For over
forty years, the Canadian Government has knowingly and willingly subsidized
racism and Apartheid and a Canadian cover-up to a war crime by
granting and maintaining charitable status for the
Racist
Jewish National Fund (“JNF”)
Racism
isn’t charitable!
Land theft
isn’t charitable!
A Canadian
cover-up to a war crime isn’t charitable!
Revoke the charitable status of the Racist Jewish National Fund !
Complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission concerning
the Canadian Government’s subsidizing
of JNF’s racial discrimination:
a)
Part 1 of 3, filed December 24, 2007
Reference:
Saba, Ronald vs Canada Revenue Agency (Government of
I am hereby filing a complaint against the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) for violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-021 by subsidizing racial discrimination through granting and maintaining charitable status for the Jewish National Fund ("JNF"), an organization whose bylaws and operations have been deemed to represent racial discrimination by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1998) and the Attorney General of Israel (2005). The following facts are relevant to this complaint:
1)
The following excerpt is Article 2.1 of the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as it appears on the Government
of Canada Canadian Heritage webpage:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/docs/cerd-eng.cfm
International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Adopted by General Assembly
resolution 2106(XX) of December 21, 1965
Entry into force January 4, 1969,
in accordance with Article 19
Article 2
1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake
to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating
racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all
races, and, to this end:
(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or
practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or
institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions,
national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend
or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;
(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to
review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or
nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or
perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;
(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an
end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by
circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;
(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where
appropriate, integrationist multi-racial organizations and movements and other
means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which
tends to strengthen racial division.
2) According to the Canadian
Human Rights Act, discriminatory practices include the following:
Discriminatory Practices
Denial of good, service, facility or
accommodation
5. It is a discriminatory practice in
the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily
available to the general public
(a) to deny,
or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any
individual, or
(b) to
differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,
on a prohibited
ground of discrimination.
1976-77, c. 33, s. 5.
Denial of commercial premises or
residential accommodation
6. It is a discriminatory practice in
the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation
(a) to deny
occupancy of such premises or accommodation to any individual, or
(b) to
differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,
on a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
1976-77, c. 33, s. 6.
3) In 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights indicated that the JNF practices an
"institutionalized form of discrimination", as stated in the
following excerpt from their report:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/df35bf5b5ee94d01802566d5003dd6cd?Opendocument
"11. The Committee notes with
grave concern that the Status Law of 1952 authorizes the World Zionist
Organization/Jewish Agency and its subsidiaries including the Jewish National
Fund to control most of the land in
4) In 2005, the Attorney General
of
http://www.forward.com/articles/3112/
"Even more devastating was the
decision two months ago by
here are two other related articles
http://www.forward.com/articles/2854/
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11080
5) On September 2, 2003, Canada Revenue
Agency Policy Statement CPS-21 concerning Registering Charities that Promote
Racial Equality became effective. The following is taken from the
Government of
"This policy focuses on organizations whose purpose is to educate about,
or to promote racial equality in
The current policy states that programs qualifying under the 'advancement of
education' category can undertake such activities outside
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-021-eng.html
Summary
By subsidizing racial discrimination through granting and maintaining charitable status for the JNF, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-021.
The JNF's discrimination is
directed towards members of the Arab race.
I am an Arab-Canadian. I am a
member of the Arab race.
By subsidizing the JNF’s discrimination towards Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is discriminating against me and members of my race.
I and many of my fellow Canadians are fully aware that the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is subsidizing discrimination against Arabs. The knowledge that my government is willing to do that demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians.
By subsidizing discrimination against Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is sending a signal to Canadians and indeed to the whole world that the Government of Canada supports discrimination against me and all other Arab-Canadians. That fact demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians.
