Israel/Palestine: A True One-State Solution

fuck

rafie wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Commy wrote:

Is there a Christian state?

Aye. The Vatican State.

Peace
Dan

He got you there

But being serious, the are plenty of Muslim states (Iran for example), so why not a Jewish one?

lol i like the way you say "why not a Jewish one?" You make it sound like all you have to do is go find an empty plain and plant a seed and there's a Jewish state. Except you didn't find an empty plain, you found a land full of people already living there and ethnically cleansed them and barred them from returning home. So now many are living under occupation, others in poorly kept refugee camps, others are dead, in prison, etc...

if this conflict is to end peacefully, Israel has to restore Palestinians their equal rights and this includes the Right of Return. If giving people back their rights means the end of a so-called Jewish state, so be it. I'd choose equality over bullshit ethnic supremacy any day. As long as everyone's rights are guaranteed, and the fact that international law now exists and that we're in the 21st century and a new age means another holocaust won't happen (since that is used as justification for a Jewish state quite often), what's the threat here? Jews can still call the land their home if they want, but it's also other people's home and that should be recognized. And this includes ALL of Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza. There are millions of Palestinians who are not from the West Bank or Gaza, a state there is useless to them. But I guess all this makes me a "hardliner" right? I mean I'm calling for the death of Israel, is that what I'm doing? Am I one of those antisemitic posters you were referring to?

OutOfBreath

rafie wrote:

He got you there

But being serious, the are plenty of Muslim states (Iran for example), so why not a Jewish one?

But why does there have to be?
Nothing against jews and so forth, but there are plenty of small religions and sects that don't have states, and largely for the same reasons that jews haven't had one for a while. They're relatively few (and often scattered), or else a minority within a large country with a different public religion.

The fallacy of putting it like this, is that it kinda assumes that someone just gives away land and decides who live on it. And further that all "deserving" religions should (or indeed must) have their own land.

But one thing. You outlined the founding of Israel by pretty secular jews. Which is fine, but would I be wrong to point out that it seems that more ultra-orthodox judaism is on the rise, both by radicalized youth and immigration of jews from not-so-secular places?

Peace
Dan

catefrances

rafie wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

why does Israel NEED to be a jewish state? Ethnic or religious reasons? And yes I'm fully aware of history. The Holocaust affected more than just the jewish people in europe.

It may surprise many here, but it has VERY little to do with the holocaust. The idea of Israel as a Jewish state was born as a result of the nationalist movements of the mid 1800's. Jews started to immigrate to Israel because of nationalistic reasons as early as 1878. Zionism has been around since the end of the 19th century. When Israel was established in 1948, there were around 600,000 Jews living here. The minority of them arrived to Israel after the holocaust.

The thing people here do not seem to understand is that Judaism is more of a culture/nationality these days than a religion. Most Israelis lead entirely secular lifestyles (not to mention Jews worldwide too). With that being said, it is still very important for most Israelis to live around Jews due to a lingering connection to Judaism as a religion. Maybe in 50 or 100 years from now, attitudes will change, but I think that as long as there is Antisemitism in the world (it even exists on this forum with certain members) Israel needs to stay a state that has a majority of Jewish citizens (Israels population today is roughly 80% Jewish).
Jews around the world feel a connection to Israel not necessarily because of religion, but because of nationality. I have worked with groups of north american youth in the past visiting Israel for extended lengths of time, and very few of them came because of religion. I think that what Yosi meant in his post above is that it is similar to an African American feeling a connection to Africa or an Italian American wanting to visit Italy and see "where he came from".

the thing you do not realise is that some people here do understand that judaism is very much a cultural thing as opposed just a religion. i do understand, and im sure im not the only one here, who absolutely gets how difficult it it to sepaarte ones jewishness from ones everyday life. i understand that throughout history that the jewish people were persecuted no matter where they went. and i do understand this persecution was the catalyst for the forging of a jewish homeland. but what i also understand is that the shoah is the cause of great shame for the western powers. .. that they knew what the nazis were doing and didnt think it was important enough to put a stop to it until it was too late.. and i believe that is why israel is allowed to get away with what they do.

