http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0390/9003010.htm
'Who is a Jew' Matters in Israel
By Sheldon L. Richman, Washington Report
March 1990, Page 10
Most Americans miss the point of the
who is a Jew?" controversy raging
again in Israel. This old debate has
come alive with two 1989 Israeli
Supreme Court decisions. First,
contrary to the position of the ruling
Orthodox authorities, the court held
that Jews converted by Conservative
and Reform rabbis are to be recognized
as real Jews. Then, late in the year,
the court ruled that Messianic Jews,
who practice Judaism but also believe
in the divinity of Jesus are, despite
their profession, Christians and thus
do not qualify as Jews in the eyes of
the state.
The debate masks a monumental issue
that many outside Israel
underestimate. After all, in what
other country-in what other
"democracy" especially-are religious
qualifications an official matter?
In Israel, qualifications are an
official matter because the country is
a Jewish state. Those words, "Jewish
state," are usually misinterpreted as
a humanitarian issue, even by Jews.
Until World War II, Jews in the US
were largely uninterested in Israel
and Zionism. They did not see
themselves as exiled from the
"Promised Land" and they did not seek
a "return," despite a major effort to
get them to think that this was their
destiny. Things changed in the 1940s
with Hitler's "final solution," and
American Jews became devout supporters
of Israel. But they largely saw it as
a safe haven for Europe's uprooted and
brutalized Jews, not as a place for
American Jews to "return." For them,
America was still Zion.
Not a Refuge, But a Promise
Because the murderous Nazi actions
were the source of their support for
Israel, most American Jews still see
that state as primarily a humanitarian
entity, a place where Jewish refugees
will always be accepted and kept safe.
Israel's founders, however, repeatedly
said that Israel is not primarily a
haven for refugees, but rather a
fulfillment of God's promise to all
Jews. The state claims to speak not
only for the Jews living in Israel,
but for all Jews no matter where they
live.
This is the source of the "who is a
Jew?" controversy. Israel was
established as a Jewish state not in
the sense that the laws of the Old
Testament or the Talmud constitute the
civil law, but in the sense that it is
a state of, by, and for the Jewish
people (conceived by some Jews as a
distinct race, contrary to all
evidence). This secular notion of the
Jewish state has long been
troublesome. At first, anyone who
claimed to be a Jew was considered a
Jew. This suited most Israeli Jews,
who were and are secular. But it
dissatisfied the minority of religious
Jews. The definition later was changed
to include only people whose mothers
were Jewish and people who converted
to Judaism.
This led to the question of whether
conversions performed by Conservative
and Reform rabbis would count. To the
secular Jews governing the state, it
was no problem. But to the Orthodox
rabbis it was critical because their
authority was at stake. They have long
wanted only Orthodox conversions
recognized. (The ruling against them
was coupled with one that undoubtedly
delighted the rabbinate. The court
said that only Orthodox rabbis could
perform weddings. There is no civil
marriage in Israel.)
The debate is not just a matter of
obscure religious doctrine. Jews from
anywhere in the world can come to
Israel and immediately become
citizens, entitling them to services
provided by a nominally private
organization that acts as an agent of
the state. This right is not available
to non-Jews. Obviously, if the Law of
Return is to have any meaning, there
must be a way to distinguish Jews from
non-Jews.
Citizenship vs. Nationality
Each Israeli must carry an identity
card, which has a line indicating
"nationality." One would think that an
Israeli citizen would have the word
"Israeli" on that line. Not so. The
nationality of any Jew is "Jew;" the
national of an Israeli Arab-even one
who has lived for decades in, say,
Jaffa-is "Arab." In 1970 a Jewish
human rights activist tried to
challenge this practice by asking the
Interior Ministry to change his
registration to Israeli. It refused
and the Supreme Court upheld the
decision. The court stated that "There
is no Israeli nation separate from the
Jewish people."
Where does that leave Israelis who are
non-Jews or not recognized as Jews by
the state? On its face it implies
second-class citizenship for someone.
If the Orthodox rabbis get their way,
many people now regarded as Jews will
be excluded from full civil rights in
Israel. That would be bad. But what of
the people who never have had the same
rights as those extended to Jews,
namely, the Palestinians living in
Israel?
Israel is a state-socialist country;
the government owns much of the
economy.Thus, to be a non-Jew has
countless practical disadvantages -
Over 90 percent of the land is held by
the state. Precious water resources
and electrical power are controlled by
the state. As in any socialist
country, politicians ultimately decide
who gets what.
Since Israel is a state of, by, and
for the Jewish people, the resources
primarily benefit Jews. Arabs are
taxed like Jews, but they do not have
the same access to resources as Jews.
The land held by the state may not be
sold or leased to Arabs. Arab villages
and farms do not get the same quality
of services-electrical, water, and so
on-as Jewish towns and farms. Arab
farmers in Israel are not free to sell
their produce directly to buyers
outside the country. (Only threats of
retaliation against Israeli products
by the European Community persuaded
the authorities to let Arabs in the
occupied territories export directly.)
The Arabs of Israel are like serfs in
a socialist state run for the benefit
of someone else.
The Arabs of Israel are like serfs in
a socialist state run for the benefit
of someone else. They can have
representatives in the Knesset, but
they can't change the system.
It is important to understand the
essential relationship between
socialism and Israel as it has existed
since 1948. Were Israel to adopt
free-market capitalism, as some
American economists urge, the state's
character would change radically. If
all land and industry were privately
owned, free trade practiced and the
government limited to a neutral
referee, the country, by definition,
could not discriminate. Equal rights
and the rule of law are hallmarks of
capitalism. There is no second-class
citizenship in the free market. This
point is more radical than it may
appear at first: Israel's "fundamental
laws" are incompatible with the
distinctive Western political
philosophy and tradition known as
classical liberalism.
Israel can either maintain the status
quo, including the socialism that is
sinking its economy into an abyss and
causing significant emigration, or
give up socialism and adopt
capitalism, in which case it would no
longer discriminate against non-Jews.
Few Israelis want to face this choice.
But, like it or not, the need to
choose is something about which they
haveno choice.
Sheldon L. Richman is an author in the
Washington, DC, area who writes about
the Middle East.
(c) Copyright 1995-1999, American
Educational Trust. All Rights
Reserved.
