This piece is a tendentious misconstruction of both Israel's past and its present. It has become fashionable in both the US and Israel to accuse any politics with which one disagrees of being "undemocratic" when it's nothing of the sort. Some examples:
The Nation-State law doesn't "supersede" the Declaration of Independence (never mind that the latter doesn't have statutory power).
The efforts to rein in the Supreme Court stem from the Court's shucking any semblance of the restraints typical to those of Western democracies, like the need for standing and the appointment of Justices by the other branches of government. Restoring some balance between the branches is seen as "undemocratic" only by people who are overwhelmingly satisfied with the Court's current ideological composition. Put a few more conservative Justices on it and those same people with be threatening them like Chuck Schumer threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Reading this is like watchin the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail yelling "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Re: the Nation-State Law, its framers - specfically then-Justice Minister Ayeklet Shaked and then-Tourism Minister Yariv Levin - were quite explicit that this was designed to be the preamble to a future constitution and would, in effect, replace the Declaration of Independence as the most authoritative document *defining* the State of Israel. What is instructive is that Shaked and Levin rejected compromises offered from center-left parties and from old-fashioned liberals in the Likud like Benny Begin, which included language about equality and minority rights. In other words, these nods towards liberal democratic values were consciously and deliberately ommitted.
Re: the Supreme Court - I'm well aware of the accusations about undue judicial activism by Israel's SC, but I don't agree as a matter of fact. It's hugely overstated; Israel's SC has struck down far less legislation than the Courts of other democracies, including the US. But even if it were a real problem, the fact thst the solution being proposed (and supported by Netanyahu) is an 'Override Law', allowing a bare majority of the Knesset to overturn a SC decision, betrays the real illiberal agenda. As I wrote in my piece, in the Israeli system, the SC is the ONLY check on majority power. If 61 out of 120 Knesset members can simply vote to ignore the Supreme Court you have an absolute tyranny of the majority.
First-of-all, thanks for replying so politely, given that I was fairly aggressive in my comment. I don't recant the comment, as it was a reasonable reaction to your essay, but I am happy to temper my initial impression.
Regarding the NS law, the authors explained why they opposed inclusion of the clauses you mention, essentially that those clauses are already covered by other basic laws, making their reiteration here seem to vitiate the thrust of this law. Given that nothing in the law contradicts any of the rights conferred on all citizens by the other basic laws, what other interpretation would one give to their including here?
I don't recall anyone saying it was meant to replace the Declaration of Independence. I'd be interested in the source, though I don't see that it makes a difference.
(As you may be aware, the late Ruth Gavison opposed the law, but without any vehemence or claims that it was a violation of democracy. More to the point, she stated strongly that there is no essential conflict between Israel being a specifically Jewish state, manifested in the types of details included in this law, and it being a liberal democracy with equal rights for minorities.)
Regarding the ‘Override Law’ (more properly a set of ‘Override Clauses’ in the Basic Laws), I don't think it's a proper solution to the SC's activism -- I'd much prefer legislation to shore up rules about standing and justiciability. Either way, though, the proposed law isn't part of some campaign to take anyone's rights away -- it's a response to a very real problem with the SC, which manifests itself overwhelmingly not in striking laws down but in preventing the government from doing its job, by voiding civil-service appointments, administrative rules, etc. and by making sure that many laws and executive actions never get off the ground, having signaled that they *will* be struck down. Claiming that the whole uproar is over the SC actually striking laws down is, it seems, either out-of-touch or disingenuous.
It’s also in line with what’s done in other Western democracies, some of which don’t allow the SC to strike laws down, others with their own versions of ‘Overrides’ and none, as far as I know, with such a complete absence of checks on the Judicial branch.
I like the essay, though I don't know enough about Israel's internal politics to comment on contemporary details.
I think the core conflict between a liberal state respecting minority rights vs an illiberal majoritarian state was present at the beginning, reflecting a heated debate among Zionists in the 1930s and before. The swing away from a liberal perspective was energized by massive immigration from Russia (beginning in the 1970s) and from other countries that lacked a historical tradition of liberal democracy. I first visited Israel in 1974, and was already concerned then by a sense of nascent apartheid thinking. Israel today seem in danger of making decisions that will irrevocably damage its future. I am particularly appalled by what to me seems an obscene political alliance that has been forged with extreme US Christian fundamentalists.
I have to disagree with your first point. Zionists in the 1930s were more or less agreed that the putative Jewish state would be a democracy with equality for non-Jews. In fact the most outspoken supporter of a *more* liberal Jewish state was Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of what became the Israeli right. It's true that 'illiberal' ideas towards the Arabs were commonplace in Zionism of the time, but the context was an existential national conflict against those same Arabs. We know from records of meetings from the time that, even while fighting was ongoing between Jews and Arabs in pre-state-Palestine, David Ben-Gurion was drawing up plans for a state which he assumed would include a significant Arab minority, to be afforded the same government services as the Jewish majority.
