Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Please create a response essay for the topic below for a non-western comparative political course. I will send the necessary readings. Please respond with some special examples that reference understanding to the texts.

Take the online discussion from the on Japan Module and write up your response to the topic in a coherent, cohesive 5 page paper. Each of the topics asks for your assessment of the state of democracy in the country. A good answer will provide a clear, strong thesis (that is specific and debatable) and will use readings, lecture, discussions, and any outside information (you must note the source of the information) you choose. I'm looking for your assessment of the character/quality of democracy in the country, so be clear and precise about what you are claiming and why you believe what you are arguing.

Be sure to give specific details on the assessment of Japan’s democracy. Is it strong or weak?

Before beginning I have included my responses to some discussions that were given before this essay to give a better understanding of my stance.

Discussion 21--Role of Bureaucracy
For our final week, we're going to focus on understanding the readings, which are challenging, but we'll also need to bring in some web research. Let's work collaboratively to get the empirical details down, and then we can start making judgments. Question: Chalmers Johnson, one of the U.S.'s foremost Japan experts, tells us the story of Tanaka Kakuei and the shocking extent of his corruption. But Johnson tells us this story so we can better understand the nature of Japanese politics and the role of the bureaucracy. What is Johnson trying to illuminate for us?

The story of Tanaka Kakuei’s corruption and presence as Japan’s prime minister is told according to Chalmers Johnson to paint the picture of Japan on the political arena. Kakuei served as the Japanese political leader and prime minister from 1972 till 1974.He prospered greatly during World War II and gained election to the lower house of the Diet, where he served from 1947. Farmers were the strongest supporters of the left-wing social and land reform movements. However, his supporters indicate that the only thing that counts in the favor of votes is whether these voters saw resources for the region. He promised to send them highways, schools, railroads and snow removal services in return for their votes and that’s exactly what Tanaka did. A member of Japan's dominant Liberal Democratic party, he was secretary-general from 1965–1966 and 1968–1971. Tanaka was also minister of finance from 1962 to 1965 and minister of international trade and industry 1971 to 1972 before succeeding Eisaku Sato as prime minister. He was more colorful and somewhat more reformist than most of Japan's other Liberal Democratic prime ministers. Tanaka was forced to resign in 1974 because of alleged financial corruption. He was later tried for accepting over $2 million in bribes from Lockheed Corporation. Tanaka was convicted on October 12, 1983 but appealed his conviction, thereby prolonging the sentence such that it was never served. And until his conviction, Tanaka remained in control of the largest faction within the Liberal Democratic Party.

However, Tanaka was not the only politician to have had encounters with bribery as virtually every major contemporary Japanese politician has had such experiences. But the difference with Tanaka was that he was able to beat the accusations and went on to have a career as a non-bureaucratic leader. Tanaka was able to move past the corruption scandal, but it did affect the perspective of him and politics. Regardless, critics like Tachibana Takashi charge Tanaka “with buying the prime ministership, but they should also acknowledge that he probably saved the LDP from its long-term decline in popular support under Sato”.

The fundamental issue in the Tanaka case is what the Japanese call structural corruption. The case “reveals a pattern of influence peddling that is not unique to Tanaka but inherent in the Japanese governmental system, and that indicates a serious need for reform” states Johnson. Thus, the Tanaka case is significant because of how it has impacted the democratic state of Japan, and the political aspect of operations. The meaning of Tanaka’s actions according to him were partly rationalized in his autobiography that he was put on earth to do something and therefore corruption, then was then a means of justification to a higher purpose. Johnson summarizes that money was an important component in the political system and states, “Tanaka had a lot of money and he used it – not for himself, but in order to get things done as Professor Nishibe claims. Money became so much a part of the system that a new terminology built around it; the chief way to calculate election expenses was in terms of ‘bullets’ – a bullet being 100 million Yen”. Further implications of Johnson’s detailed account for Tanaka were shocking but the scandal brought Japan back in time, to gangsters and right-wingers, and suggested that the foreigners knew better how to get things done in Japan than law-abiding citizens. The case implicated officials of the Transportation Ministry, the prime minister himself and one of Japan’s leading trading companies.

Discussion 22--Junichiro Koizumi
Who was Junichiro Koizumi and what did his election and re-election as Prime Minister of Japan represent? Why did voters back him and why was the LDP – his own party – wary of him?

