A socialist welfare state exists to ensure that all citizens, no matter ethnicity or religion, benefit equally and in the case of Israel, this does not hold to be true. The Israeli welfare state demonstrates favoritism for certain sects of Jewish society while at the same time marginalizing and excluding marginalized populations such as Arabs and Palestinians. Furthermore, the neoliberalization of the Israeli economy and introduction of neoliberal policies fosters inequality in the form of wage inequality and rising poverty among certain groups. Neoliberal policy, however, positively benefit the traditional dominant players in Israeli society, non-Haredi Jews, as well as non-traditional players, such as Arab women. The advent of neoliberalism
…show more content…
Additionally, with the Israeli state favoring Jews in welfare programs this, in turn, led to deep inequalities of populations who threaten the Jewish identity. For instance, the intentions in the creation of the state of Israel reflect a preference in the assistance of Jewish populations by prioritizing Jewish settlement in an “exclusivism” in their “absorption capacity” (Lecture 17). That is, the purpose of aiming welfare policies toward Jewish immigrants assists in creating a homogenous society and at the same time hinders those outside of the Jewish identity. For instance, the welfare state in Israel delivered certain “loyalty benefits” to groups favored by the state (Lecture 17). These benefits, in terms of categorical allowances, “connect to the way in which Israeli society relates,” that is, “immigrations and the Arab-Israeli conflict” (Gal). Israel’s Law of Return policy grants access to citizenship to Jews who wish to immigrate to Israel, which negates the equality of Arab populations, for example, who wish to do the same. Furthermore, the “immigrants arriving in Israel according to the Law of Return are eligible for most social security benefits” (Gal) and excludes immigrants of different faith and ethnicity from those same …show more content…
Case in point, the state of Israel did not desire anyone to enter their borders for “anything except tourism, unless they were Jewish” (Lecture 14) and carried out this sentiment through targeted policy and a harsh deportation strategy. Although Israel proves to be an “ethnically divided society” the Arab citizenry “constitute[s] a subordinate social, political, and national minority” (Raijman Et. Al) illustrated in a repressive deportation policy toward Arab and other foreign migrants. First, “guest,” or foreign workers fail to be granted equality in Israel by not having access “to any social security benefits or social benefits,” including the education system officially barring instruction to the children of these foreign workers (Lecture 14). Second, the foreign worker remains in fear of Israel’s xenophobic labor migration policy which reflects Israel’s “continuous anxiety” of a diversifying ethnic demographic that “may pose a threat to its Jewish character” (Raijman Et. Al). Lastly, Israel never intended nor had a socialist welfare state because Israel desired to maintain the Zionist central feature of the country’s founding, a Jewish state to protect and preserve the Jewish
Additionally, with the Israeli state favoring Jews in welfare programs this, in turn, led to deep inequalities of populations who threaten the Jewish identity. For instance, the intentions in the creation of the state of Israel reflect a preference in the assistance of Jewish populations by prioritizing Jewish settlement in an “exclusivism” in their “absorption capacity” (Lecture 17). That is, the purpose of aiming welfare policies toward Jewish immigrants assists in creating a homogenous society and at the same time hinders those outside of the Jewish identity. For instance, the welfare state in Israel delivered certain “loyalty benefits” to groups favored by the state (Lecture 17). These benefits, in terms of categorical allowances, “connect to the way in which Israeli society relates,” that is, “immigrations and the Arab-Israeli conflict” (Gal). Israel’s Law of Return policy grants access to citizenship to Jews who wish to immigrate to Israel, which negates the equality of Arab populations, for example, who wish to do the same. Furthermore, the “immigrants arriving in Israel according to the Law of Return are eligible for most social security benefits” (Gal) and excludes immigrants of different faith and ethnicity from those same …show more content…
Case in point, the state of Israel did not desire anyone to enter their borders for “anything except tourism, unless they were Jewish” (Lecture 14) and carried out this sentiment through targeted policy and a harsh deportation strategy. Although Israel proves to be an “ethnically divided society” the Arab citizenry “constitute[s] a subordinate social, political, and national minority” (Raijman Et. Al) illustrated in a repressive deportation policy toward Arab and other foreign migrants. First, “guest,” or foreign workers fail to be granted equality in Israel by not having access “to any social security benefits or social benefits,” including the education system officially barring instruction to the children of these foreign workers (Lecture 14). Second, the foreign worker remains in fear of Israel’s xenophobic labor migration policy which reflects Israel’s “continuous anxiety” of a diversifying ethnic demographic that “may pose a threat to its Jewish character” (Raijman Et. Al). Lastly, Israel never intended nor had a socialist welfare state because Israel desired to maintain the Zionist central feature of the country’s founding, a Jewish state to protect and preserve the Jewish