About Jewishness

The Knesset, Israel's parliament

Israel doesn't have a formal constitution. Some of the functions of a constitution are filled by the Declaration of Establishment (1948), the Basic Laws of the parliament (Knesset), and the Israeli citizenship law. Since May 2003 the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee of the Knesset has been working on a draft constitution.
The legal system is a mixture of English common law, British Mandate regulations, and, in personal matters, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim legal systems; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction.
Suffrage is 18 years of age; universal.

Israel's political system is based on proportional representation which allows for a multi-party system with numerous parties. There are currently five parties with more than ten seats in the 120-seat Knesset, and a single party usually has no chance of gaining power by itself (only once has a party held an absolute majority in the Knesset), forcing the parties to cooperate and form coalition governments.

In order to establish a modern, democratic welfarestate in Israel, with a dovish government that strives for lasting peace, we need to get more votes than the right-wing Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox politicians.
The following parties might offer the posibilities of such a government:

Kadima (lit. Forward) was founded as a centrist political party in Israel by moderates from soon joined by like-minded Labor politicians. It became the largest party in the Knesset after the 2006 elections, winning 29 of the 120 seats. Kadima was originally founded largely to support the issue of Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, and classified itself broadly as centrist and liberal. The party is currently headed by Tzipi Livni, who places strong emphasis on both Israel's security and continuing the peace process, and its members include moderates of the political center and center-left who support diplomatic steps to peace with the Palestinians.

The New Movement-Meretz (Meretz, then Yachad, and then Meretz-Yachad) is a left-wing, Zionist, social democratic political party in Israel, which emphasizes the strive for peace, human rights, religious freedom and green politics. It sees itself as the political representative of the Israeli Peace movement, in the Knesset - as well as municipal councils and other local political bodies.
In the international media it has been described as left-wing, social democratic, dovish, secular, civil libertarian, and anti-occupation. Some view the party on the far-left of the Israeli political spectrum.
After a dismal result for Meretz in 2009 elections, Meretz leader Haim Oron announced, "Based on the energies which I saw today as well, and the forces existing within us, we must overcome the difficult feeling we are experiencing this evening. We won't be annihilated," promising that Meretz will continue to be "a key element in the establishment of a Zionist dovish and humanistic Social-Democratic Left in the State of Israel. This vacuum has not been filled in these elections."
The New Movement-Meretz emphasizes the following principles (not necessarily in order of importance):

• Peace between based on a two-state solution as laid out in the Geneva Accord.
• Dismantling most of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Human rights issues:

• Struggle for the protection of human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories.
• Rights of minorities in Israel (such as and foreign workers), fight against discrimination, and support for affirmative action.
• Women's rights and feminism.
• LGBT rights.

Struggle for social justice:

• Making Israel a social democratic welfare state.
• Protecting workers' rights and fighting against their exploitation (especially, though not exclusively, in the case of foreign workers and immigrants).

Separation of religion and state, and religious freedom.
Liberal secular education.
Israel's security.
Environmentalism.

The Israeli Labour Party, generally known in Israel as Avoda is a center-left political party in Israel. It is a social democratic and Zionist party, a member of the Socialist International and an observer member of the Party of European Socialists.
The international media has described the Labour Party as center-left, social democratic, and dovish.

It seems to me that at present a colalition with Kadima, the New Movement-Meretz and Avoda (possibly with the help of small Arab or Israeli-Arab parties like Balad, Ta'al and Hadash) is our best option for peace, stability and safety in the region. (These parties have now 55 seats in the 120-seats Knesset, so they need only six seats more to have a majority in the Israeli Parliament.)

The Israeli electorate
A large part of the Israeli electorate contents of Russian Jews or their descendants, many of whom had various motivations to leave Russia (coming to the Promised Land being one of them), but also with a background of Russian culture. Some of the reasons that make it so difficult to establish a dovish, left to centre-left wing government in Israel, might be originating in the Russian history and Russian culture of a part of the Israeli electorate.
Even a short glance at Russian history shows that it's the "firm fist" that has always won respect. That is, the kind of authority figure that Russians have been used to and have admired over the centuries. Peter was Great was a much loved tsar because he made the then civilised world sit up and take note of Russia - but also at great human cost, not least to his own people. Conversely, Nicholas II was a weak tsar, a major factor as to why he was overthrown by the March Revolution of 1917. Lenin and Stalin were strong leaders; Mikhail Gorbachev was too weak, toyed with Western ideas of democracy which do not suit Russia, and lost the country. His successor, Boris Yeltsin became an embarrassment for many Russians, because he got drunk in public. Vladimir Putin would never be seen coming out of a lunch with the German chancellor and picking up a baton and conducting an orchestra in a drunken fashion; Putin is a black belt in judo and a skilful downhill skier. He has given Russia back some national pride. He has shown the firm fist, and that's what Russians like.
A second reason might be the fact that Russians have had their fair share of socialism during the United Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR), which communism had in practice little to do with real socialism.
Therefor it's understandable that Israeli's Russian immigrants and their descendants will rather vote for a "strong" leader with an "impressive" military background, like Ariel Sharon or Benjamin Netanyahu. However, I very much doubt if that is good for Israel and the Middle East.

