Log in

View Full Version : Israel moves to legalize segregated Jewish-only communities



freepalestine
15th December 2010, 19:43
Israel moves to legalize segregated Jewish-only communities
Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 15 December 2010

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/3/101215-jews-only.jpg New legislation seeks to legalize Jewish-only communities in Israel. (ActiveStills (http://www.activestills.org))
The pretty two-story home with a red-tiled roof built by Adel and Iman Kaadan looks no different from the rows of other houses in Katzir, a small hilltop community in northern Israel close to the occupied West Bank.

But, unlike the other residents of Katzir, the Kaadans moved into their dream home this month only after a 12-year battle through the Israeli courts.

The small victory for the Kaadans, who belong to Israel's Palestinian Arab minority, dealt a big blow to a state policy that for decades has reserved most of the country's land for Jews.

Katzir is one of 695 so-called "cooperative associations," communities mostly established since Israel's creation in 1948, whose chief purpose is to bar non-Jews from residency.

In October, the Israeli parliament moved to enshrine in law the right of these associations, comprising nearly 70 percent of all communities in Israel, to accept only Jews.

The Constitution, Law and Justice Committee approved a private members' bill that will uphold the right of the communities' admissions committees to continue excluding Palestinian Arab citizens, who make up one-fifth of the population. The bill is expected to pass its final reading in the coming weeks.

Commentators have compared the legislation with South Africa's notorious apartheid laws such as the Group Areas Act. A leading jurist, Mordechai Kremnitzer, of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said the bill gave off the "foul odor of racism."

The legislation, both its supporters and opponents are agreed, is a rearguard action to prevent the possibility that other Arab citizens might be inspired to follow the Kaadans' example.

Israel Hasson, of the centrist Kadima party, who was among the bill's formulators, said it reflected "the state's commitment to the realization of the Zionist vision" in Israel. That vision is embodied in a decades-old "Judaization" program to settle as many Jews as possible in the heavily Arab-populated north.

Suhad Bishara, a lawyer with the Adalah legal center for the Arab minority, said that the long-standing practice of using admissions committees to weed out applications from Arab citizens was being given legal standing for the first time.

"This legislation makes clear in very blunt fashion that the thrust of policy in Israel is towards maintaining segregation in housing between Jewish and Arab citizens," she said.

The question of control over land, Bishara said, was felt especially keenly by the Arab minority, because the state had nationalized 93 percent of all territory inside its recognized boundaries.

Cooperative associations, which are limited to no more than 500 families each, have jurisdiction over most of the country's habitable land and are regarded by the authorities as a bulwark against an Arab takeover, she said.

Arab citizens, meanwhile, are largely restricted to living in 124 towns and villages, and control 2.5 percent of Israel's territory.

Planning and building laws confine the development and expansion of Arab communities, leading to overcrowding. Tens of thousands of Arab families, forced to build in non-zoned areas, live in homes under demolition orders.

Kaadan, 54, a hospital nurse, said he had wanted to move to Katzir to improve his family's quality of life. Baqa al-Gharbiyya, an Arab town ten kilometers from Katzir where they previously lived, was densely populated and lacked public services, while the local schools for his five children were underfunded and crumbling.

Typically, Arab municipalities receive only one third of the budget of Jewish communities.

Kaadan said he had applied to Katzir when he learned that plots of land there for house-building were heavily subsidized by the state, selling for a fifth of the price demanded in Baqa al-Gharbiyya.

The family's legal fight to win a place in Katzir has been arduous. It took five years for the high court to rule on the community's decision in 1995 to reject the Kaadans on the grounds that they were Arab.

Making "one of the most difficult decisions in my life," Aharon Barak, the court's president, ordered Katzir's admissions committee to consider the family's application, warning that it could not reject them because of their ethnicity.

Katzir, therefore, imposed a new criterion for admission -- "social suitability" -- that the Kaadans also failed. It was clear to everyone, Kaadan said, that "suitability" referred to the fact that they were not Jews.

When the Kaadans appealed to the court again, the Lands Authority, a state body that manages territory in Israel, relented and sold the family a plot in 2007.

However, the case has continued to reverberate.

Other exclusive Jewish communities in the Galilee sought their own solution to barring the entry of Arab families after Ahmed and Fatina Zbeidat, from the Arab town of Sakhnin, applied to the cooperative association of Rakafet in the Misgav region.

Rakafet's admissions committee ruled in 2006 that the Zbeidats were unsuitable: Fatina was too "individualistic," while her husband lacked "knowledge of sophisticated interpersonal relations." Like the Kaadans, the Zbeidats have appealed to the high court.

Several Jewish communities near Rakafet hastily changed their bylaws last summer to include a loyalty oath. Typical was Manof's, which requires applicants to share "the values of the Zionist movement, Jewish heritage, settlement of the Land of Israel ... and observance of Jewish holidays."

