By Farhang Jahanpour
OXFORD, Sep 24 2014 (IPS)

When, all of a sudden, ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) emerged on the scene and in a matter of days occupied large swathes of mainly Sunni-inhabited parts of Iraq and Syria, including Iraq’s second city Mosul and Tikrit, birthplace of Saddam Hussein, and called itself the Islamic State, many people, not least Western politicians and intelligence services, were taken by surprise.

Farhang Jahanpour

Unlike in the Western world, religion still plays a dominant role in people’s lives in the Middle East region. When talking about Sunni and Shia divisions we should not be thinking of the differences between Catholics and Protestants in the contemporary West, but should throw our mind back to Europe’s wars of religion (1524-1648) that proved to be among the most vicious and deadly wars in history.

Just as the Hundred Years’ War in Europe was not based only on religion, the Sunni-Shia conflicts in the Middle East too have diverse causes, but are often intensified by religious differences. At least, various groups use religion as an excuse and as a rallying call to mobilise their forces against their opponents.

Ever since U.S. encouragement of Saudi and Pakistani authorities to organise and use jihadi fighters following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, to the rise of Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks on Sep. 11, 2001, followed by the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and military involvement in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, it seems that the United States has had the reverse effect of the Midas touch, in the sense that whichever crisis the United States has touched has turned to dust.“Now, with the rise of ISIS and other terrorist organisations, the entire Middle East is on fire. It would be the height of folly to dismiss or underestimate this movement as a local uprising that will disappear by itself, and to ignore its appeal to a large number of marginalised and disillusioned Sunni militants”

Now, with the rise of ISIS and other terrorist organisations, the entire Middle East is on fire. It would be the height of folly to dismiss or underestimate this movement as a local uprising that will disappear by itself, and to ignore its appeal to a large number of marginalised and disillusioned Sunni militants.

In view of its ideology, fanaticism, ruthlessness, the territories that it has already occupied, and its regional and perhaps even global ambitions, ISIS can be regarded as the greatest threat since the Second World War and one that could change the map of the Middle East and the post-First World War geography of the entire region, and challenge Western interests in the Persian Gulf and beyond.

When Islam appeared in the deserts of Arabia some 1400 years ago, with an uncompromising message of monotheism and the slogan “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God”, it changed the plight of the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula and formed a religion and a civilisation that even now claims upward of 1.5 billion adherents in all parts of the world, and forms the majority faith in 57 countries that are members of the Islamic Cooperation Organization.

Contrary to many previous prophets who did not see the success of their mission during their own lifetime, in the case of Islam not only did Muhammad manage to unite the Arabs in the name of Islam in the entire Arabian Peninsula, but he even managed to form a state and ruled over the converted Muslims both as their prophet and ruler. The creation of the Islamic umma or community during Muhammad’s lifetime in Medina and later on in the whole of Arabia is a unique occurrence in the history of religion.

Consequently, while most religions look forward to an ideal state or to the “Kingdom of God” as a future aspiration, Muslims look back at the period of Muhammad’s rule in Arabia as the ideal state. Therefore, what a pious Muslim wishes to do is to look back at the life and teachings of the Prophet, and especially his rule in Arabia, and take it as the highest standard of an ideal religious government.

This is why the Salafis, namely those who turn to salaf or the early fathers and ancestors, have always proved so attractive to many fundamentalist Muslims. Being a Salafi is a call to Muslims to reject the modern world and to follow the example of the Prophet and the early caliphs.

When, in 1516-17, the armies of Ottoman Sultan Selim I captured Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Muslim holy places in Arabia, the sultan assumed the title of caliph, and therefore the Ottoman Empire was also regarded a Sunni caliphate.

Although not all Muslims, especially many Arabs, recognise Ottoman rule as a caliphate, the caliphate nevertheless continued in name until the fall of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War when the caliphate was officially abolished in 1922.

The fall of the last powerful Islamic empire was not only traumatic from a political and military point of view but, with the end of the caliphate, the Sunnis lost a unifying religious authority as well.

It is very difficult for many Westerners to understand the feeling of hurt and humiliation that many Sunni Muslims feel as the result of what they have suffered in the past century. To have an idea, they should imagine that a mighty Christian empire that had lasted for many centuries had fallen as the result of Muslim conquest and that, in addition to the loss of the empire, the papacy had also been abolished at the same time.

