Arabs say Israel is not just for Jews

[oberliner]

NAZARETH, ISRAEL — A broadly representative elite of Israel's Arab minority has rejected the idea of Israel as a Jewish state and demanded a partnership in governing the country to ensure that Arab citizens get equal treatment and more control over their communities.

In a manifesto that is stirring anger and soul-searching among Jews, Arab leaders have declared that Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens are an indigenous group with collective rights, not just individual rights. The document argues that Arabs are entitled to share power in a binational state and block policies that discriminate against them.

Arab citizens, who make up about one-fifth of Israel's population, have always felt alienated by the Star of David on Israel's flag and a national anthem that expresses the Jewish yearning for a return to Zion. They have long protested the disproportionate Jewish share of budget resources, public services and land.

Until now, though, only small groups of Arab intellectuals had dared to advocate collective equality or the abolition of Jewish national symbols.

"The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel" is the first such sweeping demand by Israel's Arab mainstream. The manifesto was drafted by 40 academics and activists under the sponsorship of the Committee of Arab Mayors in Israel and has been endorsed by an unprecedented range of Arab community leaders.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-arabs22feb22,1,3865781.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

[valerief]

1. Wow, what a tourism hook--Israel, Not Just for Jews Anymore.

I can just see the Mahjong-playing ladies on the beach in the background while an Asian couple steps into the frame in the foreground.

[Totallybushed]

2. Just another ploy

to destroy Israel. Slow, or fast, it doesn't matter to them.

Israeli Arabs have far mor rights in Israel than their brothers do in any Arab country.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. So would you be okay with this?

If the U.S. were declared a "Christian state"?

If the U.S. flag were cross?

If the national anthem spoke of the "Christian soul"?

If history were taught from a "Christian" point of view?

If every passport registered citizens into "Christians" and "Non-Christians"?

If a congressional majority that rested on non-Christian-based party was deemed illegitimate because it the governing coalition didn't have a "Christian majority"?

If leading politicians discussed how to redraw the countries borders to kick out non-Christians?

If Christian communities received twice as much funding as non-Christian ones?

If the response to this was "Jews can move to Israel if they don't like it"?

Would YOU feel like you were a full citizen of this country if you were non-Christian? Would having a U.S. passport and the right-to-vote be enough to placate you?

Let me be clear; these are more complex issues of national identity. Israel is hardly the only country in the world to have to deal with this - very similar problems have been prominent in Europe, for example. Germany's citizenship laws have been very "blood-based" and ethnic Turks and Kurds who were born and grew up in Germany were not given citizenship until recently.

Yes, it's true that Arabs in Israel have more political rights than Arabs in other Arab countries. That still doesn't make discrimination right. Why should the marker of fairness be how well a country treats its minorities compared to others? This is akin to Southern segregationists rejecting civil rights for African-Americans by pointing out how much better off African-Americans were to Africans in Sub-Saharan and West Africa.

I don't think Israel is evil. And I am sympathetic with the idea of a "Jewish state." But there are clearly issues of inequality that need to be dealt with. Israel is over 20% Arab. These are citizens, too. And they have a right to not be second-class citizens in their own country.

[oberliner]

4. Aren't there several Muslim states like that?

Don't states already exist in the Muslim world with similar parameters?

[breakaleg]

5. Why compare Israel to other Arab states when it says its a democracy?

Shouldn't it be compared to other democracies?

[Totallybushed]

11. I get it.

If a country doesn't claim to be a democracy, then it doesn't matter what they do, does it?

Yes, now it all makes sense. Whoops, did I forget the sarcasm tag?

[breakaleg]

13. What's your point? Either they are a democracy or they aren't. They say they are,

but they don't act like a democracy in some ways, hence my post.

The point is, when Israel is criticized, one common tactic to defend it is to compare it to other Arab states. States that aren't democracies. Why? As it was said down below, it's like a schoolyard argument and quite childish.

[Totallybushed]

15. A schoolyard argument??

OK. Let's get serious. You want to give Arab states a pass on human rights because they don't claim to be a democracy. Fine. On the other hand, being a democracy doesn't mean that you have to be perfect.

However, give me some examples of where Israeli Arabs are not treated equally. Back up your claims.

[liberalpragmatist]

23. No, it's an issue of hypocrisy

I'm not a hardcore anti-Zionist or anything like that. I admire Israel in a lot of ways; they've done some outstanding things. 6 million people, yet they have maintained a stable political system, absorbed millions of immigrants, fashioned an entire society where none existed five decades before, revived a dead language, and are at the leading edge of cultural and scientific discoveries.

The point we're trying to make, however, and the point that these Israeli Arabs are making, is that Israel claims to be a democracy. It is not upholding the values it claims as its guiding lights. We expect more of Israel because it is largely a democracy and because it claims adherence to universal standards of human rights.

Arab countries don't do that. That doesn't make their repression any better, but nobody here is claiming those countries are beacons of democracy either. And last time I checked, there's a much bigger focus on Arab human rights abuses and lack of democracy than Israeli human rights abuses; that's true both in the general discourse and among liberals. You haven't checked out DU when someone posts something about female genital mutilation, political assassinations, abuse of women, or executions of homosexuals?

So spare us the "you-only-care-when-Israel-does-it" crap. There is nothing stopping Israel from resolving its human rights issues right now. No country's human rights record is dependent on the actions of someone else.

[Totallybushed]

27. You are certainly right.

It is an issue of hypocrisy. But not that of either me or the Israelis.

[breakaleg]

33. I totally agree with everything you said.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. And your point is?

It's wrong where ever it happens. Of course it's wrong in Muslim countries, but we aren't talking about other countries, are we? We're talking about Israel.

This is exactly the same thing is proponents of torture saying "Arab countries do much worse things!"

This is like schoolyard protests: "But Johnny kicked her harder!"

The marker of how fair a country treats its citizens ought to be universal standards of human rights, not a comparison to other, worse regimes. During the civil rights movement should we have said, "Congo treats its people worse," and concluded that the segregationist United States was some type of beacon?

[oberliner]

7. But you were talking about the United States

You were using the notion of turning the US into a Christian state.

I think the state of Israel is unlike both the US or the various Muslim states that exist, thus either comparison is invalid.

The country was formed out of a desire to protect the Jewish people from worldwide anti-semitism and worse.

[breakaleg]

8. Yes, but there were people living on that land when they formed their country.

So, how those indigenous people are treated is crucial to the state of Israel.

[Totallybushed]

12. That's right.

It ought to be by universal standards. So how come no one ever criticizes the Arab states, only Israel. Universal standards or double standards???? Hmmmmm.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. So these Arab Israelis should just shut up...

... until conditions in Arab countries improve?

We're bringing this up because Israeli citizens are raising this issue.

[Totallybushed]

20. Not at all.

Just that there should be other voices pointing out the hypocrisy. We don't hear any proposals from the Israeli Palestinians, do we, that their brother Arabs treat Jews as equals as a quid pro quo for their getting "equal" rights in Israel? Of course not. that's because their interest isn't in rights at all, but in destroying Israel.

