defining the fundamental character of Israel

News out of Israel that, I imagine, will be seen as scary or mundane depending on your larger perspective on Israel and the occupation:

Forty lawmakers from both the coalition and opposition Wednesday submitted a proposal to the Knesset for a new Basic Law that would change the accepted definition of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."

The bill, initiated by MKs Avi Dichter (Kadima ), Zeev Elkin (Likud ) and David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu ), and supported by 20 of the 28 Kadima MKs, would make democratic rule subservient to the state's definition as "the national home for the Jewish people."

The legislation, a private member's bill, won support from Labor, Atzamaut, Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union lawmakers.

Sources at the Knesset say the law currently has broad support, and they believe it will be passed during the Knesset's winter session.

According to Elkin, the law is intended to give the courts reasoning that supports "the state as the Jewish nation state in ruling in situations in which the Jewish character of the state clashes with its democratic character."

For as long as I've debated the larger issue of Israel's occupation of Palestine, the degree to which Israel's stance as a Jewish state and a democratic state are in conflict has been a sore point, and I've clashed with people for being too hard on Israel and for being too easy on Israel. Some claim that there is no more conflict between Israel's Jewish character and its democratic nature than there is between an American ethos and democracy. I find this far too pat, and I think a tremendous amount of the anger and confusion regarding Israel stem from fundamental tensions between the classical liberal values of egalitarianism under nation states and Israel's Jewish religious and ethnic character. I personally believe, due to a rather ordinary conviction that nation states must recognize all people within their borders with perfect equity, that many of Israel's policies are unjust.

On the other side, I have long disagreed with people who think that Israel cannot exist as Israel and be a righteous state. There are some who find the very formulation of a homeland for Jews racist in its character. But I believe, perhaps incoherently, that there can exist a prosperous and free state of Israel that recognizes no differences between its citizens based on religion or ethnicity or race but that nevertheless stands as a homeland where Jews can always come and be safe. I understand that immigration procedure becomes quite sticky, and I don't pretend that there isn't considerable tension there. Then again, I believe in totally open immigration as a matter of ideal theory, so perhaps that isn't my issue.

In any event, Israeli politicians seem set on making this discussion moot. For while Americans might find room for debate in whether there is a conflict between Israeli democracy and Israeli Jewishness, these politicians seem to think that the conflict is quite clear. And they are hoping to enshrine in law a clear and unmistakeable preference: that Israel is Jewish first and democratic second.

That this will have profound consequences for non-Jewish residents and citizens of Israel seems clear enough to me. Less clear is how the American political machine or the international community will react to an Israel that seems ready to throw off its long-celebrated position as the Middle East's premiere democracy. The Knesset appears to be on the verge of making a bold statement. I wonder who will listen.