65 Israeli laws that discriminate against non-Jews – Arab News
“Immediately after taking power in 1933, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — commonly known as the Nazi Party — began a program called “Aryanization” to strip Jews of their rights. The intent was to make Germany an “Aryan” state, using “laws” to force Jews to leave. The Nazis adopted more than 400 laws that targeted Jews at every level, including non-citizen Jews living under German occupation. After Germany invaded Poland in 1939, beginning the Second World War, the process changed. Jews, and other non-Aryans, were sent to concentration camps, where they were killed.
“The Israelis have now developed 65 laws of their own that give Jews living inside Israel and under their control in the occupation total rights, while restricting those of non-Jews and making it easy to legally punish them. Israel’s goal is to be able to identify who is a Jew, and to provide benefits to Jews that are denied to non-Jews.”
Q: What are the similarities, and differences, between race laws in today’s Israel and Germany from 1933-45? Are laws granting more rights to members of one religion or ethnic group than others compatible with modern forms of democracy? Here are a couple examples of race-based laws from the past:
Law for the protection of German blood and German honor (1935)
Jim Crow laws in the US – Wikipedia
Wall Street titans aren’t fighting antisemitism, they’re bankrolling it – Hill
“…For centuries, Jews in Europe legally couldn’t own land, so being a nationalist tribally attached to your parcel was functionally impossible. But Israel’s statehood brought forth right-wing Jewish nationalism, and it’s as toxic and narrow-minded in the ultraconservative Likud Party there as white Christian nationalism is in the GOP in America.
“The right-wing conflation of Israel with Judaism — and that if you’re critical of Israel’s nationalist policies, you’re antisemitic — contradicts liberal diaspora philosophy. That philosophy is democratic in its tolerance of dissenting viewpoints, with its Talmudic tradition of rabbinical debate over scriptural interpretation. Hence the saying ‘two Jews, three opinions.'”