Lapid: Israel's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish state is rubbish

[Jefferson23]

Finance Minister's comments, made in August 2013, surface days before US Secretary of State John Kerry expected to make visit to Israel to push peace negotiations.

An op-ed published in the New York Times on Tuesday by Roger Cohen, titled "My Jewish State" has shed light on comments Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid made during a sit down with the columnist in August 2013. During their chat last summer, Lapid reiterated his lack of interest in Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Lapid reportedly told Cohen “the fact that we demand from Palestinians a declaration that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, I just think this is rubbish. I don’t need that. The whole point of Israel was we came here saying we don’t need anyone else to recognize us anymore because we can recognize ourselves. We are liberated.”

"I don't feel we we need a declaration from the Palestinians that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” Lapid said. “My father [former Justice Minister Yosef Lapid] didn’t come to Haifa from the Budapest ghetto to get recognition from [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas. The whole concept of the State of Israel is that we recognize ourselves. After 2,000 years of being dependent on other people, we are independent and make our own rules now.”

Lapid's comments surfaced days before US Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to make a visit to Israel and the West Bank in a final push for peace negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Lapid-Israels-demand-that-Palestinians-recognize-Israel-as-Jewish-state-is-rubbish-336770

[PDJane]

1. It's just one more precondition that the Palestinians can't accept, and shouldn't be asked to.

Just another proof that the Israelis are bargaining in bad faith.

[King_David]

2. Why can't the Palistinians accept it?

[Scootaloo]

3. David, you need to start taking notes.

1) Because it isn't a factual statement. Israel is Jewish in exactly the same way that the United States is white and christian; a majority, but plenty of other people live there to. To declare Israel a Jewish state, then, is to in effect make the non-Jews of Israel second-class.

2) Because it's not up to the Palestinians what Israel calls itself, anyway. This is basically like one kid holding another down and beating until the one being beaten whistles Dixie for the one throwing the punches. It's just a humiliation demand on Israel's part.

3) Because it would legitimatize illegitimate actions Israel undertakes against non-Jews in Israel, such as the efforts against the Bedouin. There's also the concern that such a declaration would be surrendering the rights of the people Israel drove from the territory it conquered, for similar reasons. Speaking of conquered territory, would the chunks of land claimed by Israel such as Golan, and now the attempt on the Jordan valley, fall under this claim?

I explained all this to you on Saturday.

[King_David]

4. None of it makes sense tho

It is the Jewish state that's fact , it's not as if the Palistinians are in the drivers seat. , RoR ain't gonna happen so what's the big deal.
It's not the same as the USA , and it's not expected that you would understand it and I also doubt anyone would care less if an AntiZionist accepts it or not , it doesn't change any fact/s.

[Scootaloo]

5. That was kind of gibberish

Think you could try again, only this time coherently?

[oberliner]

6. "Israel is Jewish in exactly the same way that the United States is white and christian"

This statement is a perfect illustration of your fundamental misunderstanding of Israel.

[politicman]

8. You are wrong

Name me one nation that identifies itself as a particular religion or race?

Even Saudi Arabia which is wholly Muslim and does not allow any other religion apart from Islam does not identify itself officially as a Muslim state. And keep in mind that Saudi has nothing that even resembles a democratic institution, they are controlled by one family who decides everything to do with the country.

Israel on the other hand is a democratic country as we keep being told over and over again, so how could a country that purports to govern by the will of the people that it represents lock itself into being recognized as a particular religion/race.

In the U.S Obama won because the demographics are changing, whites are no longer the completely dominate race, blacks and Hispanics are growing over time, so imagine of the U.S followed a similar path as Israel and declared itself and demanded that it be recognized as a white nation, would you be supportive of that?

Edit: I should revise my comment. There is another country that identifies and is recognized as a particular religion and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran, but we all know what Israel thinks of them, so I hope you don't try to use that one as a counter point to my argument

[sabbat hunter]

9. also

Pakistan is officially the Islamic republic of Pakistan.
Afghanistan is officially the Islamic republic of Afghanistan
and Mauritania is the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.

Israel does not want to be called (at least as far as I know) the Jewish Republic of Israel. But it does want recognition from Palestine of its jewish nature.

I think that is a little different.

[oberliner]

13. This post is also illustrative of the same idea

I think you also do not fully have an understanding of what you are saying.

To wit:

"Imagine if the U.S followed a similar path as Israel and declared itself and demanded that it be recognized as a white nation...."

Do you really believe the US declaring itself a "white nation" is a similar path as Israel?

Do you know how/why Israel came to be?

[politicman]

24. yes I know

Yes I believe the U.S declaring itself a 'white nation' would be a similar path to Israel because once you demand and get recognition of a race or religion as the defining aspect of your country, then you are basically excluding anyone from being a recognized citizen of said country.

Yes I know how Israel came to be, does not mean that their demand of being recognized as a Jewish state has any merit.

Yes the Jews went though hell up until the end of the Nazi's, but the world has recognized all the horrors visited on the Jews, much has been done to make sure it never happens again, even so far as for some countries to outlaw any form of racism directed against Jews.

Now back to the issue at hand, demographics of countries are always changing, look at the U.S for example.
A country should not be defined and recognized as anything other than a collection of people (many who share the same beliefs and many who share different beliefs).

