Sometimes posts I read bug me longer than expected. This tells me I should have blogged them to begin with. Here is a recent example: David Volokh Bernstein’s defense of ethnic/religion-based states, specifically Israel. Where to begin? With Bernstein’s semantic bait-and-switch:
Supporting Ethnic-Religion Based States: I occasionally get email from readers suggesting that Israel is unworthy of support, or even existence, because it is an ethnic/religion-based state.
Naturally, the rest of the post concerns itself with Israel’s right to exist, instead of what would be justifiable levels of support. Not interesting, especially if the argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: A) Poland is a ethnic/religion-based state. B) Israel is a ethnic/religion-based state. C) Poland has a right to exist. Therefore D) Israel has a right to exist. Basically, because A = B, if C then also D. And C is certainly the case. Hence D. Brilliant, that.
This rather truncheons nuanced argument from the likes of me, who support the right of Israel (and Poland) to exist, but think it indefensible for one religion and/or ethnic group to be elevated by law over others. If it’s deplorable when it happens in Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, we should deplore it in our midst too, whether that be the Vatican, Italy, Israel, Ireland, France, Bavaria, Apartheid South Africa or segregation Southern USA.
My reason: In an ideal world, a polity exists to create a level playing field for its constituent population. In the economic sphere, innovation and competition is assured by guarding against market failures such as monopolies; similarly, a free market of religious or cultural ideas cannot thrive if one religion or culture is granted monopolistic powers by law. Such monopolies might be stable, but at the expense of ethical and cultural innovation. Witness the stagnation of both the Catholic Church (in those areas where it is entrenched) and of societies that have implemented Islamic law.
Bernstein would probably sit impatiently through that last paragraph and now testily point out that all this is good an well, but that in Israel’s case, if you support taking the word “Jewish” out of “Jewish state”, you are de facto against Israel’s existence. That is not true: There would still be a majority of ethnic Jews living together with a minority of ethnic Arabs in a secular democracy, at least for its citizensPointedly not a democracy for Palestinians, but let’s just assume we can fast-forward to an independent but defanged Palestine, which is the inevitable solution and both sides know it.. One homeland with room enough for both Jews and Arabs is, believe it or not, quite compatible with the original mandate granted by the British to the Zionist movement in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other countryWriting it was a mess of negotiations; clarifying it wasn’t any easier..
Ethnic Jews lose no freedoms in transferring to a secular arrangement, while Israeli Arabs gain a stake in the state as legal equals. Now that the state guarantees a free market of ideas, cultural and ethical innovation is worth exploring again. You only lose out if you subscribe to an orthodoxy. Which suits me fine.
Demographic trends show that the Arab population in both Israel proper and the occupied territories is growing rapidly, while the Jewish population has below-replacement birthrates, akin to Southern Europe.
If nothing else, this fact will force Israel to rethink its occupation policies. Outnumbered, Jews will fear democracy. This is why so many Israelis opposed to Sharon’s policies in the occupied territories believe Israel faces a choice between being a Jewish state, and being a democracy.
Stefan, your hope for a secular Israeli state can only be realized once these right-wing dreams of Ersatz Israel are resisted and a credible Palestinian state is formed along the lines of the 1967 “green line”. But as long as Likud and its fundamentalist partners continue their cat-and-mouse game of expansion, the prospects for a democratic state, let alone a secular one, are imperilled.
Sure, I don’t fancy my chances of seeing this happen, but I think it would be both just and feasible. It would be a great way to preemptively defuse a situation in the future that some on Israel’s left have compared to old South Africa: A minority governing a majority. The impending demographics of the place is not only a compelling reason to hurry the development of a Palestinian state, it is also a good reason to set up a system of government that guarantees minorities the same rights as the majority… Because you never know who’s going to be in the minority one day.
Eurof’s favorite word (clart) applies, as usual, to anything you write about religion. The best bit: “monopolies might be stable, but at the expense of ethical and cultural innovation. Witness the stagnation of… the Catholic Church (in those areas where it is entrenched)”
Indeed, since Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church has clearly been in decline and we saw absolutely no ‘ethical and cultural innovation’ in Southern Europe until after the French Revolution. The namesakes of the Mutant Ninja Turtles were all closet Protestants, for a start.