In order to halt this discrimination against me and all other Arab Canadians, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) must immediately revoke the charitable status of the JNF.
b)
Part 2 of 3, filed April 4, 2008
April 4, 2008
Ms. Ginette Bellefeuille
Early Resolution Analyst
Canadian Human Rights Commission
425 de Maisonneuve
West,
Ref :
Saba, Ronald vs Canada Revenue Agency (Government of
Dear Ms. Bellefeuille,
This morning I received a letter from Mr. Stéphane Brisson of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which indicated that I could write a submission of up to ten pages addressed to your attention. This letter is my submission.
This submission consists of nine pages. I have signed and numbered each page.
As shown below, it is well known amongst human rights organizations that the Jewish National Fund practices racial discrimination. Indeed this fact is often repeated in the Israeli and international press.
1)
In March of 2008, Human Rights Watch published a report titled “Off the
Map, Land and Housing Rights Violations in
http://hrw.org/reports/2008/iopt0308/
from page
3:
IV. Discrimination in Land Allocation and Access
Land Ownership and Distribution in
Unlike most industrialized countries, which have widespread private land ownership
and a free
real estate market, in
This land is owned either directly by the state or by quasi-governmental bodies that the
state has
authorized to develop the land, such as the Development Authority (DA)54 and
the Jewish National Fund (JNF).55 A governmental body, the
Administration (ILA), administers all of this land.56 This gives the government an
exceptionally decisive role in land allocation, land-use planning, and development.
According to
land to individuals or institutions for periods of 49 or 98 years.57
The JNF has a specific mandate to develop land for and lease land only to Jews. Thus
the 13
percent of land in
Palestinian Arab citizens,58 and when the ILA tenders leases for land owned by the
JNF, it does so only to Jews—either Israeli citizens or Jews from the Diaspora.59 This
arrangement makes the state directly complicit in overt discrimination against Arab
citizens in land allocation and use, and Israeli NGOs are currently challenging this
practice in
members—12 representing government ministries and 10 representing the JNF, giving
the JNF a hugely influential role in Israeli land policies generally and the overall
allocation of state lands.61
Notwithstanding the prohibition on sale of state land, the law allows the state to
transfer directly owned state land to the JNF.62 The JNF acquired approximately 78
percent of its land holdings from the state between 1949 and 1953,63 much of it the
“absentee property.”64
While by law Arab citizens can lease land owned directly by the state and not
transferred to the JNF, in practice numerous obstacles limit Arab citizens’ access to
land, as described below. According to Adalah, a human rights organization
representing
the Arab minority in
80 percent of the land controlled by the state.65
Bedouins’ lack of access to land
occurs in a wider context affecting
Palestinian Arab population generally. Not only has the state confiscated pre-1948
Palestinian Arab lands, it has not allowed Arab citizens to establish new towns; nor
has it approved adequate expansion of existing ones. Since 1948 the state has
authorized the creation of about 1,000 Jewish communities, but not a single Arab
community except for the seven government-planned townships and the nine new or
newly recognized villages, which concentrate the Bedouin in limited areas in the
requests to
Arab local authorities.67 While Arab citizens of
percent of the country’s population, just 2.5 percent of the land of the state is under
the
jurisdiction of Arab local governments.68 In the northern
municipalities have jurisdiction over 1.9 percent of the land, while Bedouin citizens
comprise 25.2
percent of the population in that area.69"
2) The Al-Haq
human rights organisation has special consultative
status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Please
find below an excerpt from pages 67 and 68 of Al-Haq's
94 page report which discusses the Canadian Government's complicity in the
Jewish National Fund's illegal "
http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/Where%20Villages%20Stood.pdf
“The displacement of the
Palestinian population of Latroun, which the JNF of Canada is
helping to perpetuate through its sponsorship of Ayalon/Canada
Park is a clearly illegal activity. Similarly, the
acquisition of land for the exclusive benefit of a particular racial, national,
ethnic or religious group seeking to consolidate its territorial and
demographic majority within a particular territory by the KKL-JNF (from which
the JNF of Canada cannot be viewed separately) amounts to discriminatory and
partisan political activity.
