Is Israel evolving into a fascist nation?

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

And I can see why you would ignore some of my post, as you still haven't explained why protecting cultural identity is a bad thing.

Equality laws like freedom of religion beat protect cultural identity. Not govt endorsements of specific groups over others. Again, it is why so few countries do it and the ones that do are criticized few for it. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

see #2 in one of your previous posts on this page )
In Canada we firmly believe in protecting our British derived heritage, but we also protect the culture of immigrants through tax-payer funded Multiculturalism.
( the only one that used the 'notwithstanding' clause of the constitution to get around that, and favor French-Canadian culture, is Quebec )
Our Multiculturalism seems to work much more harmoniously than your American 'melting pot' model.

But why ignore your own post and link.
State religions aren't only found in the Middle East ( as you quickly dismissed in your post ).
They are also in countries like Argentina, Poland, Greece, England, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Some of these are not bad company at all.
( I can see the OP now, "Sweden evolving into a fascist state" )

I have already said I disagree with the practice every place it exists.  This thread isn't about Argentina, Poland, Greece, England, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Also if you peak in the BUI & Utopia threads I have criticized Scandinavian countries for have economic caste systems. So your point that other countries aren't being criticized is inaccurate. I am done your whataboutism. This thread is about Israel.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

But your link also states that Judaism is considered a 'culture' in Israel, and all other religions are free to be practiced, as are most likely, all other cultures.

Considering you bit about not qouting people this bit is rather ironic. All religious beliefs are legal to practice but one has been officially endorsed and in various areas has preference over others. 

 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

have previously conceded that I don't agree with expanding settlements, and the fact that this bill offers 'support' for such, could be a bad thing, and further destabilize the area.
But the fact that this bill makes Israel the 'homeland' and 'unique' to the Jewish people ( not religion ) doesn't prevent/exclude any one else from making it their home with equal rights to everyone else.

Except of course those families who have been displaced by those settlements. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

When nations wish to preserve who they are, instead of working towards evolving into a new co-operative state, there will always be conflict.

Change is one of the few constants. In my opinion humans need to get past silly allegiances to temporary conditions. Israel, U.S., Canada, UK, Saudi Arabia, and etc, etc are all temporary. They have not always existed and will eventually expire to time and other nations will follow. Humans should be committed to humanity as whole. Protectionism of any Institution is futile just ask the Romians or Aztecs. 

[StringJunky]

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Change is one of the few constants. In my opinion humans need to get past silly allegiances to temporary conditions. Israel, U.S., Canada, UK, Saudi Arabia, and etc, etc are all temporary. They have not always existed and will eventually expire to time and other nations will follow. Humans should be committed to humanity as whole. Protectionism of any Institution is futile just ask the Romians or Aztecs. 

<sings> There'll always be an England!  Compared to some other countries, we are making better headway in becoming cosmopolitan and in legal principle we are. Where the law points, the people follow, kicking and screaming, until they think "Hey, this isn''t so bad after all". It's the young ones that follow the new path without much resistance and the old ones die off. That's why it takes a couple of generations to see marked social change.

Edit. Just read this, hot off Reuters:

Quote

LONDON (Reuters) - Former Donald Trump political strategist Steve Bannon and a top associate have created a Brussels-based political organization intended to undermine, and ultimately paralyze, the European Union, Bannon and the associate told Reuters.

In an interview and email conversations, Bannon and Raheem Kassam, a former chief aide to British anti-EU leader Nigel Farage who now serves as a Bannon lieutenant, said the group, known as The Movement, is already operating and hiring.

“The Movement will be our clearing house for the populist, nationalist movement in Europe. We’re focusing attention on assisting individuals or groups concerned with the matters of sovereignty, border control, jobs, amongst other things,” Kassam said.

