessary restriction on personal freedom that flies in the face of modern secular values. Us trying to control how women dress in any way is to follow them down that path. Why should we do that? Are we in a competition to see who can be the most backward here? Aren't we better than that? I mean you've now got French police patrolling beaches and harassing women wearing a type of dress that consists basically of a swimming suit with a hat. It's ridiculous (not to mention insidious in that it mirrors the actions of religious police in Islamic countries like Iran).

The only sensible arguments for banning particular types of dress are practical ones. For example, in the areas of security or communication, e.g. at a bank, no burqas or motorbike helmets or anything that obscures your face. Makes sense. For nurses, teachers, legal witness, no burqas because they inhibit communication in situations where it may be vital. Also makes sense. But the burqini ban in particular is an example of a measure with no practical rationale; it's simply an unjustified attack on a culture, a form of collective punishment driven by fear and ignorance. In other words, the type of law that erodes not protects modern secular democracy.

There is a tyranny of the minority which is overlooked. If one is having a dinner party for 20, and 2 of the invited guests announce gluten intolerance and veganism, their dietary requirements/preferences are likely to skew the menu significantly. Some shelters in Minnesota specify "no pork" in the donated meals they depend on. The chances of an observant Jew or Moslem eating at a shelter are not zero, but are statistically very small. "No pork" rules out a host of familiar foods which pork eating clients enjoy. — Bitter Crank

That seems wrong to me too, but it bears almost no relation to the burqini issue because the majority lose nothing by allowing burqinis to be worn. A more apt analogy for what's happening here would be the majority forcing the Muslim/Jewish minority to eat pork, which is something I presume you would be against.

So, 88% of the land is open to every citizen, Jewish or not. The other 12% is owned by the JNF and it apparently is imposing its rules on the leasing of the land. It is a matter of personal opinion I suppose (and how you want to spin this) as to whether this is non-Jewish discrimination or a Jewish set aside to assure Jews, a historically oppressed people, a place to live. — Hanover

I would be perfectly fine with this, if it weren't for the fact that the JNF is seriously intertwined with the Israeli government and has first right to any sale of land sold by said government and other legal protections that go beyond it just being a foundation. If the government wouldn't give the JNF special treatment this wouldn't be an issue to me. At most I could then say that the JNF would be discriminatory in its allocation but I would consider the purpose for it - taken in relation to the total land it owns - reasonable.

I agree. Forcing women to dress a particular way is no way to uphold the principle that nobody should force women to dress a particular way. Ridiculous, indeed. French secularism is getting rather unhinged.

That 93% can be sold to Jewish Israelis but not to non-Jewish Israelis. — Benkei

I didn't read the article this way. I read that only 7% is private and that it could be sold to anyone. The rest is in the hands of the government or JNF, which only leases the land. Maybe you're saying that one day the government will start selling land off and that only Jews will be able to purchase it. That seems inconsistent with the article that said that once land is sold to private interests, it can be sold to anyone. It also seems like that if only 7% has been actually sold throughout the history of Israel's existence, there are no plans for this land sell off. It seems to me that Israel is well aware of the importance of keeping the land secured from the fleeting interests of private investors and so it has regulated 93% of the land by keeping it off the market.

As with everything that has to do with Israeli policy, security concerns are paramount. I get that you believe that racist issues drive Israeli policies, but it's just as easy to see that security issues offer as much explanation as anything else. Israelis are in an incredibly hostile environment, surrounded by people who want their elimination.

You mentioned that democracy and Zionism might be incompatible, when in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. I'm less concerned about the race of someone than I am in their beliefs. As long as there remains an anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, it's hard to abdicate power to Arab interests. I understand that just because one is Arab does not mean they want to eliminate Israel, but it'd be foolish to suggest the correlation doesn't exist.

I would be perfectly fine with this, if it weren't for the fact that the JNF is seriously intertwined with the Israeli government and has first right to any sale of land sold by said government and other legal protections that go beyond it just being a foundation. If the government wouldn't give the JNF special treatment this wouldn't be an issue to me. At most I could then say that the JNF would be discriminatory in its allocation but I would consider the purpose for it - taken in relation to the total land it owns - reasonable. — Benkei

I'm curious as to what practical effect the JNF leases have on the non-Jewish public. Are non-Jews actually having difficulty finding suitable housing because of the JNF rules, or is this only a matter of principle. In the US, I can't purchase or even live on Native American lands. I have no desire to live in abject poverty in remote South Dakota or various other places out west, but I suppose it's discriminatory at some theoretical level. I know I'm white, but neither I nor my ancestors drove any Native American off his land. In fact, my ancestors found their way over here long after the Indians were displaced, and they arrived here fleeing all sorts of pending horrors of their own.

