Israel's Apartheid

[Philip]

This topic came up in another thread, and it was clear that a lot of people are not aware of the tolerance (even approval) of anti-Arab discrimination in Israel. Inasmuch as I've been subjected to television ads recently proclaiming how Israel and America share the same values, I'm going to subject this forum with a discussion of an area where Israel's and America's values differ sharply.

The backbone of Israel's apartheid is discrimination in land use. "Redemption of the Land" (i.e., achieving Jewish control of land in Palestine) has always been a central tenet of Zionism. Today, 93% of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by the Jewish National Fund. All of this land is administered by the Israel Land Administration, which is governed by a board 50% composed of representatives of the Jewish National Fund.

From the Israel Land Administration webpage:

Background

93% of the land in Israel is public domain; that is , either property of the state, the Jewish National Fund (J.N.F) or the Development Authority. The Israel Land Administration (ILA) is the government agency responsible for managing this land which comprises 5,750,000 acres. "Ownership" of real estate in Israel usually means leasing rights from the ILA for 49 or 98 years.

Legal Framework

Four cornerstones make up the legal basis of the Israel lands policy:
Basic Law establishing the Israel Lands Administration (1960)
Israel Lands Law (1960)
Israel Lands Administration (1960)
Covenant between the state of Israel and the World Zionist
Organization (Jewish National Fund) (1960)

The Israel Lands Council sets policy. The chairman of the council is the Minister of National Infrastructures. The council is comprised of 24 members; 12 represent government ministries and 12 represent the Jewish National Fund.

Nominally, the land owned by the state (80% of Israel's land) and the land owned by the JNF (13% of Israel's land) are to be administered according to different rules appropriate to the values of its respective owners, but apparently no such distinction is made in practice, and all of the 93% of the land overseen by the ILA is administered according to JNF rules. The JNF is not an Israeli institution -- it is a Jewish institution -- and its laws call for it to serve the interests of the Jewish people, not Israeli citizens. Thus, all of the state land in Israel is administered with no regard for the interests of non-Jewish citizens of Israel. This means that Arab Israelis cannot get long-term leases on state land.

The Israeli High Court ruled on March 8, 2000 that it is illegal for state land in Israel to be administered in a discriminatory manner based on religion or nationality. However, this ruling has been ignored -- Israel apparently relies for purposes such as this on a Mandate-era law that provides for ignoring civil law when necessary for 'security' reasons. (I'll make an indirect allusion here to incendiary events in legislative buildings; hope I'm not too vague.)

At this point, I will acknowledge that I am not properly equipped to address the question of discrimination in land use in Israel because I do not speak or read Hebrew -- in the same manner that Yasser Arafat apparently says different things in English and in Arabic, the ILA and the JNF apparently say different things in English and in Hebrew. I cannot, for example, find an English version of the JNF constitution, which allegedly states directly its discriminatory policies. However, there seems to be a markedly different presentation in Hebrew as opposed to in English in the websites of these organizations -- the Hebrew version of the ILA website has about twice as many links as the English version. Probably most of the difference is purely benign, but it is odd. Perhaps someone conversant in Hebrew will offer some translation -- ?

A second aspect of discrimination in Israel is in government spending, which apparently is grossly more favorable to Jews than to Arabs in matters such as education and infrastructure.

A third aspect of discrimination in Israel is in employment. Israel finally made discrimination in employment based on race illegal in 1988, but it seems that the law regarding this is apparently not vigorously enforced.

Underlying all of this is that officially Israel is a 'Jewish state,' and whatever exactly that means, it is hard to imagine that it is a favorable thing for citizens of Israel who are not Jewish. In any case, we can expect people who took the trouble to live in a Jewish state will expect that it will be different somehow from a state that is not a Jewish state. We make look to a Ha'aretz article featured at this site yesterday:

"...why should my grandson have to see a cross when he leaves the house?"

[danholo]

JNF Covenant

[danholo]

...in the same manner that Yasser Arafat apparently says different things in English and in Arabic, the ILA and the JNF apparently say different things in English and in Hebrew.

Unlike Arafat, Israel does not lie. Most Jewish people in the world do not speak Hebrew and there is no reason for Jews to keep anything away from Jews. When the JNF was founded, the founders didn't probably even speak Hebrew at all.
I sure as hell know what the JNF does and it is not "racist". If you think of Jewish nationalism as racist then hell, every damn country is racist!

[Philip]

Originally posted by danholo
[Most Jewish people in the world do not speak Hebrew and there is no reason for Jews to keep anything away from Jews. When the JNF was founded, the founders didn't probably even speak Hebrew at all.

Do you read Hebrew, danholo?

I sure as hell know what the JNF does and it is not "racist". If you think of Jewish nationalism as racist then hell, every damn country is racist!

But we agree that Jewish nationalism, and thus the JNF, do not represent the interests of Israeli Arabs, who are not Jewish, do we not? And so if Israeli state lands are administered according to the precepts of the JNF, then the interests of the non-Jewish citizens of Israel are ignored in administering the government's land. Can we call this 'anti-gentilism' if not racism?

Also, it should be noted that the covenant between the JNF-KKL and the Israeli government is not the rules by which the JNF-KKL operate, which are incorporated by reference in section 4 of the covenant with

The lands of Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael shall, moreover, be administered subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael.

[Miriam]

There is one very simple question behind all these endless debates: would any less "pro-Jewish" course of action have negative consequences for the Jewish population of Israel? If no, then it is worthwhile to discuss it, if yes - well, Israel is not required to commit suicidal acts in the name of high ideals, real or presumed. On the contrary, it is the duty of the government to prevent the destruction of the state.

And while I'm at it, I propose a thread on how to deal with obvious flamers and trolls. Anyone interested?

[Philip]

Ah, there we have it -- any need of the Jewish people in Israel negates any right of anyone else. With this, the expulsion of 600,000 in 1948 is justified, as is the continued, brutal occupation of 2,000,000 taday. There is no recognition of any needs of non-Jews; it is as if they don't exist.

At least you're honest, Miriam, if hateful.

[danholo]

Originally posted by Hisardut

i have... what i saw? - they live like kings, in their 3 story hilltop mansions.

I don't really know about that but some Arabs might live in Cesarea or other "rich" areas.
The point is though, that Israeli Arabs fare as well in Israel as Jews. If you haven't been there, you are speculating. I have been there and they live well, just like every other Israeli.
Philip, you are only speculating that Arabs are "discriminated". You have no solid proof what-so-ever. Go to Israel and see the way every Israeli lives. There are poor Jews and poor non-Jews and there are rich Jews and rich non-Jews. I've been to a Druze village and the living conditions were the same as other villages, big and small. Very hospitable people by the way and good food!
Anyone can move to Tel-Aviv or its suburubs and the living conditions are pretty high. Arabs and other non-Jews live in these areas too! So stop speculating and go to Israel, you'll be amazed of what kind of place it is.
Of course, you have your racists, but so does every other country!

[Mediocrates]

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/institute/docs/DFAIT2002b.html

Perhaps the most singular body in the UN infrastructure in this respect is the UN Commission on Human Rights, a body that issues 30% of all its resolutions against Israel. Indeed, the agenda for the upcoming meeting is heavily swayed from the outset towards a priori condemnation of Israel. Thus two separate agenda items are used every year to attack Israel. Firstly, Israel is the only country specific situation that has an entire agenda item devoted solely to it, Agenda item no. 8. - Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, while the human rights situation of the entire rest of the world is dealt with in Agenda item no. 9 - Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. In addition, Agenda item no. 5 - The right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation - is similarly invoked to attack Israel. Practically all other agenda items can be manipulated to discuss in some fashion, Israel’s alleged crimes, which serves the additional purpose of diverting attention away from some of the world’s most egregious human rights abuses and abusers.

