socaltownie said:
CaliforniaEternal said:
Your second point while laudable won't work. The point of Israel is to be a haven for Jews. That will only work with a stable majority. Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank don't want to be part of Israel. They don't want to speak Hebrew or live in a country informed by Jewish values. And that's totally fine. Nobody wants to force them to be a part of something they don't want. Neither side wants to be involved with the other and that's the best approach. A country needs a common set of values to function and there is simply no way to reconcile the vast differences between Israeli and Palestinian culture. Even in Europe, outside of the obvious example of former Yugoslavia, these types of multi-ethnic states are inherently unstable. The UK, Spain, Belgium, even Canada have very significant separatist movements. The model of the US is not something that can be exported worldwide. It's a very unique model that formed under specific circumstances and has/had major issues under the hood. And it's still a fascinating question if the US model will even work long term.
see I am deeply confused. See we have some waying "he point of Israel is to be a haven for Jews. That will only work with a stable majority. Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank don't want to be part of Israel. They don't want to speak Hebrew or live in a country informed by Jewish values. "
At the same time we have protestations that non-Jewish Israel citizens have equal rights and it is a liberal democracy ("the only one!") in the entire Middle east.
See I am too much of a creature of the American system to hold those 2 things in my head. Either the a polyethnic state accords equal rights to everyone and keeps religion largely out of the public square or, ipsofacto, some citizens enjoy rights other do not.
And even Israel confronts this challenge as the far right orthadox parties (and sects) do not recognize reform Jews as actual "true jews". Just hope they never really gain enough power to decide who sits as PM if you are not fully keeping Kosher.
Two things can be true. You can have a state with an official religion and still accord equal rights to minorities.
Great Britain is historically majority white (about 50-50 now) and has an official religion (Church of England), yet somehow manages to be a "liberal democracy" according equal rights to everyone. In fact, there are lots of European countries that would fall in that category (Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Poland, and Italy). Samoa too.
Several Central/South American countries have Catholicism as their official religion, though I suppose you could argue they are not fully democratic in some cases.
I'll admit, states with Islam as their official religion probably haven't achieved that yet - many are not democratic and most don't in practice afford minority religions equal rights.
Implicit in your argument (bolded above) is that if a state has an official religion, by definition people of other religions are denied their "rights." I don't think that's automatically true - again Great Britain being a pretty good example. What rights are Jews/Muslims denied in GB by virtue of the Church of England being the official religion?
And you seem to feel that the only way to be a "liberal democracy" is to keep religion out of the public square. Again, I don't think that's true unless you are defining liberal democracy as requiring that, which may be what you're doing.
Israel does confront real challenges in balancing these issues. No doubt the ultra-orthodox have disproportionate influence (for now). But by any reasonable measure, Israel is a liberal democracy - no less than than Great Britain or any of the other European countries mentioned above that have state religions.
Two anecdotal points - I think the ultra-orthodox may be losing their power. It seems likely the center will coalesce after recent events, depriving those minority sects of their kingmaking power. And I want to mention that my preference - personally - is a pretty clear separation of church and state as we have in the US. But my preference doesn't mean that countries with a different approach fail the liberal democracy test.
