PRETORIA NEWS
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Re: “Prioritise victims of Israeli brutality”
In “Prioritise victims of Israeli brutality” (Wednesday 8 August), Asad Essa, a sadly uninformed Israeli critic, focused on Israel’s “brutal” treatment of local model Shashi Naidoo ‘ who (according to him) was allegedly “brutalised” by simply not being allowed entry into Israel. Talk about hyperbole …
Naidoo’s blackballing followed her falling under the spell of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) organzisation, an avowed enemy of the Jewish state and banned in Israel from plying its special brand of toxicity.
Essa, however, then displayed his total ignorance of Israeli politics when he stated that, because Israel had adopted a new Basic Law – the ‘Nation-state Law’ – it somehow denigrates the status of Israeli-Arabs to the level of 2nd class citizens. This, he claims, “effectively institutionalises Israeli apartheid.”
Essa also says that the new law omits any mention of democracy or principles of equality and also downgrades Arabic as an official language.
Interestingly, as with Britain and New Zealand, Israel has no constitution. What she has is a Declaration of Independence as proclaimed by David Ben-Gurion on the 14th May 1948, the day of her birth, which affirmed the basic character of the new state. Never was it intended to serve as a constitution despite it including many elements that would later apply.
In the 70 years since, the question of a constitution has yet to be addressed. Meanwhile, the gap was filled with a set of 13 Basic Laws compiled over the years, which have endowed the state with its democratic profile while providing the basis to address the myriad complex constitutional-type issues endemic in so complex a society.
This past July, the Knesset voted to add a 14th Basic Law – The Nation-State Law – which would finally address and formalise some essential principles which have existed de facto for 70 years. Included (contrary to Essa’s claim) was the clear recognition of the equality of all her people, respect for language, religion, heritage, culture, and individual rights and freedoms.
However, three of them have produced reactions from the liberal Left as well as elements amongst Israel’s Arabs and other detractors that can only be described as an ‘illogical hysteria’.
The first to earn their ire was, “That the State of Israel is the historic and national homeland of the Jewish people who have, within it, an exclusive right to self determination.”
Despite the repeated affirmation of this recognition by the international community from the 1917 Balfour Declaration, through the Mandate of the League of Nations in 1922 , the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, followed by the admission of Israel to the UN in 1949, to this day there are ongoing campaigns to deny the right of the Jewish people to their national homeland. The now legal confirmation of what is historically cast in stone removes any further debate. The new law provides an overdue definition to what until now were only underlying principles.
Most important is the assurance that the law does not detract from the existing rights of individuals and minority groups (including Israeli Arabs) which are guaranteed to Israeli citizens of all faiths and origins. Nor does it remove any rights that they previously enjoyed as equal citizens of the State.
A second false accusation suggests that with the recognition of Hebrew as the only official language of the State, Arabic has been downgraded to second-tier status. The fact is Arabic has never been an official language but has always enjoyed a special status. This remains uneffected by the new law.
Finally, Israel’s critics revel in the “affirmation” (as they see it) that by not including the words “democracy” or “democratic” within the new law, Israel has finally acknowledged it’s “inevitable slide towards apartheid. “
“Freedom House” (FH), the internationally recognised monitor of democracy knows better and rates Israel as “fully democratic” in all respects. What FH understands is that a nation’s commitment to the principles of democracy will be judged not by its claims, but by its culture and behaviour. One only has to recall the Nationalist Government’s claim to be fully democratic whilst suppressing the vast majority of South Africans.
In conclusion, some believe that because this Basic Law effects so little its adoption is unnecessary as it provides critics like Azad Essa with just another propaganda weapon. The response is simply: facts and truth should be faced and acknowledged. Israel has nothing to be ashamed of and a failure to recognise these realities is an injustice to her indisputable reality.
Media Team Israel 