Born into a family of politicians, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was regarded as an outsider and a maverick, due to his surprise election to his position and his insistence on widespread reforms. Koizumi is known for both his flamboyant personality and his politics and has become a pop culture icon in Japan. Koizumi became known as much for his anti - establishment public persona as for his political agenda when he released a CD of his own karaoke covers of Elvis Presley songs and a chewing gum company named a mint flavor in his honor, shortly after becoming prime minister. In 2001, Koizumi won the LDP presidency in a surprise defeat of Hashimoto, and on April 24, he was named the party's 20th president and the country's 56th prime minister. As expected, an overhaul of the postal savings system (a massive government -run banking system based in post offices throughout the country) became one of Koizumi's top priorities, and he also sought to redirect automobile - related tax revenues away from road construction and into areas that would be more likely to spur economic growth. He set a three - year target for the country's banks to write off years of debt resulting from bad loans. He also proposed a fiscal discipline policy designed to limit deficit spending in his heavily debt - ridden nation, but was unable to implement the policy as Japan's economy worsened. Koizumi was reelected in 2003, though by a smaller majority than in the 2001 election. By 2004, his approval rating fell to 36 percent and the LDP fell two seats short of the seat goal for upper house Parliamentary elections, the party retained its majority.

Prior to the 2004 elections, Koizumi reaffirmed his promise to pursue reforms in a Parliamentary address, which is reprinted on his government's website staying, "Having been granted the trust of the people of Japan in the general election that took place in November 2003, I once again have been given the honor of bearing the heavy responsibilities of Prime Minister of Japan. Firmly maintaining the policy that has been followed to date of without structural reform there will be no rebirth or growth in Japan, and reflecting once more on the words of the Chinese philosopher Mencius that when about to place a great responsibility on a person, heaven may test one with hardship and frustrated efforts in order to toughen one's nature and shore up deficiencies, I will continue to promote reforms with firm resolve." In addition, Koizumi committed to sustained environmental protection, improvements in the education system, and economic recovery. "On the foundation of the stable administrative coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Komeito, I am now seeking to realize a country where the buds of reform are nurtured into a large tree and a country granted the trust of the world full of pride and confidence," he remarked. In January of 2005, Koizumi announced that he would not seek re election after the end of his term in September of 2006.
A colorful figure, Koizumi pledged to lift Japan from its economic malaise, revise its constitution, privatize government owned businesses, modernize its political system, improve relations with its Asian neighbors, and eliminate factionalism from the LDP. Achieving those goals proved difficult, however, as reform was resisted by the deep-rooted bureaucracy and by LDP factions that would be affected by reform, Koizumi's government soon came largely to resemble those of his predecessors. Ultimately cuts in public spending were achieved and mad progress in deregulation.

When Koizumi became prime minister, he was viewed as a reformist and was sought to break the pattern of resignation in the face of Japan’s decline. To the public he was open and competent which was more appealing than Yoshiro Mori, his predecessor. The Japanese saw the potential of hope for the future of Japan through his leadership. With the current freedom and financial ability the public was more likely to escape the nation’s problems, but it has left the government with the task of paying off the major debt, giving Koizumi the opportunity to redirect Japan through the political process. As Schoppa indicates, “Only one path leads out of this exit spiral. Japan’s political leaders must inspire the country’s citizens to redirect their energies inward, toward domestic reform. So far such inspiration has been conspicuously absent”. Koizumi became popular in the public’s eye as within his first weeks as prime minister, waiting lists for child care were eliminated to enable women to combine motherhood with careers. His actions earned him an approval rating as high as 87% with the general public. Even though Koizumi appealed to the public for the most part, members of the Diet weren’t so enthusiastic for his reforms. Koizumi’s own party was wary of him because his proposed reforms would hurt their supporters in the inefficient construction industry and other protected sectors of the economy , according to Schoppa.

Discussion 23--Economic Problems
The articles about Koizumi and Abe suggest that Japan suffers from serious economic problems that the political system cannot resolve. Why not? What are the political obstacles to changing Japanese politics? How does it relate to the Johnson reading?

