T. Belman. I fail to see the value of this wishy-washy Bill. It provides no definition of a “national homeland of the Jewish people”. The leaves it open to Court to define it as it wishes. By removing our exclusive right to national liberation and reaffirming equal rights for all, we have gutted the whole purpose of the law in the first place. In fact passing the law will reduce our Jewish rights.
While still advocating Israel as ‘national homeland of Jewish people,’ Begin’s bill stresses Israel’s democratic character.
The Jewish State Law is back, Walla! News reports Thursday, but this time in a much more watered down fashion.
Eight months after the 19th government dissolved, in part over the controversial bill, MK Benny Begin (Likud) has submitted a diluted version, called, “Basic Law: The State of Israel.”
Based on a proposal identical to one submitted by former Yesh Atif MK Ruth Calderon and similar to former Hatnua MK Elazar Stern’s proposal, Begin’s version speaks in general tones, so as to win support from the both the Right and the Left.
The Jewish State Law, in its most strongly worded form, relegated Arabic to a “special status” language instead of an official language, and stipulated “the right to realization of national self determination in Israel is exclusive to the Jewish people.”
Begin’s proposal, however, reads as follows: “Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people, based on the foundations of freedom, justice and peace as envisioned by the prophets of Israel and upholds equal rights for all of its citizens.”
The second clause stresses that “Israel is a democracy,” although the proposal calls for “the anthem, flag and emblem of the State and Israel to be determined by law.”
Pressure now falls on left-wing parties Zionist Union and Meretz to support the law and grant Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu this long sought after achievement, or else resist and be subject to public scrutiny.
Netanyahu has tried to pass some form of the Jewish State Law for his past two terms, and with Begin’s proposal, which it appears most of the coalition will rally around, his chances of success are strong.
@ Ted Belman: Until Israel can write a constitution that limits judicial activism or judges trumping the Knesset the issue you describe and other issues will keep coming back to haunt Israel.
Right now the proposal by Begin is a step in the correct direction and probably as mush as one could reasonably expect to pass, currently.
My goal is a foundation for deportation of rock-throwers (operational and philosophical).
For 100 years, Jews have been contributing money to the JNF which has in turn bought land for Jews. JNF now owns a great deal of land in Israel. Should the JNF be forced to hold that land for everybody and not just for Jews? If a majority of Israeli Jews want Israel to be more Jewish, whatever that means, should the Arab vote be a bar to doing so.
Many new laws that come before the Court are held unconstitutional because they offend “democracy” or “equality” or “human dignity”.. What the right wants is place Zionism as a value that can trump democracy or art least equal it as a value to be upheld. Presently there is no such legal value and I don’t think this wording changes that.
@ SHmuel HaLevi 2:
Benny Begin exemplifies the apple that has rolled far from the tree on which it grew.
Very far.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
If BB can muster 80+ votes for this, isn’t it desirable?
@ Bear Klein:Of what significance is it to call Israel “the national home of the Jewish people”? What flows from that? Anything? Maybe the right of return. Jews can return but Arabs who fled can’t. At the same time we are saying Arabs have equal rights. But I thought we wanted a Jewish state not a state of all its citizens.
@ Ted Belman: Ted, what wording would you want to see Ted. I do not see the issue with declaring,
I admit to being pro-BB, but it seems incrementalism may be desirable on multiple fronts.
Begin, the son, is a wash out and a bill from that origin, akin to some trash that Meridor would pop, MUST be rejected.
In law school I was taught that a Guarantee by a car company or any other, limits your rights rather than increases them. Same here.