[e-neko]

References, because of course nobody believes it.

>Currently, in Israel “proper” (within the Green Line), only 7 percent of the land is owned privately by individuals (3 percent Jews and 4 percent Arabs). According to the Israeli NGO Regavim, the rest is owned by the Jewish state (80 percent) and the Jewish National Fund (13 percent)

https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/marty_kaplan/12...

[dundarious]

Thanks, but those figures weren't what I was asking about -- I do believe in their accuracy, and used a similar breakdown when writing my comment. I meant regarding the following:

> [Arab Israeli citizens owning private land] apply similar restriction on any Jewish family trying to settle in a predominantly Arab town or village. A similar restriction doesn't apply to predominantly Jewish towns, only to small community villages.

I'm not sure, because you clearly make a distinction between towns and small community villages, so I could be wrong, but it sounds like even there you are describing the (probably rampant) petty discrimination by individuals on 4% of the land. My default is also to assume there are comparable levels of petty discrimination on the other 3% of private land, unless you have some reference to support your comments about restrictions only applying in the other direction.

To repeat another point though, I am highlighting the rigidly enforced discrimination on at least 13% of the land, and think this is far more significant than haphazard petty discrimination on either side of the 4% and 3% private land divide, where creating or buttressing homogenous communities is far harder without state support (though one side does have that). Never mind that, like I said I don't have time to research it now, but I think a substantial portion of that 80% of state land has similar restrictions in place against non-Jewish nationals.

As I said:

> Of course there will be petty discrimination, perhaps even rooted in each side's belief that each property transaction is really a territorial battle. The actions of consequence are those of the state and those backed by the state apparatus.

To make clear the reasons for this:

- they cover a far greater proportion of the land

- they are far more rigidly enforced

- their power to engineer demography is far greater, as the instruments at their disposal are far more powerful (punitive travel/work restrictions, evictions, municipal infrastructure support/denial, military support/harassment, etc.)

[e-neko]

The reason I make a distinction between towns and small villages is because Israeli laws only allow committee-based exclusion in small villages. Grow to the size of a town and anyone can move in (buying via third party if one is afraid of discrimination, if necessary). It would only face "petty discrimination" if it moves into a radical religious neighbourhood, but then the same would happen to a non-religious Jewish family.

However, if a Jewish family tries to move into a predominantly Arab town, it will be pushed out even if legally there is no exclusion. Yes, by illegal means if necessary. The petty discrimination levels are different in those two cases.

Regardless of the above, the majority of Israeli population (92%) lives in large cities, where every citizen can buy an apartment, and in most cases the construction companies are not allowed to discriminate at all.

[dundarious]

Well I think there are ample cases that are in conflict with the idea that "anyone can move" into any Jewish neighborhood in larger towns and cities, and then you have groups like Elad in Jerusalem on top of that. https://archive.ph/20180614062757/https://www.haaretz.com/is...

[e-neko]

This case in Afula actually contradicts your point, as Israeli authorities upheld the sale.

http://web.archive.org/web/20210214010143/https://www.haaret...

[dundarious]

I was just thinking that I should expand the point to illustrate what I mean when I saw your reply -- I wasn't clear. The article I posted is about the actions of the mayor, but I was using it as an example of petty discrimination, without explaining why.

The point I was indirectly making, was that there was vocal support from other Jewish Israelis in the area. It's highly probable that among those protesters, there are many such people where if they were selling their property, they would not obligingly sell to the best offer if it came from an Arab Israeli. My personal opinion is that there would be many who would not make the sale (there are also many many Jewish Israelis who would, of course). This one concrete case becomes in all likelihood many examples of the exact thing we're talking about.

I do agree that there are some judicial checks in place against some such cases.