The articles about Koizumi and Abe provide details about their rise to power and the political challenges that Japan faces. Although Japan has grown as a power, it suffers from serious economic problems that the political system cannot just fix with a snap of a finger. The problems facing Japan are enormous debt primarily, declining baby-boom, exiting members and the need for reform for if Japan continues on the track it is on, it will ultimately be heading in a direction that will devastate the nation and alter the political system. Though Koizumi and Abe have similar characteristics, some of their political tactics and reform focuses can only go so far to help put Japan on the correct path to fix its economic problems that are plaguing Japan from its potential. The problems facing Japan can be related to the Johnson reading because as in the corruption scandal of Tanaka, such implications have certainly not helped in the political system resolving such economic problems. Public opinion of government is relying more on themselves and less of government as their political system is limited in its action to resolve the problem. Corruption is not new to Japan, and as it has been plaguing the political arena, the results have left Japan is serious economic problems not only for the future Japan, but for the current citizens, and political reforms.

The Schoppa reading labels Japan as “The Reluctant Reformer” and the title fits considering the serious economic problems that need to be dealt with for long term existence and success of a democracy, but there is a lack of transforming actions being done in the short term aspect of things. Japan has been predicted by global trends of the CIA to have difficulty maintaining the current position of the 3rd largest economy, and such reasoning is because of the challenges that face Japan. The reason why the Japanese have put up with Japan’s stagnation and have not demanded governmental action be made is because of Japan’s success. But this ironic answer, is because “ for the first time in the country’s history, individuals and forms now have the wealth and freedom necessary to pursue private solutions to their economic problems- solutions that make perfect sense from an individual or corporate perspective but that actually aggravate economic problems at the national level” as Schoppa tells us. This has intensified the economic problems only further because by not forcing the government to address the nation’s problems. Japan needs to discipline the use of its economic resources to break its irresponsible spending habits. Similarly, the Katz and Ennis reading says that Japan’s working force needs to ultimately be more productive as its force is declining.

Closely related, the organizational structure that Japan has been operating on since it developed over the postwar years, where individuals and firms had few options other than to rely on the government. This made corporations dependent on state help and had every incentive to keep channels of communication open from their end. But as the firms remained in private hands, they made sure government policies did not drift too far from the market in order to survive as a competitor and succeed in the international markets. Toyota and Sony are perfect of examples of companies that became wealthy enough that it did not need to depend on the state for financing or capital markets as they can go abroad if needed.

Another issue that is affecting and will continue to affect the current economic crisis is the decline in the size of its labor force and rise in elderly citizens. After growing steadily for five decades, the working population is starting to decline as postwar baby boomers are starting to retire at 60. This means that pensions and medical expenses could push the government to spend even more money on social-insurance, a burden that the already in debt nation cannot afford. One method to combat this issue is for women and especially women with children to enter/continue the working field, by creating an accepting environment for work. “Only half of working-age women currently hold paying jobs, and the proportions are even lower for mothers. Many of these women look at Japan’s employment system- which offers limited child care, inadequate parental leave, inflexible schedules, and long hours- and choose work or children” Schoppa states, and by not having women in the work force it deprives the economy of their paid labor and makes it harder to finance the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers.

Doubts in Japan’s critical situation are impacting the potential for its serious economic problems from being resolved. More individuals have stopped paying into the pension program, because they feel that their return will not equal what they are putting into it. Therefore, the national pension system is greatly affected from these actions, making the current debt as risk for more spending which it can frankly not afford.


Discussion 24--Democracy in Japan
What do the Koizumi and Abe stories say about the state of democracy in Japan? Would you say that democracy in Japan is any weaker or stronger than it is in the U.S.? Why or why not?
Have not personally responded yet, but you can include this response in the essay.

There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: Dear Writer,

Thank you very much i really apprectiate it.I really like and learned alot from your website.
I will
1)put the essay task on this e-mail I am writing you now
and then
2)one articel (if you cant read them good on this e-mail i have send you the title of the article at the beginning of the article and you can google it thank you very much)I will also put on this e-mail.

VERY IMPORTANT:with this 1 articel i would ask you to write the critical essay.

