Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Cittadinanza e nazionalità in Israele

Riporto qui alcuni materiali per una ricerca sul concetto di "cittadinanza"
in Israele. In un vecchio art. del "Manifesto" si leggeva:
il manifesto - 09 Giugno 2002 DIRITTI/CITTADINANZA
Israele, una democrazia all'apartheid
URI DAVIS*
Contrariamente alla legislazione degli Stati uniti che riconosce,
nell'ambito di una Costituzione democratica, una cittadinanza unica e
universale per tutti i cittadini Usa senza distinzioni nazionali, religiose,
linguistiche, tribali, nonché sessuali, lo Stato d'Israele non conferisce
una cittadinanza universale a tutti i suoi cittadini. Guidato dalla
dominante ideologia del sionismo politico il legislatore israeliano (la
Knesset) ha varato quattro differenti tipi di cittadinanza che esprimono una
diseguaglianza lampante nella legge stessa, rappresentando - in altre
parole - una nuova forma di Apartheid. Nello Stato di Israele il diritto di
partecipare alla vita politica di un cittadino che ai termini di legge viene
classificato come «non Ebreo» (cioè «Arabo») è teoricamente uguale al
diritto di un cittadino classificato per la legge come «Ebreo» e lo stesso
dovrebbe avvenire, teoricamente, di fronte alla legge. Invece nel campo dei
servizi sociali, del welfare e soprattuttodelle risorse materiali dello
Stato i diritti di un cittadino definito per legge come «non Ebreo» non sono
uguali a quelli di un cittadino definito come «Ebreo». Fino alla sentenza
della Corte Suprema afferente al caso Qaadan contro Qatzir (marzo 2000), ai
cittadini che per legge venivano definiti come «non Ebrei» veniva negato
l'accesso al 93% del territorio di Israele (nei confini di prima del 1967)
gestito dalla Israel Land Administration (Ila). In altre parole, il sistema
giuridico israeliano si basa su almeno due categorie di cittadinanza. La
categoria «A» vale per cittadini che la legge definisce come «Ebrei» ai
quali la legge stessa conferisce un accesso preferenziale alle risorse
materiali dello Stato per il solo fatto di essere, per legge, «Ebrei»; in
contrasto con la cittadinanza di categoria «B» i «non Ebrei», cioè «Arabi»,
come tali discriminati dalla legge in particolare per quanto concerne la
parità di accesso alla terra ed all'acqua. Tuttavia nell'ambito della
cittadinanza di categoria «B» esiste nello Stato di Israele - in virtù della
Legge sulla Proprietà Assenteista del 1950 - anche una categoria «C»
comprendente quei cittadini arabi che pur presenti dentro lo stato vengono
classificati dalla legge come «assenti». Questi cittadini arabi sono in
effetti presenti in Isreale come contribuenti e come votanti ma - essendo
classificati come «assenti» dalla summenzionata legge oscena - si vedono
negati tutti i diritti alle proprietà (terre, case, società, azioni, conti
in banca, cassette di sicurezza, ecc.) in loro possesso fino al 1948.
Intorno al 20% dei cittadini arabo-palestinesi di Israele, circa 200 mila
persone, sono oggi considerati dalla legge israeliana come cittadini di
categoria «C», cioè come «presenti-assenti». Inoltre, sempre in virtù della
legge sulla Proprietà Assenteista del 1950, il legislatore israeliano (la
Knesset) ha stabilito per legge una cittadinanza di categoria «D» formata
dai 750 mila profughi di Palestina del 1948 e dei loro discendenti -
valutati dall'Unrwa intorno alle quattro milioni di persone - cui è stata
negata la cittadinanza. Secondo i termini della Risoluzione dell'Onu 181
(Piano di Spartizione con Unione Economica) del novembre 1947 - cioè il
documento costitutivo dello Stato di Israele e dello Stato di Palestina che
prevedeva la spartizione del territorio della Palestina del Mandato
Britannico in uno «Stato Ebraico» ed uno «Stato Arabo» - gli attuali 4
milioni di profughi della Palestina del 1948 hanno diritto alla cittadinanza
dello «Stato Ebraico». Tuttavia il legislatore israeliano (la Knesset) in
virtù della suddetta Legge sulla Proprietà Assenteista ed in violazione
delle norme della Dichiarazione Universale sui Diritti Umani e delle norme