[Shaktimaan]

26. Ok

Firstly Israel doesn't define itself as being a specific race or religion so right away it's a false dichotomy you're demanding. Judaism as it's used in this situation refers to an ethno-religious group of people. A nation, not a race or religion. This utilizes ethnic nationalism while the US is based on civic nationalism. They're the two dominant forms of ideological systems used by modern nation-states.

Other states that define themselves via shared ethnicity include:

Japan, Korea, Thailand, Myanmar, China, Poland, Italy, Iceland, Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey.

[politicman]

27. let me correct you

Judaism IS a religion, a belief system.

By asking to be recognised as a Jewish state, you are automatically defining yourself as a religious entity.

People come in all kinds of shapes, colours, religions, etc, so wanting to be recognized as one religion means giving that religion a higher status than others.

[Shaktimaan]

28. Wow.

Judaism the religion is one aspect of many related to the Jewish identity. It's not the defining feature by any means, as evidenced by the fact that one doesn't need to practice Judaism at all to still be Jewish. The Torah itself defines Judaism as a nation. It contains aspects of shared ethnicities, history, language and also religion.

But regarding Zionism and Israel the way the term is considered is very clear. It's a nationality, which is one reason you'd notice that so many of Israel's founders were secular.

People come in all kinds of shapes, colours, religions, etc, so wanting to be recognized as one religion means giving that religion a higher status than others.

So what? Italy certainly spends more time and money on issues that culturally relate to Italian history and heritage over Japanese issues. Does that mean Japanese citizens of Italy are being discriminated against?

Nothing about ethnic nationalities precludes equal rights. Regardless the fact remains MOST states follow this model. It's not an aberration. Other nations also have specific religions attached to them.

Maybe you're getting confused because the name of the religion is similar to the name of the nation?

[politicman]

29. maybe I can explain myself better this time

No I am registering what you are saying, its just that I don't agree with it.

I can accept that Israel is a nation just like America, UK, Australia, France, etc are nations. What I have a issue with is wanting to be recognized as a type of country that is tied to a religion born thousands of years ago and has a cultural lifestyle made up from that religion..

As I said a nation is just a collection of people that make it up. Over time that collection of people can go through all kinds of changes, so a nation should not be defined as one set of people (whether they make up a majority shared religion, or whether they make up a majority shared race or whether they make up a majority shared culture).

Under your explanation you are saying that its not the Israel wants to be recognised a Jewish religion, but as a culture, am I right?

The problem is that Jewish culture is made up from Jewish religion, so what about the people that are not Jewish, that have a totally different cultural idea of how to live?

See I live in Australia, we are a multi-cultural society, and because the country does not designate itself with a cultural identity, people who live totally different lifestyles still all have the same status under the laws of the land, no one is supposed to get preferential treatment because of how they choose to live.

[Shaktimaan]

31. No you're misunderstanding me.

First. Terminology. When I use the word nation I'm not using as a synonym for "country" but in its original sense. Aka: a group of people who identify themselves as a specific unit. Like a large tribe, usually based on shared history, language, culture, often shared geography, religion, etc. Nations can have some of these commonalities or all of them or unique ones. Nations grew out of common interests amongst people with shared ethnicities as a response to a modernizing world. Modern countries once began as nation-states that tended to draw borders based on the geographic areas inhabited by the nations they represented.

You keep comparing Israel to states like the US and France and Australia. But those are all examples of civic nations. States based in an ethnic nationalism believe that the state grows from the nation. Civic nationality draws legitimacy from shared laws and ideology rather than tribally born alliances.

Civic states tend to be born of colonial projects overseen by an outside force. Their diversity precludes using ideas like shared language and history. These are the states that civil rights were invented in. Out of necessity.

The problem is that Jewish culture is made up from Jewish religion, so what about the people that are not Jewish, that have a totally different cultural idea of how to live?

You overlook that a modern liberal state like Israel or Italy or Germany can both enjoy a state built on their unique cultural perspective without denying equal rights to all it's citizens. Israel's decl of independence offers citizens of all religions and cultures equal rights under the law. It doesn't force anyone to abide by specifically Jewish standards. That was never the reason for its creation. Freedom from persecution was the impetus for Israel's creation.

See I live in Australia, we are a multi-cultural society, and because the country does not designate itself with a cultural identity, people who live totally different lifestyles still all have the same status under the laws of the land, no one is supposed to get preferential treatment because of how they choose to live.

Bullshit. You just live in a liberal country with its own specific set of laws and ideologies.

Would your state allow a population of strict fundamentalists to impose death sentences by stoning? Or allow indigenous groups to continue hunting endangered prey? Female circumcision? Explosives for the Chinese New Year? How many wives are Mormons allowed? Can a consenting 10 yo and 38 yo get married?

Discrimination exists in every state. But in liberal democracies there's at least the guarantee of equal laws regardless of race or religion. Which both Israel and Australia have.

[politicman]

32. a few questions then..

Like you say, nations were constructed around collections of people who identify themselves as a specific unit. It could be many things that bind them together or just one or two things.

So let me ask you this: Why is Israel insisting on being recognised as a state made up of Jewish people? How can another country's view of Israel's makeup affect the state of Israel?