Task:
The main thing to remember is that in your essays you relate to two things:
1. the essay should not extend 2 pages, it should be double spaced, font Times New Roman, size 12
2. in the first page you should provide a summary which includes: the main research question and the main arguments of the authors.
in the second page you should provide your critique on how they established their arguments in light of their research questions. Don't relate only to the subject of research, but try to provide an analytical study of how they reached their conclusions, and the way of their research.
Critical Essays should consist of the following elements:
1. Bibliographic information – Title, Author/s, Name of Journal, Year.
2. Short Summary – main research question/s, theoretical perspective,
methods and data, main findings.
3. Evaluation – main strengths, main weaknesses, how is this article
relevant to your research project? (This article is badly written, or I
did not understand what the author/s wrote is not a valid
criticism.)


ARTICEL: Ask a Librarian | Help


0 marked items

Interface language:
Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Deutsch English Español Français Italiano Japanese Korean Norsk Polski Português Russian Türkçe



Databases selected: Multiple databases... What's new

Document View « Back to Results < Previous Document 16 of 20 Next > Publisher Information
Mark Document Abstract , Full Text

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separating Religion from National Identity: Interview with Avraham B. Yehoshua
Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture. East Jerusalem: Apr 30, 2002.Vol.8, Iss. 4; pg. 94
» Jump to full text
» Translate document into: Select languageChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)FrenchGermanItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishTurkish

» More Like This - Find similar documents

Subjects:
Locations: Israel
Document types: Interview
Publication title: Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture. East Jerusalem: Apr 30, 2002. Vol. 8, Iss. 4; pg. 94
Source type: Periodical
ISSN/ISBN: 07931395
ProQuest document ID:
Text Word Count 3034
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=&sid=13&Fmt=3&clientId=9269&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Abstract (Document Summary)
On the other hand, a Jew living in the Diaspora is only a partial Jew, because many aspects of life there, for example language and politics, are not Jewish. Therefore, when after 2000 years of exile, the Jews returned to the Land of Israel, they were transformed from "partial" Jews into "total" Jews. The question of religion is irrelevant here, because Israel is the name of a people and not of a religion. During the period of the first Temple, a considerable number of the ancient Hebrews, while belonging to the people of Israel, were not Jewish by faith and did not believe in the laws of Moses (Torat Moshe); we know that those people were heathens, worshipping pagan gods like the Baal and Ashtoreth. They were nevertheless considered as B'nei Yisrael, sons or descendants of Israel, part and parcel of the people of Israel. The fact that today a secular Jew, like a religious Jew, is defined as Jewish means that the term Jew basically refers to peoplehood and not to religion. So when I speak at present about Jews, about Israelis, I refer not to religion but to peoplehood and I distinguish between what I call partial and total Jewish national identity.

I don't think there is a contradiction. When a Palestinian state comes into being, and I very much hope that this will soon be the case, this state will not only belong to the Palestinians living in Palestine, but also to any person considered to be a Palestinian, according to the laws and charter of the Palestinian state. One says "belonging," but in what sense? Not in the sense of deciding the state's budget or voting for one Palestinian law or another, but in something wider: in the special relationship, the affinity and mutual concern between on the one hand Palestinians living abroad, outside their country (let us say in Syria, in Lebanon, in the US, in France, or in Israel) and on the other hand, Palestinians living in the State of Palestine. The same goes for the Jews and the Jewish state, Israel. First and foremost, the state clearly belongs to its citizens. The citizens elect the Parliament, choose the government, enjoy the right to participate in all the democratic institutions of the state. In short, therefore, the State of Israel belongs to its citizens. But Israel was not created only for the 600,000 Jews who were living here in 1948. The decision in 1947 of the United Nations to partition Palestine into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state, aimed at helping to solve the Jewish problem. This was the consequence of the centuries-long persecution and discrimination of Jews in the Diaspora that culminated in the extermination of millions of Jews by the Nazis. The task of the Jewish state was to absorb Jewish refugees (just as the future Palestinian state will have to solve the problem of Palestinian refugees). Otherwise there would have been no moral justification for enabling 600,000 Jews to establish their own state in a part of Palestine.

