Court throws out school discrimination suit as Israel tests nationality law
An Israeli court’s decision against Arab children demanding to be reimbursed for traveling to a distant Arabic-speaking school illustrates the dangerous implications of the 2018 nationality law.
Israel’s 2018 nationality law anchored the Jewish character of the state of Israel. It was first introduced by the Likud and by a few Knesset members of centrist Kadima in 2011, but many legislators were against it, protesting that it discriminated against Israel’s Arab and Druze citizens and also Palestinians. Two years after its adoption, the law continues to evoke bitter debate. In a recent case concerning Arab-Israeli children living in the Jewish-majority town of Carmiel in the Galilee, a judge ruled recently on a petition calling for reimbursing travel to an Arabic-speaking school that the "Jewish character" of Carmiel must be preserved.
The Carmiel case illustrates the fears expressed by the law's opponents. They predicted that it would formalize inequality and discrimination against non-Jewish minorities, including in matters of housing and places of residence.
During the year-long legislative process, the original language of the law was toned down. It no longer said that preference would be given to the creation and support of developments for Jews, since Israel is the home of the Jewish people. The final approved version says, “The state views the development of Jewish settlement [not a reference to the West Bank outposts] as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”
Adam Shinar of the Interdisciplinary Institute in Herzliya concluded that this section of the law is “not only symbolic, providing a basis for discrimination." He went on, "The value of settlement could already be found in the Declaration of Independence and in documents dating from even before the establishment of the State of Israel. What it says here is that only Jewish settlement has a value (discriminating against all the non-Jewish communities, such as the Druze). Does this mean that the state can only establish new settlements for Jews? Can it limit financial incentives to settle in a specific area to Jews only? That’s a big question. The priority is promoting settlement by one group at the expense of other groups. In a state with limited resources, promotion of one thing will come at the expense of others.”
