The public controversy surrounding the "Jewish state" bill -- a bill seeking to constitutionally define Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people -- simply doesn't make sense. It is so full of lies. So full of propaganda. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people only. It is not "also" the home of any other people. It says so in the Declaration of Independence and even in documents that predate it. It says so in every document throughout the history of the state. Israel provides equal rights to all its citizens, including those who are not Jewish. These equal rights are an integral part of the Jewish character of the state, and not, as the bill's opponents claim, an effort to diminish the value of democracy. Among Israel's Basic Laws, which serve as a de facto constitution, there is the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. The Jewish state bill would not contradict it, should it become a Basic Law. It would only complement it. This week The New York Times also jumped on the bandwagon and tried to preach to us, saying that it was "heartbreaking" to see Israel's cabinet approve a bill that would "erode Israel's standing among democratic nations." And what did The New York Times use as an example? The mistreatment of African- Americans in the U.S. Equating these two things proves that the author of the editorial has no understanding of the essence of the bill, and probably read a lot of anti-Israel propaganda in Haaretz. The author also clearly doesn't understand the difference between Israel and the U.S. The American national identity is its civil identity. The people of the United States are the people who accept the country's political principles and possess citizenship status. Their ethnic background, their ancestral home countries and the historical memories they brought from other countries have no bearing on their Americanism -- only their citizenship. Did the minorities in America who fought for equal rights seek national rights? Absolutely not. They fought for individual rights, civil rights and human rights. That is not the case in Israel, and in a long line of nation-states founded on national-ethnic elements. The national history is critical here -- the shared cultural background, the shared religion and traditions and so on. In these countries, minorities comprised of other ethnicities are entitled to full individual and civil rights, but cannot assert their nationalism. The level of democracy in these nation-states is measured by the level of individual rights and civil rights enjoyed by the citizens, the same rights granted to the African-American community in the United States, not the national rights. A "state of all its citizens"? Israel is already that, it just isn't a "state of all its nationalities." Israel is the national home only of the Jewish people. * * * Here are some questions for the Israeli-Arab intellectuals and MKs who have come out aggressively against the "Jewish state" bill: Do you recognize Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people? Do you recognize the legal, religious and historic right of the Jews to assert their nationality specifically in Israel? Do you even recognize the Jews' right to this land- These questions are intertwined in the ongoing diplomatic process between us and our neighbors. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Arab leaders are asked these questions time and time again. In order to make peace with us, they must first recognize our right, as Jews, to our land. To part of our land. To something. I would love to hear an Arab leader declare as much in a public forum. And another thing: Every time the Left doesn't like a cabinet decision, they ask the eternal question: "Why now-" Well, tell me, why was it so urgent to bring a gang of terrorists into the western Land of Israel and then to arm them on the assumption that they would protect us from terrorism? Why was it so urgent to expel innocent farmers from Gush Katif in Gaza and thereby turn the residents of Israel's south into Hamas' hostages? Why now- Various versions of the "Jewish state" bill have been rolling around the Knesset for over a decade. The issue has gained more emphasis since the beginning of the previous Knesset in 2009. So why now? The answer can be found in the 2,000-year-old words of Hillel the Elder: If not now, when- Freedom of expression has its price Israeli singer Amir Benayoun wrote a protest song. That is all. He expressed his private frustration and his feelings about the recent spate of gruesome terror attacks against Jews. I don't love the lyrics, or the melody for that matter. Superficial art isn't usually very moving. But as long as he isn't urging violence, it is his right to write whatever he wants. That is the price we pay for freedom of expression. Husband and wife team Alona Kimhi and Izhar Ashdot also wrote a protest song (also superficial) in which Israeli soldiers are described as murderers. Yitzhak Laor recently received a prestigious award for his poetry even though his poem, "Anthem to the 'Gush,'" paints settlers as putting the "blood of Palestinian boys" in the matzot. That poem is also bad, but some of Laor's poetry is excellent. I heard radio talk show host Yael Dan cast Mordechai Kremnitzer as the resident poetry commentator. The controversy focused on Benayoun's supposed generalization of Arabs. On the basis of the assumption that Benayoun's song is a generalization, Dan and Kremnitzer tried to formulate a criminal complaint involving incitement to violence. Time after time it becomes more and more apparent that the calls for silencing people are coming from the Left. It is a trend. Well, one can argue with the interpretation of Benayoun's "Ahmed" -- who is presented once as a student and then later as a worker in central Israel -- is a generic name for all Israeli Arabs. Perhaps it refers only the terrorists among this population. But it is certainly legitimate to read the words not as a generalization but as a story of an individual. In bad taste, perhaps, but there is no incitement there. In any case, freedom of expression is wide enough that it should be able to accommodate protest songs even from the Right. ISIS on the Temple Mount Now I present you with an example of actual incitement, infinitely worse than the example above, that ultimately resulted in true tragedy, and yet it doesn't look as if Yael Dan or anyone like her in the Israeli media is going to tackle this one anytime soon. The Arab-Palestinian preacher Ali Abu Ahmad made the following remarks at Al-Aqsa mosque last Friday (three days after Arab residents of east Jerusalem murdered five Israelis at a synagogue in Jerusalem): "Who will come to the aid of Islam if not us? Who will come to the aid of Jerusalem if not us? We want a caliphate in the path of the Prophet, which will protect lives, defend women's honor and liberate Jerusalem from the Jews, the most vile of creatures," he preached. "Oh servants of Allah, do not resort to the international community or to the Security Council, for they are the ones who brought the Jews to the land of Palestine. They share the blame for their barbaric crimes against the Muslims in Palestine. Seek refuge in Allah the almighty, the avenger. Only Allah can break the backs of America and the Jews. "Do not be deluded by the arrogance of the Jews, or by their crimes against the Muslims of Palestine. This is merely a prelude to their elimination, Allah willing, at the hands of the loyal mujahideen within Palestine and abroad. "Oh Allah, annihilate America and its coalition. Oh Allah, enable us to cut off their heads. Oh Allah, help our brothers, the mujahideen in the land of Iraq and Syria." Note how he never mentioned Arabs or Palestinians or Israel -- only Muslims and Jews (and Palestine). That is the crux of the conflict, and the root of the dispute. This righteous man then prayed for the destruction of America's coalition (which includes us, of course) and made a modest request: to cut off our heads. What say you? Threatening enough? Israel Police, are you listening-