By contrast, I agree with your last point. Unfortunately, many American Evangelicals who claim to 'love' Israel, tend not to care one iota about whether it remains a democracy or not.
My knowledge of pre-1948 Zionism is rudimentary; I'm glad to accept your better-informed view. I however believe the existential nature of the national conflict before 1948 is somewhat distorted. The environment of the Middle East in 1900 was hardly a model of tolerance and modern liberal democracy. It took a long time before European Zionists decided that the ancient land of Israel was THE place for their new homeland.
Gross seems to be saying that before the current illiberal moves, Palestinian-Israelis were treated like equal citizens. Can he name a single Palestinian-Israeli who agrees?
Hi Wayne, the nearly-2 million Arab citizens of Israel are far from monolithic, in either their experiences or their attitudes to the state. That said, it is absolutely right to say there has been systemic discrimination historically, at times worse than others. Ironiocally - given what I've written - Israeli Arab integration and acceptance is in many ways better now than it has ever been, with annual increases in Arabs completing college degrees, going into Israel's prestigious hi-tech sector etc. It's also refleted in opinion polls among Arabs, with a majority today identifying as "Israeli" rather than "Palestinian". (This is one of the reasons why something like the Nation-State Law is such a slap in the face for Israeli Arabs.) The right-wing govts that have been so harmful in terms of the illiberal atmosphere they've created by the Nation-State Law and Netanyahu's anti-Arab rhetoric, have nevertheless actually invested quite deliberately in the Arab sector. Netanyahu is not a racist. He's a populist with increasingly few scruples, but he sees the economic sense in not letting 20 percent of the population waste their potential.
Arabs are Israel's (large) minority population. Every democracy that has minorities is found wanting to some degree with regard to equality and anti-racism. Israel's no different, and its minority is not like African-Americans, or Indian Brits; its minority are the same ethnic/national group as the people Israel has been at war with, on-and-off, for the entirety of the state's existence. If you want to compare like-with-like, compare Israel's treatement of its Arab citizens to how the US treated its Japanese citizens during WWII.
Thank you for replying so politely. When I was young you couldn't criticize Israel, even moderately, without getting treated like the moral equivalent of Hitler. Not that it still doesn't happen, but it's a lot less.
This piece is a tendentious misconstruction of both Israel's past and its present. It has become fashionable in both the US and Israel to accuse any politics with which one disagrees of being "undemocratic" when it's nothing of the sort. Some examples:
The Nation-State law doesn't "supersede" the Declaration of Independence (never mind that the latter doesn't have statutory power).
The efforts to rein in the Supreme Court stem from the Court's shucking any semblance of the restraints typical to those of Western democracies, like the need for standing and the appointment of Justices by the other branches of government. Restoring some balance between the branches is seen as "undemocratic" only by people who are overwhelmingly satisfied with the Court's current ideological composition. Put a few more conservative Justices on it and those same people with be threatening them like Chuck Schumer threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Reading this is like watchin the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail yelling "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Hi Michael,
Re: the Nation-State Law, its framers - specfically then-Justice Minister Ayeklet Shaked and then-Tourism Minister Yariv Levin - were quite explicit that this was designed to be the preamble to a future constitution and would, in effect, replace the Declaration of Independence as the most authoritative document *defining* the State of Israel. What is instructive is that Shaked and Levin rejected compromises offered from center-left parties and from old-fashioned liberals in the Likud like Benny Begin, which included language about equality and minority rights. In other words, these nods towards liberal democratic values were consciously and deliberately ommitted.
Re: the Supreme Court - I'm well aware of the accusations about undue judicial activism by Israel's SC, but I don't agree as a matter of fact. It's hugely overstated; Israel's SC has struck down far less legislation than the Courts of other democracies, including the US. But even if it were a real problem, the fact thst the solution being proposed (and supported by Netanyahu) is an 'Override Law', allowing a bare majority of the Knesset to overturn a SC decision, betrays the real illiberal agenda. As I wrote in my piece, in the Israeli system, the SC is the ONLY check on majority power. If 61 out of 120 Knesset members can simply vote to ignore the Supreme Court you have an absolute tyranny of the majority.
First-of-all, thanks for replying so politely, given that I was fairly aggressive in my comment. I don't recant the comment, as it was a reasonable reaction to your essay, but I am happy to temper my initial impression.
Regarding the NS law, the authors explained why they opposed inclusion of the clauses you mention, essentially that those clauses are already covered by other basic laws, making their reiteration here seem to vitiate the thrust of this law. Given that nothing in the law contradicts any of the rights conferred on all citizens by the other basic laws, what other interpretation would one give to their including here?