“We decided to headquarter out of Brussels because it is the heart of the European Union — the most pernicious force against nation state democracy in the West today. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-parliament-bannon/former-trump-aide-bannon-sets-up-group-to-undermine-eu-idUSKBN1KD20J

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

On 7/22/2018 at 12:55 PM, MigL said:

Article 4, of the Palestinian constitution, states that Islam is the official religion of Palestine, with respect for all other religions.

I haven't actually read the bill passed by Israel, so I'm making a few assumptions.
But what, then, is so upsetting about declaring that Israel's religion is officially Judaism, as long as other religions are also allowed and not forced out ?

So the Article 4  states that Islam is the official religion (and the sanctity of other heavenly religions shall be maintained. Two things of note. First, there are other countries which have state religions (including some nordic states, England etc.). In itself one could argue for or against it, but it is not quite the same as what is proposed in the bill (which one probably should read). Before I continue with it, I should mention that even if the Palestinian constitution had questionable provisions  (I'd have to read the whole thing, for which I do not have the time right now) one would hope that Israel would provide a better example (after all, it is supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the middle East. Also I want to re-iterate that while there are little practical provisions in terms of shifting to more autocratic system, it does show a certain political shift. Similar to the rise of right wing groups in Europe, which could lead to constitutional issues (as seen in Poland).   

Among the problematic provisions are the following and to make sure, I do not have any expertise in that area, so my interpretation could be way off but:

Quote

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

This seems to imply that non-Jews (regardless of citizenship) should have less influence on the State of Israel. In contrast to setting a state religion (and assuming there are no further provision to diminish others) this implies an exclusion of a certain citizens just based on their cultural background. In most Western countries this would be clearly unconstitutional and in certainly seems undemocratic.

I do not know enough on how current and future treatment of Arabic is going to shift. I will just note that if one traditionally had two accepted languages and removes one (if that is what is happening) then it is quite a different thing if one was always only used in official capacity. 

Quote

7 — Jewish settlement

A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

I think that is kind of self-explanatory.

Then there is the baffling issue that it does not mention equality of its citizens anywhere, which is found in virtually all democratic constitutions (and is also included in the Palestinian constitution). Perhaps even more so, as it has been in the declaration of independence in 48. Note that the bill is also controversial among Israelis, including President Rivlin.

Now there are several layers in which this bill can be considered problematic. One is the general tone for further legislation, second is its possible consequence for the conflict with the Palestinian people (partially due to the ongoing conflict over Jerusalem, part due to the explicit mentioning of settlement expansion in a basic law) and third is of course as it could be seen as an indicator of how Israel sees its future in relationship the contentious situation they have with their Arabic citizens and neighbours/rivals.

Western countries see it as Israel moving away from a two-state solution.

[StringJunky]

Todays 'BBC News:

Quote

In a speech to his Islamist-rooted AKP party, Mr Erdogan sharply criticised a controversial law passed by Israel last week which characterised the country as principally a Jewish state.

"This measure has shown without leaving the slightest room for doubt that Israel is the world's most Zionist, fascist and racist state," Mr Erdogan said.

"There is no difference between Hitler's obsession with the Aryan race and Israel's understanding that these ancient lands are meant only for Jews.

"The spirit of Hitler, which led the world to a great catastrophe, has found its resurgence among some of Israel's leaders," he added.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44938472

Netanyahu does rebuff it in the report. Does Erdogan, as bad as he is as well, know a duck when he sees one?

 

[MigL]

Oh give it a rest Ten oz.
This discussion isn't about economic caste systems.
It is about a bill which enshrines  cultural protection, or even state religion ( if you want ) into law.
And as far as I know, no one has ever said a word about the state religions in the Nordic countries and England, nor the many other countries who have cultural protection laws. But as soon as Israel does, the rhetoric starts flying about how they are becoming a fascist state.

what you are saying to Israel is
"No matter what you do, we will always find fault with it, because we just don't like you."
There is a word for that.
Examine your conscience and see if it applies.

I will take my leave of this discussion.

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

I will take my leave of this discussion.