Bishara, who represents the Zbeidats, said the couple was seeking a ruling against the use of admissions committees in the allocation of land and housing. The judges ordered the government to justify the practice at a hearing next month.

The new legislation, known as the Admissions Committee Bill, is designed to preempt any ruling by the court.

Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group, said it would petition the high court to strike down the bill if, as expected, it becomes law in the next few weeks.

The liberal Haaretz newspaper called the bill an "outrageous" attempt to preserve "Jewish purity" in communities such as Katzir and Rakafet.

But the right-wing Jerusalem Post newspaper backed the legislation, saying Israeli Jews "should have the right to live in a community where they are not threatened by intermarriage or by becoming a cultural or religious minority."

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0745327540/theelectronic-20) (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1848130317/theelectronic-20) (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net (http://www.jkcook.net/).


A version of this article originally appeared in The National (http://www.thenational.ae/), published in Abu Dhabi.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11676.shtml

blake 3:17
16th December 2010, 22:44
Passing it on. Thanks.

Rottenfruit
17th December 2010, 11:59
Wow just wow, Israel is on its way becoming like South Africa Apartheid and the South during Jim Crow, :cursing: :( Sickining

Die Rote Fahne
17th December 2010, 13:13
Wow just wow, Israel is on its way becoming like South Africa Apartheid and the South during Jim Crow, :cursing: :( Sickining

Israel has been an apartheid state before this was even considered.

Raúl Duke
17th December 2010, 18:22
disgusting

the last donut of the night
22nd December 2010, 04:46
only answer is revolution

RojoBandera
22nd December 2010, 06:00
It's really ironic that the main reason Israel was established is because of the shit they suffered through in Germany, and then the Israelis turn around and pull this.

9
22nd December 2010, 09:57
It's really ironic that the main reason Israel was established is because of the shit they suffered through in Germany, and then the Israelis turn around and pull this.

this isn't true.

the last donut of the night
22nd December 2010, 15:40
It's really ironic that the main reason Israel was established is because of the shit they suffered through in Germany, and then the Israelis turn around and pull this.

The plans for Israel were drawn up long before the Holocaust.

Milk Sheikh
22nd December 2010, 15:59
The Arabs have weak leadership and need a strong visionary like Saddam Hussein to save them from this repeated humiliation. But of course, Saddam is a bad guy because the bourgeois press says so.:rolleyes:

Raúl Duke
22nd December 2010, 16:07
Saddam is a bad guy because the bourgeois press says so.

Saddam is dead so it doesn't matter anymore.

Nolan
22nd December 2010, 20:46
The Arabs have weak leadership and need a strong visionary like Saddam Hussein to save them from this repeated humiliation. But of course, Saddam is a bad guy because the bourgeois press says so.:rolleyes:

The problem is that Saddam wasn't a communist. And I'm dumbstruck as to why you're not restricted.

Os Cangaceiros
22nd December 2010, 22:58
The problem is that Saddam wasn't a communist. And I'm dumbstruck as to why you're not restricted.

Me too. I would think that apologists for genocidal nationalists would be, but who knows anymore.

Milk Sheikh
23rd December 2010, 02:50
Me too. I would think that apologists for genocidal nationalists would be, but who knows anymore.

You mean like Stalinists? They seem to be in the majority here.:rolleyes: Besides, nationalism of the oppressed is entirely different from the nationalism of the oppressor and is therefore a progressive cause. For instance, Palestinian nationalism is different Israeli nationalism. The former is a fight for freedom, whereas the latter is imperialism.

Milk Sheikh
23rd December 2010, 02:59
The problem is that Saddam wasn't a communist. And I'm dumbstruck as to why you're not restricted.

He was at least anti-imperialist and progressive on some level. Maybe, he wasn't a communist in your perfect (online) world but we're talking about the real world with real problems.

p.s.
Anarchists may wonder why Trots aren't restricted; after all, their leader was responsible for the Kronstadt massacre.

progressive_lefty
23rd December 2010, 03:04
How far to the right will Israel continually move? This reinforces the notion of its Apartheid State accusation.

Jazzratt
23rd December 2010, 13:46
He was at least anti-imperialist and progressive on some level. Maybe, he wasn't a communist in your perfect (online) world but we're talking about the real world with real problems. Those pesky kurds can be a real problem :rolleyes:

I also love the idea that a dude that accepted armaments and money from the US is a glorious beacon of progressive anti-imperialism.

Milk Sheikh
23rd December 2010, 14:01
Those pesky kurds can be a real problem :rolleyes:

I also love the idea that a dude that accepted armaments and money from the US is a glorious beacon of progressive anti-imperialism.

