Israeli Arabs seek autonomy and veto on government decisions

[Violet_Crumble]

Israeli Arabs are demanding cultural, religious and educational autonomy, and the right to veto government decisions on national issues that affect them.

The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee Tuesday released a document entitled "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel." It stipulates that Israeli Arabs will demand that during the next two decades Israel become a binational state alongside an independent Palestinian state.

Monitoring Committee officials say the document is a cornerstone in the history of the Israeli Arabs, as it was produced by the Monitoring Committee and sponsored by the local authorities committee, two bodies representing all the political factions of the Arabs in Israel.

"Our main objective is to ignite the spark of the political debate on the future of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel," said Shawki Hatib, chair of the Monitoring Committee.

The document demands that Israel recognize the Arab community as a national minority with the right to be represented in international forums. Jewish Israelis need not see it as a threat, Hatib said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/797699.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Separatist hogwash.

[bemildred]

2. An interesting development.

I'm wondering where the "Higher Arab Monitoring Committee" came from? I expect this sort of thing, if pursued, will drive a lot of people bonkers.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Yeah, I doubt it'll go anywhere...

though they don't appear to be asking for anything outrageous, at least from what I've read in there..

[eyl]

4. You don't think asking for a veto on government decisions

not a voice, mind you, but a veto - is pushing it?

[newyorican]

6. asking for a veto is not pushing...

A veto can be overridden. I see nothing wrong with using a veto to express serious problems with policy. It forces all involved to take a second look.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

[msmcghee]

7. From the article:

"It calls for setting up a democracy constituting a coalition of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Each side would run its own affairs and each would have a right to veto the other's decisions."

It says nothing in the article about a veto as just requiring a second look or as something that can over-ridden.

[newyorican]

9. Nothing in the article..

defining a democracy either. Guess the author figured the reader would know what it was.

[eyl]

11. Actually, the American legilsative system

is the only place I've ever encountered an overidable veto. A veto usually is the last override.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Not really. Not if it's a limited one...

And the article did say that it would only be for national issues that affect them after saying they want autonomy over cultural, religious and educational issues. Though I think a more constructive way of doing things is to give more control to Israeli-Arabs in the decision making process in the first place. I can think of one very recent instance here of when I wish indigenous Australians had veto power over decisions made by our govt and that is the sort of thing I'm thinking of when it comes to being able to veto things....

SOCIAL engineering is repugnant. No one of reasonable nature nor temper would argue with that. But sometimes that engineering is not a simple case of black and white. It can fall into grey areas, such as a government threatening to withhold funding for health and essential services because those who need it are deemed to live too far away from larger population centres.

Step forward, Mal Brough, Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Mr Brough declared this week that such services for Aborigines who live in small remote communities would not be funded. "If people choose to move beyond the reach of education and health services, noting that they are free to do so, the Government's investment package will not follow them," he said.

Essential services, Mr Brough, are not investment packages. They are essential because that is, in fact, what they are: essential, fundamental, indispensable. To say that these services are not going to be funded because Aborigines live outside the reach of the services is not a problem for that community but a problem for the Government.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/out-of-sight-out-of-mind/2006/12/06/1165081017050.html

[eyl]

17. Well, it depends on what they had in mind

but as I pointed out above, vetoes are usually not overridable.

And "national issues that affect them" would also inevitably include financial issues; many of which would not affect only them.

Let me give you an example. There's a system here where you get a certain "allowance" from NAtional Insurance for children. Not only is the total amount determined by the number of children you have, but after the 4th (IIRC) child, the per-child "rate" would also increase. A few years ago, the chnges in the rate where cut.

This is an issue which affected the whole country, but the two populations which would be most affected would be the ultra-Orthodox and the Arab communities, both of which tend to have very large families. Going by the wording of the article, per the proponents the Arab community should have a veto in this case, since they're one of the primary groups affected - but it's a nationwide issue.

[oberliner]

5. Three State Solution?

From the article cited in the OP:

The chapter about the Palestinian state says the Israeli Arabs support the establishment of a Palestinian state adjacent to Israel. It would belong to the Palestinian people, while Israel would be a binational state, as it has a Jewish majority and a large Arab minority. It calls for setting up a democracy constituting a coalition of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Each side would run its own affairs and each would have a right to veto the other's decisions.


<End of excerpt>

A binational state within Israel in addition to a Palestinian state adjacent to Israel?

Three separate "nations"? One for the Jewish people, one for the Palestinian people, and one for the Israeli Arabs?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I'm only counting two states in that equation...

One is Israel and the other would be the Palestinian state. A binational state (or trinational or multinational) is not two states, but one. That's why a binational solution for the I/P conflict (a state that includes Israel and the Palestinian territories where all citizens have equal rights and protections) is sometimes referred to as a one-state solution....

Personally I'm all for Israel and a future Palestinian state both being multi-national states where ethnicity etc isn't an issue at all...

[msmcghee]

8. This is pretty funny really.

It's like the South lost the Civil War - so they say OK, we can't secede, but we get our own identity, we get to make our own laws in our areas and we get to veto any laws you pass that we don't like.

Yeah, that makes sense. :eyes:

[newyorican]

10. Actually...

thats just about exactly what happened. Virginia is still Virginia etc, etc.

Federal and state laws often come into conflict, are revisited and resolved. It is not exclusive to southern states either. If enough states (including southern states) are like-minded they can refuse to pass legislation and/or override a presidential veto. This is all basic information, but given your comment, I thought it needed saying.

[msmcghee]

13. The south enjoys no . .

. . benefits of states rights vs. federal dominion than any other state in the union.

The south did not gain the right after the civil war to establish any form of southern regional government that would have precedence over Federal law in any way. That's what the civil war was about. The south lost.

What you are suggesting is the same as if the south had lost the civil war but then maintained that they could veto any Federal laws restricting the practice of slavery.

[newyorican]

14. Not what I stated at all..

...and I grow weary of explaining away your interpretation of my words.

I will only say, that states, through their representitives, can challenge federal laws that effect their region. They do it all the time. If the block of dissenters is large enough, the legislation is revised or rejected. The southern states,through their representitives, are not barred or disadvantaged in any way from these actions.

Added: "through their representitives" as I assumed this to be understood.

[bemildred]

12. Sounds like Lebanon, kind of. nt

[nicoll]

18. I don't see the problem

The Arab Israeli minority have a right to have a voice in a democratic Israel. Arab Israeli's and Jewish israeli's are both citizens of Israel and should have equal rights. If the Jewish section of Israel has the right to a veto then the Arab section of Israel should also have that right. Equality is the best way forward in Israel.

This is in some ways a test to see just how much of a democracy Israel is in comparison to Western countries. Can you imagine minority groups within England not having a voice, but being British citizens. Ethnic minorities enhance a country and I could not imagine my own country England not having minority groups making up the population of the country. I am proud that my country is a tolerant Western power with so many different cultures inter woven into the fabric of the population.