[breakaleg]

25. Isn't their interest in getting their own state? Because there are militant settlers in Israel

who also want Israel to include Judea and Samaria. Unless they speak for ALL Israelis then you can't make the claim that Palestinian militant speak for all Palestinians.

[liberalpragmatist]

26. Why should it be a quid pro quo?

Should I not fight for MY rights in MY country unless some other country grants rights to someone else?

Human rights isn't a zero-sum game.

You still haven't answered my question: how is this any different from racists in the civil rights era claiming that blacks were ungrateful because people in Africa were worse off?

[Totallybushed]

28. I'll answer your question

when you answer mine. On edit: I don't think that you can, so I will go ahead and do so.

The difference is that the situation in the segregationist South and in modern Israel are not even remotely comparable. Arabs can vote, hold jobs, serve in the Knesset. They aren't lynched, etc. In fact, they have full human rights. Not at all the same.

And all you can talk about is "funding"

[liberalpragmatist]

35. I'm not comparing Israel to the segregationist South

I'm saying that just as resolving human rights abuses in America wasn't and shouldn't have been dependent on resolving abuses in other countries, resolving human rights issues in Israel shouldn't be dependent on other countries either.

And did you read the article or the report? It very clearly documents discrimination against Arabs in Israel. YES, there are bright spots - Israeli Arabs can vote, have a representative on the supreme court, have a right to legal redress - but there can still be inequality even with these basics.

[Totallybushed]

43. Oh, crap!!

Of course you were comparing Israel to the segregationist South. Others have done so, comparing them even to apartheid South Africa and even Nazi Germany. And they've got the guts to stick by it too without trying to weasel out of what they said.

Yeah, I read the article. I stand by my previous remarks. This is just a ploy to delegitimate Israel in the minds of the world's sheeple.

[liberalpragmatist]

47. No, I was not

I was not analogizing the behavior of Israel to the behavior of the segregationist South.

Let me de-construct this for you one more time.

1. Pre-1964, American Blacks were in strongly discriminated against in the U.S.; yet they had more legal rights than Blacks in most of Africa, which was ruled by tin-pot dictators and economically-devastated.

2. Today, Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel; they still have more rights than fellow Arabs in Arab countries.

The first was not an argument for denying African-Americans equal rights. The second is not an argument for denying Israeli-Arabs equal rights.

Of course the segregationist South was worse than Israel is to Arab Israelis. The analogy is over your dismissal of concern by pointing attention away towards someone else.

[Totallybushed]

53. Here's the thing.

#2 is, well, Number 2. A lie.

[liberalpragmatist]

57. HRW disagrees with you, as does the State Department

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/

And...

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61690.htm

National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities

The 2003 report of the Orr Commission, which was established following the police killing of 12 Israeli-Arab demonstrators and a Palestinian in October 2000 (see section 1.a.), stated that government handling of the Arab sector was "primarily neglectful and discriminatory," was not sufficiently sensitive to Arab needs, and that the government did not allocate state resources equally. Consequently, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector…," including poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure. Problems also existed in the health and social services sectors.

In June 2004 the government adopted an interministerial committee's proposals to act on some of the Orr Commission's findings, including: establishment of a government body to promote the Arab sector; creation of a volunteer, national civilian service program for Arab youth; and the creation of a day of national tolerance. At year's end the government implemented neither these proposals nor the original Orr Commission recommendations. On September 18, the PID closed the investigation into the police killings in the October 2000 riots; however, on September 28, the attorney general and the PID decided to reexamine the investigation (see section 1.a.). At year's end there had been no further action.

In December 2004 the Knesset established a subcommittee, chaired by an Israeli-Arab member, charged with monitoring needs of the Israeli-Arab sector and advocating alterations in the budget to benefit that sector. The subcommittee met during the year, but, according to Mossawa, the government's response to the subcommittee's queries was inadequate.

According to 2004 reports by Mossawa and the Arab Association for Human Rights, racist violence against Arab citizens has increased, and the government has not acted to prevent this problem. Advocacy groups charged government officials with making racist statements.

In June 2004 the Jerusalem District Court filed six indictments for incitement to racism against fans of a local soccer team for shouting "death to the Arabs" at a soccer match. According to Mossawa fans engaged in similar anti-Arab behavior at soccer matches in September, but the police did not make arrests. In a January 10 letter to the Israel Football Association (IFA), Mossawa charged that the IFA had not acted to prevent racist activities at matches. In a March 7 letter responding to Mossawa's concerns, Mossawa reported that the group pledged to work against racism, but Mossawa has claimed that the IFA has still not taken actions to address this problem.

In March a Dahaf Institute poll of Israeli Jews found 59 percent of those polled agreed or tended to agree that the state should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. On September 21, a major local newspaper published a column whose author advocated that the country encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate.

Approximately 93 percent of land in the country is public domain, the majority of which is owned by the state, with approximately 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public lands and that owned by the JNF are administered by the governmental body, the Israel Lands Administration (ILA). By law public land may only be leased, and the JNF's statutes prohibit land sale or lease to non-Jews. In separate petitions to the high court in 2004, Adalah and civil rights groups sought, among other points, nondiscriminatory procedures for allocating and leasing land. In January the attorney general ruled the government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in marketing and allocation of lands it manages, including lands the ILA manages for the JNF. Adalah criticized the attorney general, however, for also deciding that the government should compensate the JNF with land equal in size to any plots of JNF land won by non-Jewish citizens in government tenders.

The community of Katzir, a town in the Galilee established by the Jewish Agency, had refused to provide an Israeli-Arab family, the Ka'adans, title to a plot of land despite a 2000 supreme court ruling that the government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the distribution of state resources, including land. The family petitioned the court again in September 2003 to compel the government to implement the court's 2000 ruling. In May 2004 the ILA allocated the plot of land to the family, who signed a contract on December 19, enabling them to start building their house.

Education ministry regulations required Israeli-Arab contractual or maintenance workers in Jewish educational institutions in Jerusalem to undergo mandatory security checks and to be supervised by a Jewish foreman. After a petition by Adalah, the attorney general ordered in June the cancellation of the regulations; however, at year's end it could not be determined that the regulations were no longer applied.

Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector. They claimed that the government restricted issuance of building permits for Arab communities more than for Jewish communities, thereby limiting Arab natural growth.

In February 2004 security forces demolished several homes in the Arab village of Beineh, claiming that they were built illegally. On April 19, Adalah appealed to the attorney general requesting that he reverse a decision not to indict police officers for alleged assault and property damage involved in the house demolition operation. Adalah claimed that the police investigation was negligent and that it was unreasonable not to indict the police officers. At year's end the appeal remained pending.

In January the government established a new police unit to combat illegal construction and land use. The media reported that the unit will focus on the Israeli-Arab sector and areas surrounding development towns.

