"Israel Is Meant to Be Jewish and Democratic; It Cannot Be Both"

There is no enduring end to cyclical violence without a political solution to the fate of the Palestinians. No one is seriously talking about the day after another Gaza war, unless they talk about political settlement, not security arrangement. The New York Times borrowed a line from John Kerry  who argued that "Israel Is Meant to Be Jewish and Democratic. It Cannot Be Both." The NYT article  interpreted that statement by invoking another maxim: "States Don’t Have a Right to Exist. People Do." Here are some excerpts from the article, referenced by similar views published in global media outlets.

  

Last month, Mr. Blinken promised that the United States would help Syrians build an “inclusive, nonsectarian” state. The Israel that exists today manifestly fails that test.

Still, for most of the leaders of the organized American Jewish community, a nonsectarian and inclusive country on this land is unthinkable. Jews are rightly outraged when Iranian leaders call for wiping Israel off the map. But there is a crucial difference between a state ceasing to exist because it is invaded by its neighbors and a state ceasing to exist because it adopts a more representative form of government.

American Jewish leaders don’t just insist on Israel’s right to exist. They insist on its right to exist as a Jewish state. They cling to the idea that it can be both Jewish and democratic despite the basic contradiction between legal supremacy for one ethno-religious group and the democratic principle of equality under the law.

The belief that a Jewish state has unconditional value — irrespective of its impact on the people who live within it — isn’t contrary just to the way America’s leaders talk about other countries. It’s also contrary to Jewish tradition. Jewish tradition does not view states as possessing rights, but views them with deep suspicion. In the Bible, the Israelite elders ask the Prophet Samuel to appoint a king to rule over them. God tells Samuel to grant the elders’ wish but also warn that their ruler will commit terrible abuses. “The day will come,” Samuel tells them, “when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen.”

The implication is clear: Kingdoms — or, in modern parlance, states — are not sacrosanct. They are mere instruments, which can either protect life or destroy it. “I emphatically deny that a state might have any intrinsic value at all,” wrote the Orthodox Israeli social critic Yeshayahu Leibowitz in 1975. Mr. Leibowitz was not an anarchist. But, though he considered himself a Zionist, he insisted that states — including the Jewish one — be judged on their treatment of the human beings under their control. States don’t have a right to exist. People do.

Some of the Bible’s greatest heroes — Moses and Mordechai among others — risk their lives by refusing to treat despotic rulers as divine. In refusing to worship state power, they reject idolatry, a prohibition so central to Judaism that, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yochanan called it the very definition of being a Jew.

Read more >