A common human trait is the need for vindication, which often manifests itself in the post-facto, fleetingly satisfying though entirely futile expression: “I told you so.” This temptation to self-congratulate is best resisted, because what does it matter when the damage has already been done? Yet there are those cases when the “I told you so” comes as a warning that if not reversed, the situation could get worse, much worse. One of these instances is Israel"s wretched nation-state law, which was passed by the Knesset in 2018 and anchored in law the already widespread discrimination against Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. Increasingly, we are witnessing the rotten, racist fruits of this poisonous piece of legislation. Last month, an Israeli judge cited the contentious nation-state law in rejecting a lawsuit brought to court by two siblings aged 6 and 10, through their lawyer uncle, who asked to be reimbursed for their daily expenses incurred while traveling to an Arabic-speaking school outside the Galilean city of Karmiel. In dismissing the suit, the chief registrar based the ruling on the nation-state law, stating that “Karmiel, a Jewish city, was meant to establish a Jewish settlement in Galilee,” and that to fund such transport raised the concern that it would lead to an influx of Arab-Israeli citizens and consequently change the demographic makeup of the city. Hence this ruling is my rare occasion of “I (in this case some of us) told you so” after we had warned that Israel’s nation-state law was from the outset a legal license for discriminatory and racist policies deliberately aimed to put the Jewish character of the country above the equality of all its citizens. It could be argued that above all, the nation-state law was merely the legal rubberstamping of an already existing, daily discriminatory state of affairs for millions of Arab-Israeli citizens. In this case, the plaintiffs sued the Karmiel Municipality for 25,000 shekels (about $7,500), probably more in hope than belief that the solemn promise of the 1948 Declaration of Independence — that the new Jewish state “will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants” — would be applicable to them too as they are after all Israeli citizens, apparently with the same rights as the Jewish population. The country’s founding fathers promised to establish a nation that guarantees equality of social and political rights “to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex,” as well as freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. To ensure that children belonging to a minority that comprises more than a fifth of the population would be able to learn in an Arabic-language school is the epitome of respect for such values. It could be argued that above all, the nation-state law was merely the legal rubberstamping of an already existing, daily discriminatory state of affairs for millions of Arab-Israeli citizens. Yossi Mekelberg But instead, the court’s ruling put the nation-state law and its bold racist overtones above the notion of equality and respect for diversity. And as a matter of fact, the nation-state law unashamedly states that the country’s ethos “views the development of Jewish settlements as a national value and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening.” Hence, as abhorrent as the decision by the court is, it follows the law to the letter, not to mention its spirit. Therefore, the politicians who were so callous in voting for such a xenophobic statute should first and foremost be held accountable for legalizing racism. Yet what kind of a judge in a country fashioning itself as a liberal democracy could, without feeling a deep sense of shame, justify his ruling by defining Karmiel as a Jewish city intended to “solidify Jewish settlement in the Galilee part of Israel,” and claiming that establishing an Arabic-language school there or even funding school transportation for an Arab student would jeopardize the demographic balance and with it the city’s Jewish character? How could the judge’s hand not have been shaking as he wrote such xenophobic and bigoted words? No political or judicial system in a country calling itself a democracy would so cynically deprive young children of exercising their basic right to study in their own language, one legally approved by Israel’s Ministry of Education, with the aim of maintaining “ethnic purity.” This law is no more than a tool to deter other Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel from exercising their natural right in a free society to live wherever they choose to and enjoy the same services as everyone else. It is a further demonstration of the Jewish population’s paranoia and obsession with making the country exclusively Jewish, while sacrificing the values of universal human rights in doing so. The Israeli authorities are making it next to impossible for Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel to purchase land or obtain building permits in the cities, towns and villages where they constitute an absolute and complete majority. The authorities are also imposing draconian measures to prevent them from moving to places where the population is more or less entirely Jewish. Beyond the concern that Israeli society is turning into one that habitually discriminates against religious and ethnic minorities, this also raises the fear that at least for some, this is part of a grand strategy to make the lives of its Palestinian Arab citizens so miserable that they either submit to whatever whims the state feels inclined to inflict on them, or conclude that their future lies elsewhere. I am allowing myself one further, final “I told you so” moment: That the rot of racism and discrimination currently spreading in Israel is closely correlated to more than half a century of submitting millions of Palestinians to a regime of occupation and blockade, where violations of basic human rights are corruptly enshrined in both Israeli law and customary behavior. To oppose the subjugation of a people to life under occupation because it also destroys the occupier could hardly be the main reason for objecting to such daily violations of the human, political and civil rights, including the right to self-determination, of millions of people. However, it adds to the moral argument and is a practical reason to oppose such behavior. It is an especially poignant point, as Israel has embarked on a course of self-inflicted destruction of its democratic system, as made clear by the nation-state law and its interpretation by the courts. *Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view