The Orr Commission found that "suitable planning should be carried out as soon as possible to prevent illegal construction..." A ministerial committee, created to advise the government on implementing the Orr Commission recommendations, called on the ILA to complete master plans for Arab towns, approximately half of which currently lacked such plans. In June 2004 the supreme court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis. New construction is illegal in any towns that do not have master plans or in the country's 37 unrecognized Bedouin villages. In September, according to a Bedouin advocacy group (the Regional Council for Unrecognized Villages in the Negev), security forces demolished several Bedouin homes in the unrecognized villages of Al-Zaroora, Al-Bhaira, Al Sir, and Al-Mazra'a.

Israeli-Arab organizations and some civil rights NGOs challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed priorities as increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns. The Israeli-Arab organizations presented their objections at a hearing in March2003, but the National Council for Building and Planning, a government body responsible for developing the master plan, has not responded. To date the government has not implemented this plan.

The Bureau of Statistics noted that the median number of school years for the Jewish population is three years more than for the Arab population. According to data released in September by the Higher Arab Follow-up Committee, the Arab student dropout rate overall was 12 percent and 70 percent at schools in the unrecognized villages in the Negev, compared with 6 percent overall in Jewish schools.

Israeli Arabs also were underrepresented in the student bodies and faculties of most universities, professions, and business. According to Sikkuy's 2003-04 annual report, non-Jews made up 9.8 percent of university undergraduates and Israeli Arabs constituted 1 percent of all lecturers or professors at academic institutions--50 to 70 out of more than 3 thousand. In October an Arab Israeli was appointed for the first time as dean of research at the University of Haifa.

Well‑educated Arabs often were unable to find jobs commensurate with their education. A small number of Israeli Arabs hold responsible positions in the civil service, generally in the Arab departments of government ministries. In 2003 the government approved affirmative action to promote hiring Israeli Arabs in the civil service. However, according to current government figures, only 3 percent of civil service employees were from the Arab sector. In November the deputy civil service commissioner reported that Arabs made up only 5.6 percent of the total number of new civil service employees hired in 2004. During a June 21 meeting of the Knesset Internal Affairs Committee, retired Supreme Court Justice Theodore Orr, who headed the Orr Commission, criticized the government for not implementing the affirmative action law.

A 2000 law requires that minorities have "appropriate representation" in the civil service and on the boards of government corporations. In January 2004 Prime Minister Sharon mandated that every state-run company's corporate board have at least one Arab member by August 2004. In June 2004 the media reported that the number of Arabs on state-run corporate boards had declined. According to data from the Government Companies Authority, during the year Arabs filled 50 out of the 551 board seats of 105 state-run companies.

Israeli Arabs complained upon occasion during the year of discriminatory treatment by the state airline. Mossawa reported that, it received complaints from Israeli Arabs of discriminatory treatment at the airport. According to the AAHR, in July two Israeli Arabs were prohibited from taking their laptop computers with them on an El Al flight from Austria to Israel; Jewish passengers were allowed to take their laptops. The Israeli Arabs used a different airline to return to Israel.

The law exempts Israeli Arabs from mandatory military service, and in practice only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs so served. Citizens who did not serve in the army enjoyed less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was either a prerequisite or an advantage. Israeli Arabs generally were restricted from working in companies with defense contracts or in security-related fields. In December 2004 the Ivri Committee on National Service recommended that Israel Arabs be given an opportunity to perform national service. By year's end the government had not addressed the Ivri Committee recommendations. Males in the Israeli Druze community, which numbered around 100 thousand, and in the Circassian community, which numbered some 3 thousand, were subject to the military draft, and the overwhelming majority accepted service willingly. Some Bedouin and other Arab citizens not subject to the draft also served voluntarily.

The Bedouin sector of the population was the country's most disadvantaged. The Orr Commission of Inquiry report called for "special attention" to the living conditions of the Bedouin community. Approximately 140 thousand Bedouin lived in the Negev, half in 7 state-planned communities and 8 recognized communities, and the rest in 37 unrecognized villages. During the yearthe government officially recognized the Israeli-Arab village of Ein Hod in the Carmel area, after village residents had petitioned the government for more than 57 years. Recognized Bedouin villages received basic services but remained among the poorest communities. Unrecognized villages paid taxes to the government; however, they were not connected to the national water and electricity infrastructure and not eligible for government educational, health, and welfare services. In September ACRI and PHR petitioned the supreme court to require the government to connect a house in an unrecognized Bedouin village to the electrical power lines so a three-year-old suffering from cancer could benefit from air conditioning, as the doctor recommended. At year's end the request remained pending.

In March 2004 the supreme court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the ILA from spraying herbicide on Bedouin crops on state-owned land. According to Adalah the court extended its injunction in October 2004. In February the ILA admitted in an affidavit to the supreme court that it sprayed Bedouin agricultural fields with chemicals that were not approved by the agriculture ministry and banned from aerial spraying. After a November 28 hearing, the case was still pending.

Government planners noted that there were insufficient funds to relocate Bedouin living in unrecognized villages to new townships and that the average Bedouin family could not afford to purchase a home there. Clashes between authorities and residents of unrecognized villages continued during the year.

In July the government extended until March 2006 the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, which bars Palestinians from the occupied territories from acquiring residence or citizenship rights through marriage to Israelis (see section 2.d.). The government also amended the law to allow Palestinian men aged 35 and older and women aged 25 and older to request Israeli citizenship through family unification. In July Adalah petitioned the high court to suspend implementation of the amended law as still discriminatory, and requested a court ruling on Adalah's 2003 challenge to the original law. In November during ongoing supreme court hearings on a petition by civil rights NGOs challenging this law, the government informed the court that since 2001, 25 Palestinian spouses of Arab citizens have been involved in terrorist activity. At year's end the case remained pending.

There are approximately 20 thousand non-Israelis living in the Golan Heights; they have been subject to Israeli military authority since 1967 and to Israeli civil law since Israel annexed this Syrian territory in 1981. They are primarily ethnic Druze; however, Syria regards them as its citizens and they largely have refused Israeli citizenship. Israel accords them permanent resident status; they receive Israeli travel documents and hold identity cards that entitle them to the same social benefits as Israeli citizens. Most obtain these services in Syria. Syrian Golan residents of the Druze confession continue travel to Syria to pilgrimage to the Shrine of Abel, with Israeli permission.

[Totallybushed]

60. It does

seem to be primarily about money doesn't it?

[Totallybushed]

9. What's your point?

We are not talking about America. We are talking about Israel.

Furthermore, Israeli Arabs are full citizens, with equal rights. However, as you so astutely pointed out, they are a minority. That means they get out-voted, and don't always get their way.

But as long as we are dealing with issues of equality, why don't we just look at how Jews and Christians are treated in Arab lands?? Seems to me the disparities are far greater and hence should be addressed first.

[breakaleg]

10. Do they get equal treatment in practice or just on paper? There's a difference.

Arab schools and communities don't get as much funding as do Jewish schools and communities. If all citizens were equal, this shouldn't happen.

