Israeli Arabs: Time Is (Really) Running Out
Last year, I posted the results of Haifa University professor Sami Smooha's poll, which reinforced hopes that Israeli Arabs, over a fifth of the population, could eventually accept assimilation into Israeli life.
* 75 percent of Israeli Arabs between the ages of 16 and 22 support voluntary national service;
* 68 percent would be willing to live in a Jewish neighborhood, and 80 percent would like Arabs to enjoy parks and share swimming pools with Jews;
* Over 53 percent feel rejected as citizens of Israel;
* Almost 75 percent of Arabs support the return of refugees only to a Palestinian state;
* 45 percent said that they feel closer to Jews in Israel than to Palestinians in the West Bank 
and Gaza;
* Almost half support "comprehensive integration into the Western world."
Prof. Smooha just released new results of his annual poll. These reveal a shocking decline in feelings of identity and citizenship among Israeli Arabs. Only 41 percent of Israel's Arab minority recognize the country's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, as opposed to 65.6 percent in 2003. Only 53.7 percent of the Israeli Arab public believe Israel has a right to exist just as an independent country, according to the poll, down from 81.1 percent in 2003. The saddest result of all: over 40% deny that the Holocaust happened. This might be translated as: 40% believe Jews are liars; or 40% believe Jews use the Holocaust to expropriate, or discriminate against, them.
Jerusalem, we have a problem. Benjamin Netanyahu is saying that "time is running out" on Iran, that Israel faces an existential threat and has to act. He is missing, as I stressed in The Hebrew Republic, the real existential threat to Israel as we know it--and the real count down. Among the things Netanyahu will raise with President Obama today is the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as as "Jewish state." But as Israeli Arabs well know, there is a difference between a Hebrew-speaking republic (that is, a democracy with a Jewish national character), and a country that preserves over 90% of available land for settlement by legally ethnic Jews, that awards citizenship to anyone who qualifies as Jewish according to Halacha, that preserves a huge Jewish Orthodox school system through public taxation, that annexes Arab parts of Jerusalem, including the Noble Sanctuary, that hands over to rabbis jurisdiction over marriage, divorce and burial--do I bore you?
And on top of this, the regular eruptions of violence between Israel and Palestinians make polarization inevitable. As I argued before, the Gaza operation may not have deterred Gazans from further violence, but it certainly deterred Israeli Arabs from imagining themselves real citizens of Israel.
OBAMA, PRESUMABLY, WILL be too polite to ask Netanyahu: "What kind of Jewish state?" But perhaps his people could later put the question to Uzi Arad, the other Israeli official in the room, who wrote in the New Republic a few years back what Avigdor Lieberman now suggests, that Israel keep the settlements and offer Palestine, in return, the Israeli Arab towns in the Little Triangle. "The various land swap plans," Arad writes, "proposing a tradeoff of territories aim to increase ethnic homogeneity... [so that] the Jewish majority would remain at 81 percent until 2050." Gee, 81 percent until 2050. And here I thought math was hard; that, anyway, Arab families living in Israel for 61 years, raised in the Hebrew language, and aspiring to lives in Israeli hospitals, high tech companies, and universities, might (if we can get past their rage) actually enrich the country.
Look, Arad was a colleague of mine for a while, and whatever he thought of me, I found him very engaging. I even once tried, in a modest way, to help him raise money in Toronto for his Herzliya Conference and research institute. He always showed me respect, even warmth (though I was hardly in a position to be his rival). I found him brilliant and morally serious; he once told me, what I took to be a kind of foundational fantasy, that he would like to organize a secret force to strike at anti-Semites anywhere in the world--something like the late Mordechai Richler's St. Urbain's Horseman, I thought.
But a warm Jewish heart is not public policy. Neither is Israel a big Jewish family. Arad wants us to think that the problem is Palestinians not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. But does he recognize Israel as a state at all--I mean a state in any ordinary sense, like France, or even Quebec? In November 2003, he co-authored (with Uzi Dayan and Hebrew social scientist Yehezkel Dror) a new "Zionist Manifesto" for Israel, which was presented to the Zionist Congress in Jerusalem. It aimed to give "constitutional status" to Israel as a "Zionist-Jewish state," a state of the "whole" [read, world] Jewish people." Arad's manifesto also called for a state that would teach "the feeling of a right to the Promised Land, which is a central principle of Judaism." It also called for "the preservation of democracy for all of its citizens." It did not say if this were a central principle of Judaism.
