A Jewish State Without Land For Jews?

A series of recent rulings handed down by the Israeli Supreme Court challenge the rights of Jews to exercise an exclusive claim over any land in the State of Israel. The Court’s rulings fundamentally threaten Israel’s Jewish identity.

A recent article in Azure Journal by Joel H. Golovensky, and Ariel Gilboa argues powerfully that such discrimination in favor of Jews is justified in Israel. One must consider some Zionist history. Very early in Israel’s history, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) bought some two million dunams of land from the state. Under the terms of the agreement, the JNF transferred the management of the newly-owned lands to the Israel Land Administration (ILA), with several caveats: the JNF would retain ownership of the land; land would continue to be leased but not sold; and the ILA would continue to distribute the land in accordance with the JNF’s charter – by leasing land only to Jews The recent court decisions effectively nullified this agreement, ignoring the fact that the JNF raised most of its funds championing its particular Jewish mission. As the Azure article points out, the decision also fails to recognize that the allocation of land is not a policy founded on xenophobia or a desire to injure. Instead, the article argues that

The allocation of land for exclusively Jewish communities is not ethnocentric and injurious in the sense that it does not arise out of the hatred of foreigners. It serves, rather, to fulfill one of Zionism’s pivotal objectives: creating an environment in which Jews can develop their national and cultural identity.

One must also not forget the threat that Israeli Arabs can pose to Israeli Jews. In recent years, Arab Members of Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) have publicly expressed support for one of Israel’s mortal enemies – the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and called for the elimination of Israel’s Jewish character. Israeli Arabs also continue to carry out acts of violence against the state of Israel. Israeli Arabs can and do threaten the physical and political safety of Israeli Jews.

The Supreme Court has endorsed an Israeli government decision refusing a Jew the right to settle in one of seven towns that it had set aside for Bedouins. Given this fact, one is inclined to ask why land can’t be set aside for the Jews in a Jewish State. Furthermore, most of those challenging Israel’s right to set aside part of their country exclusively for Jews also endorse the Palestinian intention to throw Jews out of an entire state. Why should these people demand from Israel maximum protection of the rights of its Arab minority, when it is prepared to allow a Palestinian Arab state to deny Jews all rights?

Some have suggested that the best way to address the problem posed by the Court’s decision is to make the question a nationally debated topic rather than one contested in the Courts. This is a nice idea, but it is unclear whether Israelis as a whole are more fervently Zionist or any more intent in preserving the Jewish character of Israel than the country’s judiciary.

Secular Israelis raised in a national environment that detaches them from Jewish tradition are probably not troubled by the Supreme Court decisions. In fact, many Israelis might actually support the Supreme Court’s efforts to dismantle the distinctive Jewish character of Israel. Democratic dialogue may do more harm than good.

The Supreme Court fiasco serves as a powerful reminder that for all of the existential threats facing Israel, the most serious threats often emerge from within. These rulings threaten to further erode many Israelis’ will to continue to preserve the distinctly and fundamentally Jewish character of the Israeli nation state.