di legge internazionali ha denazionalizzato la massa dei profughi della
Palestina del 1948 negando loro il diritto alla cittadinanza israeliana e
trasformandoli così in apolidi.
Secondo i termini dei suddetti documenti costitutivi dello Stato di Israele
dello Stato di Palestina (risoluzione Onu 181) tutti gli ebrei normalmente
residenti nei territori attribuiti dall'Onu allo «Stato Arabo» avevano
diritto alla cittadinanza dello «Stato Arabo» mentre tutti gli arabi
normalmente residenti nei territori attribuiti dall'Onu allo «Stato Ebraico»
(inclusi, certamente, tutti i profughi palestinesi del 1948 ed i loro
discendenti) avevano diritto alla cittadinanza dello «Stato Ebraico» ed
ovviamente ai titoli delle loro proprietà in Israele ed al diritto di
ritornare.
*Uri Davis, dell'università di Durham in Inghilterra autore di un "Israel:
An Apartheid State Zed Books, London, 1987 & 1990].
La differenza fra "nazionalità" e "cittadinanza" è approfondita da Roselle
Tinker, nel suo art. "Israel's Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From
93 Percent of Its Lands". Tuttavia, il tono di questa tizia (autrice di un
"AntiZionism: Analytical Reflections", 1989) mi pare "sospetto" di
antisemitismo. Non so, cmq e dunque, valutare il grado di attendibilità di
quanto segue:
[...]
No Israeli nationality applies to all citizens, as does a US nationality in
the United States
Zionist uses of the term "nation," "national, " and "nationality" are indeed
difficult to understand and to explain because they derive from concepts
that are unfamiliar to Americans. Moreover, their true meanings are
deliberately obscured by usually incorrect translations from Hebrew into
English.
The prime example of deception, from which the others flow, is the accepted
translation of Israel's Law of Citizenship as "Nationality " Law. In the
original Hebrew text, the word is ezrahut, the correct translation is
"citizenship."
It would not occur to the average English peaking observer to object to
translating ezrahut as "nationality" because "citizenship" and "nationality"
are interchangeable terms in the United States, as well as in most
democratic societies. In Israel, however, they are two separate and very
different statuses. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs as well as
Jews while nationality (le'um), which bestows significantly greater rights
than citizenship, may be claimed by Jews alone.
 To refer to "Arab nationals," as this law does, is a deceptive translation
of ezrahut, because Arabs or others who are not Jews cannot be "nationals"
of Israel. Only Jews can be "nationals." Their nationality rights are
granted by the Law of Return. No Israeli nationality applies to all
citizens, as does a US nationality in the United States or French
nationality in France, for example. In Israel, there is only a Jewish
nationality. That nonJews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state
of Israel was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1972 in a statement that
there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
The original mis-translation of ezrahut as "nationality" has been
consistently repeated, successfully concealing the existence of the two
legal statuses, with non-Jews eligible for only one. Like a virus introduced
into a computer system, the error is continually replicated and now
permeates most writings on the topic of nationality and national rights in
Israel. Having successftilly conveyed the erroneous perception- that Arabs
and Jews alike are nationals of Israel, it seems logical to assume that
national lands, like national lands in other countries, are a national asset
belonging to all the people. Even if a tour guide were equipped with details
of this clever ruse, however, he would not last long in his job if he
explained the rationale behind prohibitions of Arab encroachment on "
national" lands.
[...]
Ulteriori contributi sarebbero benvenuti: la materia mi pare complessa.
Shalom.
Namib

