Why Is Recognition Of A JEWISH State Such A Sticking Point?

Elliot Abrams writes that the refusal of the Arabs to recognize--and the failure of the West to support--Israel as a Jewish state is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to say what Israel as a Jewish state means.

Or rather a mistaken understanding of what it isn't. The argument against a "Jewish" state is based on the assumption that such a state will automatically result in the persecution of non-Jews.

The problem with this debating point is that those who use it apply it only to Israel; no one ever voices any concern about states based on Islam and discriminating in favor of Muslims.

There are actually four states whose very name contains a religious reference: the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. But beyond those, in every Muslim-majority country the constitution asserts a special role for Islam. The Jordanian constitution says “Islam is the religion of the State” and of course “No person shall ascend the Throne unless he is a Moslem…of Moslem parents.” No converts! But Jordan has a Christian minority that is five to eight percent of the population (Eastern Orthodox, Circassian, Melkite, and other sects).

Similarly, Egypt--that model of the potential of the "Arab Spring"--has a provisional constitution according to which

“Islam is the religion of the state….Principles of Islamic law (Shari’a) are the principal source of legislation.”

--this in despite of the fact that Christian Copts constitute 10%-15% of the Egyptian population.
Have you noticed the world uproar over that injustice?

Egypt is about ten or even fifteen percent Christian (Copts), but its current provisional constitution states that “Islam is the religion of the state….Principles of Islamic law (Shari’a) are the principal source of legislation.” Moreover, this is unlikely to change: presidential candidate Mohammad ElBaradei, viewed as a Westernized moderate, recently released his version of a new Egyptian constitution that similarly holds “Islam shall be the religion of the state….Sharia shall be the main source of legislation.”

Abrams add other examples among Muslim states.

Perhaps among the reasons the West does not criticize all these other Muslim states is that they do the exact same thing:

The constitution of Denmark, for example, states that “The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State,” and unsurprisingly “The King shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.” Same for Norway: “The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State” and “The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion.” And of course, the Queen of England is “Defender of the Faith,” and the faith is Anglican Christianity.

Also, keep in mind that unlike the Muslim states, Israel has no religious test for the for its leaders. More to the point, the treatment of religious minorities in Israel far exceeds that of the Muslim states. Recall that Saudi Arabia has an absolute ban on the construction of any religious building of prayer for any religion other than Islam. Also, though the coverage of it has tended to be spotty, there have been repeated instances of violence against Christians in both Egypt and Pakistan.

Abrams concludes that the failure to recognize Israel as a Jewish state:

is a reminder of their continuing refusal to make peace with the Jewish state and with the very idea that the Jews can have a state in what they view as the Dar al-Islam.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Islam.

What is the excuse of the West?