[Totallybushed]

14. Funding?

You're talking about funding??:rofl: :banghead:

There's gonna be a :nuke: go off over there, probably before the end of the year, and you're talking about funding? As a measure of "equal rights"?? :shrug:

They get to vote, they get to serve in parliament, they're entitled to judicial protections, etc. Everything else, i.e., funding, is politics, not rights.

[breakaleg]

16. I'm talking about their treatment by Israel.

[Totallybushed]

17. And your example

of mistreatment was "funding":wtf:

[breakaleg]

22. So if your child had to go to a sub-standard school because of your race, then I guess

that would be ok.

gotcha.

[Totallybushed]

24. they need to get out there an vote.

What can I say.

[liberalpragmatist]

38. And when Zionist parties refuse to form coalitions with Arab parties?

And when the Israeli right complains that any governing majority that rests on an Arab party would be "illegitimate"?

Not that Israel's Arab parties are much to behold.

But it takes two to tango. I hardly expect Azmi Bishara, say, to form a coalition with Zionist parties. But if Israeli Arabs were to form more pragmatic political parties, I think they ought to be in coalition with larger parties.

[Totallybushed]

45. OK, explain it to me.

How is refusing to form a political coalition with those whose opinions you do not share a denial of basic human rights??

[liberalpragmatist]

48. That's not it

The complaint of right-wing parties in Israel is that any majority that rested on Arab votes would not be a "Jewish majority," making the argument that the government needs to have the consent of "a majority of the a majority." Analogous to Rush Limbaugh's argument that Bush actually won in 2000 because "if you got rid of the Black vote, Bush won in a landslide."

[Totallybushed]

52. OK, I'll

concede that point. But where, in all this, are their rights violated? Jusst because the RW complains, doesn't mean that if the coalitions were formed, they wouldn't be able to win, and to govern.

sorry, but your examples of rights being violated are pathetic.

[liberalpragmatist]

54. Again, would you feel comfortable in a "Christian state"?

Would a Jewish-American be wrong to complain if he lived in a state that defined itself as "Christian" and marked his/her identity card as "Christian" or "Non-Christian"? Would complaints about that situation be "pathetic"?

[Totallybushed]

59. Not that it

is at all relevant to this discussion. But I wouldn't want to live in any theocratic state. However, if I had to choose between a Muslim theocratic state (there are so many), a Jewish theocratic state (is there one? I don't think so, it's more of an ethnic or nationalist state), or a Christian theocratic state (there are none), with no secular state allowedI would defintiely not choose the first.

HOw about you, hypothetically. Which one would you choose to live in?

[liberalpragmatist]

63. I'd obviously prefer a secular state

If I had to choose a religious state it would depend on the state. Yes, I would rather live in Israel than in any Arab country. Lebanon would be a nice place if not for that pesky little civil war.

Among theocratic Muslim states, I'd much rather live in Iran than, say, Saudi Arabia.

And yes, you are correct that Israel isn't a religious state - it is an ethnic/nationalist-type-state however.

[Totallybushed]

64. No secular states allowed.

You really didn't answer the question. Let's try this, a Christian America, or say Iran, seeing as how that's your favored Islamic state?

[liberalpragmatist]

65. It would depend on the specifics

There's enough in the Bible that a Christian state could be just as oppressive, if not moreso, than Iran.

I certainly wouldn't want to live in Iran. I just said that compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a beacon; women can hold jobs, run for elections, vote, drive, etc. Minorities are restricted but are allowed to worship - not good but far better than Saudi Arabia in which no non-Sunni Muslim is even allowed to worship.

If the Christian America merely had the 10 Commandments up in every public building, I'd prefer living here. If it were run by a "guardian council" of the nation's top evangelists, it would be a wash. If it banned any worship but Christianity on threat of imprisonment or death, I'd pick Iran. They discriminate heavily against minority religions but so long as you're not Ba'hai, you can at least worship.

[Totallybushed]

67. Alright.

Let's say just no gay marriage and no abortions in America. Oh, and no drinking.

Iran as it is now. Let' see: gay marriage, check, not available.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Homosexuality+in+Iran


Abortion rights? Legal for deformed babies and if the pregnancy poses a fatal health risk to the mother. It is un-Islamic.


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072002.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Iran


Drinking? Well, it isn't Islamic. And check this out, from last month
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9875

For me, in a Christian theocracy, at least I could eat pork.

So, which do you choose?

[liberalpragmatist]

69. But could you eat meat on Fridays?

Drinking may be allowed in a Christian theocracy. Or not - after all, temperance movements have historically been lead by hard-core Christians.

Generally, it's considered un-Islamic to drink alcohol. Although Turks, Bosnians, and Russian Muslims drink; the Qu'ran says no WINE, so some schools of thought interpret that literally to mean that other alcohol or non-grape-based wine is perfectly alright.

I don't eat red meat anyway.

[Totallybushed]

70. Sure.

Even Catholics can do it, now. And Protestants have always eaten meat on Friday.

But I notice that you have not answered the question. America or Iran. I've given you specifics.

[liberalpragmatist]

71. Hm... both seem pretty unappealing at this point

If alcohol is legal, the U.S.

I'd also lean U.S. because although they are featured in the Old Testament, most Christian Theocons don't follow the corporal punishment laws. Not really a fan of bodily mutilations or stonings.

Although if that's the case in both countries then I might go for Iran. It's warmer (generally); and Iranian culture is closer to my native culture (Indian) than a strongly Christian/Baptist America would be. Plus, Iranian women are hot.

[Totallybushed]

72. Hey!!!

American women are hot, too!!

[Igel]

73. Would you feel comfortable in a

Mexican state, where Mexican culture and values were dominant?

How about a French one?

A Russian one?

Or even the hateful Turkish one?

"Jewish" need not be a religion, and many Israelis are rather secular ... and yet they're Jewish.

But the problem isn't the ethnicity of the dominant group (at least in cases other than Israel). It's communalism, which is a fancy word for race hatred and considering the individual as nothing more than a member of a group.

Pakistan's plagued by it. India's devised it's own version. Iraq's riven by it. It's very Ottoman and Ivan IV, so very 16th-century chic....

[liberalpragmatist]

78. I agree

Like I said, I disagree with ethnic nationalism in general. But I'm realistic enough to know it exists and has to be accommodated.

The problem as I see it with Israel's definition is that it rests very firmly on blood-ties. In that it's actually very similar to German spirit of volk - for the record, I'm not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, just to Germany proper; German citizenship laws were, until very recently, for example, based entirely on blood. Turks who were born and raised in Germany couldn't claim citizenship but Russians who descended from Volga Germans, grew up in Kazakhstan, and spoke no German could claim citizenship without any problem.

The problem I see it with defining Israel so strongly as a "Jewish" state is that it's by definition exclusionary to a very large percentage of their population; and because religious heritage is an essential part of the state's defining ethnic character, it's very difficult for a Non-Jew in the population to embrace the state's ethnic character, short of conversion.

Now, I'm realistic enough to know that in a world that IS tribalistic, Jews have a right to want a state with a Jewish character. But clearly there needs to be some kind of redefinition that embraces the 1/5 to 1/4 of their population that is not Jewish.

