Israel: An Ethnocracy or Democracy? Can a Zionist state be a democratic state?

Judaism is a religion, Zionism is a political ideology. As anti-Zionism is increasingly being equated with anti-Semitism, there is a need to analyze these terms in the historical context and how they are being used today. The implications of how these terms are defined are not only limited to Israelis, Palestinians, or people in the Middle East but also to Jewish people living all over the world and their relationship with the majorities in the countries they live in. Richard Silverstein, in his famous blog, Tikun Olam, discusses in detail Zionism, Isreali democracy, BDS, fascism, Holocaust, white supremism links with Judeo-supremism, BLM-Jewish relations, etc. Some excerpts of blog are reproduced below (Entire blog can be accessed Conflating Judaism and Zoinism: Bad New for Jews):

Often arguments over political or religious terms used in everyday discourse are dry or the province purely of zealots.  But these terms can develop a power all their own. Religious or political azealots take them to heart and make life and death decisions based on their interpretation. This is the case regarding  Judaism and Zionism.

Israel’s founding document and sacred text of Zionism, the Declaration of Independence, defined the state as “Jewish” and inextricably tied to the Diaspora, which was anticipated to ensure its future by furnishing much of its immigrant population. Later in 1985, Israel’s Basic Law added the term “democratic,” thus yoking the two words inextricably.

After 1977, and the ascendancy of the far-right Likud and other ultra-nationalist parties, the unresolvable tension between “Jewish” and “democratic” become clear.  They paid lip-service to Israel’s democracy and embraced the supremacy of Israeli Jews.  Passage in 2018 of the nation-state law as a Basic Law enshrined the notion of Judeo-supremacy. It also defined with solemn permanence the subjugation of Palestinian citizens of Israel.But the seeds of Israeli racism were there from the state’s  inception. It was not democratic because it did not offer non-Jewish citizens equal rights.  In fact, Palestinians lived under martial law from 1948-1966.

Israel offered Jewish citizens superior rights, the definition of an ethnocracy.  That is, a nation in which the majority ethnic or religious group enjoys a set of rights which the minority is denied.  This phenomenon was strengthened after 1967, when the settler movement became a de facto form of Judeo-supremacy. Its original focus was on “settling” Jews outside the Green Line in what it called the Greater Land of Israel (i.e. Palestine). But its political ambitions gradually became much more expansive till today, when it maintains a firm grip on virtually all the levers of state power.

Many Diaspora and Israeli Jews shared a liberal Zionist dream of a Jewish democratic state. But we have come to understand that democracy and “Jewishness,” in terms of the Israeli state, cannot be reconciled. They simply cannot coexist.The same is true of Judaism and Zionism. Israel, in the beginning, was a secular state in which the ruling parties endorsed socialism and offered a version of the welfare state. But when Benjamin Netanyahu became finance minister in 2003, he dismantled it with a series of harsh Thatcherite polices. They in turn rendered socialism obsolete.  Even more recently Israel has dropped secularism as well.  A plurality of Jews continue to be secular, but overwhelming political power and social control rests on a system of Judeo-supremacism...

For this reason, it’s critical to distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political ideology.  Israel is a nation, not a religion.  Zionism is a political movement, not a theology. Judaism as a religion is a spiritual expression which eschews, at least in the Diaspora, political power.  Remember Zechariah’s famous dictum: “Not by might, now by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord of Hosts.”

 

Mixing politics and religion poses tremendous danger.  When a conflict lies in the realm of politics it is often possible to arrive at compromise.  It might not be easy, and it may take years.  But political differences can be negotiated and resolved.  Politics are not always rational, but at their best they are.  Conflicting political views can be resolved through rational discussion and analysis.

But once a conflict takes on a religious dimension, compromise becomes almost impossible.  You have moved from the material world to the divine.  A nation which believes that God has sanctified it has assumed a mantle of omnipotence and infallibility.  With God on your side, you are invincible.  Such beliefs have been the cause of immense human suffering over the ages.

Israel’s prevailing religious ultra-nationalism has succeeded in wielding religion as a powerful tool in a political conflict. Just as von Clausewitz said that war was “politics by other means,” so Israel’s political-religious extremists offer warrior Judaism as politics by other means. This is the malady afflicting Israel today. 

 

End of prospects of a Jewish State?

It's so obvious. Hard to fathom how they cannot see it. Jewish settlers and religious nationalists are the most ardent supporters of a Jewish state and yet they are the ones who are bent on ending the hope of establishing a Jewish state for next many centuries. Can it be more ironic? A Jewish state established after thousands of years of persecution, destroyed by its most passionate Jewish supporters! 

The failure of latest peace process led by Secretary Kerry was expected as Israeli government had no intention of changing the status quo. What was astounding were the accusations hurled toward Kerry for speaking, sorry whispering, the truth about the future apartheid state, by Israeli ministers and other supporters of Jewish state (See Kerry's warning to Israel lost in furor over 'apartheid' ). 

How is it possible for these people to establish a Jewish and democratic state, if they are not ready to deal and give Palestinians their own state? A state half Jewish and half Muslim cannot be a Jewish and democratic state. It will be a liberal democratic state or an apartheid state as Secretary Kerry said. Currently it is a Jewish state, with half of the population having fewer rights. In a decade or two, it will be a state where majority will be ruled by a ethnic/religious (Jewish) minority, a classic apartheid state. 

Considering those opposing two-state solution rational, it appears they maybe be thinking:

• The apartheid state would be acceptable to the world, the US and the Israelis as it is not much different than what is the situation now. If it is acceptable now, it will be acceptable in future
• Palestinians would migrate to other Arab countries and elsewhere as they feel more pressure from settlers.

