# Do Jews Really Have a State?

Лиора Зив-Ами

Выборы 2019 года демонстрируют тупик. Никто не говорит о государстве и его проблемах. Все говорят о личностях и сводят счеты. Происходящее отражает нижайший уровень нашей политической культуры. Я увидела эту проблему много лет назад и даже написала статью на эту тему "А есть ли у евреев Государство?". Статья опубликована здесь, на моей страничке. Английский перевод статьи предлагаю тем, кто интересуется проблемой.

Of all the issues which provoke the most heated debates in Israel, the question about the character of the Jewish state probably raises as much concern as the relations between the Jews and the Arabs. What kind of state should Israel be: a Jewish state or democratic state?

Not so long ago a group of Israeli citizens organized the Forum for National Responsibility and issued the Kinneret Covenant which was supposed to clarify this matter once and for all. It stated that from now on we can all agree that Israel can be both a Jewish and a democratic state.

The problem remains, however, that ordinary citizens like us, who don"t have the privilege of being members of the abovementioned Forum but nevertheless consider ourselves responsible for Israel"s future are not sure what the authors of this document mean when they speak of a "democratic" and a "Jewish" state. It is, therefore, well worth the effort to try and determine the meaning of these concepts.

1.

To begin with, we will have to examine more thoroughly the existing political systems and the place of "democracy", which people supposedly understand so well, among them. When a person aspires to find answers to questions of such magnitude it is always helpful to go back to original sources. And who is a greater authority on political issues than Aristotle, the author of the famous "Politica" ("Politics")?

So what does the great ancient thinker have to say on this matter? According to Aristotle, there are three forms of government: the first is the rule of a single man; the second is the rule of a group and the third is the rule of the people. Each of these forms of government has, to make is simple, two versions, a good and a bad one.

"In our original discussion about governments we divided them into three true forms: kingly rule (monarchy, - Author"s note), aristocracy, and constitutional government (which Aristotle also called "polity", - Author"s note), and three corresponding perversions - tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.

("Politica", Book 4. Chapter II)

As we can see, forms of government come in pairs. The power of a worthy monarch is perverted as the power of an unworthy tyrant; the power of a group of worthy aristocrats is perverted as the power of unworthy oligarchs. So what about the power of the people? What happened to the "polity" - the power of the worthy people? Alas, this form of government didn"t last long. Democracy is now twice as busy, serving both as the power of the worthy and the power of the unworthy people. It has to serve two masters who are absolutely incompatible - Good and Evil. What a shame!

Here is something we may not have thought about before: when we talk of "democracy" we don"t always know for sure whether we are speaking about Good or Evil. And when we hear somebody uttering the word "democracy" we must always ask for clarification (provided that we wish to distinguish between Good and Evil): "What type of democracy are you referring to? Is it good or bad democracy?" Now, in order not to get confused, let us call the first type of democracy the democracy of Good and the second, the democracy of Evil.

You are probably wondering how the two of them differ from one another. According to Aristotle: a bad kind of democracy is one

"in which, not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees."

("Politica", Book 4. Chapter IV)


It"s all plain and simple: a worthy people accepts the power of the law, whereas an unworthy people rebels against all authority and doesn"t observe any laws. It follows that the democracy of Good is founded on law, whereas the democracy of Evil is founded on lawlessness.

Now which people is a worthy one and which is unworthy.

A worthy people is one that has a shared system of sacred values.

Someone is likely to object to this, saying that values are relative. That"s true, of course. Incidentally, the value system in ancient Greece was associated with slavery and allowed to view another human being as "a tool who could speak". The point is that the Greeks believed that some people were born to be slaves. Even so, a worthy nation is still one that is connected by a shared system of sacred values because there is no other foundation for law. Wherever such a value system exists, the law "lives inside" the people or, as Aristotle refers to it, "they are themselves the law".

The logical conclusion is that a nation becomes unworthy when it is not connected by a shared system of sacred values. It then becomes replaced by a set of invented rules that have no moral justification in the people"s eyes. Aristotle, who held tyranny to be "the worst of governments" because the tyrant exercises "despotic power" over the people, actually equated this kind of democracy of an unworthy people with tyranny:

"For the people becomes a monarch ... and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. This sort of democracy ... is no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot ... being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy."

("Politica", Book 4. Chapter IV)

Thus, an unworthy people becomes transformed into a despot. But how can that be? How can a people inflict harm upon itself?