With the end of the caliphate, Sunni countries were left rudderless, to be divided among various foreign powers which imposed their economic, military and cultural domination, as well as their beliefs and their way of life, on them. The feeling of hurt and humiliation that many Muslims have felt since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the strong longing for its reinstatement, still continues.

To add insult to injury, before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Western powers, especially Great Britain, had promised the Arabs that if they would rise up against the Ottomans, after the war they would be allowed to form an Islamic caliphate in the area comprising all the Arab lands ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

Not only were these promises not fulfilled, but as part of the Sykes-Picot_Agreement on 16 May 1916, Britain and France secretly plotted to divide the Arab lands between them and they even promised Istanbul to Russia. Not only was a unified Arab caliphate not formed, but the Balfour_Declaration generously offered a part of Arab territory that Britain did not possess to the Zionists, to form a “national home for the Jewish people”.

In Winston Churchill’s words, Britain sold one piece of real estate (to which it had no claim in the first place) to two people at the same time.

The age of colonialism came to an end almost uniformly through military coups involving officers who had the ability to fight against foreign occupation. From the campaigns of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, to the rise of Reza Khan in Iran, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, the military coups in Iraq and Syria that later led to the establishment of the Baâthist governments of Hafiz al-Assad in Syria and Abd al-Karim Qasim, Abdul Salam Arif and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and so on, practically all Middle Eastern countries achieved their independence as the result of military coups.

While the new military leaders managed to establish some order through the barrel of the gun, they were completely ignorant of the historical, religious and cultural backgrounds of their nations and totally alien to any concept of democracy and human rights.

In the absence of any civil society, democratic traditions and social freedom, the only path that was open to the masses that wished to mobilise against the rule of their military dictators was to turn to religion and use the mosques as their headquarters.

The rise of religious movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Ennahda Movement in Tunisia, FIS in Algeria and Al-Dawah in Iraq, were seen as a major threat by the military rulers and were ruthlessly suppressed.

The main tragedy of modern Middle Eastern regimes has been that they have been unable not only to involve the Islamist movements in government, but they have even failed to involve them in the society in any meaningful way.

This is why after repeated defeats, divisions and humiliation, there has always been a longing among militant Sunni Muslims, especially Arabs whose countries were artificially divided and dominated by Western colonialism and later by military dictators, for the revival of the caliphate. Even mere utterance of ‘Islamic caliphate’ brings a burst of adrenaline to many secular Sunnis.

The failure of military dictatorships and the marginalisation and even the elimination of religiously-oriented groups have led to the rise of vicious extremism and terrorism. The terrorist group ISIS is making use of this situation and is basing its appeal on the reinstatement of the caliphate. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

(Edited by Phil Harris)

Excerpt:

Photo courtesy of Rabbi Brant Rosen.

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Dec 6 2012 (IPS)

Rabbi Brant Rosen leads a congregation in Evanston, Illinois and is author of the new book, Wrestling in the Daylight: A Rabbi’s Path to Palestinian Solidarity.

Speaking with Mitchell Plitnick, Rosen, co-chair of the Rabbinical Council of Jewish Voice for Peace, stressed that the views both in his book and in this interview are his own and do not represent his congregation. Excerpts follow.

Q: How has your personal view of Israel changed in the past four years?

A: I had seen the conflict as two peoples having two legitimate claims to the land of Israel-Palestine and the only way out of the morass is two states for two peoples. I had identified with Israel as a Jew; that was my narrative growing up. I have deep familial relationships there, visited Israel many times, and even considered moving there.

The shift in my views was a gradual thing, but the breaking point was Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 (this was the name Israel gave to its assault on the Gaza Strip at that time). I came to realise this was not a conflict between two equal parties but an essential injustice that began with the birth of the state of Israel and has continued since that time. It is a situation of one very powerful party bending the other to its will.

Once I spoke out about Israel’s outrages in Cast Lead, the dominoes really started to fall for me. As a congregational rabbi I was in a difficult place and people looked to me for guidance. About a year after that, I reassessed my relationship as a Jew to Israel, to the entire issue, not just Gaza, but about Zionism in general.

I become more involved in Palestine Solidarity work, reaching out to Palestinians, some of whom were friends and others who were activists in this area. So many of them reached out to me when I spoke out on Gaza, and I wanted to learn from them what their experience of this issue was.

Today, I know where I stand, very much a rabbi in the Jewish community, still serving my congregation, still motivated by Jewish values, but also someone who stands in solidarity with Palestinians in their struggle for human rights, equal rights and dignity in the land they either live in or seek to return to.