Take all those Russians who have come to Israel but who are Christians. They are recognized by the Israeli Jewish community as Jews, not in a religious sense of course, but as part of the historical Jewish people. The opposite is also true. Nowadays, in the Diaspora many members of the Jewish faith are no longer Jews in a national sense, and no longer belong to the historical Jewish people. You cannot say that the American Senator Joseph Lieberman, a religious Jew who was the Democratic candidate for Vice-President of the US, belongs to the Jewish nation, has a Jewish nationality. His nationality is American and only American. His Jewish national identity is almost non-existent. Another example: a lady converts to the Jewish faith because she has fallen in love with a Jew who insists on a religious Jewish marriage. Has she become a member of the Jewish nation, of the historical Jewish people, merely by converting to the Jewish religion? Of course not. Obviously, we are talking about relatively new notions and this is only the beginning of a long-term but extremely important process of separating religion from nationality.

Full Text (3034 words)
Copyright Middle East Publications Apr 30, 2002
One of Israel's outstanding writers. Avraham B. Yehoshua was born in Jerusalem in 1936 and lives in Haifa. Best known as a novelist, he is also a playwright and essayist. He was interviewed by Victor Cygielman, a founder of PIJ.

Palestine-Israel Journal: Is there an Israeli national identity distinct from the Jewish national identity, or do the two overlap?

A.B. Yehoshua: The Jewish people were called Israeli for about one thousand years, the sons or descendants of Israel, the people of Israel. One hears the expression "Jew" for the first time during the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the first Temple. The birthplace of the Jewish people is Israel: the land is called Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, the people are called Am Yisrael, the people of Israel. In asking ourselves what is the relationship between Jew and Israeli, the answer is that the Israeli is the total Jew, the whole Jew, meaning the Jew who is living in a total, all-embracing Jewish reality, on Jewish land, where the diverse components of life (culture, economy, government, etc.) are all Jewish.

On the other hand, a Jew living in the Diaspora is only a partial Jew, because many aspects of life there, for example language and politics, are not Jewish. Therefore, when after 2000 years of exile, the Jews returned to the Land of Israel, they were transformed from "partial" Jews into "total" Jews. The question of religion is irrelevant here, because Israel is the name of a people and not of a religion. During the period of the first Temple, a considerable number of the ancient Hebrews, while belonging to the people of Israel, were not Jewish by faith and did not believe in the laws of Moses (Torat Moshe); we know that those people were heathens, worshipping pagan gods like the Baal and Ashtoreth. They were nevertheless considered as B'nei Yisrael, sons or descendants of Israel, part and parcel of the people of Israel. The fact that today a secular Jew, like a religious Jew, is defined as Jewish means that the term Jew basically refers to peoplehood and not to religion. So when I speak at present about Jews, about Israelis, I refer not to religion but to peoplehood and I distinguish between what I call partial and total Jewish national identity.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Israel was viewed as a melting pot, integrating immigrants from different countries, with different languages and cultures, into the Hebrew-Israeli national and cultural identity. Today, the melting pot concept looks bankrupt and Israel is viewed as a multicultural society, where various groups with distinct ethnic-religious-cultural features (Palestinian Arabs, Mizrahi or Oriental Jews, Russian immigrants) demand and are entitled to preserve their specific identity. My question: does an Israeli national identity still exist?

First I have to stress that the problem of the Palestinian Arabs is totally different from that of the Mizrahi Jews or of the Russian newcomers, because the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens and possess an Israeli identity card belong to a different people. As far as the relationship between the melting pot and the multicultural society is concerned, this is a world problem. In the 1950s the concept of national identity was far more solid, more crystallized. At that time, immigrants to the US were attracted to the notion of the melting pot, in the center of which were the WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). The English language and customs were the dominant culture and every newcomer wanted to change himself by plunging into this melting pot. The prevailing concept today is that there are no superior and inferior cultures and that every culture has the right to exist In the framework of the Israeli national identity, different cultural groups are entitled to cultivate their specific cultural features. This is a positive phenomenon. The world under globalization is becoming more and more uniform; in order to protect your individuality in this increasingly global village, you have to cultivate your own identity. We notice a similar process in Canada, in the US, and also in Israel. I don't think this will endanger our national identity. There will be more diversity, but if the balance is kept between the need for national solidarity and the desire for cultivating one's specific cultural dimensions, Israel's national identity will not be jeopardized.

In 1995, the Knesset (Israel's Parliament) passed a law stipulating that the State of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. How can a democratic state belong to members of a people dispersed all over the world, instead of belonging to its citizens?