One obvious place to start, for example, would be to stop registering everybody as "Jewish" or "Arab." Another - and one many on the Israeli left have actually suggested - would be to rewrite "Hatikva" to make it more about Israel than about the "Jewish soul." Another would be making it easier for non-Israeli Arab spouses of Israeli Arabs to become citizens; another could be granting the right of return reserved for Jews to descendants of Arab citizens of Israel (not the Palestinians or anyone who descends from a Palestinian refugee). In short, keep Israel a Jewish state but do more to preserve a place for Israeli Arabs in society, because by defining the state solely by its Jewish character it excludes a very large portion of its population.

I'll add, however, that while I'm very critical of Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and while I do think American policy should be harsher to Israel over the sphere, I don't think Israel's treatment of Arabs within its borders is something that U.S. policy ought to take a role in. This strikes me as a more internal racial/communal problem, similar to what lots of other countries face. And I do think Israel has generally good intentions in this area, even if the outcomes are far from ideal. So no, I don't favor putting U.S. government pressure on what I feel is an internal Israeli matter.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Why should that be first?

Why should Israel wait to resolve their internal equality issues until other countries do so first?

By your attitude, the civil rights movement ought to have waited until African countries resolved their human rights issues.

Should we stop efforts to ban torture by US intelligence agencies until other countries do the same?

[Totallybushed]

21. Because it is the

greater problem, by far?? Yes, that would be the answer. Actually, Israel shouldn't wait to solve it's problems. It would be nice, however, if those so anxious for Israel to do so could spare a little outrage for the Arab human rights position

Besides, you haven't pointed out any cases where Israeli Arabs were denied any rights. I anxiously await this information.

[liberalpragmatist]

30. Check out Post #3

That's exactly the situation Israeli Arabs find themselves in as a minority.

Are you a minority? Are you Jewish? Would you be comfortable living in that kind of society?

That is the situation Israeli Arabs find themselves in. Yes, they are granted citizenship and the right to vote. YES, they have many rights; but they are not considered full members of the state.

And if you bother reading the article, it documents plenty of discrimination against Israeli Arabs.

[Totallybushed]

32. I saw a lot

of complaints in the article, but no violation of anybody's rights. Sorry, this is just a ploy to make trouble for Israel.

[liberalpragmatist]

40. Those wouldn't be violations of your rights?

I'll tell Jerry Falwell you're okay with the U.S. being declared a "Christian state" since none of those things would violate your rights or make you a second-class citizen (if you weren't Christian).

[Totallybushed]

46. Excuse me, this is a

total fallacy. We are not, and will not, discuss the United States. Israel was founded upon totally different historical and legal principles.

You tell Jerry Falwell whatever the hell you want, seeing as you're such good buddies with him. I never met the man, myself.

[liberalpragmatist]

50. Why the hell would I be good buddies with him?

And, sorry, I don't see why the issues I laid out are exclusive to the United States. There's such a thing as *HUMAN* rights which are universal.

[Totallybushed]

56. I don't know why

you should be, but obviously you are, if you are going to repeat lies about me to him.

There's such a thing as *HUMAN* rights which are universal. m OK, where is your prolonged rant about the human rights abuses that systematically occur in every Arab state. Where are the protests against the death penalty for adultery, or blasphemeing Mohammed or the Koran, or converting to Christianity, or chopping off a hand for theft, or on and on.

Put up or shut up on the "universal rights" BS

[liberalpragmatist]

58. Why should I be discussing those things if the topic at hand is Israel?

I don't agree with any of those things and I have addressed those things when those issues have been in the news.

This is a news article posted about Israel, so I'm discussing Israel. Why on earth should I talk about other countries if the subject at hand is Israel?

[Totallybushed]

61. Good point.

Can I have a link to some of your posts complaining about Arab rights abuses?

[liberalpragmatist]

66. Not exactly what you're looking for, but here's some stuff

... about human rights abuses in other countries.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2605742#2606947

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2035350&mesg_id=2036207

Unfortunately, I'm not longer considered a donor so I cannot search the archive. But I've posted on threads about female genital mutilation, executing gays in Iran, and the Syrian occupation of Lebanon (back in Jan. 2005 when some on DU were complaining that Syria was blameless in Lebanese strife and that the assassination of Hariri was a US ploy).

[Totallybushed]

68. Thansk for the links.

I read them.

Did you notice a common theme in all of them?

[rockymountaindem]

36. I don't get it either

There are so many people clamoring for Israel to do everything they think it should do, and yet nobody says a word here or anywhere else for that matter about how Jews are banned from Saudi Arabia or the treatment of religious minorities in Syria and other Arab countries. All people seem to care about is Israel, for some reason. And if you need proof of that, look at all the posts in this forum, and then go looking for the "DU Darfur Action Forum" or somesuch. I don't know why people are so concerned with how Israel funds its schools while hundreds of thousands of people have died and are dying in Darfur.

[Totallybushed]

49. I have a name

I would like to put on it, but I won't. Not here.

[cali]

29. You're right that they shouldn't be second class citizens

and on paper they're not. Just like other countries, Israel should ensure equal rights for all its citizens, but the very root and basis of the country is its Jewish identity. Right or wrong, that will only change if the majority changes.

[liberalpragmatist]

31. So do you feel comfortable...

... when Christian theocons in the U.S. claim that the root of the United States is our "Christian identity"?

Frankly - and this is an issue that extends beyond Israel to ALL countries - I don't see why any government should take on an ethnic character. It's discriminatory in the same way that a government taking on a religious character would be. I believe in states based on citizenship, not on blood ties.

Israel isn't the only country to operate this way; many European countries still have citizenship laws based on the same precepts. I think those are wrong as well.

[cali]

34. I find the comparison between the U.S. and Israel

totally spurious. And frankly, I'm far more concerned about other things relating to I/P. I'm concerned about the Occupation and the treatment of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza. I'm concerned about poor leadership on both sides. I'm concerned about violence on both sides. And on an on. No, I'm not terribly concerned with Israel's Jewish identity. It's way down the list. In fact, it doesn't bother me in Israel, Europe or other places, as long as minority rights are protected.

[liberalpragmatist]

37. But minority rights aren't being protected

That's what the article is about. Israeli Arabs are by-and-large second-class citizens in Israel, even if on paper they are legally equal.

I'm sympathetic with Israel maintaining a Jewish identity too; but clearly there are things that need to resolved. Perhaps some formulation can be found that protects Israel's Jewish identity without leaving out the country's Arab citizens. I don't see how these activists are going "too far" by peacefully issuing demands and calling for debate.

[cali]

44. Minority rights in Israel are improving

in Israel. Yes, they're imperfect. Where the hell aren't they imperfect? As for these activists, it's a pretty clear that what they're advocating is the end of Jewish identity in Israel. They have every right to advocate for it. It just won't fly.

[liberalpragmatist]

51. You're probably right

But they have a right to advocate for that, peacefully. And they're right to call for a debate.

And yes, you're right that human rights situation is improving. That's not an argument for not doing more, however.

