Op-Ed: NYT Editorial Actually Condemns the World, not Israel

The New York Times published a most unfortunate editorial on Tuesday based entirely on an inaccurate premise.... "It is heartbreaking," the paper's editorial board wrote, "to see the Israeli cabinet approve a contentious bill that would officially define Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, reserving 'national rights' only for Jews."

The paper implicitly refers to the bill as one that "diminishes the rights of [Israel's] people" and "[denies] full rights to minorities."

By granting the Jewish People exclusive "national rights" in Israel, the new bill does not deny civil or democratic rights to Arabs or any other ethnic group. They will continue to enjoy the absolute best that any democracy in the world has to offer, and certainly much more than Jews in Arab countries. They will continue to vote for and be elected to the Knesset, serve as Supreme Court judges, and so on, etc.

By granting the Jewish People exclusive "national rights" in Israel, the new bill simply restates the international resolutions that paved the way for, and legitimized, the establishment of the State of Israel.

Back in 1922, representatives of the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I - Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan – met in San Remo, Italy, and agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel. The relevant resolution passed at that conference states:

"The [British] Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration ... in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The resolution immediately adds that it is "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

...libtard what-me-worry-about-God Jews hate only true Christians more than they detest each other and themselves

Its a neurosis

They think America is a crime against humanity full of potential Nazis and only pay lip services to their murdered kinfolk in Israel who live under the threat of sub humans daily

Since Muslims are enemy to bigoted potential Nazi America they are mute

Think Meathead or Streisand...multiply by 2-3 million

Netanyahu should cut them loose considering they were very instrumental in electing the most anti Israel president in history.....not once but twice

Money and near universal Hollywood and TV support

Is this going to get better...I doubt it

"It is heartbreaking," the paper's editorial board wrote, "to see the Israeli cabinet approve a contentious bill that would officially define Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, reserving 'national rights' only for Jews."

In most parts of the world, each nation-state has a "nation" or ethnic group that the state is built around. It is in essence a very large extended family.

In Croatia, for example, that nation is the Croats, 90% of the population. In Vietnam it's the Viets, 85%. In Ukraine it's the Ukrainians, 77%. In Iran it's the Persians, 61%. In Burma the Burmans, 68%.

The rest of the population of these countries is made up of various minority groups. How these minorities are treated may vary from essentially identical to that of the majority "national" group to abysmal.

While the minorities may be legally citizens of the state and be well treated, they simply aren't members of the "nation" in the same way as the majority is.

Now there are other types of nation-states. Examples include the European daughter-states of the Americans and Australasia. All citizens of the states of USA, Mexico or New Zealand are members of the nation because there wasn't really a "nation" in existence before the state came into being. There are ethnic conflicts in all these countries, but there is not a "nation" and then minorities. In most of these countries the people feel a strong sense of national identity.

Then there are all those countries that came into existence when the European empires fell apart. The boundaries of those countries include a variety of peoples, often with absolutely nothing in common except the fact that they happened to get enclosed within borders created by confrences back in Europe a century or two ago and that they hate each other. Their sense of personal identity with the nation is often weak at best. Examples: Congo and just about every other country in Africa, Iraq, Indonesia. Some of these countries seem to be developing a sense of national identity, like the Indians, for example. Others, not so much.

I think you can make a very good claim that the Israelis are an "artificial" nation created for a single ethnic group. But then so are a great many other "nation-states" around the world.

The Israelis treat their national minorities a great deal more fairly than many countries.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.