Boy, Charles, you sure are smart. I was under the mistaken impression that as soon as Rome was Christianized at the start of the 4th century AD, the empire went down the drain, broke into two, and was followed by the dark ages for, oh, a millenium. Meanwhile, those cultures that had a less authoritarian take on religion, like the Buddhists and the Chinese, did all the innovating. By around 1300 we westeners manage to climb out of our hole and start innovating in religion, mainly by challenging the Catholic orthodoxy, which reacts with equal measures of repression and innovation themselves.
But seriously now, the Volokh post on the right of Israel to exist, many other posts, for example this one, are all part of a rolling thunder in the blogosphere that followed the lightning strike caused by an interview in Ha’aretz with the historian Benny Morris, whose new book details crimes committed by Israelis in the war of independence. What is controversial is that Morris, of leftist leanings, considers the crimes to have been necessary for the formation of the Israeli state.
In other words, he is arguing that all nation-states are built on this kind of injustice, and that you cannot condemn Israel for having done the same. Reparations of some sort, however, are a standard way of making up in such cases (witness Aborigines, native Americans). Making Israel secular would certainly be fitting in such a situation.
Conflicts in the Middle East are all about identity. What does it exactly mean to be an Arab? Ask Aralia (who is not Arab but Assyrian) and you’ll see how confusing it can be. Meanwhile, Jewishness is not all that clear cut either. Does being Jewish mean you have to ascribe to the Jewish religion? Certainly not, secular Jews will say. Well what about ethnicity? Sure, Jews are about as diverse as any ethnic group can be. And the best way to create unity in a diverse group – of course – is to define a common enemy. Both Arafat and Sharon are doing exactly this.
Maybe after 50 years of apartheid – with Palestians in one state and Jews in the other they can start trusting each other.
I’m all for your principles, but I just don’t think they will work in Israel-Palestine.
I think Morris has a point. Sweden is (or was, rather) probably the most “natural” nation state ever – ethnically and religously homogenous, relatively remote and sparesly populated. But as always, this was achieved by (sometimes brutally)suppressing minorities. It’s just that it happened several hundred years ago, so many are unaware of this.
“Sweden is (or was, rather) probably the most “natural” nation state ever – ethnically and religously homogenous, relatively remote and sparesly populated. But as always, this was achieved by (sometimes brutally)suppressing minorities.”
No, it didn’t?
What are you referring to?
To support Charles and dump on Stefan; your supposition that dominant religion = cultural stagnation isn’t remotely supportable. Your timing’s off, badly, for one. The flowering of the Italian Renaissance kicked off in the late 15th C. and had little to do with the relative status of the church and all to do with digging fancy greek relics out of the ground. The Reformation is barely a glint in anyone’s eye and in any case is evolving in a different part of Europe altogether. Indeed, some of the greatest cultural endeavours of the period were sponsored by the papacy (Sistine Chapel (named for Sixtus IV, I think) and the Raphael Stanze, to name just two.
And, to further point out how wrong you are, one of the next great periods of grand artistic endeavour was the rise of the Baroque, the acolytes of which spent most of their time building churches. Even the Dutch renaissance, which flowered under a less hierarchical church, still came to be depsite/because of/separate from an almost universal adherence to protestantism.
Not that this proves that cultural endeavour needs a religious sponsor (although Ch. Murray does argue this in his latest) but that the opposite absolte, which you argue, is as inaccurate as a bent compass.
also, stefanie, only half of the roman empire fell into bits. everyone keeps forgetting the byzantine half, where everyone knew, for example, that the world was round well before 1492. and they were all christian orthodox religious-like. the dark ages never reached half of europe.
also, don’t talk about the chinese being less authoritarian; official doctrine that china was the centre of the world lasted from X B.C until well into the 19th century. back in the 14th or 15th century, i remember reading a book review about how they had got as far as sending a huge fleet of ocean-going junks to the horn of africa but then decided not to go on any farther in case they discovered things they didn’t agree with. who knows; had they turned that corner we’d all be complaining (in chinese) about non-anglo-saxon cultural imperialism.