It does happen. A nation which has no sacred values does not, in fact, rule. It is instead governed by those who manipulate the people and claim to rule on their behalf.

When values become internalized, saying to people, "No, you can"t do that," then one stops oneself from doing wrong, and so does everybody else. "Do not steal" - each person stops himself from being a thief, and then stealing becomes a crime in the eyes of the people.

When a nation"s values urge, "You must..." then everybody strives to do the same thing that others are also doing. "You must fight for your country" - and everybody takes up arms. This way defending one"s country becomes the law of the nation.

When a value loses its internal meaning, nothing prevents a person from acting in his own immediate self-interest. "Why can"t I steal this thing, if I want to have it so badly? Why should I take up arms when I could get hurt?"

When sacred values disappear, manipulators emerge to fill the gap. "Let us unite, then we can make stealing the law," they tell the thieves. It is equally possible to make desertion the law. Actually, anything is possible, if enough people want it. The main thing is to join hands with interested parties. That is how chaos begins to reign in society. Each group tries to impose its will on the others, and manipulators turn into the most popular figures. They are those who are ready to discredit any sacred value for the benefit of the group which they represent.

What are these manipulators called? They are called by a name well familiar to all of us - they are demagogues.

"The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws... And therefore they grow great, because the people have all things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them."

("Politica", Book 4. Chapter IV)

That is why the democracy of a state whose people are not connected by a shared system of values is democracy of Evil and, truly, a tyranny of demagogues.


2

Every people has its own system of sacred values, and, consequently, it has laws of its own. For instance, according to Muslim law, it is a brother"s duty to kill his sister for behavior that "besmirches" the honor of the family. In such a situation the brother responsible for the murder can"t be held accountable as a criminal.

Jews consider murder to be a serious crime. A murderer is unquestionably a felon, and defending family honor can"t serve as justification for the crime. So what should be recognized as the overriding law if these two people, the Muslim and the Jew, are citizens of one state? Either both of them must observe one and the same law ... or else the door is wide open for demagogues, and they are free to invent "values", and propose their own rules and regulations passing them for laws.

It follows that the law, and, correspondingly, a worthy people, can exist only in a national state which is governed by one people, the ruling nation. Of course, other peoples may also live in its midst but only on condition that they accept the law established by this nation. They don"t necessarily have to like this law and may even find it objectionable. It doesn"t mean, however, that the law has to be changed to pacify them, because this might lead to chaos in the entire society. So if some group is displeased or insulted by the law, they might have to look for another state to live in. It would probably be best if they chose to settle in their own state.

How then should we understand the wording of the Kinneret Covenant? (This is a citation from paragraph 2.)

"...The state of Israel ... bears responsibility for ensuring the equal rights of all its citizens ... for guaranteeing their rights in... choice of ... upbringing, education and culture."

If everyone has equal rights to their culture, it means that there can basically be no law.

Let us review just one example.

Imagine a certain citizen A, who has the right to his culture. In accordance with this culture he takes 4 wives and they each bear him 6 children. There is, of course, no need for the wives to get an education (he believes it"s not for women anyway ... are you rejecting his right to his own culture?). And, naturally, they cannot be expected to get jobs (they have their hands full taking care of the children).

In the same society, there is another citizen - citizen B. His culture, to which, incidentally, he also has a right, is founded on monogamy. Both he and his wife bring up their children together, introducing them to the treasures of world civilization. Citizen B"s wife is well-educated, just as he is; she holds a job and has an equal say in important family decisions.

One doesn"t need much to imagine how different the outcome of citizen A"s cultural choices will be from that of citizen B"s. But since they are both citizens of one and the same state, and this state has promised everyone equal access to education, healthcare, and the infrastructure (since everyone is equal and presumably needs these things in equal measure), then the government has to find additional funding sources. It will have to pass a special law, which indicates that citizen B has a number of obligations with respect to citizen A. Citizen B must cover all the expenses of citizen A, which the latter cannot be responsible for while he executes his rights to his own culture. More specifically, citizen B has to pay for his and his family"s living expenses, medical care, his children"s education, etc. What kind of equality is it when citizen A has only rights and no responsibilities, whereas citizen B has responsibilities for himself and also for citizen A, but he does not have the right to enjoy the fruits of his culture?

There is clearly no real equality in a situation such as this, and, even more so, it is fraught with conflict. The law that guaranteed equal rights becomes a myth, and this allows demagogues to begin their manipulations around the notion of "equality".