Ulteriori contributi sarebbero benvenuti: la materia mi pare complessa.
La materia non esiste proprio.  Non esistono ne due cittadinanze ne due
nazionalita'.
-Stefano

 -Stefano

 wrote in message news:aLq1a.155476$0v.43...@news1.tin.it...

mentre per altri pare che basti non parlare di un problema e questo come
per incanto non esiste piu'.
Pietro

per incanto non esiste piu'.
Infatti. Cmq, trascurando le vacue "obiezioni" di chi non argomenta (ed
invitando invece alla discussione chi avesse informazioni e/o competenza
specifica: non ho tesi precostituite), proseguo nella presentazione di
materiale concernente il problema della "nazionalità/cittadinanza" in
Israele.
1. Dal sito del Ministero degli Esteri israeliano: un utile, e lungo, art.,
da cui traggo un brano sulla "Law of Return":
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00yl0
 "The Development of the Law in Israel: The First 50 Years"
  by Shlomo Guberman
Deputy Attorney General (Legislation) (retired)
The Law of Return
During the first years of independence most of the legislation was concerned
with amendments to the Mandatory statutes, in order to adapt them to the new
circumstances and the changing needs. The first major piece of legislation
was enacted in 1950; it was The Law of Return, 1950, which guaranteed every
Jew's right to immigrate to Israel and to become an "oleh." That law was
complemented by the Citizenship Law 1952, which awarded Israeli citizenship
to every oleh (olim also have the right to opt out) and regulated the issue
of citizenship for Israel's non-Jewish inhabitants. Another complementary
Law was The Law of Entry, 1952, which regulated the issuing of visas and
residence limits to non-Israelis.
The question "Who is a Jew," for the purpose of The Law of Return, came up
before the Supreme Court in 1962 in the case of Rufeisen - Brother Daniel -
who was born Jewish but had converted to Christianity and joined a Catholic
Order (H.C. 72/62 - 16 P.D. 2428). He petitioned the Court to have his
nationality registered in the register of inhabitants as Jewish, since he
felt he still belonged to the Jewish nation. The Court denied the petition,
reasoning that, in Judaism, nationality and religion come together and
cannot be separated.
The question came up again in 1968 in the Shalit case (H.C. 58/68 - 23
P.D.(2) 477) where a Jew and his non-Jewish wife demanded that their
children be registered as Jewish, since they were brought up as such (but
had not converted to Judaism). In a majority decision, the Court accepted
the petition and the children were registered as Jews.
In 1970 the Law of Return was amended to include a definition of "Jew,"
according to which a Jew was one who was born to a Jewish mother or had
converted to Judaism and does not belong to another faith.
In yet another case (H.C. 264/87 - 43 P.D.(2) 727) the Supreme Court decided
in 1987 that a person who had converted to Judaism need not necessarily have
done so according to Orthodox Judaism. As these lines are being written, a
Bill has been tabled in the Knesset to the effect that only Orthodox
conversions would be recognized. That Bill has aroused wide-ranging
criticism in Israel and especially abroad. A compromise is being fervently
sought.
---------------------------
2. Dal libro di Rhoda Kanaaneh, "Birthing a Nation. Strategies of
Palestinian Women in Israel", traggo un altro passo:
http://www.publicanthropology.org/Bookseries/Kanaaneh(Chapter1).htm
Another feature of the imaginings of Zionism (although not exclusive to it)
heightens its obsession with political arithmetic: the state of Israel was
never meant to be “a political expression of its civil society, of the
people who reside in its territory or even of its citizens. It was meant to
be the State of the Jews wherever they are” (Yuval-Davis 1987: 63). For
example, Israel’s declaration of independence is not officially identified
as such; it is called the Declaration of Establishment of the State of
Israel by the People’s Council. One of the most interesting debates in the
history of Zionism took place a few hours before the adoption of this
Declaration of Establishment. Meir Wilner, a leading member of the Communist
Party, proposed to add the words “independent” and “sovereign,” but his
proposal was not accepted. The debate around Wilner’s proposal, Uri Davis
and Walter Lehn point out, “highlights the fact that those who formulated
the draft consciously avoided words that would have specified the
sovereignty and independence of the proposed state, emphasizing only its
Jewishness” (1983: 146). The state of Israel is a state by, for, and of the
“Jewish people,” whereas the sovereign independent state of Israel would be
a state by, for, and of its Jewish citizens (147). This conceptualization of
the state heightens its concern for Jewish versus non-Jewish demography.
The central Israeli political arithmetic of Arab versus Jew has also been
advanced through a variety of laws that effectively structure life in Israel
according to nationalist biopolitics. One of the first legislative acts
passed by the newly formed Israeli Knesset (parliament) was the Law of
Return. According to this law, “all Jews, wherever they come from, are