Gosh, I wonder what happened between last year's poll and this year's poll to convince so many Israeli Arabs that they don't have a secure future in Israel among its Jewish majority?
May 18, 2009 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
G-A-Z-A. And Lieberman.
May 18, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. L-I-E-B-E-R-M-A-N.
May 18, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard, what do you think about the efforts of Adalah and similar Israeli Arab organizations to get Israel to accept a pluralistic, democratic constitution ( http://www.adalah.org/eng/constitution.php )? Is this consistent with your idea of a Hebrew republic or do you think it is essential to keep Israel officially "Jewish" in some way? If so, what does that mean for the future of the large Arab minority in Israel? Are they forced forever into second-class status? Or are they eventually to be removed as Avigdor Lieberman seems to want?
For those not familiar with Adalah and similar Israeli Arab groups, this description of their aims (from the Adalah website) may be useful. As background, it is worth pointing out that Israel still does not have a constitution, despite the statement in the declaration that established Israel that a constitution would be written by October 1, 1948.
_________________________
A Word from the Chairman of the Board of Directors
Professor Marwan Dwairy
On the tenth anniversary of its founding, Adalah is issuing “The Democratic Constitution,” as a constitutional proposal for the state of Israel, based on the concept of a democratic, bilingual, multicultural state. This proposed constitution draws on universal principles and international conventions on human rights, the experiences of nations and the constitutions of various democratic states.
In recent years, Israeli groups have put forward several constitutions for the state of Israel. However, these proposals are distinguished by their lack of conformity to democratic principles, in particular the right to complete equality of all residents and citizens, and by their treatment of Arab citizens as if they were strangers in this land, where history, memory and collective rights exist only for Jewish people. It is no coincidence therefore that these proposals have been preoccupied with the question of, “Who is a Jew?” and have neglected the primary constitutional question of, “Who is a citizen?”
Thus, we decided to propose a democratic constitution, which respects the freedoms of the individual and the rights of all groups in equal measure, gives proper weight to the historical injustices committed against Arab citizens of Israel, and deals seriously with the social and economic rights of all. If “The Democratic Constitution” succeeds to underscore the enormous gap between it and the other proposals, and to create an objective public debate and dialogue on the nature of rights and freedoms in this country, then we will have taken an important step forward in the issues of racial equality, freedoms and social justice.
May 18, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having just read Adalah's proposed "Democratic Constitution" for Israel, it is clear that they never spoke to a single Jew before, during or after drafting it; it mentions all of the Palestinians' grievances against Jews but nothing in reverse; and they should offer it as a draft to every single Arab country, none of which currently has anything amounting to even 1% of its democratic provisions. If they went to Saudi Arabia and proposed this, they'd be lucky if all that happened to them was they were jailed for their apostasy. But no, only Israel and Jews ever get criticized.
May 18, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I took up the Adalah approach in my book, but this group is evolving, too. I posted at length in my blog last year: http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/2007/12/transnational-constitution-stay-calm.html.
In short, Adalah began with the idea that the Arabs of Israel should be treated, officially, as a separate, recognized minority, with a parallel life (school system, etc.) and, in effect, a parliamentary veto over all matters pertaining to their quasi-national interests. Not a realistic view of how minorities of any kind would advance in Israel's technologically sophisticated and globalizing cities, which Arab elites would no doubt wish to move to.
But Adalah is changing their tune, speaking more (and more realistically) about integrating into a larger federal system, with a glance at the EU, etc. On the whole, Israeli Arab intellectuals need to be engaged into these kinds of discussions.
May 19, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be a problem with the link. My post, from December 2007, follows:
Adalah Legal Center is the closest thing Israeli Arabs have to a mainstream think-tank. It is staffed by civil rights attorneys, mostly Israeli trained, who’ve been seasoned by (at times, successful) efforts to turn Israel’s courts against the structural discrimination of the state apparatus. Although formally nonpartisan, many of its activists have been close to Israel’s Balad Party, founded by the former MK, Azmi Bishara. More recently, Adalah has been morphing from a lawyerly non-profit, aiming at piecemeal legal reforms, into a center of political activism, engaging the Israeli public as a whole with public drafts of a new constitution. It is trying (what George H.W. Bush called) "the vision thing."