Equal rights to enjoy one"s own culture are replaced by equal rights to consume the products of somebody else"s culture. With such an interpretation of equality citizen A is entitled to enjoy the same benefits as citizen B. In other words, if citizen B has a house with a green lawn and citizen A has only 20 pairs of shoes for his 24 children, then citizen A has every right to protest such inequality, blaming citizen B for all his hardships... And citizen B should feel embarrassed and very much ashamed of himself.

All this has nothing to do with the law. Such unauthorized harassment of citizen B leaves him with several options: he can try to hide or conceal his assets; he can lose interest in public matters, or even leave the country which is ruled by demagogues. Whatever path he chooses, he will recluse himself as a citizen.

This is exactly what Aristotle says in his book:

"The spirit of both extreme democracy and tyranny is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens."

("Politica", Book 4. Chaper IV)

"The better citizens" abandon such a society which is why its people become unworthy.


3

Someone might object, saying that all the countries in the world face a similar problem.

This is not exactly true. Egypt does not have to deal with this problem and neither does Saudi Arabia. It doesn"t exist in China. Only the Christian world has this problem, and there are reasons for it.

The ideas of a "multicultural society" and a "a state of all its citizens", are deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. And even if the person who espouses these views is an atheist or agnostic he will nevertheless think like a Christian in this respect. It doesn"t matter that he has never been in church or read the Gospels.

The point is that alongside with the Monotheistic Idea the Jews brought into the world the idea of a united mankind. That is why Judaism, and Christianity, and Islam all want mankind to become united. The only problem is that each of these religions has its own formula for unity.

The formula of the Jews declares:

"And he shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples"

(Isaiah. Chapter 2:4)

"And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount...""

"...for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem..."

(Isaiah. Chapter 2:3)


It follows from the above that:

1. united mankind should be divided into nations:

2. every nation has a collective responsibility for its sacred values, which is why it can be judged;

3. every nation must come to understand the erroneousness of its values and turn toward "G-d"s Mount" - toward the universal Law;

4. unity is possible only when everybody is prepared for "the word of the Lord from Jerusalem".


This formula serves to protect the nation, on the one hand, and with it - law and order, and, on the other, it motivates every nation to revise its values. It stimulates the growth of better citizens, who are capable of perfecting the value system of their own people and gradually making it more universal.

The Jewish formula for unity is founded on "national isolation", and it presupposes the people"s self-improvement.

The Muslim and Christian formulas for mankind"s unity are cosmopolitan, which means that they absolutely require forcing upon everyone else their "patent" for world order. Each of these concepts is based on the belief in a united mankind, provided that all nations will accept their particular formula.

Still, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different in this regard.

Christianity was originally disseminated by single Jews whose new teaching was not accepted by their own people. That is why they infused religion with ideas of individual freedom from the nation and from family, both of which connect a person to one or another cultural tradition. A Christian is someone who can be a self-made person. He is "just a person as any other." He needs to make a personal effort, and to have personal faith to build a personal relationship with God. Mankind will become united when every person on earth makes an effort and shows faith. Anyone can be that person... It doesn"t matter if he is a Greek or a Jew. "There is neither Greek nor Jew," states the Christian doctrine.

People disseminated Islam alongside their ethnic tradition. That"s why this faith does not exist on its own but is an integral part of the family code. It is also deeply incorporated in political and cultural life. A Muslim is created by the collective. Islam does not understand a person who doesn"t belong to his family and his tribe. Everybody must be part of a collective, and all of mankind should be one Muslim family.

Those of us gifted with good foresight have realized already where the Christian ideal of "neither Greek nor Jew" leads the modern world. While Christians, in following their ideal, have turned their countries into "states of all their citizens", Muslims, who view the world as one great Muslim family, continue to resettle among these societies and feel very much at home there.

That is why a local sheikh can deliver a sermon in support of Bin-Laden right in the center of London, with local authorities doing nothing to stop him.

The London authorities think that in a united world where everybody has the right to be himself, the sheikh has a similar right. While the sheikh sees if differently: he thinks that the British are quite ready to become Islam"s adopted children.

Naturally, the question about Muslim countries being transformed into "states of all their citizens" is never raised and never will be on the agenda.

4

Do the respectable signatories to the Kinneret Covenant even realize that the document"s statement provided below strives to implement the Christian ideal, "There is neither Greek nor Jew," and not the Jewish one, "he shall judge between the nations."