On the basis, therefore, of the JNF’s
continuing relationship with the State of Israel and the JNF of Canada’s breach
of the regulations governing its actions under domestic Canadian law, it is
submitted that the charitable status of the JNF of Canada ought to be
rescinded. The planting of forests and development of recreational parks over
ruins of destroyed villages in occupied territory is synonymous less with
charitable activities and more with complicity in violations of basic
principles of public international law, international human rights law and
international humanitarian law.
Despite appeals to this end, however, the Canadian authorities have
failed to amend the status of the JNF. Thus, by indirectly supporting the
establishment, maintenance and expansion of a recreational park on occupied
territory, Canada, far from fulfilling its positive obligation to put an end to
the illegal situation created by Israel in this part of the OPT, is responsible
for breaching its duty of non-recognition and is complicit in the creation of
facts which consolidate the illegal situation and prejudice the realisation of the Palestinian right to
self-determination.
In addition to
3) On June 29, 2006 Ha’aretz, Israel’s leading newspaper published the article “A ridiculous war against the gaps” by Meron Benvenisti, Israeli scholar and previous deputy mayor of Jerusalem. The following is an excerpt from the article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=732551
“It's very surprising since it's well known that the "national institutions" - the Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund - primarily exist to enable institutional discrimination based on ethnicity while clearing the state from accusations that it deviates from universal norms common to liberal democracies.”
4) The racist nature of the Jewish National Fund and the negative impact it has on Canadian society was highlighted recently in an article by four Professors from the University of Western Ontario in an article titled “JNF Award Incompatible with Diversity & Tolerance” which appeared in the March 2008 CAUT/ACPPU Bulletin published by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. This article is reproduced on the following four pages.
http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?articleid=402
CAUT/ACPPU Bulletin Online
Vol 55 | No 3 | March 2008
JNF Award Incompatible with Diversity & Tolerance |
Universities must not endorse organizations that act
contrary to the institution's mission, say
By Michael Lynk, Rebecca Coulter,
David Heap & Randa Farah
The
Let us state at the outset that we are all supportive of a campus, a community
and a world that is tolerant, embraces diversity and advances justice and social
equity. Many organizations do so, and are worthy of support and endorsement.
The JNF is not one of them. It promotes exclusion, dispossession and
institutionalized discrimination, a point which has been made by the United
Nations and by human rights organizations representing Palestinian Arabs in
Four points need to be made.
First, the JNF holds 13 per cent of the land in
As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe
observes, the JNF also acts as the “custodian” responsible for guarding the “Jewishness” of other lands in
Much of the land originally belonged to externally displaced Palestinians who
were expelled or fled under threat in 1948 and had their properties
expropriated by
A series of legislative measures allows the JNF and the ILA to act as agents
for a disguised state policy of dispossession. In the words of Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in
These discriminatory practices — reserving in law almost all of the nation’s
lands for the Jewish majority, to the detriment of the dispossessed Palestinian
Arab citizens of
In July 2007, the Israeli Knesset passed the first reading of the Jewish
National Fund Bill, which seeks to undo the 2000 Supreme Court ruling. The
proposed statute states that: “leasing of Jewish National Fund’s lands for the
purposes of the settlement of Jews on these lands will not be seen as improper
discrimination.” The bill was denounced as “racist” legislation in an editorial
published last July in Ha’aretz, one of
Second, the discriminatory policies and practices of the Jewish National Fund
have been criticized by a number of respected bodies.
In 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
reported that the “large-scale and systematic confiscation of Palestinian land
and property by the State and the transfer of that property to these agencies
constitute an institutionalized form of discrimination because these agencies
by definition would deny the use of these properties by non-Jews. Thus, these
practices constitute a breach of
In 2005, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz suggested the Israel Land Authority should cut its
ties with the JNF because the JNF excludes Palestinian citizens of
The Land Authority noted that JNF properties are “intended for the development
of Jewish settlement in the
According to an article that appeared March 18, 2005 in the Jewish Daily
Forward, Mazuz declined to defend the case,
concluding the authority’s claim would not hold up in court. The justices had
ruled in an earlier case that “Jews-only” clauses were illegal.
