The Jewish Nation-State Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 43-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan Jabareen ◽  
Suhad Bishara

This analysis explores the origins and constitutional implications of Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People (hereafter the Jewish Nation-State Law), enacted by the Israeli Knesset in July 2018. It examines the antecedents of the legislation in Israeli jurisprudence and argues that most of the law's provisions are the product of precedents established by Israel's Supreme Court, specifically the court's rulings delivered post-Oslo. The authors contend that the “two states for two peoples” vision of so-called liberal Zionists paved the way for Israel's right-wing politicians to introduce this law. Their analysis holds that the law is radical in nature: far from being a mere continuation of the status quo, it confers unprecedented constitutional status on ordinary policies and destabilizes the prevailing legal distinction between the area within the Green Line and the 1967 occupied territories.

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-285
Author(s):  
Mohammed S Wattad

Article 4 of the Nation State Law (NSL), entitled ‘Languages’, stipulates that Hebrew is the language of the state (Article 4(a)); the Arabic language has a special status in the state and regulating the use of Arabic in or by state institutions will be set in law (Article 4(b)); and this clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before the law came into effect (Article 4(c), the ‘validity of laws’ clause). The question is whether, how, and to what extent these provisions hinder the present legal status of the Arabic language in Israel. The legal status of Arabic had never been determined decisively before enactment of the NSL. The High Court of Israel has always been divided on this matter, particularly between judges who perceived Arabic as an official language and judges who deemed it solely as having been granted its acknowledged ‘special legal status’. Furthermore, the judges who perceived Arabic as an official language of the state were also in dispute among themselves as to the meaning, the scope and the consequences of such recognition. Considering these circumstances, my view is that the NSL perpetuates the legal status of Arabic as prescribed in the laws and case law that already existed, and that the validity of laws clause, coupled with the special status granted to Arabic in a basic law, suggests that the door is still open for the Court to further endorse the legal status of Arabic in Israel.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Ben-Youssef ◽  
Sandra Samaan Tamari

In July 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed Basic Law: Israel – The Nation-State of the Jewish People (Nation-State Law). This article highlights three of the law's central premises: the entrenched supremacy of Jewish settlers; the erasure of indigenous Palestinians; and, with reference to borders, the effective annexation of those parts of historic Palestine that were occupied in 1967. The authors reflect on the passage of the law within a broader history of settler colonialism and in the current global context of growing authoritarianism and overt institutionalized racism. The passage of such a colonial piece of constitutional legislation in 2018 is a testament to the continued resistance of Palestinians and the growing movement for Palestinian rights. The authors argue that the alternative to the exclusionary Nation-State Law, a rights-based, people-centered framework, is a promising avenue to not only secure Palestinian rights, but also advance a universal struggle for equality and historical justice.


2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 299-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Rabin ◽  
Yuval Shany

AbstractThis article addresses the constitutional discourse surrounding the status of economic and social rights in Israel. It examines the principal interpretive strategies adopted by the Supreme Court with regard to the 1992 basic laws (in particular, with respect to the right to human dignity) and criticizes the Court's reluctance to apply analogous strategies to incorporate economic and social rights into Israeli constitutional law. Potential explanations for this biased approach are also critically discussed. The ensuing outcome is a constitutional imbalance in Israeli law, which perpetuates the unjustified view that economic and social rights are inherently inferior to their civil and political counterparts, and puts in question Israel's compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, encouraging recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the YATED and Marciano judgments, indicate growing acceptance on the part of the Court of the role of economic and social rights in Israeli constitutional law, and raise hopes for a belated judicial change of heart concerning the need to protect at least a ‘hard core’ of economic and social rights. Still, the article posits that the possibilities of promoting the constitutional status of economic and social rights through case-to-case litigation are limited and calls for the renewal of the legislation procedures of draft Basic Law: Social Rights in the Knesset.


Ethnicities ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 775-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabella Clough Marinaro ◽  
Ulderico Daniele

This article examines novel spaces for Roma political participation that opened up under a right-wing municipal government in Rome between 2008 and 2013. Three channels were created through which Roma could engage with policy-makers and, in theory, make their voices heard: a ‘Mayor’s Delegate for Roma Issues’; a forum for debate among Roma groups and elected representatives in two official camps. Based on in-depth interviews with protagonists of this key period of mobilisation, we evaluate the successes achieved and obstacles faced. In particular, we highlight the differentiations which emerged among Roma actors, concluding that, following an initial period of enthusiasm and cohesion, most participants withdrew, achieving few of their initial goals. While the analysis demonstrates the heterogeneity of Roma groups and interests in this process, it also underlines the constraints created by the external political opportunity structure which ultimately worked to co-opt activists in order to maintain the status quo.


2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaim Gans

It may be that the appropriate demographic objective of Israel as a country in which the Jewish people realize their right to self-determination is the existence of a Jewish public in Israel in numbers sufficient to allow its members to live in the framework of their culture. It may also be that the appropriate demographic objective of Israel should be the existence of a Jewish majority within it. While I discussed this issue elsewhere; here I discuss the legitimate means for the realization of these goals. Israel’s principal means for realizing these objectives thus far has been its Law of Return and its Citizenship Law. These laws afford every Jew anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen of the State of Israel. Many liberals and left-wingers consider these laws to be tainted with racism, because they regard any nationally-based preference with regard to immigration to be a form of racism. In the first part of my paper I argue against this position. I offer three justifications for nationality-based preferences in immigration. However, the fact that nationality-based priorities in immigration are not necessarily racist and that there are legitimate human interests justifying such priorities, does not entail that the specific priorities manifested by Israel’s Law of Return and its other immigration and citizenship policies are just. These policies in effect mean that all Jews and only Jews (or anyone related or married to a Jew) have the right to immigrate to Israel and to become fully integrated in Israeli life. In the second part of the paper, I argue that these two aspects of Israel’s immigration policies, namely, its almost categorical inclusion of all Jews and its almost categorical exclusion of all non-Jews, are somewhat problematic. In addition to the Law of Return, a number of additional ways to ultimately increase the number of Jews in relation to the number of Arabs have been proposed and even adopted in Israel in recent years. During the incumbency of the fifteenth Knesset, right-wing Member of Knesset Michael Kleiner tabled a draft bill intended “to encourage people that do not identify with the Jewish character of the state [i.e., Palestinian citizens of Israel C.G.] to leave.” The Israeli Government later tabled a bill—that was eventually passed—to amend the Israeli Citizenship Law in a manner that would deny Arabs who are Israeli citizens and have married Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories the right to live in Israel with their spouses and children. In the third part of the paper, I clarify why in contrast to granting Jews priority in immigration, both the aforementioned laws, namely, Kleiner’s law and the law pertaining to family unification are racist and are therefore morally unacceptable.


Author(s):  
Khan Hamid

This chapter begins with a brief overview of the constitutional and political history of Pakistan. It then discusses how the judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, had to function in a difficult and complex constitutional and political environment during the last sixty years. It details acts of judicial activism; efforts of lawyers throughout Pakistan to restore the status quo in the judiciary as it had existed on November 2, 2007; and the challenges faced by the restored Chief Justice and the Supreme Court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document