Israel is only "Jewish" in the sense that Canada is "Christian," says Elmasry.
Most Israeli and Canadian Jews object to any consideration of a Palestinian right-of-return, arguing that a sudden influx of "Diaspora" Palestinians would cause major demographic upheaval, and irrevocably alter the Jewish character of the state. Those holding the most extreme view believe that such an event would mean the end of Israel as they know it.
If this argument were espoused by any other group, media everywhere would, media everywhere would denounce it as contrary to the EuroAmerican tradition of separating church and state, politics and religion.
The popular reasons given for rejecting the Palestinian right-of-return are not only against international norms and law, they are also falsely based on the myth that Israel is a *Jewish* state. Here, it is essential to distinguish between rhetoric and serious argument.
Israel is only "Jewish" in the sense that Canada is "Christian." While Israel's population is predominantly Jewish, its legal system is basically a secular creation, inherited from the British Mandate period prior to its creation in 1948. Israel, in fact, is a state under construction. It has no constitution, and relations between government and organized religion are based on a status quo formula which has four main components:
(1) The Jewish Sabbath and traditional religious festivals are national public holidays.
(2) Kosher food is the standard for all public institutions.
(3) Personal status -- marriage, divorce and some aspects of inheritance - is subject to the jurisdiction of rabbinical courts (for non-Jews, personal status is governed by their own religious courts, or tribunals).
(4) State schools belong either to the national secular system, or the national religious system. (Again, other religious communities within Israel are allowed to maintain their own institutions.)
In the Israeli legal system, if a court finds that a decision cannot be made by referring to a previous enactment, judicial precedent, or analogy, the case is decided according to principles of freedom, justice, equity, peace and national heritage. This stops well short of using halakhah law (the Jewish equivalent of Islamic Shari'a law), let alone adopting any traditional Jewish laws as laws of the state.
Under Hoq Hayesod -- the Fundamentals of Law Bill -- Jewish religious ethics may be considered in an appeal, but the ultimate appeal is to the secular authorities, not the religious courts. Even where a specific element of traditional Jewish law has been incorporated into state legislation, it would be wrong to refer to modern Israel as being governed by Jewish law; the ultimate authority is the secular state, not the rabbis.
In principal, then, all Israeli citizens are free to practice their own religion and have equal access to justice before the law. If in practice there were, and still are, discriminatory treatments of non-Jewish Israelis, these have for the most part arisen from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not for purely religious or ethnic reasons.
Moreover, the denial of refugees' or diaspora Palestinians' right to return violates the spirit of Israel's Declaration of Independence, which affirms that: "The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations."
In what ways, then, can Israel be regarded as a Jewish state? If its values are influenced by traditional Jewish teaching as contained in the sacred Torah, the Palestinian right of return must be respected; based on Torah alone, Palestinians should b