Laicity in Israel and the Palestinian areas

Laicity in France and Turkey

In French, laïcité is a concept of a secular society, connoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. Dictionaries ordinarily translate laïcité as secularity or secularism (the latter being the political system), although it is sometimes rendered in English as "laicity" or "laicism".
The word has been used, from the end of the 19th century on, to mean the freedom of public institutions, especially primary schools, from the influence of the Catholic Church in countries where it had retained its influence, in the context of a secularization process. Today, the concept covers other religious movements.
Proponents assert laïcité is based on respect for freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Thus the absence of a state religion, and the subsequent , is considered a prerequisite for such freedom of thought. Proponents maintain that laïcité is thus distinct from anticlericalism, which actively opposes the influence of religion and the clergy. Laïcité relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities. According to this conception, the government must refrain from taking positions on religious doctrine and only consider religious subjects for their practical consequences on inhabitants' lives.
Supporters argue that Laïcité by itself does not necessarily imply any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant to protect both the government from any possible interference from religious organizations, and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies.

The principle of laïcité in France is implemented through a number of policies. The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion. Instead, it recognizes religious organizations, according to formal legal criteria that do not address religious doctrine:

• whether the sole purpose of the organization is to organize religious activities (so that, for instance, the pretense of being a religious organization is not used for political purposes;)
• whether the organization disrupts public order.

Religious disputation is generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate. Of course political leaders may openly practice their religion (for instance, president Sarkozy is a Christian, specifically a Catholic), but they are expected to refrain from mixing their private religious life with their public functions.
In Turkey, a strong stance of secularism has held sway since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's Turkish revolution in the early 20th century. On March 3, 1924 Turkey removed the system and all religious influence from the state. Sunni Islam, the majority religion, is now controlled by the Turkish government through the Department of Religious Affairs, and is state-funded. Islamic views which are deemed political are censored in accordance with the principle of secularism.

The nessecity of laicity
Jews and Arabs have been living together in the region of Israel and the Palestinian areas for about 4,000 years, so it can not be said that they are "natural" enemies. Jews and Arabs are both belonging to the Semite people and have a lot in common. Israeli and Palestinian scientists are collaborating for the common good, so if Israeli and Palestinian scientists are able to work together, why aren't politicians?
The problems started with Zionism, the international nationalist political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in "the Land of Israel, the historical homeland of the Jews", and the implicit return to the Promised Land, a term used to describe the land promised by God, according to the Hebrew Bible, to the Israelites. (Biblical stories and historical facts more often then not contradict each other, so I have little faith in the biblical stories.) The "promised land" was given to their descendants and was described in terms of the territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river. Of course, in non-Jewish circles, in circles that are not familiar with the bible, or disagree with its content, such a "promise" could only be seen as wishful thinking, and it would be very difficult for them to agree to any form of state that is based on this "promise". Without this "divine promise" the existence of the state of Israel is based on historical facts, like the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (which was rejected by the the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee) and the annexation of land as a result of war.

Teapacks - Israel's contestants in European Song Festival 2007

Apart from a dominant Orthodox-Zionist culture, which interferes with Israel's secular state affairs, Israel is a modern state, but it is also a state in the Middle East, surrounded by states with a predominant Muslim culture and with a significant Arab population. No matter how much Israel wants to be a "normal European country", with a "normal" level of safety and stability, the fact is that the country is not surrounded by European countries, not surrounded by countries that are united in the European Union, not surrounded by countries that fought their battles and right to exist decades ago and since are ready for permanent peace.

At the same time there are tendencies of increasing Islamic influences on Muslims in the area (sharia, fatwa's, etc.) , which reject modern, secular society. These influences are incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech. Moreover, they interfere with inter-faith harmony, integration and overall relations with the Muslim world.

If an Israeli couple are not able to get married in Israel, because of ancient Jewish laws, then there is something wrong with Israeli society. If Gaza's Islamic Hamas government, on the basis of sharia, bans men from working in women's hair salons, then there is something wrong with Palestinian society.
A "Jewish state" should not be a monopoly of rabbis, while an "Islamic state" should not be a monopoly of imams.
Israel should abandon the concept of a "Jewish state" and instead strive to be a secular state of all its citizens. Palestine should abandon the concept of "Islamic state" and instead strive to be a secular state of all its citizens.
Jews and Muslims are not unfamiliar with secularism. While the Jews have a long history of secularism, which often clashed (and still clashes) with Jewish religious views, Muslims have their own secular philosophers, like Ibn Rushd.
Abu 'l-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, better known as Ibn Rushd, and in European literature as Averroes (1126 – December 10, 1198), was a Muslim polymath; a master of Islamic philosophy, Islamic theology, Maliki law and jurisprudence, logic, psychology, politics, Arabic music theory, and the sciences of medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics, physics and celestiam mechanics, has been described as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe and "one of the spiritual fathers of Europe". Ibn Rushd was influenced by the work of philosophers of different periods, like Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Without the heavy load of ancient religious values, conflicts between the state of Israel and the Palestinian state can be settled in a secular way, a modern way, a progressive way. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people should strive for secular authority, secular education, secular society, while they should strive for freedom of belief. It is nobody's business what each and every Israeli citizen does in his own home on Saturdays and what he does on the Jewish holidays, as it is nobody's business what each and every Muslim does in his own home on Fridays and what he does on Muslim holidays.
Laicity should be a core concept in the constitution of both Israel and the Palestinian state. Religion should be separated from executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