Because this is what this discussion is all about, Israel's insistence that the Palestinians recognise them as a Jewish state.
If what you say is true and Israel will not discriminate against anyone in its country that doesn't share the Jewish culture or believe the Jewish religion, why does it have one iota of care if a neighbouring peoples recognise them as Jewish state.

This should be an internal thing that Israel has to convince its population of, and only its population. Outside peoples will not be able to affect the culture inside Israel so why insist on being recognised that way as a condition of peace?

[Shaktimaan]

38. Good querys

So let me ask you this: Why is Israel insisting on being recognised as a state made up of Jewish people? How can another country's view of Israel's makeup affect the state of Israel?

Because this is what this discussion is all about, Israel's insistence that the Palestinians recognise them as a Jewish state.
If what you say is true and Israel will not discriminate against anyone in its country that doesn't share the Jewish culture or believe the Jewish religion, why does it have one iota of care if a neighbouring peoples recognise them as Jewish state

.

First good question anyone's asked yet. Mostly folks just reiterate their their pre-prepared schlock like I'm about to do. But in this case, you're lucky. Coz I'm right and those other dudes are the kind of experts that don't like reading much.

I like this one issue because it's actually simple. What's this conflict about? Israel. In the Middle East.

For both sides there's a few deal breakers. This is Israel's biggest. Makes sense to me.

It's ask bern what started the whole fucking thing to start. And it's still the biggest sticking point.

Israel doesn't need that everyone BELIEVEES in them as a Jewish state. That's retardamacated.

They're signing a fucking huge peace treaty and before anything goes forward Israel needs assurances that the ideas that began everything have been put to bed.

What they're asking the Arabs to do is legitimize the idea that a Jewish state belongs here. Recognizing the state just isn't enough. Israel a wants a note that alleviates their fear that the agreement means nothing.

[politicman]

41. I still dont understand

I read your response and I still couldn't understand why it insists on being recognized as Jewish state by its neighbours.

I note that you tried to explain it by saying that Israel wants confirmation that its neighbours accept Jews in that part of the world.

But it still does not make sense. If a peace treaty is signed, then its neighbours are agreeing that they except a nation called Israel exists on the land it currently occupies. They will be agreeing to live peacefully with this nation, and maybe even trade with this nation.

If any neighbouring country ever decides to breach a peace treaty, then that country will not reconsider its decision just because they have accepted Israel is a Jewish state. If a country decides to try and wipe Israel off the map, that country will not reconsider its decision because they demanded and achieved recognition that its Jewish state.

The Arabs at the moment don't have a problem with having a Jewish state in their midst, they have a problem that Jews control land that they believe was taken from Palestinians. So once a peace treaty is accepted, all Arabs will have accepted that Israel is a legitimate nation in their midst.

Isn't this sufficient? Why hold up a peace treay for something that makes no difference to any peace in the future?

[Shaktimaan]

42. Fair question.

First though, even if you disagree with what I'm about to say, consider this. Lots of people will try and tell you that this requirement is meaningless posturing, that it just doesn't matter and is a ridiculous, tacked on requirement to show poor faith or make the PLO jump through hoops, etc.

However... If this requirement were truly unimportant then it simply wouldn't be an issue. The Israelis wouldn't INSIST on it (not Hebron, not EJ, but this.) And the Palestinians would just sign it. But they can't. Not yet anyway. And IMHO this one thing gets to the heart of why peace is going to be unattainable, for at least a generation.

That's the beauty of this document. Not that it prevents peace. But it illuminates the key, institutionalized problems with the way both sides see the reasons the war started and what is needed to end it.

The biggest fallacy about this whole conflict is that it's between two entities. It is, sure. But this tiny war has been used as a pawn during 65 years of the most intense political, violent, mutagenic point of time on earth. Almost every single major conflict anywhere near the Mideast saw I/P play a significant role. Less than one tenth of one percent of the land. Around 60% (or so) UN resolutions?

Sorry, I'll make my point. The Palestinians have been consistently fucked over more than any other culture in modern history. By the Europeans, the Turks, the Jews, but most of all, far and away, by the Arabs. And most sadly, by their own terrible leadership. They NEVER had a chance to succeed. Never. They just had opportunities to fail in different ways.

Now, we've got the victims of the nabka and their few million descendants living all over the Mideast in refugee camps. STILL! Oppressed differently everywhere, but always oppressed. (Except the states that evicted them already.)

So, it's been 65 years. Why hasn't a 65 yo guy, born in Lebanon,with kids and grand kids been granted citizenship? Because while that would be RAD for him, it wouldn't help anyone else. The Lebanese HATE the Palestinians (depending on which sect, which week, but generally, they've had few allies there since Arafat was deported.)

Palestinians are also the most educated Arabs in the Mid East. Per capita. Why would the Lebanese want to flood their country with two million "others" which could threaten them economically, politically(!) Etc. Lebanon is a delicate coalition of different tribes. It's not a nation with an idea of shared responsibility. Not quite yet anyway. It's easier to keep them in camps.

The Arab league actually forbids all Arab states from granting Palestinians citizenship. With the UNRWA's blessing.

They've been being told for 65 years that they're going to get to go home. They wear their keys around their necks. It's heartbreaking.

But everyone knows that RoR would be a potentially fatal move for Israel. It's a pipe dream. They deserved chances at real lives, not waiting forever for a land most never saw, and none will see again because it doesn't even fucking exist anymore.