That was in the past; later on, he did turn against imperialism. Besides, Iraq was a progressive, developed country under Saddam and there was no religious fundamentalism. There's no denying this: Iraq was never a seat of religious extremism, unlike many other countries.

Also if one shouldn't be a Saddamist due to Kurds, how come being a Trot is okay (despite what happened in Kronstadt)? Point is, nobody is perfect; all leaders have done bad things, made bad decisions costing lives. Must we reject all of them?

Pavlov's House Party
23rd December 2010, 16:48
That was in the past; later on, he did turn against imperialism. Besides, Iraq was a progressive, developed country under Saddam and there was no religious fundamentalism. There's no denying this: Iraq was never a seat of religious extremism, unlike many other countries.

How did he turn against imperialism? IIRC, Saddam invaded a neutral country to seize its oil supplies, that doesn't sound imperialist does it?:rolleyes: And so what if Iraq's despot wasn't a religious extremist like his neighbors? That's like choosing your favorite cancer.


Also if one shouldn't be a Saddamist due to Kurds, how come being a Trot is okay (despite what happened in Kronstadt)? Point is, nobody is perfect; all leaders have done bad things, made bad decisions costing lives. Must we reject all of them?

The context is completely different. Not that I want to start a tendancy war, but the Kronstadt insurrection was suppressed because the Bolshevik government was in the middle of a civil war, fighting back White armies and their imperialist supporters and could not deal with their demands at the time and because the insurrectionists happened to be in an extremely strategically significant position. In contrast, the Iraqi government in 1983 implemented anti-Kurdish that provoked resistance, so the Iraqi army bombed and shot around 110,000 Kurds (mostly civilians at that). Again in 1987, Saddam's government continued its murderous campaign against the Kurds in the first documented use of chemical weapons by a government against its own civilians, destroyed hundreds of Kurdish villages and forced the displaced into concentration camps. Finally, in 1988 the Iraqi army shelled the Kurdish city of Halabja with a mixture of mustard gas and hydrogen cyanide, killing 4,000 immediately, and injuring or killing 7,000 to 10,000 due to complications caused by the chemicals.

How you can defend such a reactionary position without being banned or restricted is beyond my belief.

Raúl Duke
23rd December 2010, 16:57
Besides, nationalism of the oppressed is entirely different from the nationalism of the oppressor and is therefore a progressive cause. For instance, Palestinian nationalism is different Israeli nationalism. The former is a fight for freedom, whereas the latter is imperialism.

No one here is denying that (or even talking about it, at least not directly; so I don't see how this is an argument for anything)


he did turn against imperialism.

ahemm...

didn't he engage in imperialism against Iran (I'm certain of this) and Kuwait (I'm not so sure)?


how come being a Trot is okay (despite what happened in Kronstadt)

Well, some Trots are fine with the event, saying that it was necessary or saying that the Kronstadt mutineers are monarchy supporters, counter-revolutionary, or just "reactionary counter-revolutionary" anarchists.

Are you fine with the killing of Kurds? Do you see it as a necessity?

Finally, there's no ideology called "saddamism" per se. Saddam was a alleged follower of Ba'ath ideology/party which is some strain of Arab nationalism or Arab socialism.

Syria, to my knowledge, is still controlled by a Ba'ath party or was.

Nolan
23rd December 2010, 17:29
You mean like Stalinists? They seem to be in the majority here.:rolleyes: Besides, nationalism of the oppressed is entirely different from the nationalism of the oppressor and is therefore a progressive cause. For instance, Palestinian nationalism is different Israeli nationalism. The former is a fight for freedom, whereas the latter is imperialism.

Wow, you are clueless on multiple levels. Let's take this one step at a time:

1. Stalin was a genocidal nationalist: This is discussed elsewhere, but in short this doesn't hold water on either count.

2. "Stalinists" make up the majority of the forum: Yes, that's why all the admins are stalinists.

3. Saddams government was an anti-imperialist, national liberationist government: Firstly, Saddam's government came to power with the support of imperialism, so to say it was anti-imperialist is nonsense. Exterminating the Kurds isn't very "national liberationist" in anyone's book, among other things he did.

What happened in Iraq was the west losing control of a vassal. Saddam did not come to power resisting imperialism.

Nolan
23rd December 2010, 17:36
He was at least anti-imperialist and progressive on some level.

Which is a laughable notion.


Maybe, he wasn't a communist in your perfect (online) world but we're talking about the real world with real problems. Or maybe he wasn't a communist at all, and we realize tinpot nationalists who come to power with the blessing of imperialism, go to war for imperialism, and commit genocide against other ethnic groups are reactionary.

Stop being so oblivious.


in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.


p.s.
Anarchists may wonder why Trots aren't restricted; after all, their leader was responsible for the Kronstadt massacre.Kronstadt wasn't a genocide, dumbass.