"All citizens of Israel are full and equal partners in determining its character and its direction." (Paragraph 2)

Why then should anybody attack the Knesset Member Talab El-Sana who urges Palestinians to fight against Israel? He is merely outlining the future of the Israeli state according to the ideals of his own culture. He sincerely believes that there can"t be any Jewish rule in areas inhabited by Arabs. Nor can there be any Jewish rule in areas inhabited by Jews because everything should belong to the Arabs. Talab El-Sana doesn"t think that way because he is an evil man - he is simply presenting his culture"s ideal. And Arab members of the Knesset act accordingly.

Arab Parliament members of the Jewish state are rightfully outraged that the Jews are opposing the realization of the Arab ideal - one world, as a single Muslim family, where the Jews are graciously allowed to live under Muslim protection, as in the good old days. Don"t the Israeli Arabs have the right to their own culture? Aren"t they equal partners in determining the character and direction of the Jewish state?

For Arab Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi, former advisor to Yasser Arafat who has recently been elected Deputy Speaker of Israel"s Parliament, a shahid is a national hero. He is a martyr for the faith who blows himself up to kill as many infidels as possible. Ahmed Tibi, too, had a hard time understanding why he couldn"t pay Arafat a visit and support his call for jihad against the Jews for the glory of Islam. Doesn"t he have a right to his own culture?

Yet the problem isn"t so much the Arabs but the Jews who decided that the Jewish state should for some reason implement a Christian ideal, an ideal which presently endangers the very existence of Christian civilization.

Let me cite another example as proof that the issue is the Jews, not the Arabs.

According to Israel"s Law of Return immediate non-Jewish family members of a Jewish person also become Israeli citizens. Naturally, they may not abide by the laws of Kashrut, since they don"t see them as sacred. If they like pork, they have no desire to give up their favorite pork chops. And I can understand their feelings.

If the Jews had a clear stance in this matter - sacred Jewish values are binding for all in a Jewish state - nobody would consider breaking the law. But the moment democracy is perceived as a "state of all its citizens", it turns out that the country can do without shared sacred values. Moreover, it is also permissible to insist on having others observe your values, since everybody has been invited to shape the country"s character and direction. Not surprisingly, demagogues emerge from among the Jews who make the following suggestion to the non-Jews: "If you vote for me and I"m elected, I promise to pass a law which will allow pork."

This is not just about the pork - the point is that Kosher Laws have always been a sacred value for the Jewish people. And if Kashrut was discarded today as a sacred value there can be no guarantee that the commandment "do not kill" will continue to be observed tomorrow. Sadly, we can see this happening more and more frequently.

5

The problem being discussed here is the problem of minorities, the issue of compatibility of different value systems. We, Jews, are well familiar with this problem, since we have been a minority for nearly 2,000 years, living in the midst of other peoples.

The majorities exercising power in these countries were often at a loss what to do with these strange people who were living in their lands. When the Jews insisted that they wanted autonomy, they were reprimanded.

"Why are you showing us such disrespect?" Their hosts were obviously hurt.

But no sooner did the Jews give up their autonomous existence and begin to actively participate in different areas of life as equal citizens, they were reproached even more:

"You seem to think you own these lands. Get out. Go to your Palestine!"

But in spite of their long and diverse experience as minorities, the Jews don"t seem to have fully understood the role of minority groups.

Minorities play the part of "bridges" that connect different peoples. Both these people"s positive traits and weaknesses can "cross" that "bridge". The choice depends on the existential concept which the minority lives by in another nation"s state, i.e., whether it is the concept of universalism (the Jewish principle "he shall judge between the nations") or cosmopolitanism ("There is neither Greek nor Jew"). In other words, minorities form the battlefield where these two mutually exclusive principles collide.

We, Jews, have always served as such a "bridge". We have always brought new ideas, methods, technologies, goods, etc. to the host nation. In doing this we expanded the host nation"s horizons and increased opportunities for its development. Favorable disposition toward the Jews, whose arrival stimulated societal progress, expressed the prevailing conviction that Jews bring success. Many rulers indeed made an effort to get the Jews to settle in their lands because they knew that this would mean livelier trade, greater enterprise and initiative, financial growth and other benefits.

Minorities act as a link between different peoples, and this goes both ways. It appears that every people would like some part of it to live in the midst of another nation, acting as a "bridge" for transmitting foreign ideas into its own culture.

We, Jews, have witnessed this happen. If we hadn"t lived among different peoples of Europe where would the Jews of Israel have gotten their own ideas of statehood, their own scientists, and the knowledge and skills needed to rebuild a state? Where would their accomplishments in science and art that they are so proud of come from if Jews hadn"t experienced European influence?

If these accomplishments were the result of Jewish genius alone, these talents would have manifested themselves with equal power in all Diaspora communities. But this was not the case!

But as soon as we, Israeli Jews, substituted the principle "he shall judge between the nations" for the principle "there is neither Greek nor Jew" and decided to live by it, everything turned upside down: we began to interfere in the affairs of other peoples and fight their battles, convinced that we know best how they should live. Anti-Semitism alone can"t explain the fierce opposition we encountered: when we imposed our own notions of society and the individual we actually did cause destabilization. It would be ridiculous to accuse us of some kind of conspiracy because the principle "there is neither Greek nor Jew" turned out to be just as deadly for us in our own national state. We began to import within ourselves such alien cosmopolitan ideas as "proletarian internationalism", "the cult of the worker", "socialist commune" and ... "a state of all its citizens".

This means that it is not the nation that causes the problem but its guiding principle: whether it is the principle of universalism or the principle of cosmopolitanism.

This is true both in regards to us a minority and in regards to minorities in our own national state. Perhaps, if relations with the Israeli Arab population were established as the relations with a community which is mandated to follow the law of the state and which has collective responsibility for its members, this would have motivated the Arabs to revise their values and brought forth new distinguished and responsible leaders. And then the Arabs of Israel may have become a "bridge" connecting the Jews with the broader Muslim world.

But Israeli Jews have chosen a different path - a "state of all its citizens". Has this turned the Arabs living in this state into Zionists? Alas, no. Today they are demanding that we change the Israeli hymn and get rid of Zionist symbols. The state"s cosmopolitan principle brought about a desire among the Arabs to strengthen their own sacred values. The increase in extremism is a natural outgrowth of this tendency.

The Arabs consider themselves to be ordinary members of a "state of all its citizens", and now this state is being held responsible for the problems that are caused exclusively by the Arab system of values. From now on the Israeli state is held responsible for poverty which is the result of high birth rates among women who don"t work, for the poor quality of school education, and for the war of Hamulites and blood feuds.

6

Apart from the role of a "bridge", minorities have another, no less important function. They are a "mirror" in which the state"s majority nation can observe its reflection. One glance at the different Jews who have arrived in Israel from around the world is enough to form a good picture of the country"s majority population. Whereas Russian Jews were at some point eager to join the revolution to solve world problems, British Jews dreamed of joining respectable bourgeois society.

Germans also "saw their reflection" in the Jews. Germans have every reason to pride themselves on their respect for orderliness and proper accounting practices but when these same commendable traits were manifested in methodically organized rows of shoes taken off children"s feet before they were taken to the gas chambers, the problematic nature of such fanatical faith in order became quite striking.

The Israeli state, too, can "see" its own reflection in its attitude to the Arabs. Endless speeches about respect for the working people don"t change the fact that in real life the Arabs are viewed as cheap labor. Employing them doesn"t require observing labor safety and allows to do without the use of machinery. The aliyah from the former Soviet Union also unveiled the true face of this society when highly qualified professionals were used for jobs in unskilled and low-paying services.

Minorities suffer more than anyone else from the need to exist simultaneously in two value systems. If they live according to a set of traditional values, then, despite all its limitations, they are still able to respond more or less properly to the surrounding reality. But if members of the minority are being convinced that they are free people and can do whatever they please ("There is neither Greek nor Jew"), they become completely disoriented.

Here is a real-life situation. An Arab student was attracted to a young Arab woman, also a university student. His feelings were not reciprocated, and he decided to avenge himself. The opportunity presented itself when the young woman accepted his offer to give her a lift home. Along the way, the young man drove off the road, took her to a deserted spot by the seaside and raped her. The young woman was an Israeli citizen, and she responded the same way any other member of a "state of all its citizens" would respond - she reported the rape to the police.

But in the eyes of her family everything that happened was entirely the girl"s fault because loss of virginity is a disgrace for the whole family. The family shunned her, and even her own sisters looked at her with loathing. At a family gathering the young woman"s grandmother suggested the simplest solution to the situation: "Kill her and let"s be done with it."

If the young woman had followed the rules accepted in her community, she would have concealed what happened to her. But she had heard over and over again that she was "a person like any other". So what we have now is this desperate young Arab woman who sits there, expecting the family verdict to be executed at any time, and, meanwhile, demagogues of the "state of all its citizens" continue to sermonize about "people in general" and "rights in general", without taking any notice of culturally specific values and behaviors.

Nothing and no one can really help her until her own community revises the values it holds sacred.

Only a national state whose value system is appealing to everyone can accelerate this process. How can the state of Israel expect to accomplish something like that when it doesn"t value the professional potential of its citizens, when the government is fleecing the population and those who execute laws are the same people who pass them, making lawlessness an inevitable evil?

This is a rhetorical question. All such a state can do is make enemies out of its own minorities.

7

The point is that it"s impossible "to improve" the state by inviting all its citizens to determine "its character and its direction" as Paragraph 2 of the Kinneret Covenant suggests. Such a recommendation is irresponsible to say the least. The Jewish state can only be a national state because only a national state can truly have a system of values that are held sacred, and thereby, it can be ruled by law.

Present-day nationalism was born together with the modern state, which revealed the need to connect a vast number of people by a cohesive system of laws. The Jewish people felt that it was necessary for them to determine what the law is on their own, so they were now faced with a choice: they could either go on record as citizens of non-Jewish states, imagining themselves to be French (British, Polish, Russian, etc.) citizens who follow the Law of Moses or else they could build their own state.

Those who made the first choice, decided to join countries that promised equality for all - "states of all their citizens", whereas those who made the second choice, that is, the Zionists, rejected such a solution.

In other words, Zionism was in itself a rejection of the idea of a "state of all its citizens".

But instead of drawing the conclusion that it is actually impossible to implement the cosmopolitan principle "there is neither Greek nor Jew", we, in Israel, have decided that we will be able to apply it in practice in our own state.

The example of the United States is frequently cited as a good example. Everybody seems to forget, however, that freedom of the individual, the rule of law, genuine respect for work which increases American society"s prosperity and honesty in business did not appear out of nowhere or fall like manna from the skies. All these commendable things are a reflection of the system of sacred values which have taken shape over time among Protestant Anglo-Saxons. And the United States as the dream of millions across the planet who are prepared to wait endlessly for a work visa will remain that way only so long as it remains a country with Protestant Anglo-Saxon values.

One wonders whether all its new citizens are aware of this.

I have heard some former Soviet citizens who continue to believe that the state is there to be cheated make the following comments: "Americans are so naïve. They trust everything you tell them."

People such as these begin to build "their own America" in the United States, one in tune with their thinking. They ignore the fact that there is a limit to their choices, and this framework of opportunity is determined by the majority nation. When different groups try to enforce their own laws, advocating their freedom and their equal right to impose their own rules, all they do is create chaos in the common home. This destructive process is in full swing in the United States today. The Chinese are building new Chinatowns, the Hispanics are Latinizing the American South and our ultra-liberal American Jews are fighting for homosexual rights and promulgation of atheist beliefs in public schools.

In doing this each group is shaking the pillars on which the entire edifice rests - the United States of America is a state of Protestant sacred values.

The implementation of the principle "there is neither Greek nor Jew" leads to chaos in any society. It will happen sooner or later - it"s just a matter of time. Perhaps, we, Jews, are the only ones who could save the situation because the principle "he shall judge between the nations" is an inherent part of our own value system.

Will we be able to implement it? We definitely won"t so long as our country is headed by demagogues. It is they who, by manipulating the concept of "democracy", have made us accept that white can be called black, war can be called peace and Good can be called Evil.

That is why we are afraid to call Azmi Bishara to order - we are told that when he urges Syria to launch war against the Israeli state of which Bishara himself is a citizen and which provides for him, he is merely realizing "his legitimate democratic right" to his own opinion.

Are the Arabs to blame for this? Only partially. I think that they are, to a large extent, victims of the demagogues who in their manipulation of "democracy" have established a regime of all-out tyranny in Israel, messing with the everyone"s minds.

So what is being described as the democratic Jewish state? It is not a Jewish state because it advances the non-Jewish principle "there is neither Greek nor Jew". It is also a democracy of Evil, or, in other words, a tyranny of demagogues.

Then what form of government do we find there?

Perhaps, Aristotle will help us bring clarity to this issue.

"Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. So that if democracy be a real form of government, the sort of system in which all things are regulated by decrees is clearly not even a democracy in the true sense of the word, for decrees relate only to particulars."

("Politica", Book 4. Chapter IV)

Don"t we see ourselves what is happening in our state?