Exactly a year ago, the Knesset passed the nation-state law with a 62-MK majority.
The passage of the law sparked controversy in its initial form, dating back to the 18th Knesset, when Avi Dichter – then an opposition MK from the Kadima party – presented it to the Knesset but was forced to withdraw it due to pressure from Kadima leader Tzipi Livni. The 19th Knesset saw more attempts to get the bill passed, but once again, opposition pressure had it removed from the agenda until Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to pass it.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The law opens with the words "The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established." Later clauses define the national flag, symbol, language, national holidays, and more. The law decrees that the state will be responsible for ensuring the safety of Jews who are in danger because of their Jewishness, as well as ensuring the safety of all citizens of Israel who are under threat because of their citizenship.
Most of the opposition to the law stems from what opponents of it say should be stated but is not. They want the word "equality" included to avoid discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Some others want the phrase "in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence" included in the wording of the law, to avoid the impression that the nation-state law is replacing it.
The debates in the Knesset plenum and committees were vociferous. MK Shelly Yachimovich (Labor) called it "racist and loathsome." MK Yael German said no one should remain silent in face of the "crime" the law entailed, and noted that "this was a lesson we learned from Majdanek." Benny Gantz told leaders of the Druze who were protesting the law that he intended to alter it, but a day later said he might pass a special law for the Druze.
Supporters of the law argue that equality is anchored in the rights of the individual, not in the national rights of the Jewish people. They say that the basic laws passed in the 1990s spell out individual rights and establish full civil equality between Jews and non-Jews in Israel. But the nation-state law, because it focuses on national rights alone – does not and will not include equality.
In the year since the law was passed, the courts have managed to hand down at least two rulings that were informed by it. In September 2018, District Court Judge Moshe Drori ruled in favor of a victim of terrorism who sued Hamas, deciding that the organization had to pay him 7 million shekels ($2 million) in compensation. Drori noted that his ruling was based on the nation-state law.
In another ruling, Drori decided that Israel was the appropriate venue to hear a lawsuit filed by two Jewish passengers, residents of the US, against the Palestinian hijackers of the Achille Lauro ship in October 1985.
Since the law was passed, 17 petitions against it have been filed with the High Court of Justice, which has yet to rule. The fact that the Supreme Court did not reject them out of hand drew criticism from the government and the Knesset, who argued that the High Court does not have the authority to intervene in the approval of basic laws.
One petition was filed by attorney Orly Noy and writer Sami Michael petitioned against the law on behalf of Mizrahi Jews. Their petition argues that the law is "anti-Jewish, and leaves out the Arab history and culture, as well as popular rabbinic culture, of the Jews from Arab and Islamic countries and bolsters the 'cultural inferiority' of Arab Jews in the public sphere."
Another petition was filed by Ashkenazi Jews. The 81 petitioners claim that they oppose the law because it "defines us, Ashkenazi Jews, as holding a superior status in Israel. The nation-state law defines us, Ashkenazis, as lords of the land. We want to live as equals among equals with the rest of the residents of the country."
What is even more absurd than the petitions themselves is that the High Court plans to discuss them seriously.