Q: Jewish Voice for Peace is one of the leading groups involved in targeted divestment from Israel’s occupation, a part of the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to bring public economic and political pressure on Israel. How do you see the future of this movement?

A: I think the movement is growing by leaps and bounds, attracting more and more people. When the U.N. vote on Palestine’s non-member status hit, it drowned out another story I thought was actually more important: Stevie Wonder backed out of a fundraising concert for a U.S. group called the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.

He is the latest celebrity to express his support for the Palestinian cause by cancelling such concerts following a long list of artists and entertainers who have cancelled shows in Israel. Whether they did it because of public pressure or because they believed it to be right, it shows the power of the boycott movement.

To create political change, leveraging people power is the best method; historically, this has consistently been the case. The fact that Israel reacts so harshly against it shows its potential. When Hillary Clinton says 3,000 new settlement units are “not helpful”, that doesn’t get Israel’s attention.

On the other hand, when Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice in Palestine and a wide range of church groups succeed in getting a large holding company to divest from the occupation, that’s front page news in Israel. That is a sign that this has a great impact, when used in a smart and concerted way.

Contrary to the frequent accusations, BDS is not anti-Semitic. I think the argument that it unfairly singles out Israel from other human rights abusers is disingenuous… The question is not whether Israel is legitimate; it exists and is part of the international community. But if Israel acts in an illegitimate way, citizens around the world have the right and responsibility to leverage what power they can to get them to cease.

Q: Do you think the recent call by 15 mainstream Protestant leaders of many different denominations for an inquiry into whether U.S. aid to Israel is in compliance with existing U.S. law is a significant new development?

A: Yes. I think the most important thing is that the leaders are standing firm and are not backing down despite being excoriated and being called everything up to and including anti-Semites. That is important because up until now the covenant on religious relations has been that you can talk about anything BUT Israel, and this time they’ve broken with that.

They have until now been bullied by the Jewish establishment. This can usher in a new relationship where we can talk about anything, not only the things we have in common, but also these issues, like Israeli policy, where we don’t always agree. I’m proud that JVP stood behind the statement.

Jewish leaders said they would walk out of a planned interfaith summit, and demanded a separate summit to discuss these issues. I thought this was very damaging, this is not something resembling dialogue.

The Church leaders have issued a second statement saying they would be happy to meet with Jewish leaders about this, that we’re happy to talk, but we are not going back on what we said. This is very healthy; this is real dialogue, which occurs when you focus on the painful issues you don’t agree on.

It’s very important that Christians see that many Jews do stand with them when they make statements like this. The Jewish establishment does not represent the Jewish community. The Jewish community is much larger and more complex than these unaccountable representatives whose names most Jews don’t even know.

*Rabbi Brant Rosen blogs at Shalom Rav.

Excerpt:

Jewish groups have reacted furiously to a letter to Congress by 15 leaders of Christian denominations asking for a review of whether some of the three billion dollars in annual United States aid to Israel is being used in violation of U.S. law and policies.

After pulling out of an interfaith dialogue conference, several Jewish groups stepped up their attacks on the Christian leaders, accusing them of bias against Israel and even of anti-Semitism.

The Christians’ letter stated that they believed that the unconditional U.S. aid given to Israel contributes to the “deteriorating conditions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories which threaten to lead the region further away from the realization of a just peace… sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The letter was sent to Congress by leaders of such prominent Protestant denominations as the Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Christ and the National Council of Churches (USA), among others.

It called for “an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons to ‘internal security’ or ‘legitimate self-defense.’”

The church leaders state that their concerns are based on witnessing the questionable use of U.S. weapons firsthand as well as the annual report of the U.S. State Department, which, they say, “details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.”

Jewish groups, led by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), responded angrily. The JCPA stated, “(The churches’) stony silence to the use of anti-Judaism and relentless attacks on the Jewish state, often from within their own ranks, speaks loudly to their failure to stand up and speak the whole truth about what is occurring in the Middle East.”

The criticism spanned a wide spectrum of U.S.-Jewish politics. Prominent neoconservative Elliott Abrams, a former U.S. official who also headed the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he frequently clashed with church peace groups, called it “the latest chapter in the unending hostility to Israel that has marked several of the mainline Protestant denominations.”

Abrams, like the more mainstream Jewish groups, sees the letter as motivated by hostility toward Israel. Like them, he does not engage directly with the substance of the letter, nor does he answer the charges of systematic human rights abuses by Israel, but instead raises questions not directly related to the letter’s content to support his contention that the letter is motivated by anti-Israel malice.

