Ministers to debate Zionism’s influence on gov’t decisions
Discussion intended to hone definition of ‘Nation-State Law’
cabinet ministers on sunday sparred over the place of Zionism in government decisions in response to a proposal by otzma yehudit.
the proposal states: “the values of Zionism, as they are expressed in Basic Law: nation-state of the jewish people, will be the leading and decisive values in setting public policy, domestic and foreign policy, legislation and actions of the government and all of its units and institutions.”
the cabinet will likely hold a vote on monday to change the proposal’s text and ensure that haredim would not lose out on its benefits.
the proposal by development of the negev and Galilee and national Resilience minister yitzhak wasserlauf (otzma yehudit) is meant to put the content of what is known as the “nation-state Law” into action. that law, which passed in 2018, states that Israel is the nation-state of the jewish people in the Land of Israel. It also states that the right to self-determination in Israel is exclusive to the jewish people, without overriding individual rights delineated in other laws.
other relevant parts of the law state that jerusalem is the capital, Hebrew is the official language, while arabic has a special status, the country is open for jewish immigration and strives to help ensure the safety of jews in trouble, and it strives to strengthen the ties between Israel and the diaspora.
In addition, the Basic Law states: “the state views the development of jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”
wasserlauf said his proposal would “establish and
strengthen the connection of the Jewish people to this land. [It would] allow us to give preference to combat soldiers, specifically, and those who serve, generally, and strengthen settlement in the Negev and Galilee.”
The proposal set off two debates in Sunday’s cabinet meeting about the role of Zionism in the government and whether they can proceed without approval from the attorney-general.
Haredi ministers expressed concern that their constituents, the vast majority of whom do not serve in the military and do not adhere to Zionism by name, would face discrimination.
“A dangerous thing is developing here,” said Jerusalem Affairs and Jewish Tradition Minister Meir Porush (UTJ).
Health and Interior Minister Moshe Arbel (Shas) said the law would remain in place after the current, pro-haredi government is out of office.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) said the decision “prevents discrimination against Jews.”
Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon said he was opposed to the law.
“The government cannot decide that one value is superior to others,” he said.
In response, Ben-Gvir said: “Good thing you weren’t here in the time of [first prime minister David] Ben-Gurion.”
“Whoever opposes our proposal favoring IDF soldiers turns himself to an opponent of Zionism,” he said earlier.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the bill would help free obstacles created by the Israel Lands Authority (ILA), which “discriminates and makes decisions about the future of our land.”
“This is a matter of policy, and I want to control policy,” he said in the cabinet meeting. “If we have to change the laws, we will.”
Netanyahu said the Attorney-General’s Office wants a discussion, but he wants to set policy.
“The situation is absurd,” he said. “In any case, this proposal is important. We have to pass it now.”
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (Likud) said the ILA “acts on non-Zionist motives” and called for a decision to specifically require it to consider Zionism in its decisions.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said it was opposed to the Nation-State Law and its implementation as proposed in the cabinet.
“If the government authorizes this proposal, discrimination against Arab society will become a leading value for government ministries, and bureaucrats will have to design and advance policies and plans that give Jewish citizens preference and discriminate against Arab citizens,” it
to a terrorist organization or who was convicted for an act of terrorism; and the Council for Higher Education must ban students who were convicted for acts of terrorism from receiving an academic degree or having a foreign degree recognized in Israel for a period of 10 years.
“Academic institutions have become in the past year a central stage for incitement against the State of Israel,” the bill says.
Students at Tel Aviv University, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem held demonstrations in favor of an intifada, and in some cases, they expressed support for terrorists from terrorist organizations, the bill says.
“It is unthinkable that students must study alongside those who expressed explicit support for terrorist attacks, while the management of the institution remains silent,” it says.
The Attorney-General’s Office told the Ministerial Committee on Legislation there were “constitutional difficulties” in the proposal.
“Waving flags may be done in different contexts,” it wrote in a legal opinion. “Some may indeed be to identify with the organization, but others could be for other purposes, such as criticism.”
Applying sanctions on the waving of the Palestinian flag was especially problematic, it said, adding that even though the flag is also that of the PLO, which has a status of a terrorist organization that has never been rescinded, “If the waving was not done out of identification with the PLO, but rather with the Palestinian people, for example, the waving is not illegal… a ban on waving the flag of the Palestinian Authority, without a necessary element connecting the waving with actual terrorism, enhances the damage to the freedom of speech in its most basic form.”
Another difficulty in the bill was that academic institutions do not have the necessary expertise to determine what is considered support for a terrorist organization or act and what is not, and therefore, they could apply sanctions when they are not warranted, the Attorney-General’s Office said.
Another possible outcome could be a “cooling effect” for acts that are not supportive of terrorism, but rather, while not in consensus and sometimes “infuriating,” stand at the heart of the freedom of speech.
“Universities are considered vital and special places for exchanging ideas and developing political and social views, and therefore, there is special importance in maintaining freedom of speech precisely within their boundaries,” the Attorney General’s Office wrote.
Son Har-Melech criticized the legal opinion.
“The law that I proposed is necessary in the fight against terrorism, and the attorney-general’s decision to oppose it raises difficult questions about a democratic country’s ability to defend itself from a fifth column embedded deeply within it,” she wrote. “Unfortunately,
we are dealing with an extremely worrying phenomenon where, under the cover of freedom of expression, terrorism-supporting cells are rising within universities, who are not deterred from inciting terrorism and violence from within the campuses themselves.
“The meaning of the attorney-general’s opinion is the giving of a free hand to those terrorist cells to continue to incite against Israel. I call on the government to continue advancing the bill,” Son Har-Melech wrote.