The
Apartheid Laws in Israel
The Art of the
Obfuscatory FormulationExcerpts from an article by Uzi
Ornan,
published in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, 17 May 1991
(Hebrew)
It is impossible to turn one's back
on reality and deny that the State of Israel is not, likewise, an
Apartheid state, and that as a result of this, Israeli democracy -
which all its leaders and political pundits swear by - is being
perverted, if not destroyed. This Apartheid has been entrenched in a
system of laws, regulations and practices which govern the operation
of state institutions. What characterizes most of those
discriminatory laws that have been legislated in various Knesset is
that on the surface, they do not appear to be discriminatory.
However, a more in-depth analysis of some of the basic ones quickly
reveals the extent to which they discriminate between "Jews" and
"non-Jews". By studying them one cannot fail to reach a conclusion,
which cannot but be embarrassing to many of us: namely, that Israel
is an Apartheid state, and the Apartheid not only manifests itself
socially, but that it is also embedded in the legal system. The
following is devoted to a few of these laws.
The 1952 Law of Entry into Israel was
apparently legislated simply to regulate entry into the country.
However, all its clauses, save the one making it obligatory to enter
by way of an official border control point, are intended to make a
clear distinction between foreign citizens who are Jewish and those
who are not. Yet the words "Jew" and "non-Jew" do not appear. So it
is, for instance, that the law stipulates that whoever "does not hold
an immigration visa or immigration certificate" can be immediately
deported by the minister of the Interior, or, can be denied a visa at
any time. As for the explanation and definition of who qualifies for
an immigration visa, one must seek the answer in another law, the Law
of Return. The answer is: Jews.
However, the authority vested in the
minister of the Interior to deny entry to foreign citizens if there
is reason to suspect they may harm the public is only applicable to
non-Jews. The minister of the Interior does not have the authority to
deny any Jew - even if he's a scoundrel of the first order who can be
counted on to do harm - the right to settle in Israel. The reason:
Jews do not need permits to settle in Israel....Jews arriving in
Israel from abroad are almost immediately given all the rights and
privileges that Israeli Jews enjoy....Furthermore, they immediately
acquire the right to vote in elections and to be elected to the
Knesset - even if they do not speak a word of Hebrew. While the
minister of the Interior has the authority - albeit, authority which
cannot be exercised without great difficulties - to deny "immigration
visas" to Jews, once a Jew enters the country, the minister of
Interior cannot do anything about it, and does not even have the
authority to withdraw residence permits from undesirables. In regard
to non-Jews, the situation is quite different: the minister of the
Interior can withdraw their permits even if they have been living
here for years. We have witnessed how swindlers and common criminals
have succeeded in receiving Israeli citizenship, not to mention those
who even managed to get themselves elected to the Knesset. It wasn't
the Law of Return that allowed them to do so, it was the law
governing entry to Israel, which in turn is based on the Citizenship
laws of 1952.
The Citizenship Laws of 1952 are a
pinnacle in the annals of the art of obfuscation. Even though the
word "Jew" is not mentioned at all in these laws, it is, in its
entirety, based on the distinction between "Jews" and "non-Jews".
This is one of the pillars of the Israel Apartheid regime, alongside
a plethora of other laws, regulations and practices, for "Jews" and
"non-Jews". They include: the educational system; the regulations of
the Israel Lands Authority (which sees to maintaining segregation on
the ground); and the religious marriage laws, which do not exist in
conjunction with civil marriage laws.
Like in every state, a foreign
citizen who wishes to become a citizen of Israel can do so, and the
regulations governing his acquisition of citizenship are similar to
those which exist in many other countries. The basic condition is
that candidates must have resided in Israel for a number of years.
Likewise, before citizenship is granted, the candidate must pledge
his allegiance to the State of Israel. In contrast, Jews are not
required to swear a pledge of allegiance to the State of Israel. So
it is that a Satmar Hassid, who has the utmost contempt for the
existence of the state, and perhaps even translates this into action,
can immediately become a citizen, with the right to vote in Knesset
elections.... Moreover, only ["Jews"] have the right to
retain their former citizenship even after becoming Israeli citizens,
while "non-Jews" are obliged to renounce it before becoming Israeli
citizens.
The obfuscation does not end here.
Take for instance the regulations governing the "joint authority of
the Israel government and the Jewish Agency". These regulations are
discussed as though they were applicable to all Israeli citizens. But
when one reads them through, it quickly becomes apparent that rights
granted to "returning residents" are meant solely for Jews: those who
are not Jews have to pay full duty on all the articles they transport
from the place of residence abroad, and are not granted any housing
or education benefits upon returning to the country, after, perhaps,
a few years of study abroad....
