Selective objections

Over at Harry's Place, Adam Lebor has a touching article about Lucy Aharish, an Israeli Arab Muslim who has become a popular newsreader on a mainstream Israeli TV channel.

Hmmmn. I know this is a little theme of yours, Adam, but why are you so selective in suggesting it should be Israel that changes its national anthem? After all, doesn't Britain have a national anthem which assumes everyone believes in God? Why don't you suggest that Britain needs to become a country of all its citizens by changing its national anthem? In fact, my understanding is that you want Israel to cease to be a specifically Jewish state, despite your reference to wanting Israel to be something called a "Hebrew, secular state". But that's the whole raison d'etre of Israel. Given that Lucy, the newsreader, is an Israeli Arab Muslim, I don't personally see that creating "a Hebrew secular state" is any advance on its relationship to her ethnic and religious identity than having a Jewish state.

And given that there are fifty seven (or is it more?) Islamic states, and even more Christian states, most of which embed the state religion into their national anthems and their laws and social practices, why should Israel alone be required to give up on this?

Meanwhile, Adam might like to reflect on this post before he suggests that Israel can't be a state of all its citizens because of its national anthem.

Comments

[Huldah]

Nice to have you back, Judy!

Don't leave us for so long again.

[http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/]

thanks for pointing me to that post :)

[Leila]

Judy - how does Lisa's post, interesting and heartwarming as it is, show that Israel is a state of all its citizens?

The men seeking refuge from Darfur are a distinct group from the Palestinian citizens of Israel - 'a state of all its citizens' is one that can represent and meet the needs of all its citizens, whatever their ethnic or religious origin.

The tale of the Darfur asylum seekers in fact reflects very badly on Israel. They are not even granted refugee status in Israel (let alone citizenship) - contrary to Israel's obligations under the Geneva Convention.

Whilst Israelis have undoubtedly extended compassion and care to those fleeing Darfur, the State itself has refused them their basic human right to refugee status, keeping them (and their families) in limbo, and in fear of possible return to Sudan.

[Judy]

Leila, what I suggest the story Lisa's post highlights is the readiness of the Israeli state to take on legal challenges to reasonable laws (ie that it does not allow entry to citizens of enemy states like Sudan which are committed to its destruction. I don't think the story reflects badly on Israel given its situation. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the present legal interventions will be. What's also clear to me is that Israel has de facto taken in more Darfur refugees than the overwhelming majority of other nations (and its de facto treatment is in marked contrast to those of the Arab and Islamic nations who seem determined to see Israel's actions as yet another proof of zionist evil doing, whilst themselves either closing their eyes to what's going on in Darfur, or treating them with the cruelty described by the refugees themselves.

If refugees from Darfur tried to enter the UK illegally, they wouldn't get past the port/airport, whence they would go straight to detention campls, let alone get the sort of adoption they have received on the kibbutz.

Strikes me that maybe you too are being highly selective in your readiness to condemn Israel in this situation.

My main point anyway for why it's unreasonably selective (and a cover for an unstated agenda) to slag off Israel for supposedly not being a state of all its citizens is that a huge proportion of the world's nations embody a particular religious persuasion in their flags, anthems and national symbols. You know, like the multiple crosses which make up the Union Jack....

[Robert]

And given that there are fifty seven (or is it more?) Islamic states, and even more Christian states, most of which embed the state religion into their national anthems and their laws and social practices, why should Israel alone be required to give up on this?

Judy, you're right. It is very hypocritical for anyone to criticise a state religion in Israel without also criticising state religions elsewhere. I tried to deal with this issue on my own place a while back.

http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2005/10/05/abolish-the-cross-of-st-george/

Would be good to get your feedback.