Bishara, whom I interviewed at length for my forthcoming book, has become a fugitive from the Israeli secret service, who’ve accused him of abetting Hezbollah during the last Lebanon war. When I spoke with him in 2005, he was still promoting the idea of Israeli Arabs as a national minority deserving of special status, something like radical Quebecers in Canada. Last year, Adalah brought out what it called a multi-cultural constitution for Israel, which pretty much put into legal terms Bishara’s peculiar political demands. Israel, it implied, should become binational, but in an awkward way that would give extraordinary privileges to the elected leadership of the Israeli Arab community, which would be recognized as a nation apart, though not quite part of a future Palestinian state.
Bishara had told me that, for its Palestinian Arab citizens, the real tragedy of Israel’s founding was the destruction of their elite bourgeoisie, which had been on a more or less equal footing with the Jews before the 1948 War. (Like most people who use the term bourgeoisie in this approving way, Bishara is a former Marxist.) The point of Adalah’s constitution, not coincidentally, was to reconstitute that elite by means of a kind of affirmative action. If Palestinians could not have an independent middle-class equal to the Jews, they would at least wield a bureaucratic and legislative power in the state apparatus equal to Jews.
Thus, although Israeli Arabs are one-fifth of the population, virtually any legislation impinging on Arab citizens would be subject to a kind of veto of Arab legislators. Lands confiscated from Arab citizens in 1948 would be returned. Arab towns would be reestablished. State symbols should be approved by a committee, half of whom would be Arab. Arabic should be an official language with statue equal to Hebrew. Yet Arab schools should be autonomous. The only thing missing is the British Mandate.
Would Israeli Arab elites (I asked Bishara) really want to stay in their township-like villages, and develop their own political economic infrastructure—not move to Tel-Aviv, or turn their villages into commercial suburbs of this global metropolis? There is, based on the votes of feet, room for doubt. To its credit, the Adalah constitution tried to move Israel to separate religion and state, and argued that public discussion should get beyond who is a Jew and get to what is a citizen. But instead of looking forward, Adalah seemed stuck in the past, internalizing the most tribal notions of nation, wanting an apology for 1948, and implying changes for Israel that were unnecessarily provocative and, in any case, impractical.
Until Friday. In a remarkable break (which he has not exactly acknowledged), Adalah’s chairman Hassan Jabareen has begun speaking about a larger federation of Israel and Palestine into which the Israeli Arab community would be subsumed. The model would be the new Europe, including the European Convention on Human Rights. The jurisdiction of a transnational entity would regulate our rights in both Israel and Palestine: it would celebrate culturally distinct nations in different states, sharing what needs to be shared in the context of a Europe-like framework.
It will be fascinating to follow how the Adalah scheme plays out. I shall follow it closely from now on. Many Israeli Jews will see yet another threat, no doubt. But Jabareen's logic suggests how the positive forces of globalization can help nations win without making others lose; it implies how to bring both Israel and Palestine up to code. Anyway, one can see how important Israeli Arabs will be to setting a framework for a workable solution between two states and, simultaneously, Israel's majority and minority. Like European Jews in 1848, Israeli Arab intellectuals have everything to gain from the virtues of federation and the pleasures of civil society. Which is why they have much to teach.
May 19, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bernard--it's always helpful to get more information and commentary on the ideas put forward by Palestinians. Unfortunately, those ideas are rarely publicized in the US so we tend to hear only part of the dialogue.
I do think a federated solution offers the most promise because it preserves the idea of two separate states with Jewish and Arab characters but allows for full integration in economic activity and makes borders less problematic as long as the citizens of both states have the right to live and work wherever they choose within Israel and Palestine.
I am very skeptical about the possibility of dividing the land into two completely separate states given the impossibility of ever returning to 1967 borders. I don't think it's possible to transfer 300,000 Jewish settlers out of the West Bank, but as long as they are there, I can't see any border that the Palestinians would ever willingly accept. I just don't see how the traditional two-state solution can be implemented any more. The alternative, to me, is a federation or a radically different two-state solution that gives the Palestinians a lot more valuable land in exchange for their giving up some of the land on which the West Bank settlements reside.
