ACTING AGAINST EQUALITY: THE JNF LAND CONTROVERSY
Wherever they have lived, Jews in the modern era have been in the forefront of the struggle for minority rights. In Canada the names of Bora Laskin, David Lewis, and Irwin Cotler have been prominent in the battles not only against anti-Semitism but against racism in general. In the United States we have only to think of the high profile roles of Jews in the struggle for civil rights. For me the iconic image of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel striding along side of Martin Luther King is an indelible memory. We, as a people, have adhered to the belief that the measure of a democracy is in its treatment of its minorities. It is a belief that has served us well. “For Jews,” said Rabbi David Forman, “the building of a society based on a prophetic vision of social justice, equality and humanity is predicated on a universal understanding of a Jewish moral code of conduct that has been refined and elaborated in the perspective of both the historical experiences and the literary tradition of the Jewish people.”
Given this perspective, I rejoiced in 2004 when Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the state and its affiliated agencies, the Israel Land Commission and the Jewish National Fund, would be prohibited from discriminating against non-Jews in sales of lands. This meant, for example, that members of Israel’s large minority of Arab citizens could not be denied the right to purchase JNF lands. A court led, by then, Chief Justice Aharon Barak ruled that “the state’s obligation to act with equality extends to all of its activities. It therefore also extends to the allocation of state lands.” This was a decision, then, which gave the lie to those who condemned Israel as undemocratic, racist, or even an apartheid state. We could be proud.
It was then, with some dismay, that I received the recent news that the Knesset had passed, in first reading, but by a large majority, a bill that would reverse this decision and restrict the allocation of JNF lands only to Jewish citizens. Proponents of the legislation argued that over decades, Jewish people had deposited their coins in the little blue boxes of the JNF to buy land for Jews in Israel. It would thus be breaking a sacred trust with generations of givers to allow non-Jewish citizens to purchase these lands. One might have some sympathy for this argument, if it was true, but the largest share of JNF lands came not from the blue pushkies but rather from the so—called “vacated lands”, the Arab owned lands taken by the state, following the 1948 War of Independence. These lands, over two million dunam were added to the JNF purchased land of under a million dunam. In other words, Arab citizens of Israel will be denied access to lands which, for the most part, were Arab lands assumed by Israel not through purchase but by conquest.
There have been some voices raised against the new legislation. A spokesman for the leftist Meretz party declared that the “the Knesset is giving an excellent excuse for whoever would represent “Israel as an apartheid state which must be destroyed.” For its part, in a strong editorial, against the bill Haaretz mourned for the rule of law when In an instant, a racist Knesset can overturn [Supreme Court] rulings.” Professor Amnon Rubinstein, recognized as the “father of constitutional law” in Israel warns that if the law is passed that Israel’s international standing will be severely damaged and moreover that “it will contradict the basic constitutional principles of the state, especially the Basic Law on Human Dignity.” He has urged Prime Minister Olmert to amend the legislation and confine the discrimination on land purchases to the JNF purchased lands. Rubinstein is wise to consider international reactions. Israel can ill afford to disregard the sentiments of her allies.
One of the strongest arguments against this discrimination against Arab-Israeli citizens should be – security. The security fence now stands between most of Israel’s people and terrorist threats from the West Bank. Yet, within Israel approximately one-fifth of the population is an Arab citizenry which, for the most part, lives in peace with its fellow citizens. On many fronts, they are already discriminated against in education, social services, housing, etc. Israel should be careful not to further alienate a growing proportion of her own citizens, with the potential to create an enemy within.
My own hope, as always, is for Israel to be “a light unto the nations”. Israel’s democratic aspirations must not be undercut by a narrow and mean spirited nationalism or racism. We will hope that in the days to come the Knesset will reconsider this piece of odious legislation and not give ammunition to those who would condemn the entire Zionist enterprise as a species of racism.
