Much has been written about relations between nationalism and democracy in Israel focusing in particular on the association between a "Jewish State" and a "Democratic State". Proponents of a national Jewish state argue that in principle there is no contradiction between a Jewish and a democratic state, and that both values and political practices balance out. Other voices argue that they two cannot be settled.
The national-religious criticism assumes that a Jewish state cannot be democratic. It must be administrated according to Halacha (religious law), which is why it challenges democracy, whose laws are shaped by the state. Nationalistic Arab circles claim that the very definition of the state as a Jewish state excludes Arab nationals, and thus by nature is not democratic. Similar claims have been by post-Zionist circles.

The concept presented in this study is that the significance of "Jewish", juxtaposed with "Jewish and democratic" is national and cultural. In principle, no contradiction exists between Jewish and democratic, just as no contradiction exists between any nation state and democratic principles. Indeed, had there been an irresolvable paradox between nationalism and democracy all nation states, Western European states with national minorities included, would have been undemocratic. The reality is such that there are nation stated with varying degrees of democracy. There are states characterized by an excluding ethnic nationalism, and those with an inclusive civic hue. On the principle-theoretical level it is clearly possible to integrate between nationalism and democracy and between a Jewish and a democratic state. The degree of integration depends on various other factors to be explored in this study. The question is whether integration takes place at all in the State of Israel. In my opinion an appropriate model of integration between a Jewish nation state and a democratic state has not been achieved in Israel. The scales lean toward nationalism. The Arab minority in Israel is discriminated in many spheres: in resource and land allocation, in historical and cultural recognition, in accessibility to public positions, in political partnership and symbolic representation. This discrimination exacerbates the economic, social and cultural disparity.

Three factors contribute to the disparities and to their perpetuation:
* The historical-political context;
* The cultural-political values;
* The power of both parties.

The historical-political context is complex. Underlying are an unresolved national-ethnic conflict, extended social inequality and socio-cultural barriers. These barriers apply to both parties, they preclude accepting the other and fulfill the mutual doubts of both communities. These doubts make it more difficult to resolve the differences between the groups. The political-cultural values are manifested in different political theories and ideologies: in part they justify the existing situation, in part they vie for a radical change and in part they vie for a gradual change. These ideologies are usually presented as theories illuminating both the past and the present, but by and large they act as normative systems attempting to influence the future.

The greater part of the polemic between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority today focuses on these theories-ideologies. Among those ideas is the proposal for land exchanges with the Palestinian Authority in order to reduce the number of Arabs living in Israel, establishing a bi-national state, making Israel a state of all its citizens, national autonomy and group rights for the Arabs and so on.

Without detracting from the impact of such ideas on shaping history, the discussion appears to overlook an important factor – power. The capacity to realize dreams – alongside an appropriate balance between nationalism and democracy in Israel – is directly related to the social, economic and political potency of the groups. In other words, values, ideologies and theories are insufficient. The potential of the groups must be practically examined, alongside the interaction between them and its resultant economic, social and political implications as well as the impact on the balance between nationalism and democracy. Today a significant asymmetry exists between the strength of the Jewish majority and that of the Arab minority, but these processes are likely to change in the long term as a result of changes in Arab society: demographic changes, a developing intellectual echelon, rising electoral impact, a rising affiliation with the Arab world, the growing influence of political Islam and national trends.

The interaction between the historical background, the values and the strength of both parties shapes the balance between nationalism and democracy. Israel is a young state where the scales lean towards nationalism. The question is what will happen in the long run? What will the balance be among the three determinants and how will it shape the relations between nationalism and democracy and between the Jewish majority and Arab minority? Will the current prescription prevail? Will democracy intensify or will nationalism?

In this study I will examine the three possibilities by developing three groups of scenarios: preserving the status quo, intensifying democracy and intensifying nationalism. These future scenarios warrant examination, whether from the perspective of activating powers or their socio-political impacts. This clarification is likely to assist the public and decision-makers in Israel to shape the social and political attitudes to the dilemma of majority-minority relations in Israel.