His words on citizenship have been mis

ANYONE WHO learns translated materials is aware that a translation is by necessity an interpretation. No two languages are the same, and words have different connotations.

The problem is compounded when a single word has multiple meanings and can be used to colour a speaker’s intent. This happened recently to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when tensions are already fraught and electioneering is at a high.

In Hebrew, the word am means “nation”. The words HaAm HaYehudi are commonly translated as the Jewish Nation or the Jewish People, but “people” in this regard means a nation — not many persons. As such, HaAm HaYehudi should never be translated as “Jews” or “Jewish people”.

Why does this matter? Because when Mr Netanyahu says that the State of Israel belongs to HaAm HaYehudi, as he did in that Instagram post, he means that Israel is the home of the Jewish Nation — that it is the Jewish national home, not that it is a home only for Jews.

Mr Netanyahu’s words were: “Israel is not a state of all its citizens... Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish Nation — and his alone.” (Remember there is no gender-neutral form in Hebrew).

What he means is that Israel is not defined by the makeup of its citizens, whatever composition they may reflect at a given time. Rather, he says, Israel is the Jewish State, the State of the Jewish Nation.

In many outlets his words were mischaracterised. The Independent wrote: “Netanyahu says Israel ‘belongs to Jewish people alone’ in attack on nation’s Arab population”. The Palestine Chronicle claimed he said: “Israel Is the Nation-State of Jews Alone”

The problems with these “translations” are numerous and counterproductive. Attacking the idea of Israel as the Jewish State, the fundamental principle of Zionism, will always result in stronger nationalism. The Nation State Law is direct proof of this.

In 2006 and 2007, major Arab-Israeli NGOs released an outline of how they sought veto power on national issues, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the annulment of Israel’s Jewish character. They recommended two states — not one Jewish and one Palestinian, but one secular bi-national state of Jews and Arabs, and another exclusively Palestinian.

These views caused a stir and, for many, fear. Combined with recent Supreme Court rulings, they put Israel’s Jewish character at risk.

The idea of losing the Jewish state, all of 60-or-so years old at the time the bill was initiated, caused, to be frank, a minor panic. The notion that the democratic nature of the country could end its Jewish character was unthinkable and made many to want Activists holding the Declaration of Independe

The idea of losing the Jewish state caused a panic

to enshrine in law what was always assumed as a given — that Israel was the home of the Jewish Nation.

The resulting Basic Law deals not with individual and civil rights, which are already guaranteed, but with national character and determination. It speaks of Jewish characteristics, the obligation to protect Jews around the world, connect with the diaspora and enshrine the protection of the Arab language in Israel.

Mr Netanyahu’s next sentence on Instagram spoke of Israel’s Arab citizens: “They are equal in rights like all of us.” He made clear the distinction