And, while Abrams is surely correct in asserting that “It is unlikely that the churches’ letter will affect the level of aid to Israel,” he does not explain why, if that is the case, such a wide spectrum of the Jewish community has reacted so strongly to it.

The centrist J Street was just as critical as Abrams, though with a far more conciliatory tone. In an op-ed on Newsweek’s Daily Beast web site, the vice president of their education fund, Rachel Lerner wrote: “J Street opposes proposals to condition or cut security assistance to Israel…As with so many efforts to address this complex situation, the letter fails to weigh criticism of Israel’s behavior with appropriate criticism of, for instance, rocket fire from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas…

“We also question the timing of the letter – coming as it does a few short weeks before Election Day, when this sensitive issue has already become too much of a political football.”

These specifics were cited by Abrams, the JCPA and the ADL as well. But the letter asks not for a cut or conditioning of aid, but a review of whether that aid is being given in compliance with U.S. law, something that has been done frequently with U.S. foreign aid.

The letter also makes several mentions of Israeli hardships, specifically rockets fired from Gaza, and consistently equates Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

“Over the years, a number of members of Congress have asked the State Department to report on whether specific incidents constituted violations of the Arms Export Control Act, Foreign Assistance Act or other U.S. laws by Israel,” Joshua Ruebner, the National Advocacy Director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, told IPS.

“Even though the State Department’s annual report on human rights in the Occupied Territories regularly documents abuses, the reports come back clean every time. Even though the Christian leaders’ letter asks for a comprehensive review, which has never been done before, the Jewish groups’ response seems like an overreaction.”

Indeed, Ruebner documents that just under the last two U.S. presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. has cut or placed under review aid to five countries – Zimbabwe, Colombia, the Phillipines, Pakistan and Bahrain – due to violations of U.S. law in the use of weapons supplied through U.S. military aid.

“The United States has in the past sanctioned both Israel and other countries for violations of U.S. laws,” Ruebner said. “Yet, despite Israel’s systematic human rights abuses during this period, not once since 2000 has any administration formally or publicly held Israel accountable for its misuse of U.S. weapons in violation of its own laws.”

The Christian leaders who wrote the open letter have remained quiet, neither responding to the attacks on them nor backing away from the substance of their letter. But they have also received support from some Jewish circles. The group Jewish Voice for Peace, and more importantly, their Rabbinical Council, came out in strong support of the Christian letter.

As dismay among more liberal U.S. citizens with Israel’s ongoing occupation and intransigence on negotiations grows, it is possible that this letter will come to be seen as the beginning of a wider debate within mainstream churches over U.S. policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Some church organisations which have been actively working for peace for some time and are part of denominations which signed the letter are apparently energised.

“Israel’s grave and systematic abuses of Palestinian human rights and violations of international law have been thoroughly documented for many years by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and even by the U.S. State Department,” said Rev. Jeff DeYoe, Advocacy Chair of Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

“We’re pleased and encouraged that church leaders from a growing number of denominations are recognising this and taking a stand in favour of justice and freedom for all the peoples of the Holy Land. We hope members of Congress will do the same.”

Badr Abu Ad-Dula at the entrance of his home. Credit: Pierre Klochendler/IPS.

By Walter García and Pierre Klochendler
SHEIKH JARRAH, Occupied East Jerusalem, Sep 18 2012 (IPS)

“See the bullets from the 1948 and 1967 wars,” Badr Abu Ad-Dula says, showing the scars of the old frontline on the outer walls of the building where he and his family of 13 live. “Here’s the Jordanian outpost.” The elderly Palestinian points at a loophole, now a bedroom window.

Across the narrow street, a nondescript mound of corrugated metal and oxidised barbed wire marks the now non-existent border.

Ad-Dula’s house is located on the pre-1967 no-man’s-land between the city’s eastern and western sectors. Forty-five years on, the three-storey building has become one of the multiple frontlines within Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem.

The five families who live there under one roof – 70 people all in all – are united against a common threat – that of eviction by an Israeli settler group called Nahalat Shimon whose purpose is to settle Jews in the neighbourhood.

During the Jordanian rule interlude (1948-1967), Palestinians – many of them refugees – were granted squatters’ rights in East Jerusalem houses under the jurisdiction of the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property, and replaced the former Jewish residents who’d vacated their homes and went to live on the Israeli side.

Ultra-nationalist Israelis invoke Israel’s Absentee Property Law imposed on the occupied part of the city in order to evict Palestinians from houses where they’ve now been living for decades.

Up the street, a Jewish activist comes out of an Arab house that, up until four years ago, was exclusively occupied by the Al-Kurds. Graffiti scribbled on the front leaves no doubt as to the bitter conflict that pitted the Israeli intruders against the Palestinian family. “Free Palestine – of Leftist scum”, it reads.

“Pro-Palestinian activists wrote their part; we added ours,” says Yaakov Fauci, one of the Jewish tenants who now occupy the front rooms. The Al-Kurds were relegated to the back of the house.

“(Israel’s) Supreme Court ruled in our favour,” he adds. “But the front is an illegal extension of the original construction in the back. It didn’t have building permits, and thus was in violation of the squatters’ rights agreement.

“So the Court ruled that the Arabs had to move out to the back. We actually moved into the illegal annex,” he says.

“It’s a strange situation – unprecedented in Israeli law, one might say: we legally live in an illegal building,” Fauci concedes, “but lots of strange things happen nowadays. It’s just a very bad situation.”

Enforced by means of legalistic battles which can last for years, forced cohabitation is closely monitored, under surveillance, so to speak. Houses occupied by Jewish settlers are equipped with CCTV cameras.

And, there’s no genuine co-existence when the mutual perception is that national existence is at stake. “Everybody minds their own business. We must hold on to what we have,” declares Fauci.

Down the street, “to hold on to what we have” reflects precisely Badr Abu ad-Dula’s mindset.

“I’m only getting out of here with the bulldozers,” angrily warns the head of the family, mimicking a caterpillar forklift with his arms. “I’ve lived here for the past 57 years. I’m staying here – that’s it.”

Ever since he was three years old, ad-Dula has been living in this building. Following the 1948 war, it was abandoned by its Jewish owners. At the time, the ad-Dulas lived in the Old City. They were poor.

Granted squatters’ rights by the Jordanian authorities in 1955, they moved into what’s now home. “Nobody wanted to live here, close to the border. We were considered crazy,” he recalls.

A couple of months after the city’s re-unification under Israeli rule in 1967, the Jewish owners’ heirs set to claim back their property.

“In 1972, the Israeli District Court ruled that the building belongs to Jews, fine. But it also forbade our eviction. It forbade us from renovating the premises, fine. But it also forbade the owners to raise the rent,” he says.

Yet two years ago, the “rightful” owners sold the property to U.S. Jewish tycoon Irving Moskowitz, the backer of many settlement projects within Palestinian areas of the city.

The case is now back in court. “Moskowitz wants to evict all the Arabs from here. I don’t care. There’s a court ruling. We pay our rent,” protests Ad-Dula, who works as director of maintenance at the nearby Mount Scopus Hotel.

This is a house which the tenants persist to call home. Ad-Dula’s neighbour, Umm Auni Bashiti claims that her family had “four shops and seven houses” in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter before 1948. “Let the Israelis give those properties back to me,” she says.

Yet, Israelis enjoy a privilege that Palestinians don’t have – the return of property abandoned in the wake of the 1948 war.

The settlers’ rationale goes like this: “East Jerusalem properties were taken over by legitimate war and conquest,” affirms a settler neighbour who wouldn’t divulge his name.

“However, if they want to challenge us legally, I’m sure that they’ll have their day in court,” he adds confidently.

The settlers are self-assured – soon, they believe their multiple legal battles over ownership rights and deeds in East Jerusalem will cement an irreversible reality.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government’s laissez-faire policy in the face of the settlers’ resolve is only deepening the diplomatic stalemate. “The way to peace is assertion of our claims and rights,” is the settlers’ motto.

Dusk – dinnertime. It’s simple fare at the ad-Dula’s household – roast chicken, boiled rice and salads.

In times of uncertainty, it’s also time to seek comfort in family, and pray. “I wish my children and grandchildren would live here all their lives like me. But they’ll have to leave,” predicts Ad-Dula. “The settlers have laws and lawyers; we’ve got only God’s justice.”

(This is the second of a two-part report on the battle being waged by Israeli settlers over land and real estate within Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem.)

Thousands of ultra-Orthodox men, women and children have been demonstrating in Jerusalem against the Israeli government’s move to make military service mandatory for members of their community.

Opposition to instating compulsory draft is widespread across the ultra-Orthodox community.

“They fear that exposing young men who have been cloistered behind the ‘walls of holiness’ to military service, with its high levels of adrenaline, will change their identity,” Yedidia Stern, vice-president of the Israel Democracy Institute and professor of law at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv wrote in an opinion piece in Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot.