I know no one will take this suggestion seriously, but I present it simiply because I think it describes the scale of concessions I believe Israel would need to make to achieve a workable two-state solution. So how about: Israel gives up much of the Negev (including Eliat) to join Gaza and the West Bank. In return, the Palestinians give up East Jerusalem and the large settlement blocks to the east of Jerusalem (but not all the way to Jericho). The reaction to such a suggestion will, of course, be it's crazy--why would a sovereign state make such a concession? But when that sovereign state controls a population nearly as large as its own and wants to free itself of that population, doesn't it have to make some concessions so that population has a viable state to live in? The current proposals for a two-state solution require Israel to make very few concessions, but leave the Palestinians with a fragmented, economically devestated state. I'm not sure that will work over the long term. For a two-state solution to become realistic again, I think we need to look at more radical ideas. My Eliat for Jerusalem trade may indeed be silly--but I think we need to stop clinging to ideas that have failed for decades and start coming up with some fresh options if anything is ever to change.
May 19, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of crazy ideas that will never be implemented, why is it such heresy to even float the notion that the pocket of Arab villages in the Galilee become part of a nascent Palestinian state as part of a land swap to approximate the 67 lines? Of course, one enormous obstacle is the fact that the Israeli Arabs living there overwhelmingly wish to remain part of Israel - as do apparently 94% of Israeli Arabs (see my comments below). But really, if we are talking about division of the land along roughly those proportions, why are the specific 67 lines so sacrosanct? After all, the "green line" was an armistice line - and a problematic one at that, given that (obviously) it did not hold.
May 19, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
AG, it does seem awfully silly to me that we keep talking about a two-state solution with borders approximating the 1967 green line when borders approximating the 1967 green line are probably impossible. Seems like we shouldn't be so surprised at our continued lack of success, should we?
If we're trying for a two-state solution, Gallilee should be on the table . . . along with a lot of other things.
As you know, I still maintain that two states will never work and that one state or federation will be the ultimate end of this . . . but I won't criticize anyone for trying to come up with a more feasible two-state arrangement. Who knows, I could be wrong (though based on the stunning successes of two-state negotiations over the past 30 or 40 years, I'm not seeing much reason to believe I'm wrong).
May 19, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The two state solution and the "one binational state" or "federated" solution amount to the same thing.
Any viable two state solution will create limits on each state, and bind them together in some kind of governance council or arrangement, allocating some powers to the separate states while limiting other powers (not necessarily the same ones for each state.)
What we won't see is simple one person one vote democracy in which the group with the majority population exercises all the power. The two major groups will continue to have national representation in whatever power structures are developed, and I predict (no brainer) that there will be a Jewish controlled IDF (above all) that will not be subject to external control (not the same as not being limited by force use and deployment agreements...)
Anyway, two state or binational single state or federation of states all amount to the same thing, and are the likeliest successful outcome.
However I'm deeply pessimistic about those prospects. I've met the SOBs on both ethnonational sides of these issues, and they outnumber the many good people. There is poison in the air, and a thirst for revenge. It's a sick and sad place. Makes me sad every time I think of it.
May 19, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to a successful solution is allowing people of both ethnicities to live, work, and move freely over the whole territory. The two-state solution starts with a premise that the land will be divided between the groups. One-state and federated solutions start with the premise that the land will be shared. That's a huge difference. And while sharing will be extremely difficult, I'm afraid dividing is impossible. So sharing it will have to be. The sooner we recognize that fact and start walking the difficult path toward reconciliation and integration, the better off we'll be.
May 23, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do Jews tolerate Israel using ethnic cleansing and apartheid? Just what lessons were taken from that whole Hitler thing?
It seems pretty obvious that Israeli Arabs aren't fond of watching 6000+ Palestinians being killed over 10-20 Israelis. Or were they supposed to feel good about watching their countrymen put guys like Lieberman in key government positions while he tries to take away their rights to do stuff like vote or exist?
I don't see any difference between Netanyahu, Lieberman and PW Botha.
May 18, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is Arab demographics. The problems are these restive, insubordinate populations who won't accept the "fact on the ground" of Israel's Zionist primacy. The problems are the attitudes of the Arabs within and without Israel; they are anti-Semitic, backward, undemocratic, bloodthirsty, and they prefer far too much sugar in their coffee.