The most important thing is secular education. As it is human nature to dislike what is unfamiliar, separating secular children (pupils of State secular schools) and religious children (pupils of State religious schools) has promoted an unhealthy schism within Israeli society. The separation of Orthodox and secular education has created deep polarity in Israel. Pluralistic communities will grow as families currently in the religious schools will move to State secular schools, while the religious education of their children should be the responsibility of the Synagogue.
No school should be "Jewish", "Islamic", or "Christian", while it is the task of the educational system to teach the pupils about the religions of the world.
In a 2010 survey, conducted by Ma'agar Mochot, one of Israel's leading research institutions, on 536 Israeli youth between the ages of 15 and 18 from Israeli religious schools and secular schools, some 81% of religious students said they would refuse to evacuate settlements, versus 36% of their secular counterparts. The teens were asked about the rights of Arab Israelis. Here, too, there was a gap in the opinions of religious and secular students. While 82% of religious students responded that they don't believe Arabs should be granted equal rights as Jews, 36% percent of seculars responded that they do not believe in equal rights for Arabs and Jews. The poll showed that many students believe the phrase "Death to Arabs" is racist, and, therefore, not legitimate. 45% of religious students and 16% of secular students, however, believe it is a legitimate statement.
Some 82% of the religious students believe Arab Israelis should not be allowed to vote in Knesset elections, versus 47% of seculars. Students were asked if they would be willing to have an Arab friend who is the same sex and age as they are. Out of the religious students polled, 81% said they would not be willing, versus 23% of secular students who would not want to have an Arab friend.

When I was a child I went to Christian schools, public schools, and secular Jewish schools. I remember how we, the pupils, were indoctrinated by Christian views in these Christian schools. The Ottoman Empire, for instance, was pictured to us as the rule of uncivilised savages, and we were so lucky that we were able to stop them right before Vienna, while the knights of the Crusades, as well as their massacres of Jews and Muslims, were pictured to us as noble and righteous. Education like that poisons the minds of children and prevents a healthy view of history and modern society. It prevents a healthy view of different religions and cultures.

In May 2010 Ynet revealed that seven out of eight Jerusalem students are Orthodox or Haredi. Only 12.7% of first-grade pupils registered in the municipal school system are secular. Israeli MKs (members of the Knesset = parliament) say that other cities may face a simular situation.
MK Einat Wilf (Labor) called to stop funding the haredi education system until it adopts the core study program. "These shocking figures should worry all of Israel's citizens. If the country continues to neglect the public education system and nurture the recognized but unofficial education system, we will all face a gloomy reality," she said.
Among Jewish students, haredi students make up 61% of the first-grade age group. Just 19% are secular, and another 19% are National Religious. The percentage of haredi pupils in that age group is double the relative representation of haredim in the adult Jerusalem population, which is a bit less than 30%.
"This is a result of the haredi fertility rate, which stands at close to eight children on average per woman throughout the country. The result is that the relative portion of their children is much larger," explained Dr. Maya Chosen, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Institute to Ynet.
Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Judaism comprises a diversity of spiritual and cultural orientations, generally divided into Lithuanian-Yeshiva and streams from Eastern Europe, and Oriental Sephardic Haredim. Its historical rejection of Jewish secularism distinguishes it from Western European derived Modern Orthodox Judaism.
The Haredim are relatively poor, compared to other Israelis, but represent an important market sector. Sixty percent of the men do not have regular jobs, preferring religious study, which is heavily subsidized by the government. Consequently, the Israeli Haredim probably spend more time in formal study than any other class of humans ever has in the history of the planet. More than 50 percent live below the poverty line and get state allowances, compared with 15 percent of the rest of the population. Their families are also larger, usually having seven or eight children. A chief antagonist of the Haredim (from the Haredi point of view) is the Israeli Supreme Court, which does not base its rulings on halachic beliefs or policy.
Israel is home to the largest Haredi population, at approx. 650,000 (out of 6 million Israeli Jews). The number of Haredi Jews in Israel is rising steeply. In 1992, out of a total of 1,500,000 Orthodox Jews world wide, about 550,000 were Haredi (half of them in Israel).
Isi Lebler, in the Jerusalem Post, discribes Haredi policies as "xenophobic". He also writes, "There is a desperate need to reverse Haredi control of state instrumentalities. More importantly, in view of the explosive impending economic and political implications of the growing Haredi population on the workforce and the IDF, Haredim must be integrated into the mainstream and obliged to work and serve in the army or participate in national service."

Israel - a divided society
Unlike Western Europe and America, Israel is a society divided along many different fault lines. Although the ethnic division between Jews and Arabs in Israel may be thought of as a more important problem, in the sence of separation and divisiveness, the problematical and possibly paradoxical nature of ethnic divisions among Israeli Jews have made it a more intricate puzzle for sociological inquiry.
The Jews are divided in groups by ethnic background, and it would be oversimplified to describe these groups as Ashkenazim, Mizrahim and Sephardim. There are, for instance, Russian Ashkenazim and North-American Ashkenazim, with complete different cultures, Moroccans, Iraqis, Yemenites, Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Rumanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, French, English, Chinese and Sudanese Jews. Around forty percent of Israeli Jews weren't born in Israel. Jews who are born in Israel might be descendants of people that came to the country before 1880, after 2010, and anything in between. The divisions are not purily cultural; apart from the huge walls and fences to keep the Arabs out, there are quarters for almost every cultural or religious (sub)group, and most of these groups don't mix. Although some sociologists claim that all these different groups have more in common than what separates them, the cultural differences are there. The dominant cultural group is formed by the Eastern European Jews who came to Israel more than 50 years go. They are the Israeli elite. Although the ethnic prestige (mean levels of education and occupational prestige) of a group matters when it comes to the position of a cultural group in the social hierarchy, social standing can also be influenced by personal prestige. However, there is a wide consensus that all groups of European origin have a higher prestige than all groups of North African and Asian origin. The cultural and ethnic divisions of all these groups makes it difficult to prevent discrimination and even racism.
Another division is caused by the extreme differences between left-wing and right-wing Israelis.

