Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Racial Profiling, or Pure Antireligious Discrimination?

By Binyomin Feinberg, Contributor to The Jewish Press*

* The perspectives and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ownership or management of The Jewish Press.


1 Cheshvan,5780 °° Oct.30,'19

The extent of corruption in the government handling of the case of Ziva bas Mazal is coming to light. Individual instances of mismanagement can theoretically be attributed to other factors, but a pattern indicates intentional corruption, and, in light of a previously articulated Army agenda, discrimination. Some of the "anomalies" include:

1. Ziva (and her family) is clearly religious. Nevertheless, had been hit with a whopping 31-day military prison sentence [since completed] for ostensibly submitting her religious exemption documentation late.

2. Even if the Army's claim of late submission would be accurate, lateness is clearly no excuse for intentionally drafting or imprisonment of a religious girl, denying her religious rights.

3. There is no reason to doubt Ziva's claim that she sent in her religious certification early.

4. Nor is there reason to accept the ubiquitous Army claim that they never got the her religious certification in the mail. Those involved is assisting girls avoiding military service hear of this claim by army officers frequently, too frequently to be credible.

5. As noted previously, this claim has even less credibility because of an intentional government refusal to enact a simple exemption confirmation process, so every girl would know if she is exempt or not. The government chooses to keep the girls in the dark, and at the same time keep claiming that the government cannot reliably deliver critical mail -- to itself.

6. Ziva's initial attorney, a government-provided public defender, reportedly indicated to Ziva that Ziva's case was a low priority for her.

7. Ziva's interview with Maitav "Vice"-Commander Avner Lotati technically should have addressed the core issue ostensibly under question, being her religiosity. It did not; she was not asked any questions about her religiosity per se. Furthermore, in Lotati's report recommending Ziva be drafted, Lotati failed to provide any rationale for rejecting her claim of religious observance (for good reason - because there's absolutely nothing to question about her religiosity).

The concatenation of this sequence of mistreatment indicates intentional discrimination. Is it only because Ziva is religious, or is it also because she's Ethiopian, and at somewhat of a disadvantage because of that?


Some previous posts on this ongoing scandal:

To check for updates throughout the week please visit ("Updates for Cheshvan" at: )

No comments :

Post a Comment

please use either your real name or a pseudonym.