I don't think there is a contradiction. When a Palestinian state comes into being, and I very much hope that this will soon be the case, this state will not only belong to the Palestinians living in Palestine, but also to any person considered to be a Palestinian, according to the laws and charter of the Palestinian state. One says "belonging," but in what sense? Not in the sense of deciding the state's budget or voting for one Palestinian law or another, but in something wider: in the special relationship, the affinity and mutual concern between on the one hand Palestinians living abroad, outside their country (let us say in Syria, in Lebanon, in the US, in France, or in Israel) and on the other hand, Palestinians living in the State of Palestine. The same goes for the Jews and the Jewish state, Israel. First and foremost, the state clearly belongs to its citizens. The citizens elect the Parliament, choose the government, enjoy the right to participate in all the democratic institutions of the state. In short, therefore, the State of Israel belongs to its citizens. But Israel was not created only for the 600,000 Jews who were living here in 1948. The decision in 1947 of the United Nations to partition Palestine into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state, aimed at helping to solve the Jewish problem. This was the consequence of the centuries-long persecution and discrimination of Jews in the Diaspora that culminated in the extermination of millions of Jews by the Nazis. The task of the Jewish state was to absorb Jewish refugees (just as the future Palestinian state will have to solve the problem of Palestinian refugees). Otherwise there would have been no moral justification for enabling 600,000 Jews to establish their own state in a part of Palestine.

This special relationship between the Jews everywhere and the Jewish state is based on a moral contract expressed by the Law of Return, which grants to every Jew the automatic right to immigrate and live in Israel. However, this does not contradict the concept that the state of Israel belongs to all of its citizens, Jews, Palestinian Arabs, and others. Jews who are not living in Israel will never have the right to vote for our Parliament, to determine this country's policies. But the Israeli Arabs have all those rights. Had the Palestinian Arabs, citizens of Israel, shown a wiser, more astute approach to this country's politics, they could have sent 22 to 25 (out of 120) deputies to the Knesset and would have been able to play a much bigger role in determining Israel's policies.

Is there not a contradiction in the claim that Israel is both a Jewish and a democratic state, when every fifth Israeli is not Jewish?

The Arab citizens here are a national minority. This situation exists in many countries. It is the case in Spain, for instance, where there are several national minorities (the Andalousians, the Catalonians, the Basques) who have Spanish citizenship. They have a certain amount of political and cultural autonomy, but Spain is their all-encompassing homeland. There are Spanish Catalonians, Spanish Andalousians, but Spain remains Spain, and one can say that these minorities have, in addition to their specific ethno-cultural identity, a Spanish national identity. Israeli Arabs also have certain forms of cultural autonomy: their own schools, where the curriculum is taught in Arabic, their own Arabic newspapers, and so on. This cultural autonomy could and should be expanded, but the Arabs want more. This is the problem: historically, the Arabs are not used to being a minority.

Still, when you ask a Palestinian Arab, living here, to identify not with Israel, but with Israel as a Jewish state, many Palestinians see this as a "mission impossible," because being Jewish, according to law and custom, means also belonging to the Jewish religion.

The relationship between religion and nationality is indeed a major problem for the future of Israel and of the Jewish nation. We need to completely and legally separate nationality from religion. It should be possible to be a Christian, while belonging to the historical Jewish people, just as a Jew born and raised in France is a member of the historical French people. I believe that this separation between religion and national identity is absolutely necessary. But it will be a very slow evolution, a long historical process.

Is this at all possible or is it merely wishful thinking?

Two hundred years ago, nobody thought that a secular Jew could be a member of the Jewish people. According to the 12/13th century teachings of the Rambam (Maimonides), a Jew who did not believe in God, was to be lapidated (stoned to death), killed without any warning, as a traitor. Nowadays, as has been the case for many, many years, a secular Jew is a legitimate member of the Jewish people, and is accepted and as such by religious Jewry. This is not only so for secular Jews. Buddhist Jews in the US or in Israel are considered to be Jews, without any restrictions and recognized as members of the historical Jewish people.

Admittedly. But what about a Jew who converted to, or was born into, the Christian faith?