So IMHO that's what the paper means. It means the Palestinian leaders are willing to publicly tell all those people that they're never going home. Because then Israel will really know they're being honest, and serious.

BC as long as Israel sees on tv that they're still being told that they'll get to go home, to them that sounds like "the fighting ain't done yet." That's Israel's cross. They can't get peace WO concessions. But concessions exposes them military. They need to really have faith in the process if they are going to be able to grant enough concessions to truly make for a viable Palestinian state.

We know what this will look like. Sadat. 1979. Begin. They both took huge risks and through that Sadat gained the trust of the whole fucking Israeli nation. (And then was immediately killed, but... Yeah.)

So that's the paper. A show of faith that represents abandoning the hopes of the past for the possibility of a shared future.

Or it's just bibi being a dick. 50/50.

[politicman]

43. trying but still dont understand

I read your response and I am really trying to see why this recognition is so important but I just cant.

Any peace agreement will resolve the outstanding issues of ROR and the Arabs excepting a nation called Israel in the land it currently resides.

As I said earlier, if any nation decides to break any potential peace agreement, they are not going to reconsider their decision based on the fact that the paper says Jewish state.

If the Arabs decide to sign an agreement to live in peace with a nation called Israel, they are in effect saying that they accept the right of Israel to exist.

Right now the Arabs view Israel not ass a nation but a collection of people who they equate to squatters, people that came in and are living in someone else's home. If a peace agreement is reached, then the Arabs will have acknowledged that this collection of people are no longer squatters that they are determined to evict from someone else's home, but are in fact now the legitimate owners of the home.

If a nation one day breaks the agreement and attacks Israel, then they wont reconsider just because they had already accepted to see Jews as the rightful owners of the land, it wont make one iota of difference to them.


I am sorry but even though I am trying to understand this insistence on being recognised as Jewish state, I just cant wrap my head around it.
You may not like it but I honestly believe that this is a ploy from Israel to derail any potential peace agreement because it if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

[Dick Dastardly]

36. As I said before Jews are not just a religion, they are what is called an ethnoreligious group

Here is more info to clarify.

I would like to say your questions and answers are a refreshing change from those who don't engage in any debate but just regurgitate nonsense.



Ethnoreligious group

An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group of people whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither exclusively by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation, but often through a combination of both[citation needed] (a long shared history; a cultural tradition of its own; either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors; a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; a common literature peculiar to the group; a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups; being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community).[citation needed]

Examples of ethnic groups defined by ancestral religions are the Jews, the Assyrians, the Armenians, the Druze of the Levant, the Copts of Egypt, the Yazidi of northern Iraq, the Zoroastrians of Iran and India, and the Serer of Senegal, the Gambia, and Mauritania.[1]

In an ethnoreligious group, particular emphasis is placed upon religious endogamy, and the concurrent discouragement of interfaith marriages or intercourse, as a means of preserving the stability and historical longevity of the community and culture.[citation needed] This adherence to religious endogamy can also, in some instances, be tied to ethnic nationalism if the ethnoreligious group possesses a historical base in a specific region.[citation needed]

clip
Ethnoreligious group as a legal concept[edit]

Australia[edit]

In Australian law, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) defines "race" to include "ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin".[2] The reference to "ethno-religious" was added by the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 (NSW).[3] John Hannaford, the NSW Attorney-General at the time, explained that "The effect of the latter amendment is to clarify that ethno-religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs, have access to the racial vilification and discrimination provisions of the Act. ...extensions of the Anti-Discrimination Act to ethno-religious groups will not extend to discrimination on the ground of religion."[4][5]

The definition of "race" in Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) likewise includes "ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin".[6] However, unlike the NSW Act, it also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of "religious belief or affiliation" or "religious activity".[7]

Development of Definition from United Kingdom Law[edit]

Main article: Mandla v Dowell-Lee

In the United Kingdom the landmark legal case Mandla v Dowell-Lee placed a legal definition on ethnic groups with religious ties, which in turn has paved the way for definition of ethnoreligious[8] group. Both Jews[9][10][11] and Sikhs[12][13][14] were determined to be ethnoreligious groups under the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 (see above).

The Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 made reference to Mandla v Dowell-Lee which defined ethnic groups as:
1.a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive;
2.a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant:
3.either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors;
4.a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group;
5.a common literature peculiar to the group;
6.a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it;
7.being a minority or being an oppressed or dominant group within a larger community. For example, a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups

The significance of this case was that groups like Sikhs and Jews could be protected under the Race Relations Act 1976.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group





This is a part of a 1st article in a 7 article series that explains about Jews. Yes I know it is by Prager but there is much good info in the articles. I would encourage you to read them all.


Explaining Jews, part one: What is a Jew?


clip
Let's begin with the most basic question: Are Jews a religion, an ethnicity, a people, a nation, a culture?

The most accurate answer is all of the above. And that confuses both Jews and non-Jews because there is no other major modern group that falls into all these categories.

Christians, for example, constitute a religion but not a nation. One is a Christian by virtue of affirmation of a faith. In order to be a Christian, one has to believe some Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, Americans are a nation, not a religion, and there are, therefore, Americans of every religion and of no religion. As is true of other nations, one is born an American by virtue of one's parent(s) being American. No affirmation of American faith is necessary. One can be an American and hold no American values or love for America.