I don't recall anyone saying it was meant to replace the Declaration of Independence. I'd be interested in the source, though I don't see that it makes a difference.
(As you may be aware, the late Ruth Gavison opposed the law, but without any vehemence or claims that it was a violation of democracy. More to the point, she stated strongly that there is no essential conflict between Israel being a specifically Jewish state, manifested in the types of details included in this law, and it being a liberal democracy with equal rights for minorities.)
Regarding the ‘Override Law’ (more properly a set of ‘Override Clauses’ in the Basic Laws), I don't think it's a proper solution to the SC's activism -- I'd much prefer legislation to shore up rules about standing and justiciability. Either way, though, the proposed law isn't part of some campaign to take anyone's rights away -- it's a response to a very real problem with the SC, which manifests itself overwhelmingly not in striking laws down but in preventing the government from doing its job, by voiding civil-service appointments, administrative rules, etc. and by making sure that many laws and executive actions never get off the ground, having signaled that they *will* be struck down. Claiming that the whole uproar is over the SC actually striking laws down is, it seems, either out-of-touch or disingenuous.
It’s also in line with what’s done in other Western democracies, some of which don’t allow the SC to strike laws down, others with their own versions of ‘Overrides’ and none, as far as I know, with such a complete absence of checks on the Judicial branch.
I like the essay, though I don't know enough about Israel's internal politics to comment on contemporary details.
I think the core conflict between a liberal state respecting minority rights vs an illiberal majoritarian state was present at the beginning, reflecting a heated debate among Zionists in the 1930s and before. The swing away from a liberal perspective was energized by massive immigration from Russia (beginning in the 1970s) and from other countries that lacked a historical tradition of liberal democracy. I first visited Israel in 1974, and was already concerned then by a sense of nascent apartheid thinking. Israel today seem in danger of making decisions that will irrevocably damage its future. I am particularly appalled by what to me seems an obscene political alliance that has been forged with extreme US Christian fundamentalists.
Hi Richard,
I have to disagree with your first point. Zionists in the 1930s were more or less agreed that the putative Jewish state would be a democracy with equality for non-Jews. In fact the most outspoken supporter of a *more* liberal Jewish state was Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of what became the Israeli right. It's true that 'illiberal' ideas towards the Arabs were commonplace in Zionism of the time, but the context was an existential national conflict against those same Arabs. We know from records of meetings from the time that, even while fighting was ongoing between Jews and Arabs in pre-state-Palestine, David Ben-Gurion was drawing up plans for a state which he assumed would include a significant Arab minority, to be afforded the same government services as the Jewish majority.
By contrast, I agree with your last point. Unfortunately, many American Evangelicals who claim to 'love' Israel, tend not to care one iota about whether it remains a democracy or not.
My knowledge of pre-1948 Zionism is rudimentary; I'm glad to accept your better-informed view. I however believe the existential nature of the national conflict before 1948 is somewhat distorted. The environment of the Middle East in 1900 was hardly a model of tolerance and modern liberal democracy. It took a long time before European Zionists decided that the ancient land of Israel was THE place for their new homeland.
Gross seems to be saying that before the current illiberal moves, Palestinian-Israelis were treated like equal citizens. Can he name a single Palestinian-Israeli who agrees?
Hi Wayne, the nearly-2 million Arab citizens of Israel are far from monolithic, in either their experiences or their attitudes to the state. That said, it is absolutely right to say there has been systemic discrimination historically, at times worse than others. Ironiocally - given what I've written - Israeli Arab integration and acceptance is in many ways better now than it has ever been, with annual increases in Arabs completing college degrees, going into Israel's prestigious hi-tech sector etc. It's also refleted in opinion polls among Arabs, with a majority today identifying as "Israeli" rather than "Palestinian". (This is one of the reasons why something like the Nation-State Law is such a slap in the face for Israeli Arabs.) The right-wing govts that have been so harmful in terms of the illiberal atmosphere they've created by the Nation-State Law and Netanyahu's anti-Arab rhetoric, have nevertheless actually invested quite deliberately in the Arab sector. Netanyahu is not a racist. He's a populist with increasingly few scruples, but he sees the economic sense in not letting 20 percent of the population waste their potential.
Arabs are Israel's (large) minority population. Every democracy that has minorities is found wanting to some degree with regard to equality and anti-racism. Israel's no different, and its minority is not like African-Americans, or Indian Brits; its minority are the same ethnic/national group as the people Israel has been at war with, on-and-off, for the entirety of the state's existence. If you want to compare like-with-like, compare Israel's treatement of its Arab citizens to how the US treated its Japanese citizens during WWII.
Paul,
Thank you for replying so politely. When I was young you couldn't criticize Israel, even moderately, without getting treated like the moral equivalent of Hitler. Not that it still doesn't happen, but it's a lot less.