housands of Arab Israelis and their supporters chanted against "apartheid" and for "equality" today in central Tel Aviv at a rally protesting a law that declares Israel the nation state of the Jewish people.
Israeli Jews also joined the demonstration, the second since last Saturday, when thousands from Israel's Druze minority took to the streets in Tel Aviv to denounce the law they say makes them second-class citizens, AFP reporters said.
Several clauses contained in the legislation that passed last month are sources of concern, especially since the text is part of Israel's so-called basic laws -- a de facto constitution.
The law makes no mention of equality or democracy, implying that Israel's Jewish nature takes precedence -- something for which Israel's far-right religious nationalist politicians have long advocated.
One section refers to Israel as the historic homeland of the Jews and says they have a "unique" right to self-determination there.
Others define the establishment of Jewish communities as in the national interest and make Hebrew the sole official language, downgrading Arabic to special status. Israeli Arabs, the descendants of Palestinians who remained on their land when Israel was created in 1948, make up around 17.5 percent of the Israeli population.
More From This Section
They are concerned the new law could allow for open discrimination against them in everything from housing to budgeting and land allocation. Members of Israel's 130,000-strong Druze community -- who serve in the police and military -- have been among those strongly denouncing the legislation. At Saturday's rally, protesters accused the Israeli government of being an "apartheid regime", shouting in Hebrew and in Arabic, "equality, equality" and "apartheid will not pass", AFP reporters said.
The rally was organised by groups representing the Arab Israeli minority, while the one that took place last Saturday had been organised by the Druze. At least five court challenges have been filed against the nation-state law, and it will now be up to judges to decide whether to limit its interpretation.