The discriminatory laws that do not discriminate

[shira]

2. (Abstract & Summary of Study) "Adalah vs. the State of Israel"

...The findings of this report, presented in detail in the summary chapter, clearly
demonstrate that for a variety of reasons, the claims promoted by Adalah are, in essence,
fundamentally groundless:

Written by Lilach Danzig. Edited by Adi Arbel.

1. The overwhelming majority of the laws featured in the list (53 out of 57) do not
even relate to the citizens' ethnic origins and those that do, are designed to
prevent and avoid discrimination. For example, the Law and Administration
Ordinance (1948) that defines the country's official rest days, and the Law for
Using the Hebrew Date, both explicitly exclude institutions and authorities that
serve non-Jewish populations for whom the law provides for definitions and
procedures appropriate for their specific needs.

2. In 21 cases, Adalah's claims of discrimination stem from the organization's
extremist stance that rejects the nature of Israel as a nation state in general and as
the nation state of of the Jewish people in particular. For example, the Yad BenZvi
Law is defined as a discriminatory law because of the institution's objective of
promoting Zionist ideals.

3. 18 of the laws reflect customs in other Western democracies whose democratic
character no one would disparage. For example, according to Adalah, the flag
constitutes a discriminatory law. Needless to say, this unfounded reasoning would
mean that any country, the flag of which bears a cross or crescent discriminates
against its non-Christian or non-Muslim minorities. A more in-depth comparison
between the laws frequently found that Israeli legislation is actually characterized
by a higher degree of tolerance for its national minorities.

4. In at least 13 cases, a large disparity exists between the explicit content of the laws
and the biased (and sometimes warped) interpretation accorded to them by
Adalah. In some instances the claimed discrimination is difficult to identify. For
example, the Golan Heights Law is considered discriminatory due to its objective
of "according a legal basis for the implementation of Israeli law on the territory of
the Golan Heights conquered by Israel". It would seem that only Adalah is
capable of explaining a law intended to grant equal rights to all residents of the
Golan Heights as being discriminatory.

5. 8 laws are intended to protect the security of all Israeli citizens regardless of
religion, race or gender. Included in these laws are a number of legislative
amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law and the Prisons Ordinance aimed at
assisting the security forces in preventing terror attacks. These laws adversely
affect only those clearly suspected of engaging in terror activity without
distinguishing between Jews and Arabs. In effect, this very claim is woefully
discriminatory because it presumes that Arab citizens of Israel are generally hostile
and prone to terror activities.

6. 7 of the laws do not even relate to Israel's Arab citizens but rather to those noncitizen
individuals towards whom the State is not obligated to act with equality.
The absurdity in Adalah's approach can be demonstrated by the example of the
Trading with the Enemy Act (a law evolving from British Mandatory law) being
included in the list of discriminatory laws because "the countries declared as such
(Iran, Syria and Lebanon) are Arab and/or Muslim states". Presumably the law
could be remedied by adding other, non-Muslim and non-Arab enemy states.

7. In the case of some of the laws mentioned in the list, the supposed discrimination
in question actually affected the Jewish majority and not the Arab minority. For
example, Clause 7a of the Basic Law: the Knesset, the objective of which is to
prevent the candidacy of political parties acting against the existence of the State
of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, has been implemented only against
Jewish parties on grounds of anti-democratic objectives. Similarly, amendments
to the Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law are indicted by Adalah for
discriminating in favor of Jewish citizens, but these citizens are the ones
specifically obligated to serve three years of military service for sub-minimum
compensation and living conditions, thus postponing their university education
and professional advancement. It is the Arab citizen who enjoys the option of
exemption from military service altogether or alternatively, of volunteering for
national civil service which does not place them in harms way but which
nevertheless affords them the same benefits awarded to discharged soldiers.

8. In a number of cases, Adalah misuses objective crime statistics to claim
discrimination. According to this logic, if members of the Arab sector of the
population are the main criminal violators of a certain law, then that particular
law perforce is deemed racist. This could apply to laws against theft of property,
against sex crimes or against driving through red lights. The constructive and
proper solution, to disproportionate violations is not annulment of necessary laws,
of course, but rather, educating and encouraging observance of the law among all
sectors of the population-without distinction or favoritism.

...cont'd.

http://izs.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Adalah.vs_.Israel-2.pdf