A pity. I will note that while you briefly commented on at least one additional troublesome aspect (settlements) you do revert to your original argument about state religion and neglecting the rest of the bill as well as (and perhaps more importantly) the context of the bill. 

Other constitutions were framed in various time points in history and they are a direct reflection of the ongoing political and social context. As I already noted before, establishing a state religion has precedence, but excluding protections for other groups is rather unusual for a democracy. As this bill was not made 50 years ago, but right now, it does seem to be squarely aimed at diminishing the role of Arabs withing their society. At minimum it is a signal for the hardliners and the big question is now what follow up will come. There are roughly three paths that it could take. One is that in a follow-up protection for minorities will be enshrined (or at minimum a simple statement of equality of citizens). Then this was just a move towards the hardliners with little immediate impact. Second, they could continue to straddle the ambiguity and milk it for what it's worth. And third, and I believe that is what SJ is alluding to, it may be the opening short of increasingly anti-Arab/Palestinian policies (with the settlements being already one of them). It is not just the internet armchair analysts who are worried about the consequences, but also Jewish groups as well as traditional allies of Israel. There is more to it than just "losing one's mind because it is Israel". I.e. a better example than the Charter of the French language would be removing Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or e.g. limiting it to francophones).

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

A pity. I will note that while you briefly commented on at least one additional troublesome aspect (settlements) you do revert to your original argument about state religion and neglecting the rest of the bill as well as (and perhaps more importantly) the context of the bill. 

Other constitutions were framed in various time points in history and they are a direct reflection of the ongoing political and social context. As I already noted before, establishing a state religion has precedence, but excluding protections for other groups is rather unusual for a democracy. As this bill was not made 50 years ago, but right now, it does seem to be squarely aimed at diminishing the role of Arabs withing their society. At minimum it is a signal for the hardliners and the big question is now what follow up will come. There are roughly three paths that it could take. One is that in a follow-up protection for minorities will be enshrined (or at minimum a simple statement of equality of citizens). Then this was just a move towards the hardliners with little immediate impact. Second, they could continue to straddle the ambiguity and milk it for what it's worth. And third, and I believe that is what SJ is alluding to, it may be the opening short of increasingly anti-Arab/Palestinian policies (with the settlements being already one of them). It is not just the internet armchair analysts who are worried about the consequences, but also Jewish groups as well as traditional allies of Israel. There is more to it than just "losing one's mind because it is Israel". I.e. a better example than the Charter of the French language would be removing Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or e.g. limiting it to francophones).

Yes, it should be noted that Jewish political society should not seen as one single entity. I have read there is resistance/alarm from some within that quarter who see the way it may be heading.

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh give it a rest Ten oz.
This discussion isn't about economic caste systems.
It is about a bill which enshrines  cultural protection, or even state religion ( if you want ) into law.
And as far as I know, no one has ever said a word about the state religions in the Nordic countries and England, nor the many other countries who have cultural protection laws. But as soon as Israel does, the rhetoric starts flying about how they are becoming a fascist state.

what you are saying to Israel is
"No matter what you do, we will always find fault with it, because we just don't like you."
There is a word for that.
Examine your conscience and see if it applies.

I will take my leave of this discussion.

Disagreeing with a specific bill is not equally to being anti Israel anymore than disagreeing with a specific bill in the Canadian Parliament would make one anti Canadian. 

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it should be noted that Jewish political society should not seen as one single entity. I have read there is resistance/alarm from some within that quarter who see the way it may be heading.

Right, Israel is not a monolithic nation. 

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Disagreeing with a specific bill is not equally to being anti Israel anymore than disagreeing with a specific bill in the Canadian Parliament would make one anti Canadian. 

Right, Israel is not a monolithic nation. 

It isn''t in terms of it's actual population but the right-wing want it to be, it would appear

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It isn''t in terms of it's actual population but the right-wing want it to be, it would appear

It is like the UK and US in that way.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

It is like the UK and US in that way.

Amongst others but they are not really driven by religious ideology, although the end result is the same: social division