Jews are Jews in both the above ways. One can become a Jew solely by affirmation of the Jewish religion (just as one can become a Christian by affirmation of Christianity) or solely by being born to a Jewish parent (originally the father, through most of Jewish history the mother, in Reform Judaism today the father or the mother).

That is why there can be atheist and secular Jews -- just as there can be atheist and secular Americans even though the country's values are Judeo-Christian. But that is also why any person in the world, no matter what race, ethnicity or religion his or her parents are, can become a member of the Jewish people through religious conversion.

That is also why there can be self-hating Jews -- people born Jewish who devote their lives to harming the Jewish people -- because no one born a Jew can be read out of the Jewish people. It's probably a good thing. But not always. As we shall see.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2006/01/04/explaining_jews,_part_one_what_is_a_jew/page/full

[politicman]

39. You have made me see half the equation...

I was originally against the state of Israel being defined as a Jewish state, but after reading responses like yours, I now see no problem with it.

What you say is true, I see no problem with Israel having a Jewish identity as long as its based on a national identity and not a religious identity.

A national identity is workable as even people who are not Jewish can call themselves Jewish as a national identity, but if it contains any religious identity in the wording such as laws that are included in the Torah then it is a problem. Otherwise it becomes like those Islamic countries that want to make sharia law the foundation of their country. Do you see what I am getting at?

By the way, I am muslim and I am against sharia law, so I wouldn't want to see the equivalent in Israel.


Now again I ask, why does Israel insist on Palestine recognising it as a Jewish state as part of a peace deal?

Why does Israel care if others view it as such, what difference does it make it Palestine doesn't want to view it that way, the only thing that should matter is whether the citizens of Israel think.

Do you agree that this demand is just a silly ploy to derail any peace deal that could be potentially reached?

[Dick Dastardly]

33. There are plenty of nations that define themselves by religion or ethnicity in their constitution

and or laws. Many like Israel are liberal democracies and have citizens who are not of the dominant ethnic group or religion whose rights are legally protected. Many have state/official religions(Israel has no state religion) as well as laws protecting aspects of its dominant ethnic culture including such laws as giving special or fast track immigration rights to ethnic diaspora . The Vatican, UK, Finland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Belgium, Malaysia, Italy, Germany and Ireland are just a few of the many examples of countries that define themselves by religion and or ethnically constitutionally or in law (many more in links). Slovakia is one example of some of the countries that constitutionally defines itself by ethnicity as a "Slovak Nation" (see below).



Jews are not only a religion but also an ethnicity and a culture which is why you can have secular Jews. Jews are constantly being misrepresented as just being a religion.
Jews are what is called an ethnoreligious group(see article below). There can be white jews, brown Jews, black Jews, asian Jews and just about every other type. Jews can be citizens of any country just like the Irish, Japanese, Italians or any other ethnic group but because they are an ethnoreligious group they can also be ethnic Irish, Japanese, Italian or any other ethnic group at the same time.
People not understanding the concept of an ethnoreligious group is why we commonly see false accusations such as Israel is a theocracy or various charges of racism that are not levied against any other group who do the same things but are considered acceptable.
A good example is in immigration where countries like Ireland,Germany, Italy, Finland and most other European countries or for that matter most all countries in the world have a preferential fast track immigration policy for those of their countries ethnic origin and a separate regular immigration policy for all others. Such policies are not considered racist and completely acceptable. Despite Israel having a similar policy as other countries it is unjustly singled out as being theocratic and racist for doing the same thing.

Another example is Israel constantly being called a theocracy despite the fact there is no state religion and freedom of religion and religious tolerance is enshrined and practiced. In contrast there countries that are liberal democracies, many being in Europe, with religious freedom and tolerance but who also have official state religions and even some with governmental posts for religious officials.
The UK for instance has the Anglican Church as its official religion with the Monarch being the head and Chief defender of the faith. The Prime Minister also has some religious duties and there are ministerial and other government positions for religious officials. The Church if I am not mistaken also has seats in Parliaments House of Lords as well as its own legislative body that has the power to pass certain laws or policy in regards to religion.

Whether through misunderstanding, ignorance or purposeful misrepresentation of Jewishness, Israel is constantly held to double standards or standards no one else is held to.


There is much info in the links

Here is a post with much more info and links that I made some time ago
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12410




Repatriation laws[edit]
clip
Most countries in central and eastern Europe as well as Germany, Greece, Armenia, France, China, Japan, Norway, Finland, Philippines, Ireland, Turkey, and Israel have repatriation laws. This gives non-citizen foreigners who are part of the titular majority group the opportunity to immigrate and receive citizenship. Repatriation of their titular diaspora is practiced by most ethnic nation states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis



Ethnoreligious group
An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group of people whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither exclusively by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation, but often through a combination of both[citation needed] (a long shared history; a cultural tradition of its own; either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors; a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; a common literature peculiar to the group; a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups; being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community).[citation needed]

Examples of ethnic groups defined by ancestral religions are the Jews, the Assyrians, the Armenians, the Druze of the Levant, the Copts of Egypt, the Yazidi of northern Iraq, the Zoroastrians of Iran and India, and the Serer of Senegal, the Gambia, and Mauritania.[1]

In an ethnoreligious group, particular emphasis is placed upon religious endogamy, and the concurrent discouragement of interfaith marriages or intercourse, as a means of preserving the stability and historical longevity of the community and culture.[citation needed] This adherence to religious endogamy can also, in some instances, be tied to ethnic nationalism if the ethnoreligious group possesses a historical base in a specific region.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group



Ethnic nationalism
Ethnic nationalism (also ethnicism and racial nationalism[1]) is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity or race.