These attacks are particularly ironic given the composition of the 53-member Commission, which includes the world’s chronic human rights violators. Every year Freedom House, an independent think tank, publishes an index measuring global political rights and civil liberties. xlvii An analysis by UN Watch of the rankings of the Commission members shows an overall deterioration on the Freedom House Index ranking this year, with five members - including Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia - rated amongst the most repressive states in the world. xlviii

The outrageous and often bizarre propaganda disseminated at the UNCHR against Israel is therefore all the more contemptible given the disgraceful human right rights records of the majority of Israel’s accusers. It should be recalled that it was at the UNCHR that a Palestinian official perpetrated the vicious and outrageous lie that Israel was poisoning West Bank and Gaza water with the virus causing AIDS, a charge that is but a modern day variation on the age-old antisemitic "well poisoning" canard. This outrageous accusation sits untouched in the official records of the UN to this day. It should be noted that there is a precedent for UN records to be amended. When Arab/Muslim sensibilities were “offended” by the 1997 findings of the Special Rapporteur on Racism that Islamic militants were using the Koran to disparage Jews, the offending section was deleted as an “affront” to Islam. Why is Canada silent on these issues?



Basically what it amounts to is approx 30+% of all UN formal declarations are against Israel. To the exclusion of nearly everything else. There is no point in anyone telling me anything about the UN, so don't bother. Seriously, don't bother - the UN is Nazi Germany with pretty blue helmets.

[Philip]

Unfortunately, Danholo, I would never go to Israel unless I could be sure that the government there would receive absolutely no economic benefit from my visit. So I am limited to second hand information.

Israel Shahak, "Israel's Discriminatory Practices Are Rooted in Jewish Religious Law," Davar, March 15, 1995

On closer inspection it turns out that almost everything the State of Israel does or says in its relations with non-Jews is an effect of such a secularization of religious notions. As an example let me give the recent spontaneous pronouncement by senior officials of the Housing Ministry in justification of their policy of supporting the Jewish settlers who squat in houses that the ministry builds. In such cases the ministry's policy is to spend public money for connecting such houses to the electricity, water and sewage networks. When asked why they do it, the Housing Ministry officials answered that "it was inconceivable to leave the Jews without electricity or sewerage, no matter what they do."

...

It is not difficult to point to Arab villages in Israel (let alone in the occupied territories) whose residents have been left for decades "without electricity or sewerage," often until the present day. It is not difficult to point to the striking contrast between spending tax money for construction of magnificent public buildings in the center of Jewish Gush Etzion (in the West Bank) or Jewish Gush Qatif (in the Gaza Strip) and the dilapidation of Druze villages in Israel which are not being granted budgets for the most essential amenities, even though a large majority of their residents serve in the Israeli army.

Hisardut, would you please give me 1/6% of each of your paychecks and of everything you own?

[Philip]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
the UN is Nazi Germany with pretty blue helmets.

Is it open season for making comparisons with Nazi Germany now?

[danholo]

Philip,

Unfortunately, Danholo, I would never go to Israel unless I could be sure that the government there would receive absolutely no economic benefit from my visit. So I am limited to second hand information.

Your loss. Second hand information and prejudice is not the best to rely your beliefs on. As a tourist, what ever country you go to, the country benefits more or less and of course you would not want to support Israel in any way. It is such a horrible country! (According to your "proof"!)

By the way, there isn't any racism in Jewish law.

[Philip]

How about anti-gentilism? Do you read Hebrew? Are you willing to say that, if it is true that it is the case, it is wrong that state land in Israel is administered without regard for the interests of Israel's non-Jewish citizens? (Indeed, if state land in Israel is administered without regard for the interests of Israel's non-Jewish citizens, how can it be said that non-Jewish Israeli citizens are fully equal in the eyes of the state to Jewish Israeli citizens?)

The one thing I am certain about regarding Israel is that it and its supporters make an extensive and largely successful effort to distort and control the debate regarding Israel/Palestine. I note that even as Israel ignores calls from the UN and the US to rein in its actions in the Occupied Territories, the US Congress has passed a bill authorizing an additional $300 million in aid for Israel, including $100 million for munitions (to replace those that have been used against Palestinians in the OT?). Beyond this, I try to be a skeptical consumer of information; both sides put out plenty of nonsense. Probably more comes from the Palestinian side, but they are less adept at it and most of their lies are easily discounted.

