The world is witnessing the rise of far-right political parties. In Israel’s recent national legislative election, Jewish Power (Otzma Yehudit), a far-right, anti-Arab political party, reached an unprecedented achievement. The party won six seats in the Knesset and its leader, Itamar Ben Gvir was appointed as the Minister of National Security. “Who are the Landlords Here?” was the party’s election slogan; it signals that Jews should not only own the state but also its public space. This normative political statement aligns with the dominant attitude towards group rights for the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel. The dominant attitude perceives group rights in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians as controversial because they disrupt Jewish ownership of the public space in Israel.
This Article presents two main arguments. First, to explain the perceived threat of group rights, it divides such rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority into two categories: (1) group rights manifested in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians, and (2) group rights manifested in a space in which almost exclusively Arab-Palestinians reside. Employing this distinction, the Article argues that when group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority are exercised in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians, Jews are more likely to resist the rights because they are usually perceived as threatening Israel’s Jewish character. However, when group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority are manifested in a space shared almost exclusively by Arab-Palestinians, group rights are much less controversial among the Jewish majority.
The Article’s second argument draws a connection between Israeli Jews’ common fear of group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority when the groups share common spaces, and the geographic separation between Arab-Palestinians and Jews in the issue of housing and settlement. The fact that most Jews in Israel are reluctant to live in a common geographic space with Arab-Palestinians supports the Article’s first argument, which suggests that Israeli Jews perceive group rights as controversial only when they threaten Jewish dominance over Israel’s symbolic and geographic space. When Arab-Palestinians disrupt the traditional order by moving to mixed cities orcommunities mostly inhabited by Jews, they are considered threats to the Jewish character of the public space. The same is true for group rights. When group rights extend beyond the specific geographic realm designated for Arab-Palestinian citizens and penetrate the symbolic and geographic domains common to Israeli citizens, they are perceived as a threat to Jewish dominance in Israel and to Israel’s Jewish character.
The Israeli case study suggests that space matters. Discussions of group rights should consider where the rights are manifested, since their proximity to the majority population adds a significant dimension to the analysis.
Comments