The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry".[2] It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language; however it is different from purely cultural definitions of "the nation" (which allow people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation) and a purely linguistic definitions (which see "the nation" as all speakers of a specific language).

clip
Ideology[edit]

The central political tenet of ethnic nationalism is that ethnic groups can be identified unambiguously, and that each such group is entitled to self-determination.

The outcome of this right to self-determination may vary, from calls for self-regulated administrative bodies within an already-established society, to an autonomous entity separate from that society, to a sovereign state removed from that society. In international relations, it also leads to policies and movements for irredentism—to claim a common nation based upon ethnicity.

In scholarly literature, ethnic nationalism is usually contrasted with civic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism bases membership of the nation on descent or heredity—often articulated in terms of common blood or kinship—rather than on political membership. Hence, nation-states with strong traditions of ethnic nationalism tend to define nationality or citizenship by jus sanguinis (the law of blood, descent from a person of that nationality) while countries with strong traditions of civic nationalism tend to define nationality or citizenship by jus soli (the law of soil, birth within the nation-state). Ethnic nationalism is therefore seen as exclusive, while civic nationalism tends to be inclusive. Rather than allegiance to common civic ideals and cultural traditions, then, ethnic nationalism tends to emphasise narratives of common descent.

The theorist Anthony D. Smith uses the term "ethnic nationalism" for non-Western concepts of nationalism as opposed to Western views of a nation defined by its geographical territory. Diaspora studies scholars extend this non-geographically bound concept of "nation" among diasporic communities, at times using the term ethnonation or ethnonationalism to describe a conceptual collective of dispersed ethnics.[8]

Ethnic nationalism is also present in many states' immigration policies in the form of repatriation laws. States such as Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey provide automatic or rapid citizenship to members of diasporas of their own dominant ethnic group, if desired. [2] For example Israel's Law of Return, grants every Jew the right to settle in Israel and automatically acquire citizenship.[9] In Germany, citizenship is open to ethnic Germans.[clarification needed] According to the Greek nationality law, Greeks born abroad may transmit citizenship to their children from generation to generation indefinitely. This is also true As of 2013 in the case of Philippine nationality law which, since 2010, has conferred Philippine citizenship on children born after October 15, 1986, having at birth at least one Philippine citizen parent.

On the other hand, civic nationalism defines membership as an individual's duty to observe given laws and in turn receive legal privileges.

A nation-state for the ethnic group derives political legitimacy from its status as homeland of that ethnic group, from its protective function against colonization, persecution, or racism, and from its claim to facilitate the shared cultural and social life, which may not have been possible under the ethnic group's previous status as an ethnic minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism


Ethnic democracy
Ethnic democracy is a political system that combines a structured ethnic dominance with democratic, political and civil rights for all. Both the dominant ethnic group and the minority ethnic groups have citizenship and are able to fully participate in the political process
clip
Slovakia[edit]

Slovak nationalism is grounded in ethnicity and language. "State-building and nation-building in Slovakia are designed to install ethnic Slovaks as the sole nation and to prevent any sign of binationalism. This objective is made clear in the preamble of the Slovak constitution which begins with the following words: “We, the Slovak nation, bearing in mind the political and cultural heritage of our predecessors, the experience gained through centuries of struggle for our national existence and statehood…”[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_democracy




State religion
A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy.


clip
Current state religions
(many liberal democracies are listed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

[politicman]

34. Why insist as part of a peace deal?

Ok, if Israel wants to define itself as a Jewish nation, then isn't that something that should concern only itself.

If it thinks that it can define itself as a Jewish nation and protect all the rights and equalities that everyone one of its citizens has, why insist that Palestine recognize it as Jewish as part of a peace deal?

What difference does it make if Palestine recognizes it as such, why does it concern the country what others outside of it think?
Why insist on it as part of a peace deal?

[Dick Dastardly]

37. A better question is that if it makes no difference then why are the Palestinians so opposed to it?

Anyway I woke up in the middle of the night and am going back to bed to try and get a little more shut eye.
I will answer your question in more detail a little later today.

[politicman]

40. for when you wake up

Enjoy your sleep.

I am writing this now so that when you wake up you will see my response to your question, and then we can get into some more depth.


Everyone has the right to an opinion, whether it be a national opinion or an individual opinion. What you are asking is that Palestinians think they way you want them to think, that they adopt a position that you want them to adopt even if that position makes no difference to how you operate your state.

Even worse, you are asking the Palestinians to accept something that makes absolutely no difference to whether you are a Jewish state at all, under the threat that if they don't think this way and adopt this position, that peace will not happen.

If I want my neighbour to accept that my house is a Islamic household, but my neighbour thinks of it as just another house, would it be right to not make peace with him until he accepts my demand on that? Especially if him not accepting my demand makes absolutely no difference to how I describe my household?

[cali]

47. not that I think that Palestinians should have to recognize Israel as "the Jewish State"-

I don't- for all the reasons Scootaloo refers to in her post in this thread, but several states identify themselves as Islamic.
That's simply a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_republic

[Scootaloo]

10. Hardly

Your response to that is a perfect illustration of your fundamental lack of a grasp on reality, though. That reality being there are plenty of non-Jews who are Israeli. A fair amount, actually, though not a majority (...unless we're counting all the people ruled by Israel as being Israeli, of course...)

Just because your weird race-nationalist fantasy demands something, does not actually mean that said something really exists, Oberliner.

[King_David]

11. "Just because your weird race-nationalist fantasy"

You are obsessed .

[oberliner]

14. "your weird race-nationalist fantasy.."

Wow - talk about a fundamental lack of a grasp on reality.

It's sometimes hard to know if this stuff is real or parody.

Incidentally, have you ever heard the phrase "Palestinian citizens of Israel" ?

[aranthus]

7. How can they accept that which victimizes them by its existence?

I know you and I and most of the serious decent rational world don't believe that the Palestinians are the innocent victims of Israel's existence, but Palestinianism is built on that belief among others. Accepting Israel as a Jewish state means undercutting their own sense of identity, and no on does that, nor should Israel expect them to. Put another way. Making peace with Israel for the Palestinians means accepting that they could not destroy Israel by war. Making peace with a Jewish state means accepting that they were wrong to try; that the Jews are in Israel by right instead of merely by force of arms. Israel wants that acceptance, but they are going to have to sign a peace agreement without getting it.

[Jefferson23]

21. Yes, if you don't want a deal..you ask for what you know you will

likely never get. Then you get to blame them for it.

[bemildred]

12. As you know, we've had some intense discussions about this issue here.

It's sort of like the USA demanding that everybody call it a bastion of freedom.

[azurnoir]

15. well maybe not everybody-

just Iraq or Afghanistan

[bemildred]

16. Well, I think I'll call it "Chelsea". nt

[azurnoir]

30. Not Edward? well not yet anyway n/t

[bemildred]

35. Yeah, he got away. He can still say what he likes. nt

[Jefferson23]

17. Many intense discussions, yep. Hopefully, Abbas stands against it no matter what

the amount of money is offered in return. Bibi did not add this idea until
about 2007, and he knows damn well he wants it only for the purpose
of control..RoR. I am not convinced secular Jewish Israeli's would be
confident in having him define/ identify Israel officially as a Jewish state, either.
That the US would agree to include this is repugnant but not shocking,
and I wish people would remember, the US does not officially recognize
Israel as the Jewish state.

[bemildred]

18. The US is fond of contrived purely verbal issues too.

But yeah.

I think it's too late really. I mean I don't pretend to know what comes next, by any means, but I think it's going to get much messier now. Everybody is pursuing their own agendas, violently.

[Jefferson23]

19. Agreed.

On a more pleasant note, Happy New Year, bemildred...always a pleasure to read
your posts.

[bemildred]

20. Yes. Same to you.

Last year was tough, but I'm not complaining, looking forward to this brand new one.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Agree

I don't think it's necessary or worthwhile to demand 'recognition'. The important thing is that the Palestinian state should refrain from attacking or threatening Israel (and vice versa). What they call it, is not the important factor.

[WatermelonRat]

23. It's a low-priority issue for me...

But given that refusal to accept a Jewish state in the region was one of the original causes of the conflict, I can definitely see why some would want such recognition.

Of course, since everyone has a different idea of what it means to be a "Jewish State" and as there are enough contentious issues on the table already, it's probably more pragmatic to drop the issue for the moment.

[Jefferson23]

25. John Kerry fustrated by Palestinians' refusal to recognise 'Jewish' Israel

Disagreement over Israel's status as a Jewish state threaten to torpedo US-brokered peace talks with the Palestinians

By Robert Tait, Jerusalem

5:12PM GMT 05 Jan 2014

Demands that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state have become a major stumbling block in John Kerry’s search for a settlement to the Middle East’s most enduring conflict.

As the US secretary of state continued a frantic diplomatic quest on Sunday that some have dubbed “mission impossible”, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said Palestinians’ refusal to formally acknowledge the country’s Jewish character had become the key topic in his discussions with Mr Kerry.

Palestinian officials admitted that Mr Kerry has pressed the issue with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, who has so far refused to bend.

“The Americans have made it very clear that [recognition of Israel as a Jewish state] is their position,” one Palestinian official told The Daily Telegraph. “They talk about it in meetings with our side and make an issue out of it. We have made it very clear that we are not going to sign any agreement that recognises Israel as a Jewish state.”

The Palestinian leader believes the rights of Israel’s approximately 1.5 million Arab citizens would be undermined if he concedes the point. It would also weaken the claims of around 5 million refugees and their descendants claiming a “right of return” to homes that are now in Israel, Palestinians argue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10551955/John-Kerry-fustrated-by-Palestinians-refusal-to-recognise-Jewish-Israel.html

[Jefferson23]

44. Ben Gurion didn't recognize Israel as the nation state of the entire Jewish people

And why Lieberman’s proposals on ceding 300,000 Israeli Arabs only strengthen Palestinian suspicions of the demand to recognize Israel as a 'Jewish State.'
By Chemi Shalev | Jan. 8, 2014 |

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish State” or, in a different formulation, as the “nation state of the Jewish people.” He says that this recognition is “the real key for peace”, a “minimal requirement” and an “essential condition” without which there can be no agreement.