Israel's existential problem is never, ever its militant efforts to maintain an apartheid state in a world that is becoming, de facto, multicultural.
Israel's biggest problem is the arc of human history, and itself as anachronism.
May 18, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
By bloodthirty, you meant the Israelis, right?
May 18, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you first insist that the surrounding Arab states which govern what? 150 million? 250 million people? conform to the same rules? Because, until they do, Israel must insist on its Jewish character as an act of self-preservation.
Too hard? Not fair? Gee whiz.
May 18, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you elaborate on that? Without snark, I mean?
May 18, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is there to elaborate on that isn't common knowledge?
Traditional Muslim societies regard Jews as second class citizens. They regard Israel as illegitimate. They want Israelis dispossessed and their land returned to Arab families who owned it prior to 1948.
There are very few Jews left in the Arab and Persian Middle East. They were all expelled shortly after the creation of Israel. No Arab or Persian "peace plan" has offered to return land and other possessions confiscated from them, so far as I am aware.
What few Jews there are who still reside in middle eastern Muslim countries live in fear - justifiably so.
What message will be sent if Ahmadinejad is re-elected? Here's
how most Israelis view the world. I agree with most of it.
Need I continue?
May 18, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's bullshit.
If you want to blame someone for the present state of Arab-Jew relations around the Middle East start with those behind Sykes-Picot and the US. For centuries jews lived peacefully in Arab cities like Baghdad.
Ahmadinejad is Iran's GW. If it weren't for US backing of a coup that deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran 50 years ago and the support of the brutal Shah and the bullshit posturing since his fall there would be no Iran problem.
You can't look at the problems in the Middle East as if they all are the fault of Arabs when European and US actions clearly shaped the entire region being in the state it is in now.
May 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
On that last part about how Jews see the world- more bullshit. You can't be the innocent victim when you use gas and landmines in civilian areas and shoot school children in the head for fun. Or when your primary mission is ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
If no Arab in the world hated Israel right at this moment by tomorrow Israel will have inspired millions of them to start just by the words and deeds of its government.
You guys have that whole righteous indignation without the righteousness thing down pat. Oh wait, it is righteous to slaughter non-jews according to the Torah right?
Israel can keep doing this crap forever and jerks like you can defend them and Palestinians can keep firing crappy rockets and blowing themselves up and mothers can keep crying. Or do you just want to kill all the Palestinians? Build some walls and put them in camps?
May 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jews are second class citizens in Turkey? Never heard that before. Have any links on that one?
May 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turkey is a secular state, the only Muslim one in that part of the world...and that position is under attack. If traditional Muslims take over, watch out.
But even if I grant you that, what about Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. etc. etc?
May 18, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land and it wants to get rid of the Arabs within its borders. Until that changes there won't be peace. Don't expect other Arabs to enjoy that either.
I bet you had some great stuff to say about South Africa.
May 18, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Changed the subject rather quickly, didn't you? It's all Israel's fault no matter what anyone says. That's your argument. The argument of a typical anti-semite (and I'm straining to be polite).
As for South Africa, and the rest of Africa, you're even more clueless. Black racism, Mandala notwithstanding, makes white racism look like child's play. But, in your pathetic little world, that too is the fault of rich white men (mostly American).
May 18, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I am anti-semitic? LMAO You really don't disappoint. I guess it never occurred to you that I may be Jewish or Semitic. Do you even know what a Semite is? The only Anti-Semite on this page is you who clearly has a problem with "Blacks" and Arabs.
I didn't change the subject. The answers in the other replies you didn't touch carries over to these issues about Yemen Saudi Arabia etc too.
Did you just call the Holocaust child's play? You're an anti-semite!
I like the way you deflected the whole apartheid thing too.
May 18, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are wasting your effort debating TPM's resident Bart Simpson? The only thing ordinary about Ordinary is his IQ.
May 18, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the Jewish minorities in the Arab world do not pose the demographic challenge that the Arab Israelis do to Israel. So in that sense it is a more pressing problem for Israel. But one can be both critical of Israel and the surrounding Arab states and using the "buthowabout" rhetorical technique just shows the weakness of the Israeli position.
May 18, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got it exactly backwards. Because Muslims are so much more numerous in the region it is they who must demonstrate tolerance first. Otherwise, a multi-cultural Israel would soon become judenrein, something which most posters to this site would love to see...but most Jews - quite understandably - would not.
