Holding a cruel mirror up to Israel

[plurality]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=185923&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

By Tom Segev

The man who caused the government this week to decide that Zionism requires apartheid once voted for Benjamin Netanyahu, thinking that every child would get a computer.

At the exit to Baka al-Garbiyeh there's a sign in Hebrew and Arabic directing drivers toward Tel Aviv. Someone has splashed white paint over the Arabic letters, erasing them. The message: Arabs - stay in Baka, don't go to Tel Aviv.

Baka al-Garbiyeh has some handsome, three- or four-story houses, with ornate balconies, strong, proud pillars and striking red-tile rooftops. A'adal and Iman Ka'adan live in a pleasant, spacious seven-level house; but the couple says that it is an optical illusion. The houses may look pretty, but they are opulent prisons: There's no way out of them. Baka al-Garbiyeh indeed has a run-down appearance, like a third world market town.

Following the government's decision this week to allow the establishment of Jewish-only communities, where Arabs are not allowed to live, the world media has streamed to the Ka'adan's home. A'adal, a congenial-looking, softly-spoken, 48-year-old, meticulously arranged interview slots for each journalist. The phone didn't stop ringing.

Thirty years ago, in a similar fashion, public attention was riveted on a Carmelite monk from Haifa, called Daniel, who forced Israel to define "Who is a Jew?" This time, it's Ka'adan who has forced Israel to look in the mirror, and what it is seeing is not so pretty: The reflection is the ideological image of MK Limor Livnat.

[plurality]

1. Add to that this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64587-2004Jan30_3.html

The Bus Driver

Not all victims of suicide attacks are Jewish. Sometimes the shrapnel finds someone like Yasser Hirbawi, an Israeli Arab who lives in East Jerusalem.

In August, Hirbawi was driving a bus for a tourism company when he stopped next to public bus No. 2, which had a bomber on board. Hirbawi felt the blast, which hurled him down the front steps of his bus, and brought the vehicle's small, mounted television set crashing down on his head and back.

snip

Hirbawi, 40, is under doctor's orders not to work. As an Israeli citizen and a victim of terrorism, he qualifies for financial compensation. But he hadn't received any, he said, and has survived -- taking care of his wife and six children -- only with the help of his brother, who owns a grocery store.

The reason, he believes, is because he is an Arab, not Jew.

"I tell you the truth, if I had been Jewish, I would be getting everything I am owed from the national insurance," Hirbawi said. "A Jew doesn't have to wait six months. Unfortunately, we have to wait. We are discriminated against. They don't treat everyone equally here."

Hirbawi is angry. His family has lived in Jerusalem for generations. He said he had never run afoul of the law. "I live in Jerusalem, I pay my taxes and everything," he said. "I was wounded just like any other person, just like the Jews.

"The bomb," he added, "did not discriminate between Jews and Arabs."

[David__77]

35. If true, that is horrifying.

A victim of terrorism is a victim of terrorism regardless of race or religion. Citizens of states should be treated equitably. I'm glad that's a pernicious concept of political liberty.

[mmm]

2. interesting read

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Limor Livnat is not a democrat

(Likud MK Limor) Livnat justified the proposed law enabling the establishment of communities for Jews only in an Israel Radio discussion with broadcaster Anat Davidov. The words she used could be used in the future to warrant the expulsion of Arabs, since the "demographic problem," according to her doctrine, is a matter of national security.
"I'm talking about national security, and I'm saying that it doesn't sanctify everything," Livnat said. "But it is the basis of Zionism. If somebody wants to deviate from the truth which we have upheld all these years, if somebody thinks that the need for demographic balance or a demographic majority of Jews compared to Arabs in the state of the Jews is racism - in my opinion, he is misinterpreting, and deviating sharply from the basis of Zionism, and from the principles of a Jewish, democratic state."
Livnat continued: "We are involved here in a struggle, in a struggle for the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jews, as opposed to the post-Zionists and the New Historians, those who want to force us to be a state of all its citizens. We are not just another state, like all the other states. We are not just a state of all its citizens. We are a state which has democracy and equal rights for all its citizens, but which is a Jewish state which is based on Jewish values ...
"There are special purposes. The special purpose is our character as a Jewish state, our desire to preserve a Jewish community and Jewish majority here, and to make sure that there are Jewish communities in all parts of the country, that there is Jewish settlement, and that there is a Jewish majority so that we can protect this character of the State of Israel, so that it does not become a state of all its citizens ... We all know exactly what is happening here, and we must be very careful, lest we find ourselves in another few years without a Jewish majority, with part of the Galilee and the border zones and Wadi Ara no longer under our control, and filled with Arab communities."