The Israel-Arab conflict

Many Israeli people hate it when people who don't live in Israel are criticising Israeli politics. They say, "You are safe, you don't have to face our dangers, you don't live here, you haven't got a clue what it's like." However, I read Israeli newspapers, I read the blogs of ordinary Israeli citizens (Jews and Arabs), there's nothing wrong with my empathetic skills or my imagination, I have lived and worked in war zones before, I fought for Israel in the 1967 war, so I think I have a pretty good idea about what's going on.

The present Israeli government acts like an insurance company. The profits of insurance companies are based on the amount of fear the public has of accidents and other unpredictable things. The more fear, the more profit.
The raison d'être of this right wing, Orthodox Zionist government is the feeling of lack of safety and security among the people, so it is not in the interest of this government to establish peace. The more fear the Israeli people will experience, the more they will vote for the Orthodox Zionist political parties. So yes, the Orthodox Zionist parties are making use of the fear of war and terrorist attacks. And sure, the past and presence show us that there is a firm base for that fear, but defence and offence are two completely different things all together, and if you mix the two things up, you could end up being a war criminal instead of a war hero.

If only Hamas and the PLO (and even Hizbollah) would realise that life for everyone in the region (accept for the Jewish settlers in the occupied areas) would be a lot easier and certainly more peaceful if they would remove the raison d'être of an Orthodox Zionist government, if they could make the Israeli people feel safe enough to vote for a left wing or a centre left coalition...

As I have argued before, from my secular, historical point of view both the Jews and the Palestinians have the right to live in the region of Israel and the Palestinian areas. The question is: how? The present situation makes it likely that there will be three states in the future, instead of two; the state of Israel within the borders before 1967, a Palestinian state on the West Bank and a Palestinian state in Gaza.
First of all, Israel should make a serious efford to contribute to the peace process by withdrawing within the borders before 1967, to leave the occupied areas, and to leave the Jewish settlements in these areas.
Second, the governments of the Palestinian areas should recognise the State of Israel and should make sure that all hostilities against Israel, organised or not, will stop. This will clear the way for a more dovish Israeli government.
Third, the region should stay nuclear-free. This means that international efforts should be made to ensure that Iran's and Syria's nuclear plans come to a halt, and that Israel should get rid of its nuclear weapons, if it has these weapons. (Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons.)

"God's Bible gave us this land"
On February 11, 2010 Israel began to give back land to Palestinians in the West Bank (Bil'in), following a court-order that was issued two-and-a-half years before. Israeli activists carried slogans like "God's Bible gave us this land". It should be clear that no court in the world, not even in Israel, could take such an argument serious. A remark like that can only come from people who have been severely indoctrinated and brainwashed, probably by the Israeli State religious schools.

Privately owned land
The Arabs of Palestine were a largely agrarian people, 75% of whom made their living off the land before the establishment of the Israeli state. After the Palestinian exodus and the effects of the 1948 Palestine war, land continued to play an important role in the lives of the 156,000 Arabs who remained inside what became the state of Israel, serving as the source of communal identity, honour, and purpose.
The Israeli government adopted in 1950 the Law of Return to facilitate Jewish immigration to Israel and the absorption of Jewish refugees. Israel's Absentees' Property Law of March 1950 transferred the property rights of absentee owners to a government-appointed Custodian of Absentee Property, effectively legalizing the confiscation of lands belonging to the Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel in 1948. It was also used to confiscate the lands of Arab citizens of Israel who "are present inside the state, yet classified in law as 'absent'." The number of "present-absentees" or internally displaced Palestinians from among the 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel is estimated (in 2001) to be 200,000, or some 20% of the total Palestinian Arab population in Israel. Salman Abu-Sitta estimates that between 1948 and 2003 more than 1,000 square kilometers (386.1 sq mi) of land was expropriated from Arab citizens of Israel (present-absentees and otherwise).
Land Day (Hebrew: Yom HaAdama), March 30, is an annual day of commemoration for Palestinians of the events of that date in 1976. In response to the government's announcement of a plan to expropriate thousands of dunams of land for "security and settlement purposes", a general strike and marches were organized in Arab towns from the Galilee to the Negev. In the ensuing confrontations with the Israeli army and police, six Arab citizens were killed, about one hundred were wounded, and hundreds of others arrested.
Scholarship on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recognizes Land Day as a pivotal event in the struggle over land and in the relationship of Arab citizens to the Israeli state and body politic. It is significant in that it was the first time since 1948 that Arabs in Israel organized a response to Israeli policies as a Palestinian national collective. An important annual day of commemoration in the Palestinian national political calendar ever since, it is marked not only by Arab citizens of Israel, but by Palestinians all over the world.

Jewish state or Democratic state?
On Thursday 11 March, 2010 Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States, said in a speech at Tel Aviv University, "The demographic realities make it difficult for Israel to be a Jewish homeland and a democratic country. The status quo is not sustainable. To end this historic conflict, both sides must be historically bold."
Many Israelis called this statement anti-Semitic, and I don't know why. Is it because demographic realities do not suit them? Or is it because demographic realities can be changed, by the Army, or perhaps by God?
Israel must understand at some point, pretty soon, the world will force them to adhere to international law, or they will be isolated. One observer said, "Take as much of the pie you can get now or you won't even be allowed at the table." He may be right.