May 18, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A multi-cultural Israel would become Judenrein? Did you get some German language tapes with your American Nazi Party Membership?
May 18, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean no U.S. problem with Iran, don't you? Because there was quite an anti-Jewish element to Mossadegh's people and policies.
Why don't you carry your argument further. If Israel hadn't been created there would be much less anti-semitism in the world. That's Rosenberg's position, that's what motivates him almost completely; fear that the middle-east conflict will spill over into HIS neighborhood, that's what motivated German-Jewish opposition to the creation of Israel prior to WWII (you'd think those rich Jews would have learned something from the experience...but many of them obviously haven't).
Or go further yet. A world without Jews would be free of anti-semitism. Many posters to this site actually do make that argument.
Sorry, ondioline, but serious discussion with such idiots is impossible.
May 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say the hill's too steep to climb.
Climb it.
You say you'd like to see me try.
Climbing.
You pick the place and I'll choose the time
And I'll climb
The hill in my own way.
Just wait a while for the right day.
And as I rise above the treeline and the clouds,
I look down...
Hearing the sound of the things you've said today...
May 18, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. If you live in something bigger than a closet take in a couple of Gaza families.
May 18, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess among you and your imaginary friends this joke sounded funny.
May 18, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go lol
Show me where non-Muslims where rounded up and executed between the time of the spread of Islam, the Crusades and the end of the Ottoman Empire's control of Arabia.
And let me guess, Mossadeq was an anti-semite because he was anti-imperialist and didn't approve of the British giving away land that wasn't theirs to give?
LOL Wow and now Rosenberg is a neo-nazi Uncle Levi sellout. So its either gas the Palestinians or its back to Auschwitz. That's some pretty creative thinking. Two whole options! That third option of living in peace with neighbors you treat with respect and who treat you with respect thing is just totally nuts.
A world without jews? GTFOH I hope you're just being sarcastic with this entire convo. So criticism of Israel can only result in one thing- eradication of all Jews? You're sick.
May 18, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try reading V.S.Naipul on the Muslim conquest of India. Or read about the pogroms initiated by some of the Muslims rulers of Spain (the Almohavids?). Or about some which took place in what is now Iraq over the centuries.
Of course, it was theirs...but right of conquest. How else do you think people get lands? By gift of God? How did the Turks get it? The Arabs before them? The Persians, the Greeks, the Jews? As far back as one can trace provenance. So you knew of Mossadeh's anti-semitism and think it was ok. You're pathetic. The British wanted to divide the land between the claimants. Mossadeh, as I said was the case with virtually all Muslims, didn't like that at all. As far as he was concerned Jews had no legitimate claim. Even asserting such a claim was grounds to hate them, kill them. And you approve, you fucking piece of shit.I've had it with you. You're so dumb you actually think you're educated.
May 18, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
else do you think people get lands? By gift of God?
Hmmmmm . . . .
May 19, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one thinks Jews are innocent victims. But no one thinks Arabs are innocent either and they outnumber the Jews 60 to 1.
There are 5 million Jews. There are over 300 million Arabs. In fact, just the number of INTERNET users in the Arab world (26 million) is 5 times the number of Jews.
Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qutar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates, Yemen and the Palastinian Authority (Palestine) are Arab.
Only one state is Jewish.
Does anyone really expect them to give over their destiny to some other ethnic group? Really? As they say on Saturday Night Live, "Really????"
May 18, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
semoto,
The white South Africans were massively outnumbered by native Africans, hell the whole continent was full of them. How does that make apartheid right?
May 18, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The analogy is incorrect.
May 18, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, this dude would be first one to scream "anti-Semitism" if the Gentiles claimed that the Jews were taking our country away. That's the problem with people who worship their ethnicity. Every other human value is subordinated to the purity of the group.
I would have thought a 21st Century American would be embarrassed to argue for ethnic purity. But then again, I don't listen to talk radio.
May 18, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should it ever be considered the least bit racist or apartheid when a regional bloc of nations organizes itself into a "League of Arab States"?
May 19, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Logic error. A league of states is not the same thing as ethnic state. I guess you have a problem with the multicultural EU calling itself "Europe."
May 19, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, in your world, "Arab" is not an ethnicity. Maybe you would hate Israel less if it called itself the "League of Jewish State"?