This is complete nonsense. What kind of democracy is she talking about some citizens have the right to live wherever they want and others do not? This is not democracy; this is racism.

Democracy does not have split-level citizenship. If Israel is not a state for all her citizens, as she says, then it is not a democracy.

If Ms. Livnat wants to preserve Israel's Jewish character in a democratic state, the best way to do that is give up this grotesque nightmare of Greater Israel and work toward a withdrawal of forces from the occupied territories. That will leave Israel about 80% Jewish.

[plurality]

4. The problem is, she would think this way, without the territories.

To her Zionism means Jews shouldn't have to live near Arabs, period.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I agree, but

Without the territories, and, more importantly, thinking of the occupied territories as an "integral part of Israel", she wouldn't be thinking about a "demographic problem". Her views would just be nutty. As it is, she justifies her racist proposals by citing the threat a large Arab population represents to Israel's status as a Jewish state. This only makes sense to one speaking of Israel as synonymous with Greater Israel.

Israel proper (i.e., inside the Green Line) is in little danger of becoming a state with an Arab majority anytime soon. Greater Israel, insofar as such a concept can even be sen as having any legitimacy, faces a choice either being a Jewish state or a democratic one; Greater Israel cannot be both.

(I know this is a red herring, but look at the expression on her face in her official Knesset photo. I usually see that expression on Ann Coulter's face. Is this the expression worn by all female racists?)

[plurality]

6. no, they consider it a problem in Green line Israel as well, check here

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=54599

snip

Netanyahu said that a demographic problem exists - but not with the "Arabs of Palestine, but rather the Arabs of Israel." He said that there is essentially no demographic problem with the Arabs of the PA, in that they are already under PA control, "even if the army sometimes goes into the cities." However, Netanyahu said, "regarding the Israeli-Arabs, who will remain Israeli citizens, here we have a problem... In our Declaration of Independence, we say that our raison d'etre is that we are a Jewish state, and this means that we must guarantee a Jewish majority. But we are also a democracy..." He said that if the Arabs become a minority of 40%, the State will cease to be Jewish - but if we remain with 20%, or even less, but with tough and violent relations, then this harms the State's democratic nature. "We therefore need a policy that will first of all guarantee a Jewish majority - I say this with no hesitation, as a liberal, a democrat, and a Jewish patriot - ... and one that will balance between these two needs."

[Jack Rabbit]

7. I'm not disagreeing with you about specific political figures

I'm not disagreeing with you about specific political figures like Livnat and Netanyahu. They are racists.

However, there is difference in speaking of the threat of Israel as a Jewish state that is also democratic when one speaks of Greater Israel, where the threat would be very real if there were any legitimacy to the concept of Greater Israel, and Israel proper, where the threat is almost non-existent. Most people in Israel, regardless of what they think of the occupation, would know this.

The fact that Livnat and Netanyahu don't recognize that distinction is no reason for us not to recognize it. We are intelligent, enlightened people. They are racists and fools.

[plurality]

8. I think that these two are racists, but the point I bring

Is that they merely hold out for the world to see what many have been saying all along. That creating and maintaining a 'Jewish state' like creating and maintaining a state for promoting any one ethnic group will in the end resort to racism to maintain the goal.

[JasonDeter]

9. A nations right of self determiniation is racist?

Also if someone attacked the United States and or made it known that their goal comming into the United States was the complete erradication of the United States how long do you think it would take for the clamp to come down hard on that group? How about in any one of the Arab nations? Britian? France? Then it wouldn't be called 'racist' would it? Its so easy to call Israel racist.

[Darranar]

10. That's not what he said.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David__77]

36. That's what Mexican-Americans are accused of actually.

Racist groups actually do accuse Mexican immigrants of seeking the "reconquista" of the southwestern United States. Certainly those who speak of the US as a "Christian nation" have been concerned about being "overrun" by immigrants of different cultures. I don't think self-determination means political inequality among citizens.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Concurring in part and dissenting in part

Once again, let's define democracy.

Democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

Whether Israel is a democracy or not depends on whether we are speaking of Israel proper, as most of us do, then it passes the democracy test. Israeli Arabs face discrimination, but nothing that would require a radical change in Israeli society. Indeed, the proposals and utterances of Ms. Livnat and Mr. Netanyahu are, in this context, what is radical.

