A letter to our brothers in Europe: Israeli democracy is not in danger Israel today

1.

Our brothers and sisters in Europe, some of you issued a clarion call - another in an endless series - warning against the political and moral consequences of the new government in Israel.

You repeat the assertion, like a religious dogma, that "only the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel will ensure its existence as a democratic state with a Jewish majority".

At the foundation of the peace movement was the assumption that the conflict between us and the Arabs of the region is between two national movements.

But while Israel recognized the Palestinian national movement - they never recognized Zionism as a legitimate Jewish national movement with rights to the land.

For them, we remain a European colonialist enterprise.

Moreover, the Jews for them are only a religion and not a nation, and therefore are not entitled to their own state.

Here it is in section 20 of the Palestinian National Charter: "...the claims of the historical or spiritual connection of the Jew to Palestine are not in line with the truths of history... Judaism as a heavenly religion is not a nationality with its own reality, and likewise the Jews are not one people, with its own personality.. ." Pay attention to the denial of our historical connection to the land, and the denial of our very existence as a people.

The announcement about the only solution of "Two state solution" has a second part, which most speakers on the issue neglect: "Two states for two peoples".

The idea is that each group should recognize the other nation, its nationality, the legitimacy of its claims.

The Palestinians did not accept this.

On the question of whether to prefer a territorial compromise or the continuation of the conflict - they prefer the latter, because a compromise requires recognition of some right of the Jews to their historical homeland.

As we have seen, for them the Jews are not entitled to self-determination in their own country.

By the way, in the IHRA definitions of anti-Semitism that European countries have adopted, the denial of the Jews' right to self-determination is an expression of anti-Semitism.

Indeed, we do not need recognition from the Palestinians.

It is ridiculous that a group that comes this close would pretend to doubt the identity of one of the oldest nations in humanity.

But this indicates the sincerity of their intentions.

2.

To European ears this may sound like a mere semantic argument.

Not so for our neighbors.

About a decade and a half ago, about 17,000 documents documenting the years of negotiations with Israel and the Americans were leaked from the office of Saib Erekat - then the head of negotiations on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The documents revealed the intra-Palestinian discourse. Members of the negotiating team advised Erekat not to use "Two countries for two peoples", but "two countries living peacefully side by side", just like the definition you adopted in your document.

More than 50 countries in the world have a Muslim identity, and more than 100 have a Christian majority and Christian symbols - but only Jews do not deserve their own state.

Thus, in Israel and around the world, the demand to transform Israel into a "state of all its citizens" grew stronger.

The logic was explained to Erekat in another letter that was leaked: "Mentioning the right of the two nations to self-determination may have a negative effect on the rights of the refugees, that is, on the right of return," since it implies that the refugees will be able to exercise the right of return only within the framework of their right to self-determination, and the meaning is that "Ash" P is no longer seeking Palestinian self-determination within the territory of the State of Israel." Thus, consistently, in Palestinian discourse, the "two-state solution" means an Arab nation-state free of Jews, alongside a state that in the meantime is called "Israel", but to which millions of "refugees" are supposed to return "

3.

Dear brothers and sisters, in your words you are adopting the rhetoric of those who seek to dismantle Israel from its identity as the nation-state of the Jewish people, in any political arrangement.

In your basic principles you wrote: "Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel provided inspiration for the Netanyahu government: the prime minister ordered the Knesset to enact the nationality law, which, contrary to the declaration of independence, omits the Jewish state's commitment to democracy."

On the contrary - the logic on which the nationality law was based is precisely the desire to preserve Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

You warn against the reforms that are taking place in the judicial system, and ignore the fact that in recent decades, not the House of Representatives, but the Supreme Court turned basic laws from ordinary laws up until then into super laws, part of the future constitution, and based on them the Knesset enacted laws - without being authorized to do so.

In doing so, the balance between the authorities was broken, in favor of the judiciary.

In this state of affairs, the great danger is challenging the status of the Law of Return, which you seek to protect the "grandson clause" therein.

The Law of Return is the profound expression of Israel being the state of all Jews, meaning your state as well.

At the moment of truth, if your living conditions in Europe change - as happened not long ago - you can find a safe haven with us.

But in Israel, in recent decades, a campaign against its identity as the nation-state of the Jewish people has been sanctified.

Even in parts of the Western elite, the appeal to this very idea, which they call "racist", has increased.

More than 50 countries in the world have a Muslim identity, and more than 100 have a Christian majority and Christian symbols, but only Jews do not deserve their own country.

Thus in Israel and in the world the demand to transform Israel into a "state of all its citizens" grew stronger.

The naive among us continue to argue with this terminology.

The truth is that even today Israel grants equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of religion, race or gender.

This terminology is nothing more than a disguise for a more radical idea: "the state of all nationalities".

That is, the erasure of Israel's Jewish identity.

In a not far-fetched scenario, the Supreme Court's constitutional revolution could rely on a fundamental law: human dignity and freedom to invalidate the Law of Return. That is why the Nationality Law was enacted, in order to establish in a similar fundamental law the fundamental idea of ​​Zionism: the State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, That is, it is the political expression of the biblical vision of the return of the Jews to Zion.

4.

From this point of view, Israel's Jewishness will guarantee its being democratic.

In the Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting from, the word "Jew" and its inflections are mentioned about 20 times, and not once our democratic system of government.

There is no need;

This is our people's default.

Back in biblical times the kings of Israel were the heads of the citizens and not absolute kings, as were the kings of Europe.

Even the problematic kings in the Bible submitted themselves to the ancient biblical law, and before them stood the council of elders, that is, the court, including the prophet who represented the moral criticism before the king. Montesquieu's separation of powers was a principle of life for us, long before its message reached Europe. That is why we almost always rebelled In a foreign government that wanted to cancel our ancient laws.

Israeli democracy is not in danger, except in the imagination of those who have difficulty digesting the election results.

Our democracy is stronger and more established than most of the European countries where you live.

By the way, 64 mandates are not a "small majority" as you define, because they are not opposed by a single opposition, but by factions with polarized worldviews, some of which deny Israel as a Jewish state.

Instead of fearing for the future of our democracy, you should delve into the future of the continent you are huddled under.

From recent history we have learned that resilience is never permanent.

we are waiting for you.

were we wrong

We will fix it!

If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us