Again, Arab and Jewish Israelis have equal rights under Israeli laws. It is true that from time to time discriminatory laws have been passed, but they are routinely struck down by the High Court. There are no laws mandating separate educational systems, but Israeli law does delegate authority Jewish religious institutions for dealing with marriage and divorce and such matters among Jews, and to Muslim religious institutions for dealing with such matters among Muslims, etc., but it also allows civil alternatives to those who prefer them. Perhaps that's what you mean by "cultural systems".
Within the green line, Israeli law is explicit: there can be no discrimination concerning land use based on race, ethnicity, etc. and Israeli courts have vigorously enforced these laws.
In the US, Christian holy days become de facto and sometimes legal holidays, such as Sundays and Christmas, but Jewish and Muslim holy days rarely do because the US is overwhelmingly Christian. Israel is 80% Jewish, so just as the character of the US is Christian because most of its population is Christian, the character of Israel is Jewish because most of its population is Jewish. I imagine Israeli Muslims must feel the same way about this as US Muslims and Jews do.
Israel does as near a perfect job of providing equal rights and protections under the law to all of its citizens as any other country does and a much better job of it than any of the countries critical of it.
Calling Israel a racist state or a "Jews only" state has no basis in fact or logic, as your current post makes clear, and this post does no more than the others to refute the point your first post makes that the Palestinians choose to remain stateless rather than to live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.
From the website:
Arab HRA
Fact Sheets
In 1992 the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed in Israel (2) which subsequently authorised courts to overturn Knesset laws that were contrary to the right to dignity, life, freedom, privacy, property and the right to leave and enter the country.
Specifically, however, it did not include the right to equality. Further, section 1A of the law states that it aims to anchor "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Given the lack of an explicit law that constitutionally protects equality for all citizens, this emphasis on the Jewishness of the State again compromised the equal rights protection for the Palestinian Arab minority.
Political Participation
Palestinian Arabs rights to run for elections to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, are also limited by their acceptance of the notion of the Jewish state.
These limits are expressed in the Law of Political Parties (1992) and, in particular, the amendment of section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: The Knesset which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." Under this section a party platform that challenges the Jewish character of the state, that for example calls for full and complete equality between Jews and Arabs in a state for all its citizens, can be disqualified, as lists have been in the past.(4) The law demands that Palestinian Arab citizens may not challenge the state's Zionist identity.
Direct Discrimination
There are two main examples of laws that discriminate against Palestinian Arabs by directly distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews:
* Citizenship Rights & the Law of Return: National identity is the main factor in deciding the acquisition of citizenship in Israel. The Law of Return grantsevery Jew the right to immigrate to Israel. The Nationality Law automatically grants citizenship to all Jews who have done so, and also to their spouses, children,s grandchildren, and all their spouses. This privilege is for Jews only. Palestinian Arabs can only get citizenship by birth, residence (after meetinga cumulative list of conditions) or naturalisation.
* Special Status of Jewish Organisations: As a result of the World Zionist Organisation- Jewish Agency Law, the Jewish National Fund, Jewish Agency,and World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional status in Israel and are known as quasi-governmental bodies. They are Jewish organisationswhich explicitly aim to benefit Jews only, but have authority for certain governmental functions, including developing the land and housing projects and settlements. Their activities are co-ordinated with the government and are given tax benefits, and they have a lot of influence on decision-making boards (particularly in agriculture and land use).
The Palestinian Arab minority is excluded entirely from these functions as either beneficiaries or participants. Further no government organisations perform the same functions for non-Jews. Consequently, Palestinian Arab needs are systematically disregarded.