If Israel is defined as Greater Israel, as many members of Likud and other right wing Israel parties do, then Israel is not a democratic state. Palestinian Arabs living in "Greater" Israel are not citizens and have no desire to be citizens of a Jewish state; obviously, that is inconsistent with the above standards of democracy. Moreover, given the reality of the "demographic problem", Greater Israel could only remain a Jewish state by refusing to grant full rights to the Arab majority in the West Bank and Gaza; that would justifiably be called an Apartheid state.

Given that 80% of the population of Israel proper is Jewish, while denying rights to Arabs within those boundaries might also be called Apartheid, it would resemble the Jim Crow South more than South Africa. However, that also fails the democracy test.

[plurality]

13. Yes Israel as it is fails the democracy test

And the extent to which it will go to, to maintain its "Jewish character" will keep it as such. Let's go through the test and I'll show you how.

1
Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.

Non-Jews that marry Israelis do not gain citizenship.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0808/p06s03-wome.html?worldNav

2
Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.

Arab political parties have been banned for advocating citizenship to Palestinians, thus restricting the rights of Arabs to participate in and influence public affairs. Mind you, other Israeli parties are allowed to freely advocated forced transfer (aka ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians, an act that is universally regarded as a crime against humanity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,866422,00.html

Granted, these people may or may not have said something advocating terrorism, that is debateable, however this is the pertinent section. The law described here violates the 2nd and 3rd of your tests as to whether a nation is a democracy or not.

Under a new law introduced in May, the knesset can disqualify a candidate or party for denying Israel's existence as a Jewish or democratic state

[Jack Rabbit]

17. You have raised two major concerns

I don't presented that there are not such concerns with the way business is conducted. However, these were introduced by a Likud government and can be repealed once that government passes from the scene, the sooner the better. I agree with you that Likud does not share democratic principles.

The marriage law is an abomination that should be repealed immediately.

You cite a "law introduced" in May. That phrasing is ambiguous. Was it passed or is it just a proposed piece of legislation? Otherwise, your right about its intent being anti-democratic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Arab parties cited in you Guardian link were allowed to participate in the 2002 elections. However, I also believe there should have been no talk of excluding them.

[plurality]

19. I'm glad we agree here

As for the Arab politicians/parties, they were banned from participating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2616307.stm

As for the law it was passed on May 15.

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1094isr.html

The problem is, I think these and the other problems mentioned will continue to rear their ugly heads as long as Israel remains a "Jewish state".

I think that "Greater Israel" and "Greater Palestine" need to become one, with the same rights and privledges afforded to all citizens. As it is, the current Palestinian territories could hardly make up a viable state. It is bereft of resources and infrastructure and would be utterly dependent on Israel for its survival. That's why I feel they should combine. Plus there would be the issue of the settlers should the Palestinians have a state, and forcing them to leave their homes would be just as unjust as it was when the Palestinians were forced to leave their homes earlier.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. I'm a two-state fella

You will never get Holocaust survivors who settled in Israel or their children and grandchildren to feel safe in a state where Jews are not the majority. For those living in the period following World War I, one of the last places one would have thought the Holocaust would have occurred would have been Germany. Although anti-Semitism was present, Jews were well integrated into German society.

In addition to the German experience, there is the case of the Arab Jews following World War II. Most Arab countries had Jewish populations in the tens of thousands in 1948. Today, most have Jewish populations in the low hundreds. The last Jew residing in Libya died two years ago.

That experience cannot be wiped away. It is too recent to be overlooked. Israel's purpose is be a safe heaven for Jews fleeing persecution. Those who fled such persecution and settled in Israel are not going to be persuaded to give up a Jewish state in favor of a bi-national democracy, no matter how good it may sound to the rest of us.

That does not give Israel license to persecute the Arab minority living within her borders or within lands under her military occupation. If Israel declares her ideals to be democratic, then she is expected to live up to them. The laws which you have cited contradict democratic principles. They should be repealed.

Also, the same is true with respect to the Palestinians. If Israel exists to provide a safe heaven for Jews, so should a Palestinian state exist to provide a safe haven for Palestinian Arabs. Would the Sabra and Shatila massacre have taken place if there were a Palestinian state on the map in 1982? Probably not. The refugees living there would have been resettled in Palestine. Also, if these abominable acts that you cite are a portent of what is to come for Israeli Arabs (may Heaven forbid), then a Palestinian state would provide them a safe haven from persecution.

As things stand, about 80% of the population west of the Green Line is Jewish and about 92% of the West Bank and Gaza is Palestinian Arab. One wouldn't think it should be too difficult for them to agree on a two-state solution. Although some settlements may have to be dismantled or some settlers will have to agree to live under Palestinian law, much of the settlement problem can be resolved by adjusting borders, as provided by Resolution 242 and the Geneva Accord of 2003.

