The claim of oppression we have heard from the Druze community in the two weeks since the nation-state law was passed derives from progressive liberal moralism and is supported by those who wish to institute such moralism in Israel.
They want to abolish the law, or at the very least add an equality clause to it. Now that Israel's identity as a Jewish state has been buttressed by the nation-state law, we can discuss this righteous, longed-for equality through the prism of Jewish liberal values.
Progressive liberalism and Jewish liberalism, which preceded the former by thousands of years, have a shared goal: to prevent subjugation and tyranny – often the byproduct of the inherent inequality between people. The respective methods of achieving this goal, however, are completely different.
Progressive liberalism strives to prevent tyranny by imposing equality onto people who are naturally different. This is a utopian ideology, and similar to other such utopian ideologies it is self-contradictory. The inability to reconcile the contradictions predisposes these utopias to tyranny, for instance in Bonapartism, Communism and Nazism. Perhaps society is now on the same slippery slope in the name of multiculturalism, the flagship of European progressive liberalism.
Jewish liberalism, on the other hand, is predicated on a morality based on righteousness (people get what they deserve). It seeks to prevent tyranny by creating social harmony, something akin to the harmony found in nature, despite its variant components. To create a similar harmony among principally different human beings, Jewish moralism drew its values (and later its laws) from the laws of nature, which are eternal and do not contradict one another. Not only is this designed to prevent tyranny, it is meant to ensure that the harmony forged between people by token of this moralism withstands the test of time.
Equality is not a foreign value to Judaism; it is a central tenant. We are all equally obliged to obey the law, which in turn must hold everyone, rich and poor alike, accountable. People must be given equality of opportunity, while their inborn differences must be allowed to dictate who wins the race for the accumulation of possessions. As the saying goes, "Truth springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven" [Psalms 85:11]. In this spirit, achieving righteousness means that as in nature, people must also adhere to a single truth and consistently aspire to reveal it, understand it and prevent its forgery.
Progressive liberalism absolved itself from making this effort by sufficing with a relative truth, a narrative and political correctness. It adheres to "truths" that preclude the possibility of a just life and prevent honest social discourse.
This fundamental difference between the two liberalisms explains the dialogue of the deaf taking place in Israeli society today. Some people have exchanged their morality of Jewish righteousness for the morality of progressive equality. This is also evident in Israel's dialogue with certain segments of Western democracies, whose promises to treat Israel righteously are conditioned on Israel's application of their progressive equality – even toward those who openly act to destroy it militarily, economically and legally.
Returning to the Druze protests: They should be assessed through the prism of Jewish liberalism, in which the foremost principle is adherence to truth. Indeed, the large role that the relatively small Druze minority has played in enhancing Israel's security and its economic achievements means their claims of discrimination are correct and justified.
However, rather than repair this injustice by abolishing the nation-state law, which is what they have asked for, this morally obligates the government to amend the discrimination. This it can do by recompensing the Druze with special legislation in their favor, similar to the "Law of Return" which for the purpose of justice "discriminates" in favor of the Jewish majority.
The nation-state law, whose ratification will hopefully lead to justice for the Druze minority, should also substantially change the manner in which social discourse is conducted in Israel. As in the past, this discourse should be guided by intellectuals and by the principles of pursuing justice and upholding obligations, instead of as at present, when the discourse is dominated by jurists and calls for equal rights.