Third, JNF-Canada is the sponsoring organization of
In 1986, a United Nations special committee reported to the secretary general it was deeply concerned
“that these villagers have persistently been denied the right to return to
their land on which Canada Park has been built by the Jewish National Fund of
Canada and where the Israeli authorities are reportedly planning to plant a
forest instead of allowing the reconstruction of the destroyed villages.”
The tragedy of
In the documentary, former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery
calls the destruction of the three Palestinian villages a “war crime under
international law, and the endorsement of the naming of the park after the name
of
Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organization affiliated
with the International Commission of Jurists, pointed out in a June 2007 legal
brief that
Fourth, the JNF is currently promoting the settlement of significant numbers of
Jews in Israel’s Negev Desert to the detriment of the indigenous Bedouin Arab population.The Bedouins in southern Israel have had their
traditional grazing lands confiscated by the Israeli government, and many
Bedouin villages are unrecognized by the government in order to justify Israeli
policies that deny them basic services like running water, electricity, garbage
collection, proper education and social services.
The JNF’s project, “A Miracle in the Desert,” is
intended to settle half a million Jews on land once owned by Bedouins in 25
low-density housing communities over the next decade. This project is being
challenged legally and politically by Bedouins wanting to reclaim their land.
Like indigenous peoples in other countries, the Palestinian population,
including the Bedouins in the
While countries like
Unfortunately, the discriminatory and exclusionary features of the JNF’s practices and policies in
When a university president chooses to accept an invitation to be a JNF honouree, this amounts to a statement endorsing its work
and is thus contrary to the mission of a modern university in a diverse and
tolerant society. Public endorsements are not given to other organizations
which discriminate against indigenous, ethnic or racialized
groups. They should not be given to the JNF.
Michael Lynk (law), Rebecca Coulter (education),
David Heap (French studies) and Randa Farah
(anthropology) are faculty members at the
The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily CAUT.
Commentary: CAUT welcomes articles between 800 and 1,500 words on contemporary
issues directly related to post-secondary education. Articles should not deal
with personal grievance cases nor with purely local
issues. They should not be libellous or defamatory,
abusive of individuals or groups, and should not make unsubstantiated
allegations. They should be objective and on a political rather than a personal
subject. A commentary is an opinion and not a “life story.” First person is not
normally used. Articles may be in English or French, but will not be
translated. Publication is at the sole discretion of CAUT. Commentary authors
will be contacted only if their articles are accepted for publication. Commentary submissions should be sent to Liza Duhaime.
Les opinions exprimées sont celles des auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement
la position officielle de l’ACPPU.
Commentaires destinés à la rubrique Tribune libre : L’ACPPU invite les lecteurs
à soumettre des articles de 800 à 1 500 mots qui portent sur des questions
d’actualité liées directement à l’enseignement postsecondaire. Les articles ne
doivent traiter ni de dossiers de griefs particuliers ni de questions d’intérêt
strictement local. Ils ne doivent pas comporter des allégations non fondées ni
des propos diffamants, calomniateurs ou offensants envers des personnes ou des
groupes. Les articles doivent être empreints d’une objectivité totale et
aborder des sujets de nature politique plutôt que personnelle. Un commentaire
est avant tout l’expression d’une opinion et non pas le « récit d’une vie ». Il
convient normalement de le formuler à la première personne. Les articles
peuvent être soumis en français ou en anglais, mais ils ne seront pas traduits.
L'ACPPU se réserve le droit de choisir les articles qui seront publiés. La
rédaction ne communiquera avec les auteurs de commentaires que si elle décide
de publier leurs articles. Les commentaires doivent être envoyés à Liza Duhaime.
© 2007 - 2009 CAUT. All rights reserved. Legal
disclaimer.
