Israel Among Nations

Democracies face legal and moral dilemmas in their attempt to balance between securing national interests and protecting personal liberties at the same time. At the IZS, we seek to address this challenge by gaining a better understanding of the application of legal norms and practices from a global perspective.  

Oct 29
Love0

Collective Rights of Minorities in Democratic Countries – A Comparative Survey

By Israel Among Nations, Recent, Rights, Duties and Law

This study conducted a comparative survey on the collective rights awarded to national, ethnic or religious minorities in democratic nation states. Five minority groups were selected for the survey which aimed to examine the policy adopted regarding recognition of their rights as a collective group in the fields of language, education and religion. The survey also incorporated findings of a previous survey on this topic conducted by the Knesset Research and Information Center in 2017.

The objective of this paper is to enable a discussion of the collective rights enjoyed by the Israeli-Arab minority in the State of Israel that is based on empiric facts and figures. A broad understanding of the accepted practice in other countries around the world will allow us to conduct a more in-depth examination of this issue in Israel and to determine the degree to which the State of Israel conforms to international norms.

The main findings of the Institute for Zionist Strategies’ comparative survey and of the Knesset study on this topic are presented below in three categories: rights in the fields of language, education and religious:

Language Rights

  • 10 of the 12 countries surveyed maintain statutes that obligate the state to provide official documents, public services and access to the court system in the minority population’s language: Denmark (only the courts), Hungary, Greece (only the courts), Macedonia (partial rights), Norway, Spain (except the courts), Finland, and Canada; Belgium and the UK – only for the resident of Wallonia and Wales, respectively.
  • In 7 of the 12 countries surveyed, speakers of minority languages enjoy special rights in a district or region with a high concentration of minority populations, such as signs in the minority language, public services in their language and others: Italy, Hungary, Macedonia, Norway, and Finland; Belgium and the UK – only for the resident of Wallonia and Wales, respectively.
  • In 5 of the 12 countries surveyed, the minority population’s language has been declared an official local language in districts with a high concentration of minority populations: Italy, India, and Spain; Belgium and the UK – only for the resident of Wallonia and Wales, respectively.
  • In 6 of the 12 countries surveyed, the minority population’s language is an official state language without necessarily enjoying an equal legal status as that of the majority: Belgium, UK, Macedonia, Norway, Finland, and Canada.
  • In 2 of the 12 countries surveyed, a special committee has been established to promote the minority population’s language: UK and Norway.

 

Education Rights

  • Public education in the minority population’s language or bilingual education is officially guaranteed in all the countries surveyed.
  • In practice, in 10 of the 12 countries surveyed, the minority population makes widespread use of educational institutions in their own language or of bi-lingual education: Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Greece, Macedonia, Norway, Finland, Spain, Canada.
  • In 3 of the 12 countries surveyed, the minority population pupils are also legally obligated to learn the language of the majority together with their own language studied at the minority language schools: Italy, Macedonia, Finland.

Religious Rights

  • One of the two countries surveyed provide financial support for, and official recognition of, the minority population’s religion: Greece.
  • In 1 of the 2 countries surveyed, there is a secular public domain and a neutral official attitude: India.

Conclusions and Discussion Relating to the Arab Minority in Israel

Language Rights

  • In Israel, as in 10 of the 12 countries surveyed, the state is legally obligated to provide official documents, public services, and access to the court system in Arabic. This obligation was legislated during the British Mandate and has been subsequently expanded to include street and road signs.
  • In Israel, as in 5 of the 12 countries surveyed, Arabic speakers do not enjoy special rights in regional councils with a relatively large Arab population. Moreover, Arabic is not recognized as an official local language in those areas with a relatively large Arab population – a situation similar to that in 7 of the 12 countries surveyed.
  • Arabic was initially recognized as an official language in Israel, alongside Arabic and English, in keeping with Mandatory legislation. However, this status is no longer valid due to a number of court rulings and legislative acts. Although Arabic is not an official language, it has a special status and takes precedence over other minority languages in Israel.
  • No special committee for promoting Arabic has been established in Israel – a situation similar to that in 10 of the 12 countries surveyed.

 

Education Rights

  • As in all the other countries surveyed, public education in Arabic is guaranteed in Israel. Furthermore, as in 10 of the 12 countries surveyed, in practice, there is widespread use of Arabic educational institutions among the Arab population.
  • As in 3 of the 12 countries surveyed, all minority population pupils in Israel are obligated to learn Hebrew as well as Arabic (from Grade 3).

Religious Rights

  • The public domain in Israel is not entirely religiously neutral and features certain Jewish characteristics such as the cessation of public services on Shabbat and the official state emblems which are of a Jewish nature. At the same time however, there is official state financial support for and recognition of Islam.

The above findings reveal that the State of Israel meets international standards with regards to collective rights awarded to the Arab minority, especially in the fields of language and edication.  

To the full research

Aug 23
Love0

Democracy in Dilemma: Means for Fighting Terror

By Israel Among Nations No Comments
Amit Eisenman, one of the Institute’s researchers, has recently focused on the question of the legitimacy of using singular measures of punishment and deterrence to combat a singular crime – terror. In keeping with our best tradition, we chose to examine the issue by means of a comparative study with the aim of refuting the claim that targeted preventative killings, demolitions of houses and revocation of citizenship are unreasonable means in a democratic regime.
The study examines the use of these three practices in the fight against terror in the member countries of the G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and the US. This study aims to enhance the perspective of decision-makers in Israel and to demonstrate how different countries contend with the similar challenges of fighting terror they share. The main findings are presented below:
Regarding targeted preventative killings, 4 of the 6 countries examined maintain armed UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) intended for use in this faculty. In practice, such killings have been employed by 3 of these countries in recent years (those with larger armed forces and broader scope of operations).
Although this form of house demolition is a procedure uniquely instigated by the State of Israel, a person convicted of terrorism in France also forfeits his assets to the state.
Revocation of citizenship is the most commonly employed means of those studied: all the above countries employed this practice and apart from Canada, which has foregone its use, revocation of citizenship is still implemented by the other countries. In Italy, a terrorist’s citizenship may be revoked even if he remains stateless as a result.

to the full research…

Jan 10
Love0

Adalah versus the Bedouins Case Study: A Comparative Analysis of the Immunization Policy in Israel

By Israel Among Nations

Is a law which stipulates that immunizations are a prerequisite for receiving child benefit payments acceptable in a democratic society? This question has been the subject of an argument about Israeli immunization policy in recent years.