Take all those Russians who have come to Israel but who are Christians. They are recognized by the Israeli Jewish community as Jews, not in a religious sense of course, but as part of the historical Jewish people. The opposite is also true. Nowadays, in the Diaspora many members of the Jewish faith are no longer Jews in a national sense, and no longer belong to the historical Jewish people. You cannot say that the American Senator Joseph Lieberman, a religious Jew who was the Democratic candidate for Vice-President of the US, belongs to the Jewish nation, has a Jewish nationality. His nationality is American and only American. His Jewish national identity is almost non-existent. Another example: a lady converts to the Jewish faith because she has fallen in love with a Jew who insists on a religious Jewish marriage. Has she become a member of the Jewish nation, of the historical Jewish people, merely by converting to the Jewish religion? Of course not. Obviously, we are talking about relatively new notions and this is only the beginning of a long-term but extremely important process of separating religion from nationality.

You mean separating religion from the state?

No, I am speaking of separating religion from nationality. Separating the church or the synagogue from the state is more a bureaucratic than a fundamental question. I am all for it, for democratic reasons. It would make life easier but it is not the main question.

Many people in Israel cannot marry because of the link between religion and state. The absence of civil marriage in the country is an intolerable burden for people who are of different religious denominations. You cannot call this a minor problem.

Certainly, but it remains a formal, bureaucratic problem and there are many ways to bypass it, to overcome it, in Israel, even today. Civil marriage contracted abroad is recognized by the Israeli authorities. You can also marry through a lawyer, by fax, thanks to an arrangement with the Guatemalan or Venezuelan authorities. I don't say this situation should not be changed and I am convinced that civil marriage will, in the not too distant future, become part of Israel's legislation. But this takes time, just as it took many years for Ireland or Italy to introduce civil marriage, which was only recently established by law. The main problem, however, is the fusion, the link, between religion and nationality, which, in my view, is unhealthy and also immoral. My profound belief is that nationality cannot and should not depend on one's religion. It is immoral to say that you can only belong to a given nationality if you are also a follower of such and such a faith. Nationality, being part of a people, of a nation, is like a family. Your son will always remain your son, whatever he does or believes in. There are no conditions for belonging to a given nationality. We may put criminals or traitors in prison but we cannot abolish their nationality and we are responsible for their families. However, nationality is not a closed shop: you can enter it or withdraw from it. We know that people of Jewish origin, such as Leon Blum or Pierre Mendes-France, were elected as France's prime ministers, because they were members of the French people, of the historical French nation.

Contrary to the situation in Israel, in France there is no distinction between nationality and citizenship. In Israel, you have Israeli citizens who belong to the Jewish people and Israeli citizens who belong to the Arab-Palestinian people. In addition there are the religious differences. Do you really think that it is feasible here to "opt out" of one's nationality and join the nationality of the other people?

It ought to be, if not today, then tomorrow. An Israeli Arab should be able to join the Jewish nationality, the historical Jewish people, if he so decides, without having to give up his Moslem or Christian religion. He can also choose to remain part of the Arab Palestinian nationality, a national minority that has strong historic roots in this country, just as the Jews have profound historic roots here. In addition, once a Palestinian state will be established alongside the State of Israel, the Palestinian Arabs who will be living there will be able to become total Palestinians, acquire a total Palestinian identity, just as Diaspora Jews become total Jews when living in Israel. But the Israeli Palestinian must also have the possibility of joining the Jewish national identity, our Hebrew culture, if this is his/her choice. Similarly, a Jew who chooses to live in an Arab country should be able to acquire the Arab nationality. The Palestinians say that in their country, Moslems, Christians and Jews - by religion - will all be considered to be members of the Palestinian nation, to belong to the Palestinian nationality, in addition to enjoying Palestinian citizenship. This is all right with me.

Many Israeli Palestinians say that Israel should be the state of all its citizens, not the state of the Jewish people; and that only when all Israeli citizens will share the same Israeli nationality, the same Israeli-Hebrew culture, will they, the Palestinian Arabs, be able to feel equal citizens of the State of Israel?

The Hebrew culture and the Hebrew language are the result of a long historical evolution, layer upon layer, going back to the language and culture of David and Solomon, to the language of the prophets. Hebrew is part and parcel of the Jewish national heritage, which did not begin with the foundation of the modern state of Israel. When I say that a Jew by religion, just as Christians and Moslems, should be able to be part of the Egyptian or Iraqi nationality, that does not mean that Egypt or Iraq should give up their national heritage, their history and centuries old culture and create a new, artificial nationality, in order to accommodate a person of the Jewish religion who wants to join the Egyptian or the Iraqi nationality.