Web development and Web
design by Envision Online Media Inc.
Summary
As I indicated in my complaint, by subsidizing racial discrimination through granting and maintaining charitable status for the JNF, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-021.
The JNF's discrimination is
directed towards members of the Arab race.
I am an Arab-Canadian. I am a
member of the Arab race.
By subsidizing the JNF’s discrimination towards Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is discriminating against me and members of my race.
I and many of my fellow Canadians are fully aware that the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is subsidizing discrimination against Arabs. The knowledge that my government is willing to do that demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians.
By subsidizing discrimination against Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is sending a signal to Canadians and indeed to the whole world that the Government of Canada supports discrimination against me and all other Arab-Canadians. That fact demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians.
In order to halt this discrimination against me and all other Arab Canadians, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) must immediately revoke the charitable status of the JNF.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Saba
c)
Part 3 of 3, filed June 6, 2008
June 6, 2008
Ms. Ginette Bellefeuille
Early Resolution Analyst
Canadian Human Rights Commission
425 de Maisonneuve West,
Ref :
Saba, Ronald vs Canada Revenue Agency (Government of
Dear Ms. Bellefeuille,
I received a letter dated May 15, 2008 from Mr. Michel Bibeau of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which indicated that I could address to you a submission of up to ten pages in connection with the respondent’s submission dated May 9, 2008. This letter is my submission. This submission consists of ten pages. I have signed and numbered each page.
The respondent’s submission validates my complaint. The respondent is fully aware that the Jewish National Fund (“JNF”) has been deemed to be a racist organization by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1998) and by the Attorney General of Israel (2005). It is matter of record that I have documented these facts in my complaint. That the JNF is a racist organization and that its bylaws are racist cannot be disputed. With full knowledge of the racist nature of the bylaws and operations of the JNF, the respondent has made clear it’s intention and desire to continue subsidizing and promoting the JNF’s racial discrimination against people of my race through maintaining charitable status for the JNF. For as the respondent states in its submission, “we have no objection to the recommendation not to deal with the above noted complaint”.
With this statement, the respondent is
in effect stating that it sees nothing wrong with subsidizing and promoting
racism against people of my race. This
is the signal which the respondent has sent to the people of
In late 2006 and early 2007, I wrote to the Minister of Finance on Government policy concerning racist organizations and in particular concerning donations to the racist JNF. A copy of the Minister’s response appears on the next page. As the Minister states:
“Generally, an organization is not considered charitable if its activities are illegal or contrary to public policy”
Racial discrimination is illegal under Canadian law and is contrary to public policy. Therefore it is clear that the racist nature of the JNF’s bylaws and operations would
----- Original Message -----
From: <re-FINEMail@fin.gc.ca>
To: <humanite@videotron.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: Your December 10, 2006 and January 27, 2007 e-mails
May 15,
2007
2006FIN205672
2007FIN210672
Mr. Ron Saba
Editor
Montreal Planet Magazine
humanite@videotron.ca
Dear Mr.
Thank you for your correspondence of December 10, 2006 and January 27, 2007, in
which you expressed concern regarding donations made to organisations
that may contravene anti-discrimination laws. Please excuse the delay in
replying.
In order for an organization to qualify as a "registered charity"
under the Income Tax Act (Act), it must demonstrate to the Canada Revenue
Agency (CRA) that it satisfies principles of charity law. These
principles set out four main categories of charitable objects: the relief
of poverty, the advancement of religion, the advancement of education and other
purposes of a charitable nature beneficial to the community as a whole.
Generally, an organization is not considered charitable if its activities are
illegal or contrary to public policy. However, the presence of some
politically controversial objects may not necessarily be sufficient to deny
registered charity status to an organization. Thus, whether a particular organization
that purports to have a charitable purpose will qualify as a registered charity
depends on the circumstances.