The main opposition to the law comes from Adalah – the Arab-Israeli human rights organization – which appealed to the High Court of Justice against the law. According to Adalah, the law discriminates against the Bedouin and other Arab communities who do not vaccinate themselves due to lack of access to medical services. Moreover, there are those who claim that the law limits parents’ autonomy to decide what is best for their children and to object to vaccinations on religious or ideological grounds.

The study investigated these claims in depth and examined whether the Israeli policy is consistent with the principles of a democratic society. The study presents, among others, a historical survey of the development of immunizations and related laws, the different motives for objecting to immunizations, and a comparison between the Israeli immunization policy and that of 23 countries included in the OECD. Among the countries surveyed are the US, Australia, Germany, Turkey, Sweden, and many others. Read More

Jun 20
Love1

National Symbols in Democratic Nations

By Israel Among Nations No Comments

This study, conducted in conjunction with the ‘National Vision’ movement, surveys a large number of democratic nation-states and shows the connection between their national anthem, flag and emblem, and the nationality of their founding community. The study proves that the attempts to present Israel as an apartheid state, are wholly unfounded.

We thank the team that conducted the study: Noa Lazimi (you can listen to Noa’s interview with Michael Miro here – [Hebrew]), Almog Turgeman, Omer Arica and Adi Arbel. An article about the study can be read here (Hebrew).

For the full study

Apr 30
Love1

A Comparative Study: Flag, Emblem and Anthem in Democratic Nation States

By Israel Among Nations No Comments

Written by: Almog Turgeman, Editor: Noa Lazimi and Adi Arbel, Research Assistance: Omer Aricha

One of the common claims raised against the State of Israel, in various contexts, is that its national symbols – the flag, emblem and anthem – possess a discriminatory nature vis-à-vis the minorities living in Israel and specifically, the Arab minority. The particularly Jewish characteristics present in the national anthem, flag and official emblem arouse the objection of certain sectors of the Israeli and of organizations such as ‘Adalah’ (The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) that present themselves as concerned and striving for minority rights in Israel. The ‘Adalah’ organization surpassed itself and even defined the “Flag and Emblem Law”, adopted by the Knesset in 1949 and expanded in 2004 to include the national anthem, as discriminatory.

In an attempt to resolve this issue, we decided to conduct a study comparing the situation in Israel to that in countries with similar regimes and characteristics – nation states that advocate the principles of democracy. To that end, the study referred to below examined the use of national emblems in 32 democratic developed countries, members of the OECD, similar to Israel. The comparison was made with regards to the national flags, anthems and emblems of these countries.

The findings reveal an unequivocal picture: The overwhelming majority of the countries examined make use of national emblems that express the religious, ethnic or national heritage of its founders.
Some of the main findings are summarized below:

  • 30 of 32 countries are not homogeneous with regards to religion i.e. the dominant religious group does not comprise more than 90% of the population. Only 13% of the countries examined are ethnically homogeneous.
  • In 28 of 32 countries, the national anthem includes words that bear a religious, national or ethnic nature.
  • In 26 of 32 countries, the national emblem contains a religious or national affinity. In 11 cases, the emblem contains a cross or a crescent.
  • In 25 of the 32 countries, the national flag includes religious elements affiliated with the founder’s nationality, religion or historical homeland. In 11 cases, the flag contains a cross or a crescent.

These findings clearly prove that the State of Israel is not exceptional in its selection of national symbols. In practice, Israel’s use of symbols drawn from Jewish history and heritage constitutes an expression of a long-standing universal tradition devoid of any basis for the claim of discrimination or exclusion of the minorities living in Israel.

For the complete study…

Jan 03
Love0

Incentives for Service

By Israel Among Nations, Rights, Duties and Law No Comments

By Dr. Yoaz Hendel and Nicolas Touboul

For several years discussions have been held about different propositions for government resolutions and legislation to improve the benefits granted to citizens who have served in the army or the civilian national service. These proposals include exemption from taxes, preferences for acceptance to student dorms in institutes for higher education, and preferences or benefits relating to allocation of land for housing. In their essence, the proposals entail the basic proposition that it is proper and just-and non-discriminatory- to provide public benefits in return for past contributions to the society and State. The benefits would provide preference in hiring, in wages, and in various state services offered.

On the one hand, the supporters of these propositions feel that the current situation discriminates against those who have dedicated years of their lives to the State. The current level of remuneration shows disregard and demeans the service. It is also manifestly unfair and discriminatory to fail to compensate those who were mandated to serve while others were not. Critics of the proposals claim that rewarding army service and national service discriminates against the Arab and Chareidi populations who are exempt from service. Compensation for service should be made during service and not afterwards, they argue.

This comparative analysis establishes that post-service benefits are common in the Western world. Most of the democratic countries which were examined maintain some system of benefits for those who protect the country within an army framework. In terms of the types of benefits, differences could be found in the determination of who benefits (soldiers, veterans, their families) and in the form of benefit (employment, education, and various other benefits). Read More

Font Resize
Contrast