[rockymountaindem]

39. Where's your outrage at France, then?

Or at Spain? Those two countries have done their utmost over the last 200 years to suppress indiginous minority languages and cultures. Maybe you'd like to go speak Picard or Gascon somewhere in France, or Corse in its native home... good luck. But there's a lot of silence on that and a lot of noise about Israel for reasons beyond my comprehension.

[liberalpragmatist]

42. France and Spain aren't our closest allies in the world

I'm not anti-Israel. I want to maintain the Israeli-U.S. alliance. I believe there is a lot to admire in Israel.

But Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world; they are our closest ally and there's a lot of willful blindness to Israel's faults.

So this becomes a political issue because it impacts how others see the United States. And it opens the U.S. to charges of hypocrisy because we ignore human rights abuses in our closest ally.

As for my outrage towards France - well, I believe a lot of European ethnic policies are wrong. I've written plenty on DU (esp. last year during the debates over the cartoon controversy) about discriminatory European policies, especially to immigrants and non-Whites. France's language policies are harsh, as well, and I'm not a fan of them either. But last time I checked, Gascon regionalists aren't in an analogous position to Israeli Arabs. Israeli Arabs are 20+% of the Israeli population and are wholly alienated from the state. That's not the case with linguistic minorities in France - there's frustration over the lack of cultural support given to their regional languages, but there's no pervasive discrimination against French citizens whose ancestors were non-French speakers.

That's not to say that Israeli Arabs are blameless in this; Israeli Arabs have too often been more bitter about the events of 1948 then willing to proactively engage the Jewish majority. That's why this kind of initiative is good - it's an open call to dialogue. They have my full support in that, even if I don't support all their demands.

[rockymountaindem]

55. Okay, I shouldn't have jumped all over you like that

I apologize.

I would like to disagree with some of your points, however. First of all, I don't think Israel is our closest ally in the world. I think that title goes to the United Kingdom and possibly Canada. Furthermore, I also think that Israel doesn't keep getting aid because we like to give it to them, but because it is a disguised subsidy for US arms manufacturers, as Israel must use that money for US purchases as a condition of recieving it.

As for France, I agree that there's not much to be outraged about now, but they don't have a great history in that regard and until very recently the ethnic French majority has been lax in making up for their past suppression. You say that Gascon regionalists aren't a large group, but when you combine them with the other speakers (or would-be speakers) of other minority languages in France they are a sizeable portion of the population. They would be an even greater number had it not been for 200 years of lingual suppression by the French government. While the situation is changing in France and Spain as Europe embraces diversity, the responses of European governments to indiginous minority rights in these fields hasn't been great.

As for the whole idea of nation-states, I think the notion shouldn't be rejected out of hand as some have suggested in this thread. I think it's great that some people, particularly on this board, think that it's possible to rise above long-standing ethnic antagonism in the short term. I wish it were that easy. It's much like my opinion on pacifism, actually. I'm not a pacifist, but I can't get mad at those who are because in the back of my mind I think how much better off we would all be if the whole world was pacifist. In a similar vein, I wish we could all stop being nationalist, or at least only seek to accentuate the positive aspects of nationalism as opposed to those which seek to cast outsiders as the bad guys. Sadly, looking at the present and the past, it's just not likely to happen. Most of the multi-ethnic states in the world today, such as the US, Canada and Switzerland, were concieved as multi-ethnic states at their inception. While the US doesn't have a perfect history about these issues, at our founding we realized there had to be some level of tolerence between the English, Scottish, Irish, German, Dutch and other nationalities living in our borders. The same is true of the French and English in Canada, and the four ethnicities of Switzerland. Other states that were not willingly formed as multi-ethnic, such as Yugoslavia, Lebanon and Iraq (not to mention so many of the countries in Africa) have long bloody histories of instability. I can only conclude (speaking just for myself) that multi-ethnic democracies can't be created out of whole cloth. I think that some kind of nation-state is the best idea for most people. That's why I support a two-state solution for the I/P conflict. I don't think that after all that has gone down over the past three generations, asking for a single state is not an option.

That said, Israel needs to come to terms with the fact that there will always be Arab citizens living there, and they need to be accomodated and treated as full equals in practice and on paper. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later. However, I still don't understand why Israel is placed under so much scrutiny out of all the countries in the world when other states, such as Spain and France, are guilty of equally bad or worse behavior in this realm and get off with no attention in the world community. Furthermore, considering the ongoing violence in places like Iraq and especially in Darfur, I just think this is a very minor concern that gets blown out of proportion.

[liberalpragmatist]

62. Well, I do think a lot of Leftists go way overboard on Israel criticism

Israel isn't evil. They aren't the source of all problems in the world. They aren't the reason most ME governments are so f*cked up.

Personally, I'm interested in these topics because Israel is such a close ally and because Israeli actions affect perceptions of the U.S.

I'll add this - nobody here is debating that most Islamic countries have horribly oppressive governments and often violent societies. People don't really discuss this because there isn't much to debate - we're all in agreement.

On Israel, however, the mainstream point of view in the U.S. sees Israel as essentially immune from criticism. So those of that challenge some of those assumptions are naturally going to engage in more discussion on this topic.

Not that I can speak for the motives of all who post on these issues. Like I said, some Lefty types really do seem to single out Israel, as if Israel is Nazi Germany. Which is obviously ridiculous. At the same time, not all criticism of Israel should be dismissed as anti-Semitic. And criticism of Israel shouldn't be deflected by pointing out how poor somebody else's record is.

[pelsar]

74. a work in progress....

israel is actually a work in progress that in terms of civil rights etc has probably moved faster in its 50+ history than any other country....and one that is involved in a very complex war situation where the borders are very very blurred.

on one hand there is the northern part of the islamic unit that wants a religious islamic govt......on the other hand, when there was talk of trading land with the palestinians and giving them some that were populated with israeli arabs...and overwhelming (90% i believe) of those israeli arabs said "no way".

i dont at all negate the discrimination israeli arabs face (bedouin, druze, etc) either directly or indirectly,

but theres a difference between outright discrimination and simply being a minority...... in democracies, the majority rules and lays down the laws.

Hence the flag may have a jewish star....so?...seems to me there are quite a few crosses on flags in europe. The symbols of the state belong to the majority.

as far as the left "jumping all over israel"...for any and all slights well thats pretty obvious, all they do is just cloud the issues and let the real anti semites join in

[breakaleg]

75. Isn't that another way of saying that Israel wants to remove Arabs from Israel?

"on one hand there is the northern part of the islamic unit that wants a religious islamic govt......on the other hand, when there was talk of trading land with the palestinians and giving them some that were populated with israeli arabs...and overwhelming (90% i believe) of those israeli arabs said "no way"."

[pelsar]

76. if your looking for a simplistic diabolical plot...

in case your not "up to date"...one of the ideas that came up with the settlements and agreed to during taba was a land transfer...the question then became which parts of israel to trade.