Blatant discrimination against
non-Jews can also be found in other laws dealing with the acquisition
of property, government support for young couples, educational
curricula, and government expenditure for schools, to cite just a few
examples. The routine means for enforcing discrimination is the ID
card, which everyone is obliged to carry at all times. ID cards list
"nationality", which can be Jewish, Arab, Druze, Circassian,
Samaritan, Kara'ite, or foreign. When a person presents his ID card
to a policeman, a security official, or to a clerk at a government
office whose services he requires, they can know which "sector" he
belongs to and treat him accordingly, or, refer him to those who are
responsible for dealing with his "sector". Up to now all the attempts
to force the minister of the Interior to also accept the entry of
"Israeli" nationality have failed. Those who have attempted to do so
have received a letter from the ministry of the Interior. While the
letterhead is one of the "State of Israel", the letter states that
"it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality". By the way,
every person has the right to demand that the nationality entry in
their ID remain blank, and the ministry of the Interior must honor
this demand.
Another law, the 1986 Military Service Law, which superficially does
not appear to be discriminatory in any way, is, by dint of the wily
formula used in conjunction with the "nationality" entry in the
census, a destructive tool of discrimination and oppression. The term
"draftee" which appears therein applies to every Israeli citizen or
permanent resident, as does the term "candidate for military
conscription". In other words, a "draftee" - i.e. , someone who has
not yet reported to the draft board - is a universal term and equally
applicable to all citizens. How is it then, that this law has become
a major tool for implementing discriminatory policies ? The answer
is: by the way of a simple and at first glance innocent ploy. It
appears in section three, which deals with how citizens are to be
called to report for military service: a special person is appointed
to be "the enumerator"; his job is to call draftees to register with
the draft board and he "is authorized to order draftees and
candidates for conscription to report [to the draft board]".
The law uses the term "authorized", and in so doing leaves open the
possibility for the enumerator to abstain from calling on "draftees"
to report. And it is clear that those who the enumerator does not
call do not have to report, and are therefore exempt from army
service. In practice it is much simpler: those whose IDs list them as
belonging to the "Arab sector" are not called by the enumerator.
Why are Arab teenagers not called to serve in the army ? The two
reasons usually given are nothing more than a pretext. The "moral"
reasons runs as follows: How can an Arab be asked to fight against
his brother ? This ignores something we have witnessed more than
once, namely, that Arabs kill other Arabs - whether in terrorist
attacks or on the battlefield...The same could apply to Israeli
citizens, be they Arab of other non-Jews, if they were to feel that
their induction into the Israeli Army was justified. But this will
only come about when they feel themselves equal citizens, and that
the state of Israel is protecting them, and respecting their rights,
treating them no differently than other citizens....It would be
pointless to waste much time on the second reason - "for reasons or
security". Both Jews and non-Jews have been exposed as spies and
traitors. Indeed, there is ample reason to believe that the ones who
were the most dangerous were Jews. In the same way that being a "Jew"
does not vouchsafe automatic loyalty to Israel, the label "Arab" is,
likewise, not a means of identifying those ready to commit treason or
engage in espionage.
Once a citizen has not been called on
to report by the enumerator, discrimination and persecution follow.
Such is the lot of those [of non-Jews] who do not serve in
the army. Many places of employment and residence become off limits,
as the demands of employment and regulations governing the leasing of
homes or lands in the hands of various public and governmental bodies
stipulate that candidates must be "draftees". So it is, for instance,
that Mohammed Borkan did not succeed in remaining in his flat in the
Old City of Jerusalem. One of the basic conditions for being allowed
to lease the flats (which were expropriated for the "public good") is
that the leasee must be a "draftee". Take note: the term "draftee"
also applies to yeshiva students [students of Jewish
theology] who have not served in the army. The enumerator does
call on them to report, and that is enough for them to be included in
the category of those who have privileges, even if their contact with
the army ends at this point.
One can list many more Apartheid laws, but we will stop at this
point....The Apartheid mindset has always been part and parcel of
Judaism. Take for example the age of Ezra and Nehemia (ca. 450-430
BC). All the restrictions and rules incorporated into the Jewish
religion were intended to preserve the purity of the strain against
contamination from the Gentiles....Apartheid is so powerful a mindset
in this society, that its existence and preservation is championed by
all the members of the "Zionist parties", including those who believe
themselves to be in the vanguard of the struggle for socialism, peace
and equal rights. We have yet to hear them speak out against the
existence of two categories of citizens, or in favor of a
comprehensive Israeli school system, or in favor of the abolition of
restrictions on where Jews and Arabs are allowed to live. One gets
the impression that their energetic struggle for the establishment of
a Palestinian state and their vocal opposition to Jewish
"settlements" on the other side of the green line is based on their
desire to preserve a "Jewish state", something which allows and, in
the eyes of many of them, even justifies the retention of
discriminatory laws, and the privileges granted to the Jews.
Everyone who supports democracy and is concerned about the future of
Israel, should place the abolition of the Apartheid regime that
exists here at the top of his list of priorities. And not only
leftists, but also those with liberal views on the right. Those who
say we must be ready to "give up a lot for the sake of peace" should
to so in good faith: abolish Israel's Apartheid laws and grant
non-Jewish resident (sic) the ability to identify fully with the
state.
