Critics believe that if passed, the law will effectively favor Israel’s Jewish values at the expense of democratic ones
Protesters numbering in the thousands participated in an “emergency rally” through central Tel Aviv on Saturday night to protest Israel’s controversial nation-state bill, terming it racist and discriminatory.
Israeli parliamentarians, public figures, and activists took part in the protest, giving speeches and marching with banners, one of which read, “This is home for all of us.”
Civil society organizations and individuals promoting social justice and co-existence issued a joint statement, reading, “The nation-state law would turn racism, discrimination and segregation into an inescapable part of our lives. More than that—racism and discrimination are becoming desired and central in the State of Israel. The nation-state law will bring exclusion and damage to minorities to terrifying levels we have never seen before. Our stance is clear: all citizens—all—are equal.”
If passed, the Likud-sponsored legislation would more firmly position Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, prioritizing, in the eyes of many, Jewish values over democratic ones. In this respect, the proposed law would enshrine Hebrew as the lone official language of the state, while demoting Arabic from an official language to one with a “unique status.” It would also cement into law the Hebrew calendar as the official one of the state, recognize Jewish symbols like the menorah as those of the state, and reinforce the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
But more worrisome for opponents of the bill was the provision allowing for the establishment of what they deemed segregated communities. It declared that “the state may allow a community, including members of one religion or of one nationality, to maintain a separate communal settlement.”
Critics argue that the provision would have legalized housing discrimination against Arabs and other minorities such as Ethiopians, Druze and gays, among others.
On Sunday, though, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Education Minister Naftali Bennett reached a compromise to modify the controversial clause. The new one, which will be voted on in the coming days, affirms that the “state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”
Opponents are also concerned the bill will tarnish Israel’s image abroad. President Reuven Rivlin, whose position is largely symbolic, voiced concerns in a rare example of presidential political intervention. In a letter addressed to lawmakers, he warned the bill “could harm the Jewish people worldwide and in Israel and could even be used as a weapon by our enemies.”
Likud Parliamentarian Avi Dichter first put forth the nation-state bill for consideration in 2014. Having faced criticism from all sides—from the opposition as well as more liberal members of the Likud—the bill was relegated to the back-burner. Since then, the bill has inspired numerous incarnations, though none of them made it through the full legislative process.
Israeli parliamentarians are scheduled to propose amendments to the latest bill with the goal of finalizing it for a plenary vote before July 22, when parliament disperses for summer recess.
Meanwhile, Jewish leaders in the U.S. have picked up their lobbying efforts in the hope of persuading Jerusalem to scrap the bill. Many are worried that it will spell the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, committed to upholding universal values.
Dr. Amir Fuchs, head of the Defending Democratic Values Program at the Israel Democracy Institute, told The Media Line that the bill, if passed, would damage Israel’s standing.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if some people would call it an apartheid law, which I don’t agree with, but I can understand why people would interpret it as a very discriminating law damaging to Israel’s democracy.”
He qualified that the “apartheid” characterization is inaccurate because the bill does not create separate classes subject to different regulations. In his estimation, it is also highly unlikely that more laws will be created to grant further rights to Jews as opposed to non-Jews.
But Fuchs warned that law could be used in some cases to justify policies that promote Jewish towns and cities over non-Jewish ones.
“On this specific issue, I think this is a terrible law that really infringes on equality,” he asserted, adding that the initiative plays into the hands of those who hate Israel and is “a good weapon for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.”
Professor Bernard Avishai, author of The Tragedy of Zionism and The Hebrew Republic, contended to The Media Line that the proposed law is an attempt to codify a reality that has existed since the 1930s.
“Then there was an insurgent community of revolutionary Zionists who were trying to create something within Palestine. They needed these norms and a segregated way of living to put down the DNA of a Hebrew-speaking society and incubate what Israel eventually became.”
Today, however, Prof. Avishai does not believe such a system is necessary and, moreover, it does not correlate well with Israel’s democratic values.
Instead, he believes that the proposed law is a roadblock for Israeli liberals who have been fighting against “the legacy of revolutionary Zionist institutions that have created these forms of discrimination anyway.”
These liberals have been “trying to imagine an Israel that could be democratic in a form that the international community would recognize. This law becomes an obstacle because suddenly the things that Israeli liberals are fighting to redress have assumed quasi-constitutional status.”