One of the ideas was Ulm el Phahem a city with a very strong islamic presence....seem to make sense, they want to live in an islamic state, the future palestenian state is obviously going to be islamic in nature....

except that the israeli arabs rejected the idea and there it died......guess they prefer the evil diabolical zionist entity to the future palestenian utopia as seen by some here.

[breakaleg]

77. "land transfer" does not equal "Population trasfer". If that is Israel's goal,

then you hit the nail on the head with "diabolical", not me.

Seems to me it's just one more way to strip Israeli Arabs of their rights. Go Israel!

[pelsar]

80. whats evil about it?

the option/idea came up...thats what happens in democracies (some call it brainstorming)......the israeli arabs of that area expressed their "displeasure" (and still do) with the zionist entity (headquarters of the northern wing of the Islamic Movement, ) and consequently a possible solution was found, they rejected it and that was that.

but i do understand......even ideas that all sides might agree to are now deemed "evil and diabolical".....as long as it comes out of israel



Then the interviewer asks: (to the mayor)
What do you think about the idea of annexing Umm al-Fahm to the Palestinian Authority?
"Absolutely not. Ninety-three percent of the city's residents are against that, and I am one of them. This is our home, we are citizens like everyone else, and we have it good here."

What's so good here for you? What about all the complaints of persecution, oppression and discrimination?

"It's all true, as you know. Yet our situation here is still far better than it would be if we were in an Arab state. I admit it. I also say it in talks abroad. It's a fact. That doesn't mean that there is nothing to improve. There's plenty."

[breakaleg]

81. What is insane about expelling Arab towns from Israel on the pretext of land exchange?

It sounds like work of Avigdor Lieberman. Just another way to purge Israel of Arabs, keep their population under control while maintaining Israel's illegal settlements.

Nice try.

[Shaktimaan]

82. nice try indeed.

Be honest.

The idea was that land populated by Jews would be traded for land populated by Palestinians in fixing permanent borders of the Israeli and Palestinian states. So, the Jewish state would get the land with the Jews and in exchange the Palestinian state would get the land with the Palestinians. There is nothing wrong in principle with this idea, provided everyone affected agrees to it. It is an attempt at compromise.

What you are saying... "maintaining illegal settlements" is false because the whole point of this idea was to come to an agreement whereby the settlement land would be compensated for. "Purge Israel of Arabs" or "expell" is also false as it implies that the Arabs would have no choice in the matter, that they'd be forced out of Israel. The reality was that they were ASKED which country they preferred and their decision was respected.

You seem to think that Israeli Arabs living on land in Israel that's populated entirely by Palestinians should never be given the option of deciding which state they would prefer to be a part of. And weirdly you seem to think that it would be more ethical to force them out of their homes in order to complete a land-only transfer, forcing their broken community to resettle themselves in different areas all over Israel, like a miniature reverse-Nakba.

But the Arabs were instead given a choice in the matter. How in the world can you critique any policy where the ultimate decision rests solely in the hands of the group it would affect? How is giving them MORE control over their destiny less preferable to LESS control?

[pelsar]

83. you miss the point...

from what i understand about "breakaleg"...he is less interested in any kind of agreed upon arangement and its potential for peace, but more interested in a singular abstract "justice" for a limited number of those involved (those that agree with breakalegs definition of justice).

(what happens after that is irelevant)..so consequently an agreed upon land transfer by those involved is not acceptable since it doesnt agree with his/her definition of 'justice" (whatever that may be)

[breakaleg]

87. I really wish you wouldn't respond to my posts, especially when you make sweeping statements

about me specifically since clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

[pelsar]

95. actually i'm trying to make sense of it...i thought i figured it out

.....it was based on several of your posts

however i could obviously be wrong.....you just dont explain yourself fully (at least beyond the usual "cries of injustice")......so i have to makes some assumptions

i thought i figure it out from this series....

Yes, I do want a pullout of the West Bank and I'd like to see all settlements gone. Period. After that, it will be up to the Palestinians to make their way. You can't tie them down, limit their freedoms and choices and expect them to come out on top

Change doesn't come overnight. When it does come, the kind of change we are talking about, it often comes at a huge price. Who am I to say to a group of people that they should make that sacrifice whether they want to or not?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x166413#166613

--------------

I really wish you wouldn't respond to my posts, especially when you make sweeping statements about me specifically since clearly you have no idea what you are talking about

so explain further, go beyond simplistic statements......doesnt it make sense to get through to a single israeli?.....so far my experience here has shown that the israeli narrative (what really concerns us) is non existant..makes me realize that the israelis on the right, have some substance to their beliefs.....


I've asked....in what i believe was a very civil and polite manner for a simple but straight discusssion outside of the usual DU tradition, where i could get some real info......but received no answer, i actually thought due to your above post you might be willing to....

any real discussion would have to take into account the real politics, scenarios that might or might not develop and have real answers for them....has yet to happen here, but i will give you credit, you did come the closest anybody has ever come......

so if your game....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x167571#167621

[cool user name]

85. So?

Because they enjoy more rights than their brothers in Arab countries, they don't deserve to be treated as total equals in their own state?

[cool user name]

86. Why would Israelis want to "destroy Israel?"

Oh, they can't be as patriotic as their Jewish bretheren, eh?

Your bigotry betrays you.

[cali]

88. The fact is that Israel as a nation with a culturally Jewish identity

would be destroyed. Saying so is NOT bigotry. Now soem people believe that Israel has no right to exist as a culturally Jewish nation, and that's not bigotry either. Just out of curiosity do you believe that all nations that identify as Muslim have the same iperative and the same urgency to rid themselves of that identity?

[cool user name]

89. First of all,

He said that Arabs agitating for equal rights is "just another ploy to destroy Israel."

That is bigotry on the same level if someone were to say that blacks agitating for equal rights meant that Africans are trying to destroy America.


As to your second question, yes, I do, however, we aren't talking about Muslim nations, are we? I think not.

Edit: My question still stands. Why would Israelis want to destroy Israel?

[cali]

90. You're right, that's a pretty obnoxious

characterization of what the Arab Israeli group is doing. I wouldn't say that this group wants to destroy Israel, but I would say that they want to change into an entity that is completely and entirely different from what it is. As to why? I presume that they're frustrated with their minority status. The main point here is it's not going to happen, just as a one state solution isn't going to happen.

[cool user name]

91. It's fair to argue on that point respectfully, and to which we would disagree.

However, thanks for acknowledging the original clueless statement for what it was. Clueless.

[cali]

92. Why do you think a one state solution is plausible?

and why do you believe that an Israel such as the envisioned by this group is?

[cool user name]

93. I not only think it's plausible but ...

I think that Israeli settlement in the Occupied Territories makes it imminent - perhaps, 20 years, maybe 50. This is just my opinion, however.

Israel's insistence on retaining the West Bank strengthens the one state solution argument (from both sides) - how that state would look and feel is difficult to ascertain.

However, I'm still interested in why the original poster thinks that Israelis would want to destroy Israel? Are Arab-Israelis not really Israelis?

