The modern political philosophy, influenced by the Enlightenment and the ideal of individual liberty developed by Locke, considers that the political sphere must be independent from the religious sphere. In Israel, this separation between the State and the religion is not so clear. The Israel's declaration of independence explicitly defines Israel as "a Jewish state in the land of Israel". The religious and racial criteria are used in order to define Israel's identity. But, if Israel is a Jewish state, it cannot be a democratic one because a state employing racial criteria would be undeniably exclusive and a state based on religious principles would be by definition theocratic. According to Hans Kelsen, a country cannot be a liberal democracy without being a Rechtsstaat which literally means a "rule of law state "or "constitutional state".
[...] It is possible to control the movement and, sometimes, to convert it to the great values of the democracy. The same idea is applied to the Israeli Arabs who have their own political representation in the Knesset. The aim of the foundator was to represent in the Parliament all the political tendencies that's why, even if the proportional representation is undeniably imperfect, it's a key element of the Israeli political framework. Bibliography BIN-NUN Ariel, Le droit de l'Etat d'Israël, une introduction, Paris, Editions Litec DIECKOFF Alain, Religion et laïcité en Israël, Paris DIECKOFF Alain, L'invention d'une nation : Israël et la modernité politique, Paris, Gallimard DOWTY Alan, The Jewish State. [...]
[...] Secular Israelis characterize existing arrangements (such as the rabbinical monopoly over Jewish marriage and divorce) as a form of religious coercion and call for a civil marriage. In part a response to this exasperation and the military issue involved the yeshiva students, for the first time a party based on an antireligious platform, the Shinui party, was entry into the Knesset in 1999. Non-Orthodox Jewish movements complain that only in Israel, among all democratic states, they are subject to legal discrimination. [...]
[...] we are going to focus on the anti- democratic consequences of the Halakha's integration in the law and try to determine if the Jewish religious law really represents a threat for the Isreali Rechtsstaat. I. The Zionist compromise and its consequences The practical necessity of compromise on religious demands in order to preserve unity At the start, religious leaders regarded Zionism as a continuation of the secularizing Haskala movement. They also opposed it on theological grounds because Zionism aspired to create a Jewish state outside the religious framework as a result of the endeavours of the humankind rather than the intervention of God. [...]
[...] Religious parties generally make modest demands and tend to focus on narrow interests. Increasingly, pragmatism in pursuing political aims seems to characterize the leadership of all the religious parties. Particularism and rivalry among them, considerably intensified by political involvement, threatens the capacity for common action. Actually, an appearance of greater religiosity is the growth of what has been labelled a new “civil religion” in Israel, in which traditional religious symbols assume an increasing importance in public life. The appropriation and secularization of religious elements as part of national identity. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee