I know Israel isn't an apartheid state but I remember twice when I was arguing with my aunt about that--who is one of the few people I know who will listen to facts, she brought up some law that Israel passed sometime in the last couple years that limited Arab rights in someway.
I can't remember which exact law it was but I remember when it passed that alot of people used it as proof of apartheid, but I saw multiple Jewish/Israeli blogs explaining why that wasn't true. I wish I could remember exactly what it was so I could look up those posts because I know she's gotten it wrong somehow.
Is there any chance you know what law I'm talking about? She claims Arab knesset members stood up in protest during or after the vote for it, if that narrows it down (if that even happened).
She's talking about the Nation State Law.
Yes, Arab Knesset members did protest during the vote. The law passed 62-55 in July 2018 and yes, Arab Knesset members did protest it.
The Nation State Law declares that the Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. It says that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
Beyond that, it codifies the state's symbols (flag, menorah emblem, Hatikvah), declares Jerusalem the capital, establishes Hebrew as the state's language while giving Arabic a "special status" (with an explicit clause that nothing in the law harms Arabic's existing legal status), and commits the state to ensuring the safety of Jews abroad who are in danger due to their Jewishness.
The strongest critiques I can find in English come from Israeli centrists and liberals, who address what the law omits rather than what it contains.
The Israel Democracy Institute's position is that the Nation State Law's flaw is in its failure to explicitly address equality, democracy, and the Declaration of Independence. Their recommendation was simply to amend it to include an explicit statement that Israel is also the home of its minorities and add an explicit guarantee of equal rights for all citizens. Having lived my entire life as part of a tiny ethnic minority (2% of my nation's population), I think I agree.
However, the law did not limit the rights of any of Israel's citizens, whether Jewish, Arabic, or of any other ethnic/national/religious heritage.
The Arabic language point specifically
People often cite the language provision as the most concrete example of harm. Arabic's special status, though, was preserved - and the law explicitly states that this clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before it came into effect. Arabic went from being formally co-official (in practice, a status that was already largely symbolic) to having "special status" with its existing practical protections intact. That's a demotion in symbolic standing (which is worth noting) but it didn't strip Arabic speakers of any legal protections, access to services, or any practical right.
Israel is targeted with outrage for defining itself as the homeland of a particular people and prioritizing that people's self-determination - this is characterized as uniquely monstrous and unjust.
It is, however, common to countless constitutional democracies.
Ireland: The Irish Constitution explicitly states that "the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage." Ireland is the ethnonational homeland of the Irish people. No one calls this apartheid.
Germany: Article 116 of Germany's Basic Law grants ethnic Germans (people of German descent living in former Eastern Bloc countries) the right to return to Germany and claim citizenship. German legislation provides unique opportunities for persons of German origin to obtain citizenship based on proof of German ethnic origin, through a repatriation process based on proof of German roots. Germany's constitution privileges ethnic Germans. Nobody calls this apartheid either.
Greece: Greek law maintains a separate, expedited naturalization track specifically for ethnic Greeks abroad, and derives ethnic identity and citizenship eligibility from a single grandparent. Nobody accuses Greece of apartheid.
Poland: The Polish constitution commits the Republic of Poland to providing assistance to Poles living abroad to maintain their links with the national cultural heritage. Apartheid never comes up when discussing this.
All of these countries define themselves constitutionally as the nation-states of specific ethnic or cultural groups. All of them maintain special relationships with their diasporas.
None of them have had this characterized as apartheid.
When Israel is held to a standard applied to no other nation, one cannot help but ask: Why is Israel uniquely held to a different standard?
It's the nation of the Jews. That's what they find uniquely unacceptable.
When every other nation gets to define its ethnic and cultural character and Israel alone is called an apartheid state for doing the same thing, the question isn't whether a double standard exists - it obviously exits.
The only question is if those acting on the double standard will admit it's only explanation.
(You can read the text of the law in English here)
(Israelis - please do jump in if I get any of this wrong? My understanding of Israeli politics is obviously limited by ~6,000 miles and my lousy Hebrew.)