As Minister of Finance, I am responsible for matters concerning tax policy and
the drafting of legislation implementing that policy. As such, it would
not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of any particular charity
or any particular activities of a charity. The CRA on the other hand, is
responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act with respect to
specific facts and circumstances. As the administration of the CRA is the
responsibility of my colleague, the Honourable Carol
Skelton, Minister of National Revenue, I have forwarded her a copy of our
correspondence, so that she may be aware of your concerns.
Thank you for communicating your concerns.
Sincerely,
James M. Flaherty
c.c.: The Honourable Carol Skelton, P.C., M.P.
disqualify it
from being “considered charitable”. In
addition, it is clear that under Article 2.1 of the International Convention
for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which
“1. States Parties condemn racial
discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without
delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and
promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:
(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in
no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons
or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public
institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(b) Each State Party undertakes not to
sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or
organizations;
(c) Each State Party shall take effective
measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend,
rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating
or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;
(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring
to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by
circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;
(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate,
integrationist multi-racial organizations and movements and other means of
eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to
strengthen racial division.”
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/cerd/cn_e.cfm#Article%202
The racist nature of the JNF’s
bylaws and operations is well known around the world. On the following pages I have copied two
articles which provide further background on the racist nature of the JNF. These two articles are:
“In Watershed,
Israel Deems Land-use Rules of Zionist Icon ‘Discriminatory’ JNF Scored Over
‘Jews-only’ Sales” from the Jewish Daily Forward, February 4, 2005 (U.S.A.) n NF Scored Over ‘Jews-only’ Sales”
from the Jewish Daily Forward, February 4, 2005 (U.S.A.)
http://www.forward.com/articles/in-watershed-israel-deems-land-use-rules-of-zioni/
“The 'right' to discriminate A new
bill in the Knesset seeks to perpetuate discrimination against Israel UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/27/therighttodiscriminate
Jewish Daily Forward
In
JNF Scored Over ‘Jews-only’ Sales
Fri. Feb 04, 2005
In a landmark decision,
Attorney General Menachem Mazuz was responding to
a Supreme Court case involving Jewish National Fund, an organization that
helped build the Jewish state by purchasing land for Jewish settlement —
largely with funds donated by Jews in America. Land owned by the fund is
designated as public land and leased by the government to homeowners. In his
January 26 ruling, Mazuz said that the government may
no longer market the land if the fund allows only Jewish tenants.
Among American Jews, Jewish
National Fund is best known for its iconic blue tin collection boxes and for
its trademark work planting trees in
The chairman of JNF told the
Forward that his organization is in talks to sever its official relationship
with the state in order to preserve its mission of protecting the land for
Jews.
“The state is obliged to
treat all its citizens equally,” Chairman Yehiel Leket said, “but we are not the state.”
Beyond the consequences for
JNF, the attorney general’s ruling could be pivotal in a larger debate over how
to reconcile
“You’ll see a progression of
cases now, trying to challenge those pockets of discrimination that now have a
basis in law,” said
Aside from debates over land
rights, citizenship rights are the other main arena in which
Many defenders of the
traditional vision of Zionism, including Leket, fear
that extending identical land and citizenship rights to Arabs could weaken
“Zionist ideology is not in
favor of discrimination,” Leket said. “But we ought
to look after Jewish interests, and sometimes there might be a conflict between
Jewish interests and Arab interests.”
Leket appears to have public opinion on his
side. In a poll commissioned by JNF last month, 70% of respondents moderately
or strongly objected to JNF land being offered to Arab Israelis.
The issue of land rights in
Israel heated up recently when the Bush administration protested a plan,
disclosed two weeks ago, to confiscate lands in East Jerusalem that are owned
by Palestinians living in the West Bank. The plan, drafted last June by a
two-man Cabinet committee on Jerusalem, including ministers Natan
Sharansky and Zevulun Orlev, treats Jerusalem property owned by West Bank
Palestinians as “absentee property” under 1948 rules aimed at Arab refugees. Mazuz ruled Monday that the absentee rules could not apply
to individuals separated from their land by a “unilateral” Israeli government
action.
