Unfortunately a Jewish state cannot be a democracy. A Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist state cannot be a democracy either. To be fully democratic a government must not discriminate among its citizenry on a religious or ethnic basis. A Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist state must discriminate or its designation as a state attached to a particular religion is meaningless.

To be a democracy a nation must have separation of religion and state whether it is in Israel, Australia or anywhere else. In Australia there are chaplains in the public schools and government support for religious schools. Like Israel Australia considers itself a democracy even though it isn't.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Since the public school chaplains are hired on the basis of their religious beliefs this is a religious test for office and a violation of 116.

Antisemitism is horrible. Nevertheless Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. A state must be for all its people and treat them all equally under the law.

Dear David,

When Israel declares itself a 'Jewish state' it never referred to religion, but rather to making it a home for the Jewish nation, hence '116' does not belong in this discussion.

Now why insist on democracy when you just said yourself that Australia isn't (nor any other country really)? We tend to want democracy in order to ensure that our individual and sub-group freedoms are not trampled on - but is this truly the case? A democracy like any other regime can oppress its people, in this case a 51% majority may cause the other 49% to bite the dust. Even separation of religion and state is not strictly a requisite of democracy.

In Israel, you have a case of a group of people whose majority want to live in a certain way: be it democratic or not is none of your business.

ANY group of like-minded people that owns a contiguous piece of land should be able to have sovereignty over that land if so they wish, where they can exercise their unique way of life. In Israel however, there are two problems: The first is that the Jewish-owned land is not contiguous, as it contains pockets of land belonging to (or taken away from) local Arabs. The second is that the Israeli Jews themselves are not like-minded and have no common way of life.

Those who want a Jewish state must therefore converge into a smaller area (or areas) where all the inhabitants agree on a clearly-defined Jewish way of life. They could even be democratic there if they so choose, without contradiction.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You asked why I insisted on democracy. I didn't insist on democracy. It is Israel that has decided to call itself a democracy. If you call yourself a democracy then you should be one. Israel can be a democracy or a Jewish state. It can't be both. That is what I insist on.

'116' belongs in this discussion since it is in my opinion essential to democracy.

We disagree. I think separation of religion and state is a requisite of democracy.

You wrote: "ANY group of like-minded people that owns a contiguous piece of land should be able to have sovereignty over that land if so they wish, where they can exercise their unique way of life."

The above is irrelevant since no group of any size are all like-minded. In Israel as in any other country there is a tremendous difference in opinions.

Dear David,

<<We disagree. I think separation of religion and state is a requisite of democracy.>>

Care to explain why?

I think that if for example 'the will of the people' is to have all shops closed on the Sabbath and to not demand welfare-recipients to accept job-offers that require work on the Sabbath, then that is perfectly democratic (regardless whether I personally agree or not with this style of democracy).

<<The above is irrelevant since no group of any size are all like-minded.>>

I know, I wrote so myself, but the principle is important in the general case, indicating that IN THEORY there is no inherent contradiction in having a Jewish and democratic state. In practice, conditions in Israel are very different.

Of course Israel is a democracy. Its citizens vote and governments change. I assume this change happens on a local as well as on a national level, although the national level is what makes it into the world press.
Israel is also a thief. It is building its democracy on the homes and bones of the Palestinians who lived there before.
Neither of the above statements is anti-Semitic. Neither mentions any race or creed but are simply statements of fact in reference to one of the many nations in existence in the world today.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Democracy in my opinion includes the protection of the minority from interference by the government except where such interference is vital to the survival of the nation. One of the areas that government has no business interfering with is a person's religious belief or lack of religious belief. It works in the other direction also. It is not legitimate for a religious body to use the government to promote its religious agenda.

If we do not have the separation then those with an opinion differing from that which the government endorses is subject to oppression by the government.

The right of an individual to disagree with 'the will of the people' must be protected or we will not have a decent society. Totalitarian societies are great for expressing 'the will of the people' and crushing those who disagree with it. I think we have a basic disagreement which no amount of discussion will resolve. We seem to be treading the same path again. We both disagreed with the views of David Singer. You wanted him shut up. I didn't. The fact that a great majority of people disagrees with an individual's views is no reason to shut that person up. Individuals must be protected from the 'will of the people' in my view. Possibly not in yours.

The protection of those with minority viewpoints is not only necessary in religious beliefs but for dissenting opinion in general.