entitled automatically to Israeli citizenship, [to immigrate to and settle
in Israel with the aid and assistance of the state], while according to the
Israeli Nationality Law, non-Jews, even if born in Israel, unless born to
Israeli citizens . . . are not” (Yuval-Davis 1987: 64). The conception of
Israeli nationhood is thus based largely on Jewish ancestry, rather than on
citizenship or birthplace. Clearly, a formal distinction is made between
Jews and non-Jews, a distinction whereby the former are given automatic
demographic (and other) privileges over the latter. According to David
Kretzmer, “this aspect of the Law of Return is generally regarded as a
fundamental principle of the State of Israel, possibly even its very raison
d’être as a Jewish state” (1990: 36). The Law of Return is a symbolic,
legal, and administrative expression of the imagined community and perhaps
one of the most significant institutions through which subject populations
flow, producing a hierarchical reality out of imagined categories.
In May 1994, after it was revealed that thousands of non-Jews had immigrated
to Israel with forged documents, Avraham Ravitz, a Knesset member from the
United Torah Judaism Party, went so far as to call for the abolition of the
Law of Return
The subject was debated at a meeting of the Knesset’s Aliya [Immigration of
Jews] Committee where Population Registry head David Efrati said that 300
immigrant families had been sent back to the CIS [Commonwealth of
Independent States, the remains of the former Soviet Union] in the past
year, after it was discovered they had entered Israel under false
identities. Efrati said authorities in the CIS were cooperating with Israel
in establishing the true identities of persons wishing to come here. Efrati
also revealed that during this period, 29% of the immigrants had not been
registered as Jews because they were unable to prove their Jewishness.
(Jerusalem Post, May 26, 1994; emphasis added)
Although he was certainly not against the spirit of the Law of Return,
Ravitz preferred to rely on investigations made by the Interior Ministry, so
that the law would not be circumvented by “false Jews” (Courbage 1999: 37).
And although he did not succeed in abolishing this foundational law, his
protests clearly demonstrate its purpose.
It is within the context of Israel, as a state not of its citizens but open
to all Jews—a state that can potentially integrate individuals who are not
yet citizens for its utility —that the Knesset passed in 1952 the World
Zionist Organization–Jewish Agency (Status) Law. According to this law, the
WZO, the Jewish Agency, and their specialized branches were recognized as
equals of the state of Israel. Davis and Lehn note that in this way the
state became a partner in the restrictive policies and practices of, for
example, the Jewish National Fund (JNF, controlled by the WZO), which
specifically serves “persons of Jewish religion, race, or origin.” The
constitution of the Jewish Agency states:
Land is to be acquired as Jewish property, and . . . the title to the lands
acquired is to be taken in the name of the JNF, to the end that the same
shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people. The Agency
shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labour, and in all
works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be
deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed.
(1983: 147)
Since 1948, despite repeated confirmation of the legal and effective
equivalence of the Israeli government and the WZO, “the JNF remained
unwilling to transfer to the state title to its lands.” The explanation was
that the “JNF will redeem the lands and will turn them over to the Jewish
people—to the people and not the state, which in the current composition of
population cannot be an adequate guarantor of Jewish ownership” (ibid.:
156). Land thus becomes extraterritorial: “It ceases to be land from which
the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future”
(Kanaana 1992: 55). In this way, land, population, and ethnic arithmetic
come together in the structuring of the state of Israel.
In 1965 Israel also introduced the Population Registration Law, whereby all
residents of the state must be registered, with “nation” and “religion”
specified. These reified categories are fundamental to imagining the nation
of Israel. According to David Kretzmer, the registration of “nation”
appears to derive from the fundamental philosophy of the State of Israel,
that actively discourages an assimilationist approach towards the Arab
minority. The philosophy reflects the idea that Israel, as the nation-state
of Jewish people, has a definite function: preserving the discrete national
identity of the Jewish people. Registration of ‘nation’ in the Population
Registry is one of the mechanisms of maintaining the distinction between
citizens of the state who belong to the Jewish people and those who do not.
Registration of ‘nation’ . . . strengthens the dichotomy between the state
as the political framework of all its citizens, and the state as the
particularistic nation-state of the Jewish people. (1990: 44)
Thus registration places and divides people according to rigid categories of
religion and nation.
--------
Shalom.
Namib