The absentee dispute does not
involve Israeli citizens, however, so it has fewer implications for the Israeli
legal landscape than the JNF case. The complaint against JNF stems from April
2004, when six Israeli Arab families won Lands Authority bids for plots in the
Galilee town of
Leaders of American groups
that supported the Arab families’ legal appeal acknowledged that there were
sound historical reasons for JNF restrictions. “In 1948 and before, a few
hundred thousand Jews were pitching their tents in a hostile
But he said historical
circumstances have changed, and so should JNF. “History doesn’t stand still,” Nahshon said, “and the need for
For now, the attorney general
is permitting the Lands Authority to go on marketing JNF land as long as it
swaps parcels of land with the fund when an Israeli Arab wins a bid, ensuring
JNF control of a consistent percentage of
Leket said that in order to maintain its
mission, the fund has initiated talks to cut ties with the government and to
begin marketing its own land.
Because of these links, said
Supreme Court justice Itzhak Zamir,
a former Israeli attorney general, privatization is “not very realistic.”
Even if official ties are
severed, further problems could be created by the source of some JNF land. Some
60% of the fund’s 550,000 acres was purchased from the government in a special
deal soon after the 1948 War of Independence. Arab-rights advocates say this
should preclude JNF from marketing this land only to Jews.
“It can’t be regarded as private
land, where the Jewish National Fund will be given a free hand to do whatever
it pleases,” said Dan Yakir, chief legal counsel for
the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, one of groups that brought the
case.
Leket, however, said the fund had fairly bought
the land it owns, with donations from Jews around the world — donations that
were “designated for the purchase of land to be owned by the Jewish people and
held in trust by the Jewish National Fund.” He said he would not allow that
historic covenant to be broken.
“We are still fighting for
our future existence as a Jewish state,” Leket said.
“In order to strengthen the Jewish state it’s justified to have a Jewish
organization strengthening our presence here.”
Fri. Feb 04, 2005
guardian.co.uk
The 'right' to discriminate
A new bill in the
Knesset seeks to perpetuate discrimination against Israel's Arab citizens.
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 July 2007 20.00 BST
A
fixture in the lives of all children who have ever attended Hebrew school is
the blue Jewish National Fund (JNF) pushke (or charity box), into
which parents and teachers encouraged us to throw our pennies, nickels, dimes and
quarters. They taught us to perform a mitzvah by giving tzedakah to support the building
of the Jewish homeland. Thus, the Jewish National Fund was the Red Cross of
Jewish life, a "mom and apple pie" charity doing nothing but good for
our people.
How
times change! Last week, the Israeli Knesset passed, on first reading, the
Jewish National Fund bill which allows the JNF to refuse to lease land to Arab
citizens. The JNF is a quasi-public charity established to raise funds to
purchase land for Jewish settlement within Israel. In 1961, the Israeli
government transferred 13% of Israeli land to the JNF. Included in this were
one million dunams expropriated from Arab residents
who fled Israel in 1948.
The
government had sold the land to the JNF at bargain-basement prices in order to
remain at arm's length from the tainted process. Historically, the JNF has
maintained a ban against Arab use of its land. But the Israeli supreme court, in a landmark ruling, said that the JNF can
no longer discriminate against the Arab population. The Court maintained that
such a ban defies the norms of a democratic state and must be ended.
The
Knesset bill, co-sponsored by a ruling party Kadima
Knesset member, is an attempt to get around the court ruling. While it would
allow the JNF to resume discriminating against Arabs, the other 80% of Israeli
land administered by the ILA would continue to be governed by the supreme court ruling. On first reading, the bill passed
64-16, with only 10 Jewish MKs voting No. One of
those voting Yes was Ami Ayalon,
recent candidate for Labour party leader and partner
with Sari Nusseibeh in a dialogue seeking Israeli-Palestinian peace.