Both these scenarios are improbable. The current situation is acceptable because the dream of two-state solution is alive and the present situation is considered temporary. Once this mirage ends, it will be clear to everyone that Israel is an apartheid state. Even many Israelis would not accept it, what to say of Americans and the world at-large. And Palestinians are not going to vanish or migrate. Infact, they are going to increase their number and demand their basic human rights. For many Palestinians and Israelis, one state would a best case scenario as extremists movements from both sides can never dictate in one unified state. 

For those who still fantasize about two-states solution, please see Reza Aslan's vlog (See The One State Solution). He argues that one state might not be the best solution and it might not be a favorite of most Israelis and Palestinians (as well as many others around the world) but it is 'the only solution' and 'it is already happening'. So, whether we like it or not, it is a done deal.

However, many still hope against hope, like The Economist. It accepts that time is not on Israel's side but argues that disaster would not follow immediately after the collapse of negotiations with Palestinians and sees a solution in future (See Take a break: Two state solution still the only one that makes sense. But it won't happen this time round). As more settlers find homes in the future Palestinian state, the probability of two-state solution is decreasing fast. BDS movement shows that apartheid state would not be acceptable so the only option left is a democratic state. The support of Jewish Americans for Israeli policies is declining as discussed in this blog before (See US Jews less committed to Israel because of their religiosity or because of Israel's politics). 

I agree with Reza, two-states solution is dead, long live the one-state reality.

Iran and Israel: Changing Places?

Being two states based on religious nationalism and also critical for world peace and economy, Israel and Iran have been focus of this blog. So, it is fascinating to read a comparison of these two states. 

Two academics, one Iranian and the other Israeli, from the prestigious Stanford University have penned a wonderful op-ed in New York Times Sunday Review (See Are Iran and Israel trading places?). They argue that Iran and Israel are trading places in terms of religious nationalism, democracy, human rights and international acceptance. Iran is now considered undemocratic, authoritarian, radically religious nationalist and international pariah while Israel is considered democratic, liberal and is internationally accepted. Soon, however, Iran can become today's Israel and Israel today's Iran, if Israelis and Iranians do not change their current trajectories. 

Message of the authors is clear. While Israelis should change their trajectory, Iranians should stick to it.

After first listing the similarities between Iran and Israel (old civilizations; primarily non-Arab states in a mostly Arab region; and bastions of secular nationalism in the 1950s), Milani and Waismel-Manorapril contend that a critical cultural and demographic shift is happening and Israelis and Iranians are changing both inside their countries and outside. 

Iranian intellectuals, previously supporting religious authoritarianism, are now voicing their dissent against the regime. The argument that democracy and human rights are against Islam has been rejected. The patriarchal society established by the ruling elite, disproportionately old and male, has been challenged by Iranian women, who make up almost two-third of country’s science and engineering graduates. Gender apartheid has failed and Iranian women are asserting themselves. Birthrate in Iran is falling. Most of the Iranians are under thirty and believe in individual liberty. The rise of Mr. Rouhani and the current pragmatism is the consequence of these major changes. So, expect more pragmatism, democracy and better relations with the West. These trends inside Iran are supported by Iranian diaspora that is strong, liberal and increasingly successful.

Milani and Waismel-Manorapril then contrast this situation with Israel. While Iranian elite are moving toward West/US, Israeli elite are increasingly antagonistic as seen by their recent statements. These changes are again based on an underlying cultural and demographic shift. Orthodox Jews are gradually controlling the state that was once more liberal. Demographically, they have grown much faster as their average birthrate of 6.5 children per family is much more than the 2.6 children per family for the rest of Israelis. This change has obvious political consequences. Orthodox Jewish parties hold about around one-fourth of Knesset seats. They want to make Israel less democratic and more Jewish, with not many rights for its Arab population. Most of them are also against any agreement with the Palestinians and support settlements. Their support has been critical for continued expansion of settlements and rejection of any real peace deal. Internationally, these Israeli policies have led to increasingly strong support for the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli companies and institutions, an existential threat to Israel. Jewish diaspora is also changing and is becoming less religious and less uncritically pro-Israel. European and American Jews are mostly liberal and have difficulty accepting Israel's attitude toward Palestinians and its refusal to end occupation.

While I agree with much of Milani and Waismel-Manorapril's argument, there are few observations I want to make:

• Both Israel and Iran were not bastion of secularism in 1950s. Muhammad Reza Shah was for modernization but if secularism means separation of religion from politics, Shah clearly didn't want secularism. He used to pray at religious shrines; tell stories about how he had dreams in which he met Shia Imams; used to seek supplications from Tehran's prayer leader before going to foreign visits; and had no problems with the ascendancy of Shia sect. While his father (Reza Shah)'s regime can be called a 'bastion of secularism', his cannot. 
• Israel was even less of a bastion of secularism. Although, it was ruled by secular Jews, Judaism had a special place in Israel from the start. Israel's national anthem, language and flag and more particularly establishment of Chief Rabbinate clearly showed a tendency against secularism. Interestingly, it was in the 1950s that religious courts established their control over matters of marriage and divorce in Israel. So, while both countries have become more religious, they were not secular in 1950s.
• It is true that Iranians want a more liberal and open society but do they want a Western society? There is a difference and it should be recognized. Iranians maybe against their ruling clerics but they are also strongly nationalistic and this nationalism is largely based on West's injustice and its efforts to control Iran since 1850s. Therefore, expect better Iranian relations with the West but if Iranian felt they are being unjustly humiliated (again), then all bets are off. The recent refusal of the US government that it would not give visa to Iran's designated ambassador to the UN is one example how things can go the 'other' way.