Argh, I knew I should have taken the high ground and simply pointed out that my post is only meant to refer to the present day, where orthodox religious societies have to compete against secular ones, and that it is clear those societies that do not monopolize religious thought benefit in all manner of ways, not least scientifically. You have only to look at Bernard Lewis’s latest book on Islam.
Of course there were no modern-day secular societies to compete with those that existed in the middle ages, so comparisons are meaningless. But I do think that there were more philosophical advances during the religious free-for-all that was ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome than during any subsequent period of equal length until the Renaissance. And I put the reason for that squarely on the leeway allowed by the state in matters doctrinal.
Niklas, just to be clear, when I talk about a homeland for both Jews and Arabs, I am talking about a state within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. I assume Palestine becomes independent together with the 3.5 million Palestinians in it. Currently, 1.2 million of 6 million Israelis are Arabs who are not expected to move once Palestine is a reality. It is for their sake that I think a secular Israel is needed.
Meaning, you’re wrong AND right?
Separately, in another not-so-surprising evidentiary hole in your thesis, you’re forgetting the so-called 12th C. Renaissance. Part of big move by some historians to suggest the Dark Ages weren’t so Dark after all. Based out of Northern France, if I remember rightly. Lots of beautiful ivory carvings. No one who clings to broad over-generalizations, such as yourself, has been able to explain what it’s doing there. Nor for that matter, has anyone been able to explain how and why Europeans forgot for several hundred years everything those nice Romans taught them. Perhaps it was that meteor; meaning, perhaps there wasn’t a Dark Age, meaning, your theory falls apart. Again.
Erm, obviously flippant comment in #13 referred to Stefan’s incomprehensible ramblings in #11. He snuck in with another comment when I wasn’t looking.
just nuke it and get it over with…
Chosen People are going to live on the Moon henceforth anyways….
Stefan,
even if Israel kicked out all its Arab residents, it wouldn’t be a monolithic Orthodox theocracy. OK, Jersulam would be, but Tel Aviv? There’s sufficient vibrancy in a democratic state for Arabs, even if that implies a monumental battle for equal rights akin to America’s civil rights movement. If Israel can come to some sort of peace with its Palestinian neighbors, there would be breathing space for Israeli Arabs to improve their lot, even within the constraints of a Jewish state.
Which minorities? One of the more recent examples: the Sami people in the 20th century.
Sure they weren’t slaughtered like Native Americans but they were forcibly integrated into a society very different from their own and treated as second class citizens.
Several hundred years earlier Gustav Wasa put down the Dacke uprising with considerable bloodshed. Certainly, compared to most other countries, authority has been relatively benelovent. But my point is that even a nation state as homogenous as Sweden needed force and subjugation to be created.
Stefan, my point is that Israel without Jewishness would not be Israel. The whole point of creating the country was that Jews would constitute the majority. As long as Arabs (or Muslims) are perceived to be a threat they are likely to be discriminated whether or not this is inshrined in law. Still Arabs in Israel have – until recently at least – been able to live quite well in Israel and enjoyed more democratic rights than in most Arab countries.
Damn, leave a comment chain for just a few hours, and everyone else has got in pointing out how stupid Stefan is before I get a chance. Only solution is to set up some sort of automatic posting device that sends a comment reading “you’re an idiot” to stefangeens.com every four hours, and more frequently if there is a post even touching on a religious question.
But do any of you actually know anything about Art History?
oh yes, absholutely. only certain bits, but yes, i would certainly say i have more than a nodding acquaintance with the history of artistic expression. give us some questions, go on. ask me who did which painting etc.
F. Geens, you are rumbled. Yes, that fake name might have deterred the most idiotic Pretend Art Historian, but you kept your real email underneath, just like that hidden boy with the barrel buried in the middle of the river in the Haywain. Yes, Art, I know it well. It’s noble of you to stand up for your brother. Sweet, in fact, in light of how quickly his intellectual foundations are crumbling. The answer is, yes, some of us obviously know something about Art History, made Self Important by The Use of Capital Letters. Want to make some corrections, bearing in mind they may not rescue little Stefan from the intellectual cage he has built around himself?
yes, doctor, Matty certainly knows about ARRT.