it has never ceased to amaze me that that the oppressed has become the oppressor.

i dont deny the jewish people a homeland but what i do very strongly object to is the way theyre going about it. why are gaza and the west bank even in existence??? why arent the palestinian people embraced as the jews brother?? why are the palestinians denied the right to exist in their own right as the jews have for so long fought for for themselves??

i abhor all religion so my argument will never come from the point of who has the ''biblical' right to live in what has become the state of israel. my argument will always be grounded in human rights. the palestinian people have the same right to exist as the jewish people do. it is unjust that they are segregated the way they are. it is unjust that a mighty wall is built to separate them from not only the jews but from each other. it is unjust that jewish settlers continue to be encouraged by the israeli govt, that they are convinced that it is ok to settle on land that is/was already occupied by palestinian families. it is unjust that palestinian villages have cease to exist . and it is unjust that the world seems to be castrated when it comes to pulling the israelis into gear at the expense of the palestinians.

but mostly it is unjust that after all theyve been through in their history that the jews seem to be ok with the way the palestinians are treated. it is as if the shoah never happened or that the persecution that happened for so long before it, never existed and that lessons werent learnt.

and what i also understand is that when the jews were looking for a homeland, the kimberley region of western australia was considered.

rafie

TriumphantAngel wrote:

rafie wrote:

I think that as long as there is Antisemitism in the world (it even exists on this forum with certain members) Israel needs to stay a state that has a majority of Jewish citizens (Israels population today is roughly 80% Jewish).

i see no antisemetism on this board. i see no hate against Jews. what i do see is anger, revulsion, etc. against the zionist Israeli government, with all its implications. defending Palestinian basic human rights and being critical of the Israeli government, does not make someone anti-semetic.

I was no way saying that all the anti-Israel people here are also antisemites. What I was saying was that certain individuals here are absolutely antisemites. Just a few days ago a thread was locked here due to certain remarks that I (and others) absolutely consider antisemitic.

rafie

OutOfBreath wrote:

rafie wrote:

He got you there

But being serious, the are plenty of Muslim states (Iran for example), so why not a Jewish one?

But why does there have to be?
Nothing against jews and so forth, but there are plenty of small religions and sects that don't have states, and largely for the same reasons that jews haven't had one for a while. They're relatively few (and often scattered), or else a minority within a large country with a different public religion.

The fallacy of putting it like this, is that it kinda assumes that someone just gives away land and decides who live on it. And further that all "deserving" religions should (or indeed must) have their own land.

But one thing. You outlined the founding of Israel by pretty secular jews. Which is fine, but would I be wrong to point out that it seems that more ultra-orthodox judaism is on the rise, both by radicalized youth and immigration of jews from not-so-secular places?

Peace
Dan

I guess my remark to your original post is distracting people from the comment before where I explained in depth that it is not a matter of religion, rather nationality.
As for the part in your post here that I put in bold, the opposite is quite true. If anything, the majority of Israeli citizens are distancing themselves from what you call here ultra - orthodox and becoming more secular.

rafie

catefrances wrote:

i abhor all religion so my argument will never come from the point of who has the ''biblical' right to live in what has become the state of israel. my argument will always be grounded in human rights. the palestinian people have the same right to exist as the jewish people do. it is unjust that they are segregated the way they are. it is unjust that a mighty wall is built to separate them from not only the jews but from each other. it is unjust that jewish settlers continue to be encouraged by the israeli govt, that they are convinced that it is ok to settle on land that is/was already occupied by palestinian families. it is unjust that palestinian villages have cease to exist . and it is unjust that the world seems to be castrated when it comes to pulling the israelis into gear at the expense of the palestinians.

And that is why I personally believe in a 2 state solution.

catefrances wrote:

and what i also understand is that when the jews were looking for a homeland, the kimberley region of western australia was considered.