I didn't read the article this way. I read that only 7% is private and that it could be sold to anyone. The rest is in the hands of the government or JNF, which only leases the land. Maybe you're saying that one day the government will start selling land off and that only Jews will be able to purchase it. That seems inconsistent with the article that said that once land is sold to private interests, it can be sold to anyone. It also seems like that if only 7% has been actually sold throughout the history of Israel's existence, there are no plans for this land sell off. It seems to me that Israel is well aware of the importance of keeping the land secured from the fleeting interests of private investors and so it has regulated 93% of the land by keeping it off the market. — Hanover

The 7% was privately owned before 1948, nothing additionaly was sold since then as far as I know (or at least nothing significant to change that percentage). And yes, you're right that if it would be sold to private Jewish Israelis they are then free to do with it as they please and sell to non-Jewish Israelis. I have a problem with discriminatory laws that require a government or one of its agencies to make a distinction based on religion (since they adhere to the definition of Jew in the Law of Return).

As with everything that has to do with Israeli policy, security concerns are paramount. I get that you believe that racist issues drive Israeli policies, but it's just as easy to see that security issues offer as much explanation as anything else. Israelis are in an incredibly hostile environment, surrounded by people who want their elimination. — Hanover

I don't know how we can move closer on this particular issue. I don't believe the environment is "incredibly hostile" and that, for instance, Palestinians want Jewish "elimination". They see a rather direct claim to living in what today is Israel because their families were displaced in 1948, they consider themselves occupied and want this to stop, they want to reunite with their families without having to give up the right to live in Israel, which, despite the discrimination, is still their home.

I do agree some Palestinians (and some people in neighbouring countries) wish the worst to Israel but they are hardly the majority but they are dictating the agenda for everybody of good will. In return Israeli right wing politicians are quite... immoral.

I also believe many Jewish Israelis believe the danger is real or at least immediate much like many Europeans now unreasonably fear Syrian refugees and French fear unarmed women in burqinis. It's a lot of misplaced fear that can't be broken by imposing martial law on occupied territories and discriminating against non-Jewish Israelis.

You mentioned that democracy and Zionism might be incompatible, when in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. I'm less concerned about the race of someone than I am in their beliefs. As long as there remains an anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, it's hard to abdicate power to Arab interests. I understand that just because one is Arab does not mean they want to eliminate Israel, but it'd be foolish to suggest the correlation doesn't exist. — Hanover

Yes, I stated that because I honestly don't believe you can institutionalise favouring one religious group (again, taking the definition from the Law of Return as repeated by the high Court several times) over others and make a claim to be a democracy. I don't believe there is an existential threat for (Israeli) Jews and if we take apartheid South-Africa and the resolution when that system collapsed as an example, the fear seems misplaced. I think it's sold like an existential threat for political convenience and PR and it plays well because Europe by and large still feels guilty about the Holocaust but it doesn't seem grounded in reality.

in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. — Hanover

Isn't that similar to the sort of hyperbole that fascists spout to push their anti-democratic agendas? "All this democracy, it's just too dangerous!" The fact is that as long as America is standing behind Israel, it can be as democratic as it wants. It may be less secure in some sense, I'll grant, but its survival won't be an issue. As it is the danger is that it will drift further and further away from Western democratic values towards the values of the more extremist regimes it considers its enemies. That's another kind of death, and a more realistic danger, I would think, the way things are headed.

(Edit: Cross-posted with Benkei)

I'm curious as to what practical effect the JNF leases have on the non-Jewish public. Are non-Jews actually having difficulty finding suitable housing because of the JNF rules, or is this only a matter of principle. In the US, I can't purchase or even live on Native American lands. — Hanover

For me it's a matter of principle and it's a good question as to the practical effect. I'm not sure.

Speaking of principle, I should mention that the sale of land by a Palestinian to a Jew is punishable by death. Worse than Israel.

Maybe both parties should simply institute private property and be done with it?