I worry that perhaps Stefan’s family sees another side of him than we, his friends, do. Our understanding is that piling in on him like this is actually what he likes: he is the centre of all this attention. It gives us pleasure and gives him pleasure too. Is there another, more sensitive side of him? Does this in fact cause him pain, pain that he can’t express to us for fear of seeming weak? Help us here. I don’t want him to be sad.
No Stefan can stand up for himself, even I cannot help him here. I do like the staring role given to the ivory carvings. Now if you could throw some translucent enamels into the equation to convince my brother that he is wrong I would be very impressed.
be impressed. http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Byzantium/byzim_0a.html
be very impressed.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Byzantium/byzim_23a.html
Ok so they’re not translucent.
Introducing the Movement for One Democratic Secular State
As the Israeli occupation continues to grow ever more entrenched, more and more people around the world are reaching the conclusion that the ethnic separatist “two-state solution” is no longer viable possibility. The level of physical integration between Palestinians and Israelis, both inside and outside the Green Line, as well as simple demographic realities has effectively negated any realistic separatist schemes aside from the current “ghettoization” policy being employed by the Israeli government, which is not sustainable.
The alternatives to ethnic separation within Mandatory Palestine (“between the river and the sea”) are the “one state models”, both racist one state models based on ethnically cleansing “the others” from Israel/Palestine and the progressive one state models based on integrating Palestinians – including the refugees – and Israelis into a single state and polity. For progressives, the idea of ethnic cleansing is utterly anathema and can therefore be ruled out as an acceptable solution.
Among the progressive one state models there is an extremely broad array of opinion on how this can best be brought about. The federalist model envisions separate ethnic states or cantons, and draws much of its inspiration from the examples of Belgium and Switzerland. The binational model envisions separate group-specific laws and rights within the framework of a united state, similar to the existing status quo in Israel proper or the situation in modern Lebanon, sans the overt discrimination against particular communities. The integrationist models hold the view that separate can never be equal and generally look to the South African model for inspiration, based on core principles of anti-racism, “one person – one vote”, and the nondiscriminatory employment of the rule of law to all citizens. Each of these models has its own advantages and disadvantages and it is impossible to say which model will eventually gain the most support.
Right now the one state perspective is a minority one. However, some 25-30% of Palestinian refugees, the vast majority of Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship, and smaller percentages of other Israelis and Palestinians already view the one state proposition as an acceptable compromise. All of these percentages can be increased if we, as in the global peace, justice, and human rights community take on the issue and make it mainstream.
In order to advance the progressive one state concept – regardless of the model preferred – we have decided to launch the “Movement for One Democratic Secular State” project. At this early stage we are primarily forming an online community in order to enable networking between one state activists, to share tips and opinions on effective one state advocacy, as well as to generally develop the progressive one state concept by allowing advocates of the various models to make their respective cases and then debate the issues. This is an essentially progressive project, meaning that we expect all participants to stay within the basic – though very broad – perimeters of the project as defined on the “Positions of the Movement” page. Further the community is fully democratic, each member has the right to propose new initiatives, vote on previous initiatives as well as to discuss various concerns in an open forum among other members.
The Movement is meant to accommodate both the intellectual as well as the activist, though you need not be either to participate. On the intellectual front there are the discussions regarding the various models as well as how to get from where we are today to actually realizing the one state ideal in Palestine/Israel. For the activist, we discuss ways and means of arguing the point, effective rebuttal of ethnocentric/racist positions, examples of other activities elsewhere that can be employed in your area, as well as a news service to advertise your own efforts at promoting the one state ideal.
Please visit the Movement for One Democratic Secular State website at http://www.onestate.org Read the “Positions” and “Purpose” of the Movement and if you find your own views compatible with ours, please consider joining us. In most respects, the one state case is much easier to make than the ethnic separatist “two-state solution” one, therefore it behooves us to encourage the one state case to become a mainstream suggestion. The initiative is new, having only went public on August 7, so there is plenty of room to for everyone to participate.
John Sigler
Movement for One Democratic Secular State
http://www.onestate.org