state who belong to the Jewish people and those who do not.
Non esistendo due "nation" in Israele non vedo che c'entri con l'essere
Jewish o meno :)
Insomma... Alla fine continua a non vedersi nulla su queste fantomatiche
4 cittadinanze :))
*LOL*
Che sia perche' non esistono proprio? :)
-Stefano

Che sia perche' non esistono proprio? :)
Caro SdC,
l'art. del Manifesto NON parlava di "4 cittadinanze", ma di 4(sostanziali)
"categorie di cittadinanza" (testuale), legate alla "Nationality Law", e
fonti di
privilegi. Rileggi:
------------
Nello Stato di Israele il diritto di
partecipare alla vita politica di un cittadino che ai termini di legge viene
classificato come «non Ebreo» (cioè «Arabo») è teoricamente uguale al
diritto di un cittadino classificato per la legge come «Ebreo» e lo stesso
dovrebbe avvenire, teoricamente, di fronte alla legge. Invece nel campo dei
servizi sociali, del welfare e soprattutto delle risorse materiali dello
Stato i diritti di un cittadino definito per legge come «non Ebreo» non sono
uguali a quelli di un cittadino definito come «Ebreo».
------------
Poi, l'articolista pensa quello che vuole. Io NON parlo di "illegittimità"
in sé di questa impostazione costituzionale, che lega (ricordiamocelo)
nazionalità (e NON cittadinanza) e religione; solo rilevo la "non laicità"
(e la pericolosità, nella fattispecie)
di tale scelta (legittima: anche per l'Iran, però). Non-laicità che si
riflette in discriminazioni sociali (e quasi-razziali), *contro*
(diversamente dalle leggi di protezione degli invalidi) la parte più povera
della popolazione. Per una volta, vorresti evitare di interloquire a
vanvera? La faccenda è complessa: la si può chiarire collaborando
civilmente. Altrimenti, meglio tacere. Shalom.
Namib

la si può chiarire collaborando civilmente. Altrimenti, meglio tacere.
Comincia a tacere allora :)
-Stefano

OK: ri-abbandoniamo il povero De Cesari (una prece...) al suo autistico e
"amniotico" delirio (in cui non si distingue fra "sostanziale" e "formale"),
e torniamo a ragionare. Vorrei portare un ultimo contributo sulla questione
(già accennata) della proprietà "ebraica" (via "dispositivo integrato"
Jewish National Agency +
"Nationality Law") di gran parte della terra d'Israele. Che la questione sia
tutt'altro che chiusa, lo testimonia il sunto di un ricorso presentato da
una coppia palestinese:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0gty0
Jerusalem, 8 March 2000
High Court: Decision on Katzir
(Communicated by Court's Spokeswoman)
The High Court of Justice today (Wednesday) 8.3.2000 ruled in the Katzir
case. Following is the case summary:
Petitioners are an Arab couple who live in an Arab settlement. They seek to
build a home in Katzir, a communal settlement in the Eron River region. This
settlement was established in 1982 by the Jewish Agency in collaboration
with the Katzir Cooperative Society, on State land that was allocated to the
Jewish Agency (via the Israel Land Authority) for such a purpose. The Katzir
Cooperative Society only accepts Jewish members. As such, it refuses to
accept the Petitioners and permit them to build their home in the communal
settlement of Katzir. The Petitioners claim that the policy constitutes
discrimination on the basis of religion or nationality an that such
discrimination is prohibited by law with regard to State land.
La Corte afferma chiaramente, e ciò va ad onore della legge israeliana:
The Jewish character of the State does not permit Israel to discriminate
between its citizens. In Israel, Jews and non-Jews are citizens with equal
rights and responsibilities.
Per di più,
the Court examined whether the State may allocate land to the Jewish Agency
knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The answer is
no.
Tuttavia, la sentenza viene specificamente (e curiosamente: parlo da
profano, sia chiaro) circoscritta al caso in questione:
The Court limited its decision to the particular facts of this case. The
general issue of use of State lands for the purposes of settlement raises a
wide range of questions. First, as the petitioners themselves agreed, this
case is not directed at past allocations of State land. This petition looks
to the future. Second, this petition focuses on the particular circumstances
of the communal settlement of Katzir. In discussing this issue, the Court
stated:
"Naturally, there are different types of settlements, for example, kibbutzim
and moshavim. Different types of settlements give rise to different
problems. We did not hear arguments regarding other types of settlements and
therefore, we do not take a position with regard to these types of
settlements. Moreover, we must consider the possibility that special
circumstances, beyond the type of settlement, may be relevant. We did not
hear arguments with regard to such special circumstances, and therefore we
do not take a position with regard to their significance. Moreover, it is
important to understand and remember that today we are taking the first step
in a sensitive and difficult journey. It is wise to proceed slowly, so that
we do not stumble and fall, and instead we will proceed cautiously at every
stage, according to the circumstances of each case."
Si tratta di un atteggiamento (il mio è un giudizio politico, naturalmente,
e non tecnico) ragionevole e cauto, ma che evidenzia la complessità della
questione: apparentemente, "special circumstances" potrebbero "attenuare" le
dichiarazioni di principio. C'è anche da dire che alla coppia palestinese
NON è stato, almeno con questa sentenza, concesso il permesso richiesto: si
sono solo risolte (favorevolmente) le "difficoltà di principio", appunto. Il
problema (sperando cmq nella positiva soluz. del caso) sta appunto nella
natura di queste discriminazioni legali, più "para-amministrative" (ma
effettive, anche nel campo dell'istruzione, ad es.) che formalizzate in un
preciso disegno discriminatorio, IMHO. Sarebbe però interessante, in
materia, leggere il testo integrale della Nationality Law (sul sito dell'MFA
c'è solo un summary), e lo statuto della JNA. Shalom.
Namib

 Namib


Se invece di andare a cercare pagliuzze in Israele, deste un occhiata alle
travi arabe...
Ad'I

Yawn.