Indirect Discrimination
More widespread is the use of "non-discriminatory" criteria in statutes that lead to differences in the treatment of Jews and the Palestinian Arab minority:
* Military Service: Many government preferences and benefits in Israel are conditioned on performing military service. Whilst military service is technicallycompulsory for all citizens, by discretion the vast majority (90%) of Palestinian Arabs are not required to serve; whereas the majority of Jews do. As a consequence, they do not receive the wide range of benefits, including larger mortgages, partial exemptions from course fees, and preferences for public employment and housing. The discriminatory factor is that in many cases the link between the benefit offered and the requirment for military service is tenuous, often as in employment opportunities, and that government offices provide benefits beyond what is legislated. The most celebrated example of this was the level of state child benefits, which until 1997 were conditioned on military service, rather than more obvious socio-economic factors. The impression that this is a mechanism for privileging Jews is borne out by the fact that Jewish Yeshiva students, who like Arab citizens do not serve, are granted the benefits anyway, a policy which has been upheld by the courts.(6)
* Place of Living: The government categorises the country into different zones and awards different statuses and benefits to different towns. For instance, it denotes certain areas national development areas, which then makes them eligible to receive benefits including special tax incentives for industry, educational programmes, and housing incentives. These areas are supposed to be determined according to socio-economic criteria. Yet the zones are drawn to include a disproportionate number of Jewish localities rather than Palestinian Arab ones. For example, in the 1998 classification, outof the 429 localities accorded Development Area A status, only 4 were Arab, despite the fact that Arab towns and villages are consistently at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The zoning was used to exclude the vast majority of the Palestinian Arab minority from these benefits.
Institutional Discrimination
The Palestinian Arab minority in Israel is discriminated against by the aspects of the legal system which allow the government to adopt discriminatory policies, or the discretionary power that can be used by officials to maintain a systematic pattern of preferences.
The Palestinian Arab minority in Israel is discriminated against by the aspects of the legal system which allow the government to adopt discriminatory policies, or the discretionary power that can be used by officials to maintain a systematic pattern of preferences.
Budgets & Resource Allocation: The Budget Law, which governs state funds, does not specify what proportion should be earmarked for minorities; the decision lies with officials discretion. Due to their lack of representation in government offices, Palestinian Arabs receive substantially less funding for e.g. local government budgets (usually 50% less), and have less resources allocated for welfare budgets, school facilities or other education programmes.
Often this discrepancy is justified by the government running projects in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, thus necessitating only Jewish beneficiaries.(7)
Uneven Implementation of the Law: There are three ways in which the implementation of the law adversely affects the Palestinian Arab minority:
1) Positive statutes that the State is expected to enforce or services that the State is required to provide can simply not be implemented in Palestinian Arab communities, such as the Compulsory Education Law, and the provision of truant officers or counsellors, despite the fact that Arab students form 75% of those who drop out of school throughout the whole country.
2) Laws that apply to both Jews and Arabs can be selectively or predominantly implemented on Palestinian Arabs, such as land confiscation laws or house demolitions.
3) Laws can be implemented with different criteria for Jews and Arabs, such as criteria for family assistance in education programmes or production quotas for agricultural production. Often differences in quotas are maintained due to a lack of Arab representation in decision- making authorities.
The judicial review of this institutional discrimination is limited. To date, there is not one court case where the Supreme Court has accepted a case of discrimination against the Palestinian Arab minority and ruled to protect its rights. It usually accepts the claim of the State that its policies serve national priorities and thus are not discriminatory, or that different treatment between Jews and Arabs is legitimate, as they are different groups.(8) Even when historical discrimination is admitted, the court will not rule to close the gaps, arguing that responsibility lies with the decision-making of the executive.(9)
1. For a similar schematic analysis see Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel (Westview Press, 1990) p. 48
2. In 1992 the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation was similarly passed.
3. Forward to The Arabs in Israel, cited in Adalah, Legal Violations of Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah, 1998) p. 9
4. For example, El-Ard v. District Commissioner, 18 PD II 340 & Sabri Jiryis v. District Commissioner, 18 PD IV 673, Yerdor v. Central Elections Committee, 19 PD III 365, Neiman v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee, 39 PD II 233. It is true that since this ammendment came into effectno lists have been disqualified under section 7A(1), however the legal power still remains there to do so.
5. Kretzmer pp. 42-43
6. For example, Wattad v. Minister of Finance, 38 PD III 113
7. For example, the Shahar education programmes offered to weak and disadvantaged students, in which a third of Jewish students have participated,were not until 1998 offered in any Arab communities.
8. For example, Wattad, or Bourkan v. Minister of Finance 32 PD II 800, Agbariah v. Minister of Education 45 PD 222
9. For example, The Local Council of Daliyat El-Carmel et al v. Prime Minister (unpublished), cited in Adalah p. 25.