The Koenig Memorandum (also known as The Koenig Report) was a confidential and internal Israeli government document authored in April 1976 by Yisrael Koenig, a member of the Alignment (then the ruling party), who served as the Northern District Commissioner of the Ministry of the Interior for 26 years.
The document put forward a number of strategic goals and tactical steps aimed at reducing the number and influence of Arab citizens of Israel in the Galilee region. Outlining what he viewed as "objective thought that ensures the long-term Jewish national interests", Koenig stressed the need to "examine the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentrations".
Although the Israeli Government never officially acknowledged that official government policies were guided by this plan, some of Koenig's recommendations were implemented, particularly those regarding the expansion of land expropriations from Arab owners and the establishment of new Jewish settlements in the area in order to fragment and contain the Palestinian Arab population in Israel.
The first section of Koenig's report is entitled, "The Demographic Problem and the Manifestations of Arab Nationalism." In this section, Koenig claims that the Arab population of the Galilee region would constitute a majority (51%) of the population there by 1978 and that this, along with rising "nationalistic" sentiments "will endanger Israeli control of that area.
In her book, "The Fate of the Jews: A People Torn Between Israeli Power and Jewish Ethics", Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht summarizes some of the major strategic objectives and tactical steps endorsed by The Koenig Memorandum, as follows:
To preclude any possibility of an (independent, Arab) political union, Koenig recommended building more Jewish settlements in areas that are predominantly Arab.
Hostile Arab leaders should be replaced by compliant ones, whom Israel was to ‘create.’ Koenig wanted the number of Arab intellectuals reduced, because their frustration is potentially dangerous. He would encourage "the channeling of [Arab] students into technical professions, the physical and natural sciences. These studies leave less time for dabbling in nationalism and the dropout rate is higher." Koenig wanted to make it easier for Arabs to study abroad and harder for them to return and find jobs. Graduates who did remain in Israel were to be coopted.
Koenig also proposed mounting a smear campaign against Arab activists, reducing liquid savings to limit funds available in the Arab community to support political causes, and reducing the effectiveness of Arab student organizations.
Further elements in the memorandum included Koenig's reflection that, "Social and economic security free[s] the individual and the family from economic worries ... and give[s] him, consciously and subconsciously, leisure time for social and nationalistic thoughts that are exploited by hostile elements to generate ferment and bitterness." As one practical measure to help obviate this end, Koenig proposed "neutralizing grants to large families."

In his book, "Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About The U.S.-Israeli Relationship," Paul Findley cites among other examples, the recommendations of the Koenig Memorandum, to refute the common pro-Zionist assessment that Jewish citizens of Israel "do not have more rights than their non-Jewish fellows." He notes that these recommendations included encouraging emigration of Palestinian Arabs through study abroad programs and giving "preferential treatment to Jewish groups or individuals rather than to Arabs."

Ahmad H. Sa'di, a lecturer in the Department of Politics and Government at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel claims that "The racist language of the Report and its draconian suggestions caused wide-ranging indignation by Palestinians. However, State officials dismissed this reaction as unwarranted. They maintained that the Report represented the opinion of its author(s), and did not represent an official policy nor did it reflect the mode of thinking in decision-making circles. The debates that followed the Report's publication have mostly centered on the limits of freedom of expression (and racism) that civil servants ought to observe, instead of dealing with the premises of the State policy towards the minority."

So the problem is not new. Arab citizens of Israel form a majority of the population (52%) in Israel's Northern District and about 50% of the Arab population lives in 114 different localities throughout Israel. In the northern part of Israel the percentage of Jewish population is declining. The increasing population of Arabs within Israel, and the majority status they hold in two major geographic regions — the Galilee and the Triangle — has become a growing point of open political contention in recent years. Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid, the editor of Al-Ahram Weekly's "Arab Strategic Report" predicts that "The Arabs of 1948 (i.e. Arabs who stayed within the bounds of Israel and accepted citizenship) may become a majority in Israel in 2035, and they will certainly be the majority in 2048."
The phrase demographic threat (or demographic bomb) is used within the Israeli political sphere to describe the growth of Israel's Arab citizenry as constituting a threat to its maintenance of its status as a Jewish state with a Jewish demographic majority. Israeli historian Benny Morris states: "[...] If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified[...]".
The term "demographic bomb" was famously used by Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003 when he noted that if the percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. The Population Administration is a department of the Demographic Council, whose purpose, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics is: “...to increase the Jewish birthrate by encouraging women to have more children using government grants, housing benefits, and other incentives.”
A January 2006 study rejects the "demographic time bomb" threat based on statistical data that shows Jewish births have increased while Arab births have begun to drop. The study noted shortcomings in earlier demographic predictions (for example, in the 1960s, predictions suggested that Arabs would be the majority in 1990). The study also demonstrated that Christian Arab and Druze birth rates were actually below those of Jewish birth rates in Israel. The study used data from a Gallup poll to demonstrate that the desired family size for Arabs in Israel and Jewish Israelis were the same. The study's population forecast for 2025 predicted that Arabs would comprise only 25.0% of the Israeli population.
The Jewish birth rate was expected to exceed that of Muslims in Israel over the next 18 years, a report, A New Demographic, Electoral, and Political Paradigm for Israel, said. This study by the Washington-based American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG) said Jewish fertility, the highest in the developed world, was rapidly approaching that of Arabs in Israel. The group, in a report entitled "Forecast for Israel 2025," projected a 79 percent Jewish majority as well as long-term population stability between Jewish-Arab population groups in Israel.
The report (April 2008), in contrast to the forecasts by Israeli demographers, said Jewish growth would be based on the Orthodox community. The group said that by 2025, Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish sector would grow from 16 percent to 23 percent of the nation's population. The ultra-Orthodox was expected to increase to 29 percent of the Jewish sector. "Israel's Arab sector will grow from 20 percent to 21 percent of Israel's total population," the report said. "After 2025, the Jewish majority will rebound past its current 80 percent position as natural growth in high growth Jewish sectors overtakes growth in Arab population groups."
The so-called secular and traditional Jews would drop from the current 64 percent to 56 percent of Israel's population. The secular-traditional sector would decrease from the current 80 percent to 71 percent of the Jewish community.
The report linked predicted Jewish growth to the current "baby-boomer" generation as well as steady immigration. At the same time, Arab fertility rates dropped from over nine births per woman in the 1960s to 4.4 in 2000 and 3.6 in 2006.
"The mid-case 2025 forecast holds current Jewish fertility levels steady at 2.75 births per woman and annual net aliyah [immigration] of 20,000 based on the recent five-year average and internal targets of Israel's Jewish Agency," the report said. "The AIDRG forecast gradually reduces Arab fertility levels to 2.4 births per woman by 2025 where they stabilize at this long-term intermediate rate."
The study cited 80,000 Jewish births in 1995 and 109,000 in 2006, a 36 percent increase. The group predicted an imminent surge in Jewish births based on the increased pregnancy rate recorded shortly after the Lebanon war in mid-2006.
"Faster convergence in Arab and Jewish fertility or upturns in aliyah would increase the Jewish percentage to 83 percent by 2025 from the current 80 percent," the report said. "If Arab fertility only declines to 3.0, the current Arab rate in northern Israel, the Jewish population will decline to 77 percent."

Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu, the fourth largest faction in the 17th Knesset, is one of the foremost advocates of the transfer of large Arab towns located just inside Israel near the border with the West Bank (e.g. Tayibe, Umm al-Fahm, Baqa al-Gharbiyye), to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority in exchange for Israeli settlements located inside the West Bank. As the London Times notes: "Lieberman plans to strengthen Israel’s status as a Jewish state by transferring 500,000 of its minority Arab population to the West Bank, by the simple expedient of redrawing the West Bank to include several Arab Israeli towns in northern Israel. Another 500,000 would be stripped of their right to vote if they failed to pledge loyalty to Zionism."
In October 2006, Yisrael Beiteinu formally joined in the ruling government's parliamentary coalition, headed by Kadima. After the Israeli Cabinet confirmed Avigdor Lieberman's appointment to the position of Minister for Strategic Threats, Labour Party representative and Science, Sport and Culture Minister Ophir Pines-Paz, resigned his post. In his resignation letter to Ehud Olmert, Pines-Paz wrote, "I couldn't sit in a government with a minister who preaches racism."
The Lieberman Plan caused a stir among Arab citizens of Israel, because it explicitly treats them as an enemy within. Various polls show that Arabs in Israel do not wish to move to the West Bank or Gaza if a Palestinian state is created there.

So what is the situation?
57% of Israeli Jews do not accept the “Green Line” as Israel ’s border, compared with 23% who accept it.
75% of Israeli Jews don’t believe that negotiation would lead to an agreement with the Palestinians. 75% believe that even if an agreement would be concluded, the Palestinians would not consider it an end to their conflict with Israel.
So, most Israeli Jews oppose the tangible consequences of the “Two State Solution.”
However, projections of demographic doom have repeatedly been refuted by robust Jewish demography between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. There is a demographic problem, but it is not lethal, and the demographic trend is Jewish and not Arab. The demographic momentum is shifting from the Arab to the Jewish sector. Demography constitutes a strategic asset, not a liability, for the Jewish State.
As Israelis come to understand there is no demographic time bomb, they might be more inclined to vote for a more dovish, left-wing or centre-left government, a government that is more leaning toward a Democratic state than to a Jewish state.
In a Democratic State of Israel national military service would be mandatory for any Israeli citizen over the age of 18, and not just for non-Arab Israeli citizens. In practice, the present unability for Arab Israelis to fulfill their military service, excludes them from some or all the benefits of Israeli citizenship. This is downright discrimination. The test of former military service is also frequently applied in admittance to various newly-founded communities, effectively barring Arabs from living there. Also, the Israeli national airline El Al hires only pilots who have served in the Air Force, which in practice excludes Arabs from the job. Those who did not serve in the army have less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and employment, especially government or security-related industrial employment. Also, non-Arab Israelis argue that the mandatory three-year (two years for women) military service puts them at a disadvantage, as they effectively lose three years of their life through their service in the IDF, while the Arab Israelis can start right into their jobs after school, or study at a university.
Those who oppose the mandatory military service for Arab Israeli citizens because of security reasons, should know that the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that refusal to serve was legal on the grounds of unqualified pacifism, but "selective refusal" which accepted some duties and not others was illegal. The law in Israel is quite clear, the Penal Code article 97a states as follows: ‘A person who, with intent to impair the sovereignty of the State, commits an act calculated to impair such sovereignty is liable to the death penalty or to imprisonment for life’. Articles 97b, 98 and 99 prescribe similar punishments for ‘a person who commits an act calculated to bring about military action against Israel’ and one who ‘assists the enemy.’
In Palestine, it is treason to give assistance to Israeli troops or sell land to Jews (irrespective of nationality) and Israeli citizens under the Palestinian Land Laws. Both crimes are capital offences subject to the death penalty. (While PA courts can impose death sentences, they cannot be carried out without the approval of the PA President. The current President, Mahmoud Abbas, has consistently refused to approve executions.)
The dillemma is clear: if you want to be an Israeli citizen, you need to fulfill your military duty in Israel. If you cannot fulfill your Israeli military duty because of the fact that you are Palestinian, and as such subject to Palestinian Laws, then you should not be an Israeli citizen. The solution is simple: Two States, or maybe even three (one in Israel, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza).