[danholo]

There is no anti-gentilism in Judaism either. It is commanded in the Torah that foreigners (non-Jews in the land of Israel) must be treated as your fellow Jews.

I do read Hebrew. I don't understand much of it though. I read some Japanese too, not that it has anything to do with this.

Since you are so eager in pointing out how racist Jews are toward Gentiles it is proof of your antisemitism. It might not be that bad but I sense unnecessary prejudice and xenophobia towards Jews. Are you acquainted to any Jews?

[Philip]

I am acquainted with many Jews. I consider them to be among the most ethical and civil people I know.

I think you are mistaken about what Torah says about strangers. Deuteronomy 10:19 reads (KJV): "Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Exodus 22:21 reads: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." So, yes, there are rules about treatment of foreigners.

However, it is completely false that "foreigners must be treated as your fellow Jews." As a direct example, Deuteronomy 23:20 reads: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon ususry; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury..." This clearly and directly calls for different treatment of 'strangers' (non-Jews) and 'brothers' (Jews). I think there are other examples.

But when we get to the Talmud (and, not reading Hebrew, I am again reduced to relying on secondary sources, and at this point just a single secondary source), things run wild. Maimonides himself wrote

"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow'17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion

It is sometimes claimed that the harsh attitudes of the Talmud against non-Jews is directed at the heathens of earlier times, and not at non-Jews who accept the Noahide Laws (e.g., Christians and Moslems). But this is apparently not so:

The consensus of halakhic authorities is that the term 'Gentiles' in the above doctrine [on not saving the lives of Gentiles] refers to all non-Jews. A lone voice of dissent is that of R. Moses Rivkes, author of a minor commentary on the Shulhan Arukh, who writes:

Our sages only said this about heathens, who in their day worshipped idols and did not believe in the Jewish Exodus from Egypt or in the creation of the world ex nihilo. But the Gentiles in whose [protective] shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled and among whom we are scattered do believe in the creation of the world ex nihilo and in the Exodus and in several principles of our own religion and they pray to the Creator of heaven and earth ... Not only is there no interdiction against helping them, but we are even obliged to pray for their safety.

This passage, dating from the second half of the 17th century, is a favorite quote of apologetic scholars. Actually, it does not go nearly as far as the apologetics pretend, for it advocates removing the ban on saving a Gentile's life, rather than making it mandatory as in the case of a Jew; and even this liberality extends only to Christians and Muslims but not the majority of human beings. Rather, what it does show is that there was a way in which the harsh doctrine of the Halakhah could have been progressively liberalized. But as a matter of fact the majority of later halakhic authorities, far from extending Rivkes' leniency to other human groups, have rejected it altogether.

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion

And, with regard to your accusations of antisemitism, I note that I have asked you if you would say that it is wrong for state land in Israel to be administered without regard for the interests of Israel's non-Jewish citizens -- even without acknowledging that in fact this is done -- and you have not done so. With regard to you, Danholo, I would discard as irrelevant any evidence I find of historical Jewish rules that are discriminatory against non-Jews, if you would just say that such rules are wrong -- including the practice of discriminatory use of state land in Israel -- and that you don't accept them. I make that offer to anyone. You claim that I approach you with prejudice; and yet you decline to disavow the beliefs that I am allegedly prejudicial in suggesting that Judaism might prescribe. What am I to think?

[danholo]

I do not accept "discriminatory" laws. On the other hand there are none in Israel.

I am amazed that you are aquainted with many Jews, however I don't understand why you are learning Judaism by Israel Shahak.
I've looked up stuff on him and he is mostly quoted on Neo-Nazi sites, Radio Islam and other slanderous web sites against Israel and Jews. I would say that this Shahak is a weird man, who lies in fact. Lies a lot.

Pikuach nefesh is one of the most important rules in Judaism.
Pikuach nefesh is saving of human life. It goes before ANY rule. If it is Yom Kippur, a Jew must not hesitate to do anything he can to save anothers life Jew or Gentile. So Israel Shahak lies. I would advise you to read about Judaism somewhere else.