Is the nation-state the only, or the best, framework for enhancing one's national identity?

National or ethnic-national groups preceded the formation of states; but the state has been a powerful instrument for the crystallization of nations, for unifying national identities. This is the case with ancient nations, such as the Egyptians or the Chinese or the Jews. It also works for new nations such as the American nation, which was molded by immigrants from many different countries and nationalities into the present American identity thanks to the establishment of the United States of America. Hence the importance of the nation-state as a unifying factor, as for example in France where an ancient people like the French successfully integrated immigrants from eastern and southern Europe as well as from North Africa. I do not say that a nation-state has to be a pure, monolithic entity. Lately, due to the pressures of international uniformity, some call it Americanization, there is an increasing shift to multiculturalism in many countries, and different population groups crave to enhance their specific language, cultural traditions, etc. Moreover, national majorities and minorities coexist in a single state. Take for instance the United Kingdom, composed of the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the people of Northern Ireland, each with its own specific culture, traditions and history. But the unifying force was the English, as the majority nation. It is their language and influence that molded a cohesive British nation.

The same applies to Israel, founded by the Jews, the majority nation, whose language, Hebrew, whose national heritage and specific identity have molded the State of Israel. The Israeli Arabs, who are the minority, should enjoy equal rights in all respects and be free to fully develop their own language and culture. However, they should also have the right to integrate into the Hebrew culture, into the Jewish national identity, if this is their wish. I realize that most Palestinian Arabs in Israel will stick to their own culture and nationality, but the door should be open for those who choose to integrate into the Jewish majority. This is what real democracy, what real freedom means: neither to impose one's national identity on the other, nor to demand that the other should give up his specific identity to please or accommodate your own national claims.

Photograph (Avraham B. Yehoshua)


More Like This - Find similar documents
Locations: Israel
Document types: Interview
Language: English
Publication title: Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture



Thank you very much.
Looking forward to work with you.
Kind Regards

Essay Instructions: I need "Statement of Purpose for the M.S. Health Care Management at California State University, Los Angeles".

I want it to be a personal statement about 500 words about 2 pages long.

This is my life:

I was born and grew up in Thailand. I decided to e to the USA to pursue my dream after I heard from a high school friend talked about America after he came to study MBA. I always imagined what would it like if I stay in America. Not long after that thought, I started to do some researches about this country and found that America has a lot to offer.

While I was working as a RN in a VIP med/surg department at Bumrungrad hospital Bangkok, Thailand. Things went well and I was about to get promote to move up to another level. I decided to resign after over 3 years of experience there to find out about the USA.

During the time I worked at Bumrungrad Hospital, I had chances to meet very important people, for instance, kings and queens form different countries, prime ministers from many countries across the world and a lot of big business owners such as Red Bull. These people inspired me to get a higher education because it has bettered their life and career as professional leaders in a developed world.

I arrive in the USA in 2006 with the age of 26 and faced eclectic changes. There were times that I needed to pay a little more attention such as cultures, people attitudes, and new circumstances. I managed to pass them just fine. Those circumstances made me a better person today because they gave me valuable experiences. Sometimes I made mistakes. For me, mistakes make man perfect.

I came here and was able to travel a bit to see different things that USA has. First, I stayed in Carmel, CA for a month then moved to San Jose, CA for a month and decided to experience the snow in the East Coast and lived in Columbia, MD for almost a year. It was a wonderful experience except I didn't get used to a very cold weather. After that, I went back to Thailand and decided to e back to get my M.S. Health Care Management program.

I want to earn this degree to have the knowledge to advance my career in the management field, have opportunity to build networks and hopefully I can help improve the health care systems.

With my personality such as risk taking, love to learn new things, adaptive, enthusiastic, empathy, kind, generous and creative along with my valuable experiences above, I can ensure you that I will be a perfect candidate in the M.S. Health Care Management program.

If you have any question, please feel free to contact me anytime at or .

Looking forward to see a great statement of purpose from you.

Best regards,

Varotkamol Tanyakool