Without the Palestinian Land Laws, Palestinians would be able to sell land to Jews, or buy land from them. With a treaty like the Schengen Agreement, as well as bilateral agreements between Israel and the Palestinian State(s), custom unions, free-trade, association, co-operation and partnership can be established. Palestinian workers would be able to work in Israel, while living in the Palestine State(s).

The Anat Kam Affair
On December 4, 2008 Haaretz journalist Uri Blau published a story called called "Targeted Assassinations – a License to kill", in which he revealed operational discussions in which the fate of wanted men and innocent people was decided, in apparent disregard of the High Court of Justice decision, which set strict criteria regarding the policy of assassinations in the West Bank. Two Jihad militants were assissinated by the IDF, under responsibility of then Head of Central Command, Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh.
Uri Blau received the information from journalist Anat Kam, who was at the time completing her mandatory military service as a clerk in Naveh's office. Blau's article was screened by the Israeli security services and he got permission to publish it.In December 2009, Anat Kam was accused of treason and placed under house arrest. At the same time Uri Blau was transferred to Asia, and in April 2010 Haaretz moved him to London. Anat Kam was still under house arrest in Israel. Haaretz's editor in chief, Dov Alfon, said Uri Blau would stay in London "as long as necessary".
A court-imposed gag order prohibited officials in Israel or Israeli media from releasing details of the affair. The attempt by Israel to suppress the story was first resisted by the British newspaper Independent, as well as Associated Press (AP), soon to followed by the rest of the free world, including blogs, newspapers and TV stations. However, no Israeli newspaper, or Israel-based foreign journalist, was allowed to even mention the affair. In the blogosphere Richard Silverstein's Tikun Olam, among others, played (and still plays) an important role in publishing the facts and the background of the Anat Kam affair.
Anat Kam is not allowed to reveil any details. Uri Blau fled to London because he feared that he might face charges in Israel in connection with his 2008 investigation. The gag order was finally lifted under pressure of many publications (blogs and newspapers alike), on April 8, 2010.
"I do not believe that a citizen can be arrested and tried for suspected security offences right under our noses without anyone knowing anything about it," wrote former Haaretz editor Hanoch Marmari."Trials do not take place here in darkened dungeons, nor do we have show trials behind glass or chicken wire. I have no doubt that such a strange, terrible and baseless scenario cannot take place in such a sophisticated democracy as our own."
Anat Kam is not allowed to speak about the affair, but on April 9, 2010, Uri Blau, still hiding in London, was able to publish his story in Haaretz. The same day Haaretz published the article "Harrass the IDF, not alleged whistleblower Anat Kam".
There is something very dodgy about this affair. First of all, Anat Kam is accused of espionage, and she is under house arrest. Never before in the history of Israel a spy suspect was put under house arrest -- they all were jailed. Second, the copied documents were not used to spy. They were used to write an article, and the article was published after the content was screened by the military censor. Never has the safety of the State of Israel been in danger because of this affair, and if it was, the military censor is to blame and not Anat Kam or Uri Blau.
Anat Kam blew the whistle, that's all she did, and now she has to pay for it, while the military commanders who ordered the assassinations, against the order of the High Court, are still walking free.
There's only one thing the Israeli government can do: immediately drop the charges against Anat Kam and Uri Blau, and start a serious investigation into the decisions of the military leadership throughout this affair, as well into the decisions that motivated Anat Kam to take action and hand the proof of the military crimes to Uri Blau.

Democratic state or Jewish state - the route to peace will be a difficult one. If the Israeli people choose to continue being a Jewish state, then there will be no room for real democracy, and as a consequence of that Israel will lose the support of important economical partners, like the E.U. and the U.S.A., which will lead to isolation and economical problems. Military systems to defend a country cost lots of money, and what if the country doesn't have that kind of money?
If the Israeli people choose to be a democratic state, they will have to give up the Jewishness of their state and have to get used to being a secular state (with a mainly Jewish and Muslim population).
I can't stress enough how important it is to be a secular state. If a secular state decides to become an Islamic state, then the whole modern world would regard that as anything but progress, as a threat to democracy. If a religious state decides to become a secular state, then the whole modern world will be delighted, as it promises a better chance for democracy and human rights in that country, and probably in the whole region. Israel is no exception to that rule.
Once Israel decides to be a democratic state, then it should realise that democracy isn't anything like the so-called "democracies" we see around us, like the United States, because the system they call 'democracy' is nothing but tyranny of the majority. Real democracy means keeping in mind what the majority wants, but defending the rights of the minorities. In other words: a democratic government works for ALL the people, not just for the majority that voted for them. Real democracy is a system to enable the maximum of individual freedom among ones environment, locally up to worldwide. It requires an optimal combination of majority ruling and minority protection. And when I say "minority" I don't necessarily mean ethnic minorities, but sociological groups in general that do not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of society, like ethnic groups, or any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, religion, education, employment, wealth and politcal power, as well as other minority groups including people with disabilities, "economic minorities" (working poor or unemployed), "age minorities" (who are younger or older than a typical working age) and sexual minorities.
Manipulation of demography, like artificially controlling the composition of an electorate in order to produce a foregone result, by moving people into or out of an electorate (see above: Koenig Report), is called electoral fraud, and has got nothing to do with democracy.

