It is no secret that the state of Israel is balanced precariously between two competing ideologies. On one side, many believe that Israel’s primary purpose is to be a Jewish state and protect the interests of Jewish people against unjust persecution. On the other hand, Israel is a light among the nations when it comes to democracy, particularly given its location in the primarily autocratic Middle East. This is a tough line for Israel to walk, as growing Arab populations will demand to be represented properly in Knesset and in society at large. In order to understand how this conflict plays out internally, we will examine The New Israel Fund, a group dedicated to civil rights and equality for all Israeli citizens.
The NIF is a funding organization that supports a number of civil liberties groups, some of whom are calling for an end to Israel’s definition as a Jewish state: “One third of NIF annual funding goes to political groups active in the conflict under the label of “civil rights”; such as Adalah, Mossawa, the Arab Human Rights Association (HRA), Hamoked and others whose agendas focus on seeking to end the status of Israel as a Jewish state” (source). The idea that Israel could be defined more as a secular democracy than a Jewish state is frightening to many people, especially those who believe in the Jewish historical and religious claim to the land. What the existence and success of the NIF highlights, then, is the immense internal social debate that Israelis are having about the conflict between Jewish law and democratic law.
The group as a whole has lofty goals that it achieves through funding various forms of activism: “At any given time, the NIF family is: Mobilizing public support for legislative and legal remedies or for the enforcement of existing laws, policies and procedures that promote equality and justice; Safeguarding the legal rights of disadvantaged populations; Advocating for democratic values from the soccer stadium to the grade school classroom. Our Fellowship programs have created the human rights bar in Israel and continue to provide well-trained attorneys and social change activists – the next generation of Israeli leadership” (source).
Of particular interest is the group’s concentration on Arab-Israelis. The NIF blatantly points to the Israeli government’s failure towards its own non-Jewish citizens: “Israel’s 1.37 million Arab citizens vote, pay taxes and speak Hebrew, yet suffer pervasive discrimination, unequal allocation of resources and violation of their legal rights. Housing, education, and income all substantially lag that of the Jewish majority” (source). While at university, I did research in a class to better understand the education gap in Israel, and I found many instances of socioeconomic and racial discrimination inherent in the Israeli system. The Ashkenazi Jews have by far the most ‘privileged’ social position in Israel, and the state’s attention to other groups (Sephardi Jews, Arab-Israelis, and other periphery groups) significantly lags behind.
In many ways, the situation of Arab-Israelis is comparable to the struggle of minorities in the United States. Here, many organize themselves as non-profit groups, and these organizations tend to have a significant impact on laws and policies. It is enlightening to know that there are groups in Israel fighting for the same kind of barrier-breaking between classes and ethnic groups. For now, I have to refrain from passing judgment on the group and its motives; instead, we should understand that NIL’s success signals that there is a significant social debate about the very definition of “Israeli.”
About the author