Love it or loathe it, one cannot understate the public relations genius behind this stipulation. It has captured the imaginations of Israelis, Jews and many other Israel-supporting people around the world. Secretary of State John Kerry is said to be pressing Arab states to accept it. A decade ago it didn’t exist and, presto, out of the blue, it is the now the lynchpin of the process, it's sine qua non, the make or break issue.

I would be more than happy if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas somehow succeeded in overcoming Palestinian objections and acceded to Netanyahu’s demand. Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people would remove a serious obstacle to peace talks and may convince Israelis that Palestinian rejectionism has turned a historic corner. Such a move would also put immense pressure on Israel to be far more forthcoming in the concessions that it needs to make to reach a deal.

But here’s the thing: I don’t know what Netanyahu’s demand is doing for Abbas, but it is making me increasingly uneasy. The more I think of the demand to recognize Israel as the “nation state of the Jewish people”, whatever that is, the less I like it. In my eyes, Muslims and Christians who were born in Israel and live there are Israelis; Jews who live in Tulsa or Tashkent are not. Jews around the world may worship Israel but that does not make it theirs.

My position is this: “The name Israel differentiates between the sovereign Jewish people in its homeland, called by the name of Israel, and the Jewish people in the world, in all the generations and in all the land, who are called the “Jewish people” or the “people of Israel”. That’s what David Ben Gurion wrote to Brandeis historian and philosopher Simon Rawidowicz in 1954.

Rawidowicz – a towering Jewish intellectual whose memory has faded to the extent that he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia entry in English to his name – was a champion of the “equal status” of Israel and Diaspora Jewry, which he described as “Jerusalem and Babylon”. He objected to the name Israel that Ben Gurion had chosen for the state because it excluded Diaspora Jews, and, in essence, relegated them to a second-tier status.

While denying charges of “negation of the Diaspora”, as it was known then, Ben Gurion, in effect, agreed with Rawidowicz: Diaspora Jews can worship Israel and can very well call themselves “the people of Israel” if they wish, but they are not Israelis, and Israel is not their country unless and until they choose to live there.

Likud leaders from Menachem Begin to Netanyahu have been systematically erasing Ben Gurion’s fine line. As columnist Doron Rosenblum meticulously recorded over the years in Haaretz, the Likud and the religious right have steadily downgraded secular “Israeliness” as inherently alien and leftist and fostered traditional “Jewishness” for ideological, political and cultural reasons in its stead. When the Likud first came to power in 1977, most Jewish Israelis defined themselves as being Israelis before being Jews, but a majority now claims the opposite.

And if Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people as a whole, then the prime minister, ipso facto, is the prime minister of Jews wherever they may be. That’s why Netanyahu can tell the U.S. Congress “I speak on behalf of the Jewish people,” That’s how he can openly call on U.S. Jews to “stand up and be counted” in his campaign against U.S. policies on Iran. That’s why he made no effort to correct David Gregory who anointed him “Leader of the Jewish people” on Meet the Press last year.

The right wing, in fact, would like to adopt the Jewish people wholesale, wherever they are, and to thus prop up the Jewish majority in the “Greater Land of Israel” by remote control or even, potentially, by giving Diaspora Jews the vote. And by demanding that hundreds of thousands of Israeli Arabs be “transferred” to another sovereignty and another citizenship, Netanyahu’s deputy and Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is only confirming the claims of many Palestinians: that by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas would be giving his blessing to those, like Lieberman, who view the citizenship of Israeli Arabs as second rate and expendable.

Don’t get me wrong: As long as there is a Jewish majority in Israel, I have no problem with its Jewish character or with its decision to grant automatic citizenship to any Jew who wishes to make it their home. Ancient ties, millennia of devotion and 20th century horrors justify such a position.

If Netanyahu had demanded that Abbas recognize the historic links between Israel and the Jewish people or its centrality in Israeli life, I would be backing him all the way. But Netanyahu has not only injected Abbas into the whole “Who is a Jew” conundrum, he wants him to accept that a Jew who lives in Buenos Aires has a weightier connection to Israel than the Palestinian family that has lived in Shfaram or in Tirah or in Taybe for hundreds of years.

That may be a reasonable position for Jewish uber-patriots, but it’s a bridge too far for me.

I have never accepted the contention that in order to be a Zionist one has to live in Israel. One can be a Zionist and support Israel even if one lives in Timbuktu. But one cannot live in Timbuktu and claim Israel as one’s own. Abbas may choose to accept Netanyahu’s demand, but as far as I am concerned, Israel is an Israeli state, and it is the nation state of Jews who choose to live in it. Period.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.567665#

[oberliner]

45. The UN Partition Plan called for a Jewish State and an Arab State

For what that is worth.

[Ken Burch]

46. if Lapid feels that way, he should take his party out of the Cabinet and bring Netanyahu down.

If Lapid keeps his party in the government, it doesn't mean anything that he says things like this, since he's never going to get Netanyahu to change his mind on this OR anything else.