http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3429070,00.html
Our apartheid state
Three racist,
discriminatory decisions
undermine Israel's democratic character
Yossi Paritzky Published:
07.24.07, 16:08 / Israel Opinion
One of the clearest rules that distinguishes
a democratic state from a non-democratic state
is the principle of equality when it comes to
rights and obligations.
In a democratic country,
all citizens regardless of race, religious,
gender or origin are entitled to equality
when it comes to national assets,
services and resources,
and all citizens regardless of race,
religion, gender or origin are equally
obligated by national duties.
For example,
in a democratic country everyone must pay taxes
(although at different rates, of course,)
and everyone must obey the law.
On the other hand,
every citizen in a democratic state
is entitled to enjoy individual freedoms.
One is entitled to
purchase assets in the country,
marry anyone he or she wish,
work wherever one wants,
study whatever one wishes,
and express himself or
herself as they wish..
In short,
equality is the basic tenet of a
liberal western democracy and
without it a country is not democratic
in practice although possibly democratic
by law.
Last week,
in a series of three decisions that
are separate but connected through
a stench of racism and discrimination,
Israel entered the dismal pantheon of
non-democratic states.
This past Wednesday,
Israel decided to be like
apartheid-era South Africa,
and some will say even worse
countries that no longer exist.
Let's start with obligations.
In a democratic country that
has mandatory military service,
all citizens must serve with
no exception
(aside from those who are unable
to for health reasons or similar
grounds.)
A person should not be getting
an exemption from service based
on one's religion or race.
And there,
with a slight hand gesture,
the Knesset decided to "extend"
the legislation known as the Tal Law -
which initially was meant to be valid
for five transitory years only,
in order to examine the possibility
of integrating the strictly Orthodox
into the IDF.
This was a blatantly anti-democratic
arrangement and even those who drafted
it reemphasized that it was merely a
temporary agreement for five years only,
yet around here the temporary becomes
permanent,
particularly when we're talking
about discrimination and racism.
'Tainted sect'
The second apartheid decision
has to do with the apparent
"good news" that those who are
unable to wed as a result of
religious limitations would be
able to marry each other now.
What a disgusting expression that is.
In a democratic country,
a couple is allowed to marry
however it wishes and the State is
not at all allowed to interfere
in this choice.
It must allow any man to
marry the woman he chooses
(and in some countries
same-sex marriages are also allowed,)
because the State has no interest,
and must not have one,
in an individual's happiness
and in the person one chooses
to spend their life with.
But around here the situation is different.
The division is based on religions and sects,
and a member of one religion is not allowed
to marry someone of a different religion.
This has led to the emergence of a
situation whereby an Israeli whose
mother isn't Jewish,
therefore making him non-Jewish
according to Jewish law,
was unable to marry in
Israel at all.
Yet instead of allowing such person
or any other person to marry as they wish,
the government decided to establish a new sect.
Now,
a tainted sect has been created
of people who can only marry
among themselves.
And so,
an IDF officer whose last name
is Rabinovich or even Cohen,
who was born to a Jewish father
but not a Jewish mother,
would not be able to marry the
woman who served in the army
with him because she,
lo and behold,
is a kosher Jew while he is "tainted."
The culmination of this chutzpa is
the fact that the current justice
minister makes pretenses to call
this racist arrangement a "breakthrough."
Anti-Zionist forces come together
The third racist decision was the
one that banned Arab citizens of
Israel from purchasing national land.
Well, not all land,
but only a part of it -
Jewish National Fund land.
Imagine the French government banning
Jews from purchasing land in Paris and
its vicinity.
Imagine that the United States would
ban Jews from purchasing land in New
England,
because that's the cradle
of American culture.
What would we say then?
Yet when it comes to Arabs we keep silent,
because we have been accustomed to think
that in Israel there are citizens of
various ranks and not everyone is
entitled to the same rights.
The highlight of this absurd situation
is that racist discourse takes place in
the Israeli Knesset,
yet nobody sees their own racism.
Arab Knesset members,
who justifiably protested the
terrible discrimination against them,
voted in favor of the Tal Law,
which allows discrimination among Jews.
Instead of Arab Knesset members backing
the enlistment of Arab Israelis to the
army and playing an appropriate role
when it comes to duties and rights,
they preserve the racism.
And so,
all the anti-Zionist
forces joined together -
the Arabs,
strictly Orthodox
and settlers -
to bring Israel to a
place of chaos and darkness,
blatant racism and screaming
discrimination.
All of them joined forces in
order to bring us to a state
of apartheid.
History has amused us by bringing
these decisions at the beginning
of the month of Av.
Anyone who will be studying the
destruction of the Third Temple,
that is, the collapse of the
Zionist enterprise and of the
State of Israel,
would certainly emphasize the
above-mentioned disastrous
decisions.
History played another trick by
bringing these decisions a day
after Jabotinsky Day was marked.
Ze'ev Jabotinsky was a full-fledged atheist,
secular, and Zionist who wrote that Arabs
and Jews will be playing in this country
together.
Had he been resurrected and seen
those who pretend to be his successors
pass these despicable and contemptible
decisions, he would certainly wish to die.
The writer is a former Shinui cabinet minister
.
|