This
bill certainly does make for strange bedfellows. Opposition within the Diaspora
has been slow to develop. The only US Jewish group to protest publicly was Ameinu, which wrote a letter to Zeev
Elkin, the Kadima bill sponsor. The Union for Reform
Judaism is also preparing a letter expressing its opposition. MeretzUSA is circulating an online petition as is a group
of Jewish bloggers - including this author, Dan Fleshler
(Realistic Dove) and Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist) - who have created an online campaign against the bill.
The
other major Jewish groups like the Anti Defamation League and American Jewish
Committee have sat on their hands so far. First, they cannot rock the boat
against a fellow American Jewish group (the JNF); second, their rather
conservative membership sees little wrong with discrimination in favour of Israeli Jews.
Haaretz excoriated the
legislative effort in an editorial, A Racist Jewish State:
This
bill reflects an abasement of the Zionist enterprise to lows never imagined in
the Declaration of Independence. Even though the Jewish National Fund purchased
the lands for the Jewish people in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has
already been established and these lands must now serve all its citizens. For
those living for tomorrow and not the past, the aim is to create in Israel a
healthy, progressive state where the needs of the two peoples should concern
the leaders and legislators. The Jewish National Fund's land policy counters
the interests of the state and cannot discriminate by law against the minority
living in Israel.
Ronald
Lauder, the cosmetics heir and national JNF chair released a crowing statement
which praised the Knesset for reaffirming the JNF's
right to discriminate:
We
are gratified that the government of Israel ... recognised
that the land purchased by the Jewish people for the Jewish people should
remain in the hands of its rightful owners. This Knesset decision reaffirms the
vision and the dream of Theodor Herzl and the millions of Jews over the past
106 years who contributed and participated in the rebirth of a Jewish nation
after 2,000 years. The land of Israel is part of the very existence of the
Jewish people from as far back as Abraham. We are a people linked to our land. Now and forever.
Jerry
Haber, a liberal Orthodox Israeli-American blogger, pointed out the bogus
nature of this response in a private email to me:
This
argument is invalid for two reasons: First, the vast majority of land owned by
the Jewish National Fund was not purchased by Jewish individuals but rather was
expropriated by the Israel government in the early years of the state from
absentee Palestinian owners and transferred to the fund so that the Israel
government could not itself be accused of discriminatory land leasing - a legal
fiction of dubious morality. Second, no parallel mechanism for the settlement
needs of Arab citizens was ever established. On the contrary, as the Or
Commission set up after the Israeli Arab protests in 2000 noted, "Arab
settlements have been surrounded by security zones, Jewish district councils,
national parks, nature reserves, and highways, that prevent or inhibit the
possibility of future expansion."
The
reason this issue is so complicated is that Israel considers itself the homeland
of the Jewish people. As such, it currently discriminates in many ways in favour of its Jewish citizens. But at the same time it
considers itself a democracy and includes a sizable minority of Arab citizens.
These two elements have always co-existed in a tense relationship. While there
undoubtedly remains a high level of prejudice against Israeli Arabs, social
developments - which include the High Court ruling - have been very gradually
eroding some of the more odious discriminatory regulations.
This
legislative attempt to restore to the JNF its right to discriminate in favour of Jews may be seen as a rump effort by the Israeli
right to take back its prerogatives and return to the era when Jews
predominated and there was never a doubt that Arabs were second-class citizens.
Is it too much to expect a majority of the Knesset to see this and put down
this attempt to enshrine Jewish dominance into the law of a state otherwise
proud to call itself a democracy?
The illegal nature of the JNF’s operations is not a secret in
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2500957394773313398
The Minister of Finance indicated in his response that he forwarded the information I had provided concerning the racist nature of the JNF to the Minister of National Revenue “so that she may be made aware” of my concerns. Despite this, the pattern of discrimination against me and members of my race by the respondent through its subsidizing of the racist JNF has continued to this day. The respondent’s submission makes it clear it intends to continue this pattern of discrimination.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Saba