May 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is terrible news, though not surprising. The fact that Israel now has a FM who advocates transfers of Israeli Arabs to Arab countries, in the nicest possible way of course, and who considers them a 5th column, isn't helping either. Also the Big Lie of Holocaust denial is taking effect or better, it is becoming more convenient to deny the Holocaust.
This is terrible news.
May 18, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Further sadness is that here and elsewhere, people continue to yell past each other, reaching for more and more extreme analogies to characterize the other side, and marshal historical events to justify their positions. To some, the Holocaust is an ever-present reality and future danger; to others, it didn't even exist. To some, Israel is a tiny threatened minority; to others, an vicious expanionist threat. All sides accuse others of racism. Heartbreaking.
May 18, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the arena!
May 18, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truly depressing poll results, Bernard. Thanks for sharing them with us.
It's unclear exactly when the polling was done, but it's possible the answers heavily reflect the initial shocked reaction to the Gaza "war" and the election of a right-wing government.
If so, it's conceivable that actual moves toward peace could reverse the trend by next year's poll.
Conceivable, but it's more likely Israeli Arabs will become mere bargaining chips in any two-state deal -- and their marginalization and disaffection will only grow.
Tragic.
May 18, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with those who express sadness over these poll results. The situation of Israeli Arabs is complicated and represents both the hopes and limits of integretation/co-existence. On the one hand, Israeli Arabs enjoy political rights and freedoms and a standard of living unheard of in most other Arab nations. On the other, they face quasi-official discrimination and separate-but-unequal treatment. Many strive for integration into Israeli society, while at the same time not feeling truly a part of that society and even yearning for its demise. These contradictions, of course, also complicate their treatment by the Jewish majority as they are seen - not without reason - as less than fully supportive of the state and indeed a potential "fifth column."
On the positive side are some other poll numbers showing that among Israeli Arabs: 51% said their personal status was "very good," as opposed to 36% that described it as "bad" or "very bad." Two-thirds who said that the nation's achievements are "good" or "fairly good," and a similar percentage who expressed optimism as to the nation's future. An overwhelming majority – 94% – said they want to keep living in Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3708086,00.html
Forgive me for being insensitive, but I am somewhat mystified by the outrage over the possibility of exchanging land in the Galilee to the future Palestinian State as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. Despite the poll numbers, apparently the Arabs in those villages would prefer to stay in Israel - I'd imagine for economic reasons. However, the idea does intuitively make sense and would alleviate some of the concerns over the inequity of the division.
May 18, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is funny, actually: "On the one hand, Israeli Arabs enjoy political rights and freedoms and a standard of living unheard of in most other Arab nations."
Clearly, you have never been to Lebanon.
May 18, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover: How many African-Americans left the United States even during Jim Crow? People, especially poor people, hate to migrate.
That fact says nothing about what a daily crap sandwich being a Palestinian in Israel really is.
May 18, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny? As usual, mythbuster, your darts are misplaced. True, I've never been to Lebanon, but I would hazard a guess that you've never been to Israel either. Either way, it's hard to take some of your nonsense seriously.
If Lebanon is the paradise, it's no surprise Israeli Arabs are content to stay where they are. Do we really need to rehash the unfortunate history of that nation? And if you really do want to bring up Lebanon, what of the horrific conditions of the 400,000 plus Palestinians living there? Perhaps you saw this recent article in Time magazine about their miserable plight. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1881651,00.html
Focusing on an 85 year old refugee and his family, the reporter notes that they are
"caught between a past they can't escape and a future they struggle to shape, renting out the top floors of their building — which technically they don't even own. Like the rest of the 400,000-odd Palestinians in Lebanon, they cannot legally buy a house or apartment and remain barred from some 70 professions. Lebanon's fragile sectarian political system, balanced between Christians and Muslims, has been unable or unwilling to absorb so many Muslim refugees. So neither Sulhani, nor his children, nor his grandchildren, nor his great-grandchildren have Lebanese citizenship, despite the fact that all but the family patriarch were born on Lebanese soil. "My life in this country has been one heartbreak after another," says daughter Ahlam. "I have no good memories."
The mistreatment of the refugees has also been the subject of Amnesty International reports. Maybe you should read them sometime.
