alogy, 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 be entitled to their own independent state, in the interests of preserving peace and justice.
If Israel's general way of life enables Jewish practices - such as Sabbath observance, or Kosher food - to be followed without great difficulty or inconvenience, then it will be equally easy to accommodate the traditions of other Israelis, notably Muslims and Christians.
And if issues such as social justice, health care, the environment, abortion, religious pluralism, treatment of minorities, and international relations in peace and war, could not effectively be addressed under "Diaspora" conditions from a Jewish perspective by the Jewish leadership (as in Canada), they could easily be studied in Israel without undermining the rights of any other religious or cultural group.
When Diaspora Palestinians return to Israel, many religious and secular Israeli Jews will find allies among dedicated Palestinian Muslims and Christians. And the difficult question of how far religious law - not just religious values - may become the law of the state, will be debated by all who live in the state of Israel.
But what about the Jewish religious claim that Israel is the exclusive Promised Homeland given by God (and human politics) to the Jews?
Since 1973, a major debate in Israel has centered on the question of whether Israel should ever withdraw from the Occupied Territories that are historically Palestinian.
In 1980, Shilo Refael, a dayan (judge) of the rabbinical court in Jerusalem, published some research papers on this topic, as well as on the treatment of minorities according to halakhah, for a religious peace movement called Oz Veshalom. Listed at the front of the booklet is a summary of the halakhic rulings (in Islamic terminology this would be called a "fatwa") as agreed on by Refael and the then-Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadiah Yosef.
The summary reads in part as follows: "According to the majority of early authorities, 'they shall not dwell in your land' [Exodus 23:33] does not refer to Muslims, since they are not idolat