MarshalPurnell wrote:Does the concept of France as a French state disenfranchise the North African immigrants who live there? Does the fact that Germany is a German state mean that the Turks are second-class citizens? Does anyone believe that a European country would drop its native language and rearrange institutions to accommodate foreign immigrants, or define its character on the basis of demographic changes? And of course we have cases like Mexico where even naturalized citizens are denied the same rights as natives, or Malaysia where a particular religiously-defined majority group is allowed to define the state as theirs and discriminate against the other 40% of the population. That Israel is in a neighborhood where all its neighbors have no intention whatsoever of allowing their nature as Muslim states to be called into question should go without needing to be said.
Now if someone wants to analyze how Israel treats non-Jewish citizens compared to Jewish citizens, both in law and in practice, that is one thing. Blanket statements that it necessarily discriminates against non-Jewish citizens by proclaiming itself a Jewish state merely makes a criticism of all nation-states that retain an ethnic character.
Find me a segment from the French constitution/French law declaring France a French state, or similarly for Germany. What is the context for the rights denied naturalized Mexican citizens? After all, the US does the same thing in forbidding naturalized citizens to serve as President. Furthermore, French and German can also be seen as cultural, rather than ethnic/"national" definitions. "Muslim", meanwhile, is not a recognized ethnic group, and it is possible to join Islam freely, as well as leave it of your own free will. The comparison to ethnicity is flawed. Israel itself, when it was declared a Jewish, democratic state, could not have been referring to a vague national or cultural definition, as this was put forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, before Israel was an established country. Nowadays, that may have changed, but there continues to be discrimination on religious grounds.
However, the context of "Jewishness" when applied to Israel is supposedly national, rather than cultural, religious, or ethnic. This makes matters tricky. The US State Department indicates
here that the primary definition of Jewishness for residency rights is ethnic and religious. If you are the child of a female convert who is born after her conversion, you may receive right of residency. No other relatives of converts may do so. Further, there is a definite bias against non-Orthodox traditions by the Israeli government, including a lack of recognition for any conversions via non-Orthodox groups, a ban on recognition of marriages performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, and a ban on burial within the state Jewish cemeteries of persons not Jewish by Orthodox standards. It seems that there is a clear bias in favor of one particular branch of Judaism. Speaking of marriage, all secular, interfaith, and marriages performed by unrecognized religious groups are banned. They recognize marriages performed outside of Israel, however, allowing atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews, and a number of evangelical Christian denominations to simply hop over to Cyprus for a quick marriage and then head back home to Israel.
The Israeli government refuses to protect any non-Jewish holy sites, recognizing only 137 Jewish sites. To be absolutely fair, the 1967 Protection of Holy Sites act allows the protection of any holy sites of any faith within Israel, so it is simply the fault of the ruling governments since then. They ban mixed-gender prayer services at religious sites for Jews, once again discriminating in favor of the Orthodox groups. Note that Orthodox groups only number about 17 percent of all of Israel's population, being outnumbered by non-Jews significantly. (This is only self-identified Orthodox individuals, so the number that would be considered Orthodox might be higher.) The government specifically funds the construction of synagogues, while only providing, by its own admittance, maintenance funds for churches and mosques, and at a significantly lower rate than synagogues. Further, 96 percent of all Jewish religious education funding went to Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox schools. Arab schools do provide courses in Islam and Christianity, but government funding for such courses is proportionally less than for religious courses in Jewish schools.
All IDF Jewish chaplains are Orthodox. While they lack any Muslim or Christian chaplains, the government states that the small proportion of Muslim and Christian volunteers and the frequent home leave received by soldiers in the IDF allows such soldiers spiritual access. Note that the Right of Return uses criteria for Jewishness that are lighter than the criteria used for full citizenship, which are based on Orthodox definitions of Jewishness. In other words, it is possible to move to Israel under the Right of Return and be forbidden full citizenship unless you convert to Orthodox Judaism. The criteria for the Right of Return are ethnic as well as religious, with spouses, children, grandchildren, children-in-law and grandchildren-in-law of a Jew being eligible. Thankfully, the criteria are more open than the traditional means of inheritance through the mother, and refer to Jewish identity rather than "Jewishness".
The State Department is clear that the Israeli government discriminates against non-Jews and non-Orthodox Jews, and continues to do so. The government has been unable to adequately establish civil cemeteries, despite 310,000 people who immigrated under the Law of Return being forbidden from marriage, divorce, or burial within a Jewish cemetery thanks to them not meeting Orthodox criteria. This is roughly 4.2 percent of the entire population, or 5.6 percent of the Jewish population. That is somewhat larger, by four times, of a proportion than the Native American population within the US. It is slightly smaller of a proportion than the percentage of Asians within the US. Religious minorities received four percent of the funding for religious services and institutions in 2008 despite being twenty percent of the population.
These are all entirely within the borders of Israel proper, and do not involve the Occupied Territories. The idea that Israel defines Jewishness as a vague concept that encapsulates Christians, Muslims, and other religious minorities seems at odds with this evidence, indeed, almost indefensible, given the narrower definitions of "Jew" used by the Israeli government. Finally, the ad hominem tu quoque is a fallacy, rather than a defense. The poor behavior of Malaysia on religious freedom or the US on immigration reform does not excuse any such instances of the same by Israel, no more than political imprisonment by the US government is exonerated by China doing the same.
.
