" At least such people protect the human rights of those under their rule."

see previous

Chaim Gans in Haaretz

In his book “The Law of Peoples,” John Rawls makes a distinction between people in terms of their moral perfection. At the top of the ladder he places “liberal” peoples – those who maintain democracy and equality among themselves. After them, he ranks peoples that he calls “decent” – the type that does not maintain democracy or equality, but instead has a hierarchy of rights pertaining to different groups and communities. At least such people protect the human rights of those under their rule. 

Rawls’ third category, which is important for our discussion, is that of “outlaw” states – those that threaten peace by attempting to expand their spheres of influence and by violating the basic human rights of the people inhabiting their territories. If what I have said about the proprietary interpretation of Zionism is correct, it will be similarly correct to classify Israel not only as a state that, despite its pretensions, is neither liberal nor egalitarian, but also as one that is not “decent.” 

If the theory underlying Israeli politics is proprietary Zionism (and in view of settler ideology there is no other alternative) – it seems that Rawls’ third category, and not necessarily the second, is a more apt characterization of present-day Israel. The post- Zionist critique that there is a contradiction between Israel’s Jewishness and its democratic nature in a way that has made it into a non-egalitarian society is too feeble a claim and misses that point that is most deserving of criticism.

Arguments from cognitive dissonance.

1-"At least such people protect the human rights of those under their rule."

2- "The post- Zionist critique that there is a contradiction between Israel’s Jewishness and its democratic nature in a way that has made it into a non-egalitarian society is too feeble a claim..."