As events unfolded this week, I am not very optimistic about any just solution coming about any time soon.

[JasonDeter]

14. The goals of the Arab peoples towards Israel is her complete destruction.

Eradicate that from the Arab mentality and we'll talk about Israel's right of self determination in Greater Israel.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Please elaborate or clarify

(W)e'll talk about Israel's right of self determination in Greater Israel.

I don't understand that clause.

[JasonDeter]

16. Historical, biblical, current borders of Israel.

I don't and will never agree to the 80% philosophy of the 'peaceniks' who plead "can't we all just get along?" My answer is NO. As long as you have as your platform Israel's destruction I will oppose you tooth and nail.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. If that is what you feel is necessary, fine

However, please do not call a state that limits citizenship of those born within it boundaries on the basis of nationality a democracy. It isn't.

What is the "80% philosophy"? It is a simple demographic fact that 80% of the population inside the Green Line is Jewish and about 92% of the population of the West Bank and Gaza is Palestinian Arab.

The title of your post needs elaboration. As far as most here are concerned, your humble servant included, the West Bank and Gaza are not now and never were part of the modern state of Israel; they are lands seized in the 1967 war and occupied since. Under Resolution 242, Israel may negotiate with the Palestinians for their return, with borders adjeted by mutual agreement, pending a peace pact. That, of course, means that the Palestinians would no longer have as part of their platform the destruction of Israel.

Ancient borders are of no relevance to the present conflict.

[JasonDeter]

21. "Ancient borders are of no relevance to the present conflict,"

Well thats what it boils down to doesn't it? You believe it doesn't I know it does.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. You have not answered all my questions

I still do not understand what is meant by Israel's right of self determination in Greater Israel. Did you mean to say the Palestinians' right of self determination in Greater Israel?

What is the "80% philosophy"?

And now I have another:

What relevance do the borders of ancient kingdoms have to conflicts among modern states and nations?

[astralroamer]

25. Zionism and Ancient Borders

Are you saying that you know that ancient borders are relevant to the present conflict?

In what respect?

[plurality]

27. You're absolutely right!

And me being the rightful heir to the throne of Azarkhand that reigned of the Azarkhandian plains in what you ignorantly refer to as "Israel" DEMAND you I have my rightful kingdom restored to me. And here I have the scriptures to PROVE it!

Book of Fish 15:84 "And behond, the great sky king said unto Ulkahar, 'The land to the east of the sea shall be thine until there is no more time. Cease your wondering through the land of Erdu, and claim what I have given unto thee.'"

See, RIGHT THERE! It proves that Israel is actually Azarkhand, and I can trace my linage back to Ulkahar, the first Azarkhandian king, who the great sky king gave the land to. I DEMAND that all people living there leave IMEADIATELY and give me what is mine!

[number6]

33. so you know what all Arab people think, amazing !

"Arab mentality" those silly a--rabs...

[David__77]

37. On the other hand...

I think "apartheid" is not accurate at this time. The US and other countries also have colonies such as Puerto Rico in which people lack sovereignty over their own political destiny. That's colonialism but not apartheid.

[Gimel]

23. I don't agree

I think that Jews can establish their own community, just as Muslims can establish theirs in Israel. They have an equal right. There are exclusively Muslim villages and towns in Israel. No Jews live there, and none would be able to move in.

Nothing undemocratic about it.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Are you disagreeing with Mr. Plurality?

His remark is:

To (Limor Livnat), Zionism means Jews shouldn't have to live near Arabs, period.

Your seem to be saying that his understanding is correct but that you don't see anything wrong with it. Is that right?

[Gimel]

28. The statement is his own

I don't think that Israel has to have a universal open housing policy. It is not at that stage yet and may not be for several more generations, if ever. Homogeneous living and life-style is not the ideal for everyone.

Religious Jews and non-religious Jews don't always get along well together either. There can be communities for secular people (that would include Arabs and other non-Jews) and communities for religious families, which would be either Jewish or Muslim or Christian, as it is today. Why does Israel have to rearrange it's natural grouping to satisfy the ideals of the American left? It is not democracy. Democracy is when the people involved have a vote in making decisions about their lives, and who represents them in the government.

[plurality]

29. sorry no, democracy is not simply majority rules

democracy also protects the rights of the minority. Because we all know what happens when the majority is given unchecked power of the minority.

[Gimel]

30. Minority rights

Minority rights are protected constitutionally. However, the rights of individual groups with customs and identities are protected also. That is a sub-cultural minority. There are minority groups in the Jewish sector also. Israel has many minorities.

