Shas' Un-Democratic Housing

Israel’s changing demographics are always a touchy subject, with some Israeli politicians arguing that higher Arab birth-rates will result in Jews becoming a minority, while some researchers contend that Arab and Jewish birth rates are actually very similar.

Regardless of whether the Jewish, Arab or other populations are on the rise, these people still need to find a place to sleep at night, and some far-right Israeli politicians are trying to make that more difficult for non-Jews and easier for the ultra-orthodox.

Radical Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef recently instructed followers that selling their homes or land to non-Jews is against Jewish law.  This position clearly dicatates that Jews are able to receive property while their non-Jewish counterparts should be forbidden from having the same opportunity to own property. In the United States there are laws that protect minorities, individuals with disabilities and other traditionally discriminated people from being prevented housing opportunities. In the United States we view that policy as supporting every individual’s equal right to succeed regardless of their race or creed, a staple of our democratic character.

Rabbi Ovadia clearly has a different take on democracy and how minorities should be treated. It has not been uncommon in history for Jews to have been the victim of property ownership refusal, and Ovadia’s comments, coupled with his often radical policies, suggest he has no respect for non-Jews, human rights and equal opportunity.

Similarly, a Shas councilman in Tel Aviv is proposing a measure to encourage religious Jews to move to city neighborhoods largely occupied by African refugees. This policy, coupled with Rabbi Ovadia’s posture, further suggests that the ultra-orthodox community is heralded by this far-right party as more deserving of housing than Israel’s other residents.

Unfortunately, Shas’ land ownership position is not starkly different than the official Israeli policy where the Jewish National Fund owns over 90 percent of the land, which it then leases out to the Jewish population. Arabs that own property, own private land not administered by the fund, although there is a very limited number of dunams not owned by the private fund.

This position has been characterized as un-democratic because non-Jews do not have the same access to land rights as Jews. Defenders of the policy contend that Israel is a Jewish state and therefore this policy is in-line with its character to avoid non-Jews buying up all the land and kicking the Jews out of their own country. But critics say the policy is another indication that non-Jews are second-rate citizens in Israel.

The state’s land ownership policy has some merit to ensure Israel’s Jewish identity in the future and because non-Jews do have access to some land to purchase. Non-Jews are also, though, sequestered to a small portion of the land and therefore are not provided an opportunity to substantial property ownership based purely on their creed.

Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy, a status it holds because citizens who are minorities have broadly the same rights as Israelis. For example, Arab Muslims who are citizens can and do own property and receive benefits. Moreover, they also often fulfill their obligations to the state, with Bedouins serving as some of the best trackers in the Israeli Defense Force.

Some radicals in Israel are proposing to strip Israel of its democratic characteristics in exchange for promoting the interests of the religious right. Unfortunately, the religious right’s power is growing, with the religious parties occupying approximately two dozen seats in the Israeli Knesset. And that’s without accounting for Yisrael Beitenu and the Likud party, both of which often push the religious agenda.

Israelis and their leaders should stand up to these radical ideologues who intend to strip Israel of its legitimate claim to being democratic in exchange for pandering to the religious right. Similarly, the state’s leaders should reevaluate the land ownership policy to continue to foster democracy in a country whose true democratic character is constantly being attacked, often with legitimate ammunition.