I Diasagree with Misha Arens

Here's the last part of Misha Arens' Haaretz article yesterday:

Last week the Knesset passed in preliminary reading a law that would require the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to allocate land that it owns only to Jews. Presumably this means that Jews who are not citizens of Israel would qualify, but Israel's Arab citizens would be barred from access to land owned by the JNF. A blatant violation of the norms of democracy.

But wait a minute, you might say, was not the Jewish National Fund founded in 1901 so the Land of Israel could be redeemed and come under Jewish ownership? Yes, of course, but something else happened in the meantime. In May 1948, the State of Israel was established, guaranteeing equality to all its citizens. The ultimate purpose of the Zionist Congress that decided on the establishment of the JNF - the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine - has been achieved. In a democratic state one cannot condone laws that discriminate between citizens on ethnic grounds. That was certainly not part of Herzl's vision of the Jewish State.

So what about the Law of Return? Does it not provide a special privilege - the right to immigrate to Israel - for Jews only? Yes, but that is the foundation stone of the State of Israel - to provide a haven for any Jew in the world in need of a haven; so that what happened in the years before the Holocaust and during the Holocaust would never happen again. That is the mission of the State of Israel. A most humane mission by any reckoning. In fulfillment of this mission the Holocaust survivors from Europe, the Jewish communities from the Arab world and Iran, Soviet Jewry and the Ethiopian Jews were absorbed in Israel. Maybe even some of Israel's non-Jewish citizens can identify with this mission, and those who cannot must recognize that this is the reason the State of Israel was established.

The proposed JNF law has nothing to do with this mission. Hopefully, it will not go beyond the preliminary reading in the Knesset.

Truth tell, I have some alternative thoughts about this.

I do not think that a "haven" is the adequate definition. It's a lot more.

As for the land issue, one thought that comes to mind is that American Indian land, by a 1934 law, cannot be transferred out of the tribe's possession. Now, if we Jews are the original possessors, and the Arabs are occupiers from the 7th century; and if they have been trying to prevent we Jews from coming back with violence; and if they do not fulfill all citizen responsibilities and obligations; and if they have presented a separationist ideology this past year - why do we have to yield up on land purchased by Jews for Jews - an operation quite promoted by a Herzlian vision? Numerous times Herzl wrote and spoke of purchasing land, of redeeming the country.

The Declaration of Independence states that "Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland." This English does less that justice to the Hebrew intent. The Hebrew verb, l'hei'achez, means to grasp the land firmly, i.e, not to let go.

And also "THE STATE OF ISRAEL...will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; also states there." Foster development - not transfer land purchased by Jews for Jews, for the national goal of Zionism.