I don't believe the environment is "incredibly hostile" and that, for instance, Palestinians want Jewish "elimination". They see a rather direct claim to living in what today is Israel because their families were displaced in 1948, they consider themselves occupied and want this to stop, they want to reunite with their families without having to give up the right to live in Israel, which, despite the discrimination, is still their home. — Benkei

60% want the total elimination of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-palestinians-backing-2-states-become-minority/ . I seriously doubt the other 40% hold much kinder views. It's likely that there are good number of pragmatists in that mix who just want peace even if it means allowing what they perceive as invaders to remain.

I also believe many Jewish Israelis believe the danger is real or at least immediate much like many Europeans now unreasonably fear Syrian refugees and French fear unarmed women in burqinis. — Benkei

No, unlike in France, Israel is under constant terroristic threat. The threat is real and amount of policing required in Israel to control that threat does not compare to what you see in France. I understand that many irrationally react to perceived threats. I don't think that's occurring in Israel. The daily threat there is likely greater than the average citizen realizes.

I don't believe there is an existential threat for (Israeli) Jews — Benkei

Only because the US has adopted policies protective of Israel that you disagree with. You can only be dismissive of Israel's concerns about its destruction by conceding that you and like minded folks have no influence on American policy toward Israel. That is, Israel is safe because you're not in charge, right?

Isn't that similar to the sort of hyperbole that fascists spout to push their anti-democratic agendas. "All this democracy, it's just too dangerous!" — Baden

Sometimes it's hyperbole and sometimes it's true. As they say in the US, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact.

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson

60% want the total elimination of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-palestinians-backing-2-states-become-minority/ . I seriously doubt the other 40% hold much kinder views. It's likely that there are good number of pragmatists in that mix who just want peace even if it means allowing what they perceive as invaders to remain. — Hanover

A poll by an institute critised for its links with AIPAC. Really? Although it treats with different questions, I think this is very informative (and more trustworthy):

Joint Israeli and Palestinian Poll

No, unlike in France, Israel is under constant terroristic threat. The threat is real and amount of policing required in Israel to control that threat does not compare to what you see in France. I understand that many irrationally react to perceived threats. I don't think that's occurring in Israel. The daily threat there is likely greater than the average citizen realizes. — Hanover

Israel can't expect safety when it's occupying land and perpetuating injustice. It's under threat because it's oppressing a lot of people to then complain those people resort to violence is disingenuous. It's also a bad reason not to negotiate a lasting peace, which Israel hasn't seriously pursued since Rabin was murdered.

Moreover, what about the right to live in safety for Palestinians? Statistically speaking they are under more "constant threat" from Israel than the other way around.

Only because the US has adopted policies protective of Israel that you disagree with. You can only be dismissive of Israel's concerns about its destruction by conceding that you and like minded folks have no influence on American policy toward Israel. That is, Israel is safe because you're not in charge, right? — Hanover

Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this. If I said something to offend you, I don't want to do that. In my view, there simply isn't an existential threat because of the assymetric power relation between Israel and its neighbouring countries and the Palestinians. It's perplexing really, how insecure you seem to be about the safety of Jews in Israel in light of the military and political power Israel wields.

Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this. — Benkei

I don't know. As one of the "like minded folks", I thought that by Hanover's standards this comment wasn't particularly harsh (I checked it against the list I keep under my pillow).

It wasn't harsh. I'm just not used to Hanover getting personal; it's usually the other way around, which is why I noticed. ;)

8-)

I wasn't being personal. What I was saying was actually consistent with Baden's remark that Israel wasn't under threat of extinction because the US supported it. What I do therefore see as a real threat to Israel's existence is the withdrawal of US support. If that happened, it would be a very different backdrop. US support is not as strong under Obama in theory as it was under Bush, although I realize from a practical standpoint that little has changed.

And so the point of my post: Those who believe that Israel needn't worry about its existence due to its support from the US also believe that the US shouldn't be supporting it, which means that those same people aren't terribly worried about Israel's existence. My post ended with a question as to whether you agreed with this analysis.

Those who believe that Israel needn't worry about its existence due to its support from the US also believe that the US shouldn't be supporting it, which means that those same people aren't terribly worried about Israel's existence. — Hanover

My opinion is that as long as Israel needs support to defend its existence, it should get it. If the US weren't in the picture, Europe should do it (the only caveat would be that no country should expect absolute unconditional support). So, I, for one, don't agree with the analysis.

What is it with all these Westerners and not batting an eye whatsoever when it comes to taking other people's land and resources? Israel needs a state? Well, why didn't you give them New York City[...] — discoii

Well, we sort of did. :D