Or maybe you should consider the border town of Ghajar. Ghajar sits at the intersection of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Most of the villagers accepted Israel's offer of citizenship when Israel annexed the Golan. In 2000 when the UN drew the border through the middle of the town. In advance of the Lebanese election, Netanyahu planned to offer to withdraw from the northern (Lebanese) part of the village. However, according to Haaretz, "The withdrawal from the northern part of the village is not expected to take place before the Lebanese elections because of the high number of petitions village residents are expected to file with the High Court of Justice against the pullback."
And finally, what do you make of the apparently overwhelming desire of the Arab townspeople of the Little Triangle to remain citizens of Israel and not become part of a nascent Palestinian state? Seems they'd prefer the crap sandwich.
Life's a bitch, ain't it?
May 18, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the opportunity to knock that smug and ill-informed smile off you face.
1. I have been to Israel. Besides the Christian sites, I didn't like the country at all. The people are like NY'ers, but without the charm.
2. My wife has relatives in Jerusalem, Palestine (Bethlehem) and Jordan. And no, they don't quite see being "Israelis" the way you describe. First, even if a government is oppressive (e.g., the Jim Crow South), there are benefits to membership. As Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, it is easier to travel, work, etc. And the citizenshp protects them from the type of violence Zionists routinely mete out to non-citizens. Your pea-sized brain obviously cannot distinguish between "benefits of" Israeli citizenship and "protection from" Israel. All of which is to say that it is no boast at all to trumpet the merits of Israeli citizenship. Some blacks had a privileged position in Apartheid South Africa, however, so serious person asserts that validates apartheid.
3. Most of my wife's family live in real democracries, including the United States, the UK, Canada, and France. (Others live in Jordan and are actually quite happy there.) None of them would want to be Israeli citizens.
Maybe if you actually tried to learn about the world instead of intellectually masterbating on this site, you might not be so smug. But, then again, smugness is the defining characteristic of a second-rate intellect.
May 19, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should have known this would happen when I crawled into the the sandbox with mythbuster/myth-perpetuater/propaganda-disseminator. No attempt is made to engage on the subject matter of the post. Arguments and examples are ignored and met with irrelevance, non-sequitur, and ad hominem.
I'm glad you had the opportunity to travel to Israel to see the horrors firsthand. Somehow, your dislike of the place doesn't surprise me, but chacun a son gout. I'd love to visit Lebanon and some other Arab countries, but unfortunately I'm not allowed.
I understand from your posts that your wife's family are Palestinian refugees. Since they are not Israeli Arabs, I'm not surprised that they don't see being Israeli the way I describe. As for Israeli Arabs, I can't speak for them myself, but I doubt they would appreciate your equating them with privileged blacks in apartheid South Africa. I never implied that Israeli Arabs are ardent Zionists, far from it, obviously. Beyond that, the opinion polls cited in Dr. Avishai's post and my comment speak for themselves.
Finally, judging by the volume of your posts, here I might suggest that you could use a dose of your own advice to me (stop "intellectually masterbating"). However, given the consistent lack of thought and content, perhaps you really are getting out in the world. As for me, you know nothing of my life and I'm sure if you did, you'd find your insult misplaced. And one last piece of advice: when accusing someone of having a pea sized brain and second-rate intellect, it's usually a good idea not to do it while misspelling simple words like masturbation.
May 19, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share your frustration. It seems impossible to engage these people in honest argument. They absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that they are wrong. I can't get a purchase, an insight into their mentalities. Can you?
May 19, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALL THIS TALK ABOUT CHENEY/BUSH AND WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
REALLY NOW. . . . WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
WELL, THE ANSWER IS "NOTHING".
ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION:
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN TO MARRY EITHER THE SON OR DAUGHT OF EITHER CHENEY OR BUSH?
May 18, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bernard for bringing attention to the plight of Arabs under Israel's apartheid regime.
May 18, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
From The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss
'Middle-of-the-road, moderate, and especially liberal Jews are likely to back Obama. That's a dynamic that can isolate AIPAC, the central player in the Israel lobby. If it plays its cards wrong, AIPAC might find itself cut off from its base among pro-Israeli American Jews. So far, AIPAC -- and Netanyahu -- are hoping that they can stall Obama's Middle East peace plan until something, anything, erupts to derail it. But I think Obama is determined to press ahead.'
May 19, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink