Editor’s Foreword

Have Times Indeed Changed?

Immediately following the 1999 elections, signs started to appear regarding possible changes in the government’s policy toward Arab citizens. Some of these were:

– A number of newly appointed ministers declared a change of priorities;

– The new Minister of Science, Culture and Sports, Matan Vilnai, appointed as

coordinator for Arab citizens’ affairs, began to systematically study the many aspects

of the subject, and contacted the Arab political leadership;

– Mohammad Zeidan, Chair of the Monitoring Committee, was invited to join the

ministers’ committee for Arab citizens’ affairs; and his deputy, Shauki Khatib, was

invited to join the ministries’ general directors’ committee for Arab citizens’ affairs;

– The Ministry of Industry and Commerce began projects intended for Arab citizens;

– The Ministry of Education began changing the budgets and their allocation;

– The Ministry of the Interior transferred lands for industry from the municipal

jurisdiction of Rosh Ha’ayin to that of Kfar Kasim;

– The Ministry of Agriculture decided to pay drought compensation to Bedouin farmers,

for the first time since the establishment of the State.

Ostensibly these are harbingers of changing times, but when the matter is more closely and carefully scrutinized, a difficult and gray reality is uncovered. The announcement of substantial improvement is therefore premature.

In general, it can be said that in the past year government authorities did not substantially change their attitude towards Arab citizens, and needless to say, the anticipated change with regard to their rightful portion of state resources did not materialize.

“There’s no budget for it”

In research conducted at various government ministries prior to writing this report, we often encountered polite answers and a friendly attitude towards the matter. It appears that there is a factor that goes beyond the goodwill of those involved – and it is the budget: “What can we do?” says a senior official, anonymously. “Our budget is limited, and unless it is supplemented – I believe that we won’t be able to increase services for Arab citizens”… Problems of budgetary constraints were also cited by Justice Dan Arbel, director of the court system, with respect to the court presence of interpreters.

In this regard, the President of the Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, wrote:

“Budgetary considerations are of fundamental importance. Here, too, the principle of

equality must be upheld, there is no justification for discrimination on the basis that its

prevention may be costly. Equality costs money… If the lawmakers have provided

certain services for group A, they must not discriminate against group B, which is now

entitled – based on the constitutional principle of equality – to comparable services.

The excuse that providing similar services to group B is too expensive, does stand up

under the scrutiny of constitutional law.”

Barak, Legal Commentary (1994 vol. C) pg. 528

Not only is this excuse unacceptable under constitutional scrutiny, it is contrary to common sense. It is peculiar to hear a senior official or minister, with past and present accomplishments, who commands a budget in the billions, listing the difficulties of implementing “these lovely principles”. When his excuses are shown to be without merit, he makes a hopeless gesture with his hands and complains about his difficulties with the Treasury Office. The decision to divide resources equally is, in principle, entirely his to make, and is influenced by the philosophy under which he operates. The budget is a given quantity, regardless of its size, intended for the citizens. The question of its use and allocation reflects the minister’s priorities and power.

The issue of the life of the majority and minority in a single civic framework is not unique to Israel, and much can be learned on this topic from what happens elsewhere in the world. There, too, life is not always tranquil, but the subject matter is confronted head on. In Israel, a Commission for Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities was recently established as per the Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. Perhaps we may be cautiously optimistic that this is a step in the diretion of equality for all citizens.

During the 1990s, the Supreme Court challenged the political system on more than one occasion. On the subject of equality, the Supreme Court apparently represents the link between the State of Israel and the norms embraced by the western world two to three decades ago. I am not sure that the Supreme Court’s precise function should be to serve as such a link, but in this context it represents the default option for the “Adala” Organization, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), and their colleagues, who act as a voice for Arab citizens.

The various officials must initiate active study of the subject, in light of the progressive laws and procedures on the allotment of state resources that exist in other countries like Belgium, Canada, and others. The lawmakers and those who put the laws into practice must first acknowledge the current situation. This matter should not be left to the judicial authorities. The litany of pretexts used to ignore the problems must cease, as must the belief that these decisions can be postponed until the next political term. Those in power must approach the problem boldly, without waiting for “pressure from above” (i.e. the government) and “pressure from below” (i.e. the citizens), examining it as is, without fear.

Affirmative Action

“Whether caused by discriminatory laws which existed in the past and are no longer valid, or whether through faulty perceptions which have become engrained in society, a gap is evident in the equality of opportunity, which increases the chances of the stronger groups and decreases those of the weaker ones. Balance can be effected on this gap by affirmative action. It is based on the precept that certain members in society are in an inferior position and providing equal opportunity will no longer be sufficient to close the gap. Providing equal opportunity under these circumstances will only fulfill a formal theory of equality but will not afford the underprivileged groups a viable chance to receive their portion of society’s resources. Long-term implementation of formal equality only, increases the danger that human nature and character will result in the perpetuation of discrimination. Remedying the inequities of the past and attaining actual equality can, therefore, be accomplished only by giving preference to the weaker group.”

[Judge Eliahu Matza, Supreme Court Decision 453/94, Israeli Women’s Lobby Versus the Government, Judgment 48 (5)529]

The foundation of affirmative action is in the understanding of the inferior position of the disadvantaged group. We have known the facts for many years, but that is not sufficient. There is no immediate connection between being aware of the situation and acknowledging the problem and resolving it. In order to remedy the situation, it would appear that it is necessary to advance to an additional phase. This phase involves taking responsibility for the situation having arisen, not in the personal and immediate sense but rather collectively, historically. This is the majority’s responsibility, in every sense of the word, both in theory and in practice.

A re-examination of the majority’s relationship with the minority, carried out responsibly and seriously, both on an individual and institutional level, may threaten existing perceptions, and bring about substantial change. Perhaps for that reason, it is so difficult to embrace a policy of affirmative action. In addition, accepting responsibility may be accompanied by feelings of guilt, for those representing the ruling majority, from the minister in charge, through the ministry officials, and the political and public leadership down to the general public, and even this writer. Transforming the feelings of guilt into acceptance of responsibility for the situation and its improvement, is an essential step on the path to establishing a policy of affirmative action.

The Jewish-Arab Relationship: A Fragile or A Stable Civic Fabric?

Recently, negative coments made by Commander Alik Ron, chief of the northern region of the Israeli police, concerning the character of the struggle for equality by Arab citizens and their leader, were reported by the news media. In the section on the Ministry of Domestic Security, mention is made of the difference in police behavior towards Arab demonstrators and Jewish demonstrators. In this regard, the police represent a link in the relationship between Arab and Jewish citizens. Every time the commander speaks negatively about Arab citizens, there are those who are quick to defend the “fragile relations” which exist between the Arab citizens and the State, and between the Arabs and the Jews.

There is nothing quite as frail as a fragile relationship. The frailty of the relationship causes the status quo to be maintained, both between Arab citizens and the State, and Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. The current situation is that of inequality, which most certainly does not promote stability in the relationship between the citizen groups.

A fragile relationship is unstable and undependable. The time has come to weave a diversified civic fabric, which is not in danger of being torn with every democratic tug. This fabric’s nature should be equal and balanced, even if its threads differ in color and character one from the other. The legitimate position that each occupies will make the fabric stable and durable.

Shalom (Shuli) Dichter