“Replacing the thrill of mastering a Talmudic question with the thrill of storming a building, firearm in hand, at an impressionable age when external influences are absorbed, could damage the unique identity of the next generation of this distinct cultural group,” he wrote, describing their fears.

In February, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that a law exempting ultra-Orthodox Jews from military service was unconstitutional. The Tal Law was originally passed in 2002 and expired Aug. 1.

Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak said at the time of the Supreme Court ruling that “the Tal Law, after ten years, did not meet expectations, nor did it lead to the required changes… concerning equally sharing the burden.”

The ultra-Orthodox Jewish community makes up approximately ten percent of the Israeli population. Ultra-Orthodox men do not work, and instead spend most of their time studying Torah, the Jewish law. The Israeli government provides financial and social services to the community, which has a poverty rate of 60 percent.

This support has caused tensions between secular and religious Jews; in early July thousands of Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv demanding that all segments of the Israeli population “shoulder the burden” of military service.

This tense situation, according to Yedidia Stern, has the potential of tearing Israeli society apart and further alienating the ultra-Orthodox community. “(Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu is likely to bring upon himself the wrath of the streets, as last year’s summer protests reawaken. The coming summer has the potential of being particularly volatile for Israeli society.”

Netanyahu recently formed the “Pleisner Committee” to draft new legislation on compulsory military national service for ultra-Orthodox men. The Israeli government also signaled its intention to mandate national service for the approximately 1.6 million Palestinian citizens of the state.

“I’m determined to bring about a dramatic increase in the proportion who share the burden (of service) among Haredim and Arabs alike. We will no longer permit the situation of those who don’t serve to be equal to that of those who do,” Netanyahu reportedly said. The Haredim are the most conservative among Orthodox Jews.

Supervised by the National Service Administration, a body that operates under the control of the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, national service is a voluntary programme that young men and women exempt from Israel’s compulsory army service can participate in.

To date, the programme has been voluntary in nature; according to the National Civil Service Directorate, more than 1,550 Palestinians participated in 2011, up from only 240 in 2006. Most volunteers assist staff in schools, hospitals and other public institutions throughout the country, but some can also serve in security institutions such as the Israeli police forces.

On Jul. 18, at least 400 Arab youth – Palestinian, Bedouin and Druze citizens of Israel – gathered in Nazareth to voice their opposition to being forced into the programme.

“This is a serious threat to our future, to our community, to our youngsters,” said Nadim Nashif, director of Baladna, a Palestinian youth organisation based in Haifa, which jointly organised the event. “It’s not voluntarism because it has a political context.”

Nashif told IPS that people are opposed to the national service programme because it threatens Palestinian identity, is linked to the Israeli military establishment, and conditions Palestinian citizens’ rights on the basis of duty to the state.

“One of the scenarios that we are worried about is that some (Palestinian youth) will be serving and will get some kind of rights, and others who would be refusing, their rights will be decreasing. It’s making kind of a class system inside our community,” Nashif said.

Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute one of the most disadvantaged segments of Israeli society: over half of all Palestinian families in Israel are classified as poor, compared to a national average of 20 percent, according to the 2011 Inequality Report released by Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

Unemployment rates are also disproportionately high in the Palestinian community – only 20 percent of Palestinian women are members of the workforce – and Palestinian towns and cities annually rank the lowest socioeconomic level in Israel, the Adalah study found.

According to Nashif, the case of Druze citizens of Israel – who have been subjected to a mandatory draft since 1956 – is a prime example of how serving the Israeli establishment doesn’t guarantee equal rights.

“Since 1956, the vast majority of young (Druze) males are serving in the army. They’re not getting equal rights. In many situations and aspects, their situation is worse than the rest of the Arabs. This is a very solid proof that having rights is not about if you’re serving or not, it’s about if you’re Jewish or not,” he said.

“Our rights are natural. Our rights should not be conditioned by this politician or that politician, or any kind of law.”

To date, a failure to agree on the terms of a universal draft has had major consequences for Israeli politics; Shaul Mofaz, head of Israel’s centre-right Kadima party, pulled out of Netanyahu’s coalition government over the issue.

Israeli Vice-Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon has formulated a new draft of the legislation. According to Israeli media reports, the plan would see the age of exemption for ultra-Orthodox men lowered gradually, with the intent of having 6,000 enlist in the army by 2016. The target set for Palestinians joining the national service is 5,000 by that same year.