[plurality]

31. telling minorities "not welcome" is hardly protecting their rights

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Ms. Gimel, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you

Out of my respect for you, I wish I could.

Why does Israel have to rearrange it's natural grouping to satisfy the ideals of the American left? It is not democracy. Democracy is when the people involved have a vote in making decisions about their lives, and who represents them in the government.

Democracy is much more than voting rights. Even to say democracy is where majority rules is overly simplistic. There is an element of equality involved. See post 12. If democracy were simply majority rules, then the Jim Crow South was democratic. That was a case of the majority denying fundamental rights to the minority on the basis of race. Few would call that democracy.

In a democracy, citizenship is both universal and equal. The rights of one citizen must be the rights of all. In a democratic society, an individual may live where he like and can afford to buy housing, regardless of his nationality or creed. Israel has many minorities and, unless they have the same rights as Jews, then Israel fails as a democratic society.

Segregation is not democratic, period. As the decision Brown vs. Board of Education held, separate is inherently unequal. It pains me to see one attempt to justify separate but equal and reconcile it with democratic principles. I have heard apologists for Jim Crow and Apartheid go down this path and fail. If Israel is a proud democracy, then Israelis, whether Jew or Arab, will not tread there.

[Gimel]

34. The concepts of democracy

I did not mention the majority rules concept, that was brought up by Plurality and you, Mr. Rabbit. I did not say that there should be a ruling class, a majority which determines the outcome of the issues as there is today, say, in the UN General Assembly.

There is not one group in Israel that has a clear majority. There is a lot of discussion and disagreement on every issue. In fact it is often a minority which determines the outcome. There is a Circadian minority and a Armenian minority, as well as Druze and Bedouins. They have a right to live according to their cultural background. They don't have to be forced to live with Jews and Muslims if they prefer to live with their own people.


The Arab sector (the Muslim and Christian Arabs) have determined the outcome of national elections, overturning the count on at least one occasion, that of the election of Mr. Netenyahu. It is not logical that they should have determined the outcome by abstaining from voting for the Labor party, and receive a government which is more biased toward their interests. But that is what they did.

The Arab sector does not participate in the defense of the country, except for the Bedouin and Druze. This remains an inequality that is not addressed. So if democracy is equal rights, it is also equal obligations.

Yet, the examples given where Arabs have petitioned for the right to buy in a Jewish secular neighborhood have received legal support for that. Granted, the current Intifada has made it more difficult for them to proceed with their request. Israeli Arabs have shown their support for the Palestinians in the conflict, and that has prejudiced them in the eyes of the Jewish sector.

However, if an orthodox religious group sets up a neighborhood, they don't allow secular people to live their unless they are willing to abide by certain restrictions in public. Immodest dress, couples unmarried and living together would be ostracized, and in some cases forced out of those communities.

I don't feel that segregation based on race is the issue here. It is not a matter of race, but religion and life-style in this case. An Arab convert to Judaism would be accepted, so you can't call this a racial issue. Ethiopian Jews have black skin. Yet they are welcomed into the Jewish communities. It is not a matter of segregation by race.

People choose to live a particular life-style. If a guy couple wants to buy into an Hasidic community (for whatever reason I do not know) would you have to allow it, by your democratic concept?

There are secular areas that are open to everyone. Arabs and Jews can live in apartments in most urban areas. However, the conflicts that are likely to develop in a community that has a mix between Arab and Jew, when both practice their religion, are putting an aspect of this Israel-Palestinian conflict in a microcosm. In certain atmospheres of mutual good-will it may develop peacefully, however forcing it upon people would be counter-productive in an atmosphere of suspicion.


Retirement communities exist in the US, I know. Buildings with apartments run be particular religious denominations exist, as do buildings for singles, and couples without children. If you have children, do not apply. Do not buy here. It's not a matter of race, it's a matter of age.


So if a Yesha community moves within the Green Line, and being observant Jews exclude the secular Jews as well as other religions from buying or renting in their community, I think it is perfectly legitimate.

It is not separate but equal kind of mentality. It is just minority rights.

[David__77]

39. Lot's of horrible things are "democratic."

Nations are free to have whatever social system they want. But if Israel is going to allow segregation, for instance, I think it's legitimate to criticize that. Just because segregation might win at the polls does not make it moral. And, yes, progressives should and must make value judgements about these things and speak out on that basis.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David__77]

38. Isn't that segregation?

If people want to uphold racial and religious segregation, that's fine. But let's be honest. I would hope that Israel would not allow housing discrimination against its citizens of whatever ethnicity.