[ad_1]
On Thursday, July 19, 62 Knesset deputies – the Israeli legislature – sanctioned the "nation-state" law, which lowers the status of the Arabic language, stipulates that unified Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Israel excludes the right to self-determination of Palestinians and the promotion of the creation of Jewish communities as a national value, among other controversial points.
The message is clear to Jews and Arabs: Israel is only the homeland of Jews – even Jews. who do not live there, their language is only Hebrew and the Palestinians are second-class inhabitants. The character who initiated the law, Avi Dichter, summed up the situation as follows: "We have approved this fundamental law to prevent the minimal will or attempt to turn the state of Israel into a nation for all its citizens. . "
Although the law is primarily symbolic in its controversial passages (without being an official language, Arabic can still be used under the special status label) and is softened in its proposals by the intervention of the President Rivlin (as the authority to establish communities only for the Jews, who have been eliminated), the fundamental concepts of the contemporary world, such as respect for human rights, the promotion of Equality, the care of integration, the concern for pluralism, among others, are remarkable. [19659002] By codifying the evidence with the basic law – that Israel aspires to be the home of the Jews – Netanyahu's government and the tight majority that supports it seem to deliberately avoid the foregoing. Not because it leads to radical changes in the facts – Israeli Arabs have always been far from the priorities of the state – but because it formalizes a status quo in which it is unequal in its relations between the different religious and religious communities. ethnic groups, while generating livelihoods to justify future segregationist policies. It is then that the Arab group constitutes at least half of the population of the territory occupied militarily between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and about one and a half million people in internationally recognized Israel.
The main problem that arises is that it implicitly subordinates the democratic nature of the country to its Jewish character. For some, the new law is a natural consequence of Israel's victory in 1967 over the neighbors who oppose its existence, the safeguarding of the Jewish people within the borders and the laws that place them first. For others, however, it is a step forward in the path prophesied by Ben Gurion: from occupation to an endless conflict that would eat away at the democracy of the interior, putting in danger its national character.
This state does not need to give support to the Jewish majority of the country to promote its character, but it forces it to discriminate against non-Jews, to deprive minorities of the right to do so. aspiration to identity and, in turn, to advocate for greater privileges, grants and Hebrew rights. What underlies this is a toxic thought: this arbitrariness can be justified according to national interests. This reflects an Israel fearful of differences, fearing a geopolitical and demographic balance that places the Arabs in a preponderant position and, therefore, as a weak, suspicious and uncoordinated nation.
It is significant that the idea has had significant resistance in the Jewish diaspora as in Israeli civil society, however, Netanyahu and his Likud party have persisted with this line with the harshest political factions. This law rightly emphasizes the validity of nationalism and populism, a combination that was won in series by the last elections in this country, the visit of Viktor Orbán – leader of the far right of Hungary – right after the Approval of this project. 19659002] Therefore, the tension between democracy and identity runs through this political situation, which expresses itself in the way that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories would incorporate non-Jews into this openly Jewish nation. , something that early Israeli leaders, remembering the Holocaust, they felt compelled to protect. Tony Judt pointed out in 2003 that the idea of an Israel with a solid Jewish identity was an anachronism, however, in the light of time, it would seem that rather than stressing the decline of nationalism, it is not the same. was rather a precursor of what was going to happen.
In any case, Israel is not a democracy for all its inhabitants. It controls the occupied territories with population registers, maintains a concrete kilometer wall at its self-designated border, maintains a complex system of regulation of movements and movements within and outside the country. West Bank, decide where Palestinians can build, among other things. This does not correspond to the situation of Israel's domination over another people and the indifference of its rights with a history of suffering and persecution like that of the Jewish people.
In this sense, the controversial measure of the Israeli Parliament is framed in several disconcerting actions in that country. The same Congress blocked the possibility that critical groups in the country (such as Breaking the Silence ) give lectures in schools. Secondly, it was decided that Palestinians could not access the Israeli Supreme Court in cases of land disputes in the West Bank. In turn, a new offensive of the Israeli army was seen on the territory of Gaza before the demonstrations at the border, all of which precedes in a few weeks.
Finally, two questions can be asked. The first is whether she would have had the audacity to promote this Israel if she did not have the blessing of the United States. The answer, almost certainly, is that it is not the case which balances Trump's Republican government's responsibility. omission, in shortcut dissensions of their allies, even if it seems ridiculous. And the second is whether the promulgation of this law has to do with Israel having no intention of leaving the West Bank and arriving at the formula of the two states. Until now, the parties of the Israeli left have argued that the occupation was not viable in time, however, because the right – with an international context that tends towards the authoritarian – promotes the colonial situation on Palestine as "the" solution, as well as annexation. from these territories he no longer seems distant. In any case, with the progress of this program, the worst political tendencies are magnified and pernicious steps are cemented for the Israeli democracy, when new elections approach
[ad_2]
Source link