Were the American soldiers from German descent traitors?
I witnessed it myself, and I see it happening around me on a daily basis: serious and well meant criticism of Israeli politics by Jews (in Israel or in the Diaspora) is eliminated in an aggressive manner, not only by right-wing politicians, but also by ordinary Jews (from Israel and the Diaspora). If there is a possibility to respond to an Israeli newspaper article, only the reactions who agree with the spirit of the article are published. It seems to me that many Jews are allergic to criticism, and that they're not able to say, "Well, you might be right there - I'll think about it." Many Jews feel that criticism of Israeli policies by other Jews is a form of treason, and that a Jew should at all times and before anything else support the state of Israel.
Were the American soldiers from German descent, who fought the Nazi regime in the Second World War, who liberated the people of occupied Europe, who liberated the Jews from concentration camps, traitors? Of course not. Anyone who says that will be called a nationalist at least. So how do we call people who insist that the people of a country, even though they may not actually be living in that country, should at all times support the politics of that country? How do we call people who treat people with dissident thoughts and constructive criticism as traitors? And are they really "against us" of they're not "with us"?

Muzzling Israel's left only harms its democracy
By Carlo Strenger
"The last year has been very difficult for Israel internationally. All indicators show that its international standing is worse than ever; research shows that a number of delegitimization campaigns are active against the State of Israel. The question of what to do about this is serious and has been preoccupying Israel's politicians and diplomats as well as many Jews around the world who want to be of help. In this time of rising anxiety Israel's political echelon has taken a number of steps toward undermining Israel's sometimes flawed but always vibrant democracy. The Knesset's shameful passing of Yisrael Beiteinu's so-called Nakba Law in a first reading is a dangerous precedent: Once freedom of expression starts to be curtailed, a state enters a slippery slope and nobody can know where it ends. The Israel Defense Forces' declaring Bil'in a closed military area is an active step against political freedom and a way to undercut decisions taken by Israel's Supreme Court. This tendency is reflected in developments in world Jewry. The new pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby J Street has been critical of many of Israel's actions, particularly settlement expansion and construction in East Jerusalem. Many reactions have been dismaying: Instead of engaging with J Street, Israel's ambassador to the United States chose not to attend its first convention because he believes that it endangers Israel's interests. Others again have argued that J Street misrepresents its position by calling itself pro-Israel and is another instance of Jewish self-hatred.

"This profoundly worrying delegitimization campaign against Jewish and Israeli liberals is taking many forms: A number of Web sites track anti-Israeli activities and positions among Israeli academics. The sites' tone is remarkably reminiscent of the style of Joseph McCarthy's investigations into "un-American activities" in the 1950s, a stain in the history of the world's leading democracy. In some of the cases the coverage is formulated in inflammatory language, in others it is highly inexact. A good example is the vicious campaign that has been launched against Tel Aviv University historian Shlomo Sand, who wrote a book arguing that Israel needs to move from an ethnocentric to a liberal model of democracy. Sand has been called anti-Semitic and a "self-hating Jew" - even though it seems from the utter inexactness of some of the claims on these Web sites that few of the delegitimizers have actually read the book. As a result, these attacks completely miss the simple point that Sand's goal is precisely to ensure the existence of Israel as a democratic state with a Jewish majority! To restate the obvious: In a democracy, every public statement that does not incite violence or actively promote hatred is legitimate. The essence of democracy is that the public domain is open to conflicting opinions. This is why, in a truly democratic regime, there is always an opposition. Only in pseudo-democracies like Syria is the president elected unanimously, and only the government's line is allowed. John Stuart Mill, the classic theorist of liberal democracy, has argued forcefully that no democracy can allow itself to shut up dissent, and his argument is valid to this day.

"It is necessary to restate the obvious because many well-meaning Diaspora Jews feel that the only way to be loyal to Israel is to support its policies, no matter what they are. They often take their cues from one-sided, unreliable sources, and have taken the line that all criticism emanating from Jews, whether in Israel or the Diaspora, reflects disloyalty to both Jewry and Israel. Such an approach is both undemocratic and opposed to the Jewish ethos of incisive and trenchant argument. It is also profoundly counterproductive: No group should claim the prerogative of having a monopoly on what it means to be a good Jew or to act in Israel's interest. Trenchant argument is of vital importance at all times, but even more so in this time of crisis. Trying to shut up those who disagree with you by delegitimizing them is morally wrong, politically dangerous and inexpedient because it doesn't allow for the critical discussion sorely needed. Behind all this highly charged and often inflammatory rhetoric is a deep sentiment of anxiety. We are all worried about Israel's standing in the world, and we all care about its safety. I emphasize "we all": This includes both the right, with which I disagree but which I don't delegitimize, and the liberal camp, to which I belong, even though I disagree with the lines of action and argument of some of its members. Both sides believe that they have the correct views about what is good for Israel in the short and long term. But those on the right who, however well-harming one of Israel's greatest assets: its democracy."

The writer is chair of the Clinical Graduate Program at Tel Aviv University. His recent paper "Knowledge-Nation Israel: A New Unifying Vision" has been published by Azure.