 Yawn.
Mancanza di argomentazioni? :)
-Stefano

Approfitto della "sponda" offertami dal mammalucco per segnalare altri due
interessanti link, meritevoli di lettura integrale:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_2002.asp
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet1.htm
Buona lettura, buona notte & shalom.
Namib

Jewish people in the diaspora
E anche questo sta nella fantasia del sito, visto che nella
Dichiarazione di Indipendenza non c'e' nulla al riguardo :)
---
Given the lack of an explicit law that constitutionally protects
equality for all citizens, this emphasis on the Jewishness of the State
again compromised the equal rights protection for the Palestinian Arab
minority. 
---
E qui c'e' tutta la bellezza del non sapersi piu' dove attaccarsi pur di
dare contro ad Israele :))
*LOL*
---
Palestinian Arabs rights to run for elections to the Israeli parliament,
the Knesset, are also limited by their acceptance of the notion of the
Jewisish State.
---
Cioe' dell'accettazione della "costituzione" dello Stato di Israele :)
Come avviene in ogni paese del mondo :)
Sarebbe infatti ridicolo eleggere qualcuno che fosse contrario alla
Costituzione di tale paese :)
Ma subito dopo andiamo sui pezzi forti :)
---
Direct Discrimination 
There are two main examples of laws that discriminate against
Palestinian Arabs by directly distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews:
---
Pronti?
----
Citizenship Rights & the Law of Return: National identity is the main
factor in deciding the acquisition of citizenship in Israel. The Law of
Return grants every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel. The
Nationality Law automatically grants citizenship to all Jews who have
done so, and also to their spouses, children,s grandchildren, and all
their spouses. This privilege is for Jews only.
----
Beh, e' una legge che favorisce gli Ebrei visto che Israele e' stato
costituito come stato a tale scopo :)
----
Palestinian Arabs can only get citizenship by birth, residence (after
meeting a cumulative list of conditions) or naturalisation. 
----
Come qualsiasi altro che non sia "Palestinian Arabs" e non sia "Ebreo"
:)
Cioe' se io che non sono ne arabo palestinese ne ebreo volessi diventare
cittadino dovrei rispettare le stesse condizioni degli arabi palestinesi
:)
Quindi non esiste nessuna discriminazione :)
----
Special Status of Jewish Organisations: As a result of the World Zionist
Organisation- Jewish Agency Law, the Jewish National Fund, Jewish
Agency, and World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional
status in Israel and are known as quasi-governmental bodies. They are
Jewish organisations which explicitly aim to benefit Jews only, but have
authority for certain governmental functions, including developing the
land and housing projects and settlements. Their activities are
co-ordinated with the government and are given tax benefits, and they
have a lot of influence on decision-making boards (particularly in
agriculture and land use). 
The Palestinian Arab minority is excluded entirely from these functions
as either beneficiaries or participants.
----
E perche' mai dovrebbero essere compresi? :)  Sono organizzazioni
private che perseguono i propri scopi e che hanno speciali statuti :)
Nulla impedisce alla minoranza araba palestinese di costituire
altrettante organizzazioni che perseguano scopi differenti e di cui gli
arabi palestinesi siano beneficiari o partecipanti :)
---
Further no government organisations perform the same functions for
non-Jews.
---
E allora?  :)
Al massimo si puo' dire che c'e' un vuoto organizzativo, che sarebbe
tutto da dimostrare.  Ma non certo che ci sia un atto una
discriminazione, visto che nessuna legge impedisce agli arabi
palestinesi di costituire organizzazioni che operino come l'Agenzia
Ebraica :)
---
Consequently, Palestinian Arab needs are systematically disregarded.
---
Se lo dicono loro :)  Ma di questo si possono lamentare con lo stato
perche' "fa poco" e non certo per la presenza di agenzie private che
favoriscono una particolare classe di individui :)
Il resto poi e' tutto un divertimento dietro l'altro :)
-Stefano