[cali]

94. If you're interested in why that poster thinks

that this Arab Israeli group wants to destroy Israel, might I respectfully suggest that you address the question to that poster and not to me? Your pursuing it with me, when I've made it clear that I don't think that, is rather curious.

I don't believe that a one state solution is feasible- not without bloodshed that would make the current state of affairs look benign in comparison. I believe that we'll see pressure for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state increase. In fact, I think that we'll see the creation of such a state within 5 to 7 years.

[pelsar]

96. arab self administrated areas....

the writers have some very strange statements:

the status of the Arab women should be taken into account, in addition to the economic, political and environmental aspects of society....that can only mean one thing...send them back to the stone age of the 2nd class according to islam.

that means israels version of democracy and justice system would not be relevant in the "arab self administered sections"


which means tearing up israel into subsections.....

_____

as far as a single state goes..neither the palestenians, the arab israelis nor the jewish israelis want one.....

[Tom Joad]

41. Imagine, a state for all its citizens. What would that bring?

[Shaktimaan]

79. I just read through these posts and want to make some general comments.

Please excuse the long post but I've been thinking a lot about this lately.

I think that everyone here has made excellent points and succeeded in elevating the level of discussion past the usual talking points and absolutist declarations, which is great. A point that was made that's worth repeating was that racism and discrimination are facts of life in most societies and while always unjustified are almost never simple or easily solved. I think everyone here will agree that any step taken towards understanding and eradicating all forms of racism are positive and deserve our support. I wouldn't take some pro-Israel posters' comments that question the motives of others who call out the discrimination present in Israeli society to be a defense of the discrimination itself. It more likely reflects indignation resulting from the belief that some people here are less interested in the complex reality of the situation or in legitimately abolishing all forms of racism than they are in seeking out reasons to bash Israel, leading to far worse and far more common examples of global racism being pretty much ignored. And there is something to this, it is worth asking the question, "Why does the UN expend so much more ink detailing the relatively benign forms of racism against Palestinians in Israel than they do in examining the extremely brutal conditions imposed on Palestinian residents of Lebanon, which by most measures exceed even the highly publicized oppression of their kin living in the occupied territories?"

The fact is that there IS discrimination against Arab and Bedouin citizens of Israel and it is commendable to talk about it and work towards eliminating. But I would not lay the blame at the feet of Israeli policy alone or infer that a conspiracy exists to "un-empower" Arab citizens for racist reasons. It may be simpler to think like that but it doesn't reflect the reasons discrimination exists in Israel nor does it give us an accurate plan to end it. Identity politics is not something that's easily quantified on paper or even easily understood, yet it plays a major role here and any solution must take them into account.

Israeli Arabs are in a tough spot. Being treated as fully equal members of society also means that they have to want to see themselves as Israeli and identify with their nation over their ethnic "obligations." These two things go hand in hand, we are talking about emotions here, not just policy. There is a great deal of pressure put upon them as Muslims, as Arabs and most importantly, as Palestinians to regard Israel negatively. And who could blame them for feeling that they are "betraying" their kin and their cause by working in Israel's interest? Many skirt the issue by assuming a neutral role, neither openly supporting Israel nor actively undermining her. Which, of course, is just a part of the cycle of social interplay that reinforces racism.

If we are going to honestly talk about really, REALLY treating Israeli Arabs equally as Israeli Jews then we have to talk about this stuff. Because full equality is about more than funding for schools or identity cards, it also entails responsibilities that the Arabs have thus far been exempted from. For example, should they be required to serve in the IDF? And would they then have to serve in the territories? That's really problematic because it forces them to directly choose, every day that they are on duty, between their loyalty to Israel vs. Palestine. And as happens to Jewish Israelis, would they face the choice of either military service or jail? Because unfortunately issues like THAT are exactly the kind of no-win nightmares that lie at the heart of this problem.

Israel is a society where different ethnic groups play profoundly different roles and carry very different responsibilities, and it is not anyone's "fault" or an indication of deeply rooted hate as much as it reflects natural reactions to honest attempts at compromise. Different schools don't exist as part of an actual plan to shortchange Arabs as much as they are born of an Arab desire to retain an amount of self-determination and an easy way for the government to avoid constant conflict in their schools. The fact that Arab students ARE in fact shortchanged happens to be a reality and deserves serious scrutiny. But poor minorities in all societies routinely get shortchanged and there is no easy solution, no matter how much money is earmarked or how earnestly it is spent, as some of America's experiments in education during the 60's and 70's demonstrated.

I seriously believe that Israel can eventually overcome their problems with racism. I also believe that when we take into account the long standing conflict and the seriously ill will it generates, Israel faces a discrimination problem that is much less severe than one many other countries would face under similar circumstances. (Remember Japanese Internment?)

So while we can talk about this issue, I'd ask that everyone refrain from making blanket accusations (It's Bibi's fault!) or suggesting simplistic solutions (Israel should just start treating everyone equally for once and then this problem wouldn't exist!) It is a complex problem and deserves equally thoughtful consideration which, thankfully, seems to have been the norm here.

[cool user name]

84. I agree. n/t

[Spinoza]

97. The ONLY disctinction under Israeli law

between Jews and non-Jews are:

1) Jews may claim immediate citizenship under the 1948 'Law of Return'. Non-Jews may still become Israeli citizens but they must first satisfy a 3 year residency and procedural requirement. All Arabs and their decendants living in Israel as of 1949 were granted Israeli citizenship.
2) Only Jews are subject to a draft in the IDF. Non-Jews may serve in the army as volunteers, but are not drafted.

Of course, as is true of minorities in virtually every other nation including the U.S., there has been, and continues to be, discrimination against Arab Israelis by the majority Jewish population. Until recently Arabs could not buy homes in certain Jewish areas just as Jews cannot buy homes in Arab villages. There may be other localized instances of discrimination. And undoubtedly, as is true everywhere in the world, there are personal predjudices between different groups of people. However, a vital progressive element within Israel is continuously fighting for minority rights. And with much success. A decision by the Israeli Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that, in the words of Chief Justice Aharon Barak: "...the principle of equality prohibits the state from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality.....The Jewish character of the state does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens." (This was a ruling striking down an Israeli law which had prohibited Arab purchase of homes in specific 'sensitive' areas where security was an issue.) It is fair to say that Israel, led by its progressive Supreme Court, is making considerable progress in eliminating the vestiges of anti-Arab discrimination that were largely a product of the refusal of the Arab world to accept a Jewish state. It is also fair to say that despite lingering inequalities there is far less discrimination against minorities in Israel than in any other Middle Eastern nation. (Under the circumstances, that fact is remarkable.)

Israel is a democratic state, created by the United Nations, in which its Arab citizens are full citizens. Respect for the rights of others is an express part of Israel's charter.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of Israel's 1 million Arab citizens are NOT attempting to leave the country, are not 'voting with their feet, are not clamoring to leave 'apartheid' Israel and mnove to ANY of the surrounding 21 majority Arab nations, should demonstrate to any open minded person that, while there is room for improvement, minorities are not being abused or harmed in Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

98. well stated.