I've never heard of that. As a history teacher, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite some sources for this. I will be covering the subject with my 9th graders in a month or two.

redrock

rafie wrote:

I've never heard of that. As a history teacher, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite some sources for this. I will be covering the subject with my 9th graders in a month or two.

It was the Kimberley Plan (I think), dreamt up by the Freeland League - can't remember the name of the guy leading it. The Prime Minister of Australia said such a settlement was not acceptable. I learned this at school (many moons ago) and my daughter, who is 15, was also made aware of this. I'm surprised that a history teacher in Israel would not have any knowledge of this, even if it was a bit of a non event. Part of the various places that were looked at (eg Uganda, Argentina, etc.) and where some settlements were established. This Kimberley thing is actually quite interesting - the guy had quite grand ideas.

rafie

redrock wrote:

rafie wrote:

I've never heard of that. As a history teacher, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite some sources for this. I will be covering the subject with my 9th graders in a month or two.

It was the Kimberley Plan (I think), dreamt up by the Freeland League - can't remember the name of the guy leading it. The Prime Minister of Australia said such a settlement was not acceptable. I learned this at school (many moons ago) and my daughter, who is 15, was also made aware of this. I'm surprised that a history teacher in Israel would not have any knowledge of this, even if it was a bit of a non event. Part of the various places that were looked at (eg Uganda, Argentina, etc.) and where some settlements were established. This Kimberley thing is actually quite interesting - the guy had quite grand ideas.

Sounds interesting. I am of course familiar with the Uganda plan and also the south american options. Never heard of an Australian plan. Once again, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite a source for this.

redrock

rafie wrote:

Sounds interesting. I am of course familiar with the Uganda plan and also the south american options. Never heard of an Australian plan. Once again, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite a source for this.

If you google Kimberley plan (or such), I'm sure you will find reference.

TriumphantAngel

redrock wrote:

rafie wrote:

I've never heard of that. As a history teacher, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite some sources for this. I will be covering the subject with my 9th graders in a month or two.

It was the Kimberley Plan (I think), dreamt up by the Freeland League - can't remember the name of the guy leading it. The Prime Minister of Australia said such a settlement was not acceptable. I learned this at school (many moons ago) and my daughter, who is 15, was also made aware of this. I'm surprised that a history teacher in Israel would not have any knowledge of this, even if it was a bit of a non event. Part of the various places that were looked at (eg Uganda, Argentina, etc.) and where some settlements were established. This Kimberley thing is actually quite interesting - the guy had quite grand ideas.

we were taught that at school too. his name was Isaac Steinberg.

i can't fathom why a history teacher in Israel would not be aware of this.

TriumphantAngel

rafie wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

rafie wrote:

I think that as long as there is Antisemitism in the world (it even exists on this forum with certain members) Israel needs to stay a state that has a majority of Jewish citizens (Israels population today is roughly 80% Jewish).

i see no antisemetism on this board. i see no hate against Jews. what i do see is anger, revulsion, etc. against the zionist Israeli government, with all its implications. defending Palestinian basic human rights and being critical of the Israeli government, does not make someone anti-semetic.

I was no way saying that all the anti-Israel people here are also antisemites. What I was saying was that certain individuals here are absolutely antisemites. Just a few days ago a thread was locked here due to certain remarks that I (and others) absolutely consider antisemitic.

this was Kats comment.

If someone feeds into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, it can be considered a racial slur. Blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc. Do not do it. It's not ok here and an apology is in order. Diffuse this argument...do the right thing...and be careful when choosing your words in a debate.

Admin

she is saying considered and that doesn't mean it WAS intended to be so stop making out it was. also, from what i understand, two people apologized to each other for the misunderstanding and it was sorted out and i can assure you that the person who made the comment in a joking way is far from antisemetic.

while were on the subject, i wonder if everyone who has ever made a blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc joke has been singled out and asked to apologize?

bullshit they have. just special treatment for you guys, that's all it is. Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel cannot hide behind the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for ever. just because they have been victims of racism and genocide throughout history, does not entitle them to to do the same to other people and then cry "anti-Semitism" when they themselves, get accused of committing crimes against humanity which is what happens here.

the only reason you call antisemetism here is to take focus off the subject being discussed to try and end discussion about Israel.

i wonder what Eddie Vedder would say. i mean afterall it IS a Pearl Jam Message Board not the Rafie and Yosi message board with special rules for them only. i think he would demand consistancy which does not happen around here.

if it did, then in that thread you so kindly bought up to use as a way to try and validify your lie, he would be asking the same question i am.

why was Yosi allowed to threaten violence against me by telling me "if you said this shit to my face you'd be gagging on your teeth right now."

why was that ignored?

why didn't HE have to apologize to me?

is the message being sent to posters that a joke taken the wrong way (and yes we understand that along with blonde jokes they are not acceptable on the forum), is not ok, but threats of violence are?

double standards. one for Jewish people. one for everyone else.

just like in the real world.

rafie

Thank you for the name TA. Just read up on the guy a bit and can understand why I never heard of him before. He was pretty much operating on his own with VERY few supporters for his ideas. He was also operating during WW 2, while the Zionist movement was at it's height, more than 60 years after the first modern Jewish settlements were founded. At that time there were already around 400,000 Jews living in the region. This story is pretty much a very small footnote in Jewish history.
But thank you all for furthering my education a bit.

rafie

TriumphantAngel wrote:

this was Kats comment.

If someone feeds into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, it can be considered a racial slur. Blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc. Do not do it. It's not ok here and an apology is in order. Diffuse this argument...do the right thing...and be careful when choosing your words in a debate.

Admin

she is saying considered and that doesn't mean it WAS intended to be so stop making out it was. also, from what i understand, two people apologized to each other for the misunderstanding and it was sorted out and i can assure you that the person who made the comment in a joking way is far from antisemetic.

while were on the subject, i wonder if everyone who has ever made a blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc joke has been singled out and asked to apologize?

bullshit they have. just special treatment for you guys, that's all it is. Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel cannot hide behind the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for ever. just because they have been victims of racism and genocide throughout history, does not entitle them to to do the same to other people and then cry "anti-Semitism" when they themselves, get accused of committing crimes against humanity which is what happens here.

the only reason you call antisemetism here is to take focus off the subject being discussed to try and end discussion about Israel.

i wonder what Eddie Vedder would say. i mean afterall it IS a Pearl Jam Message Board not the Rafie and Yosi message board with special rules for them only. i think he would demand consistancy which does not happen around here.

if it did, then in that thread you so kindly bought up to use as a way to try and validify your lie, he would be asking the same question i am.

why was Yosi allowed to threaten violence against me by telling me "if you said this shit to my face you'd be gagging on your teeth right now."

why was that ignored?

why didn't HE have to apologize to me?

is the message being sent to posters that a joke taken the wrong way (and yes we understand that along with blonde jokes they are not acceptable on the forum), is not ok, but threats of violence are?

double standards. one for Jewish people. one for everyone else.

just like in the real world.

If you have a problem with Yosi, bring it up with him.
As for the comment in that thread, I personally was offended by it. The thread was locked before I got am opportunity to voice my problem with it. Who are you to tell me if I should be offended or not? I don't go around telling you not to feel disgusted by the things you post about here. Quite the opposite, free speech grants us all the right to feel and say what we want as long as it does not "feed into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, [because] it can be considered a racial slur."
Please lets not bring the subject up again. I read the previous thread and do not need to re-read all you "blond joke" arguments. I would prefer that this thread was not locked. The discussion here is rather educational and (mostly) civilized for now.

TriumphantAngel

rafie wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

this was Kats comment.

If someone feeds into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, it can be considered a racial slur. Blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc. Do not do it. It's not ok here and an apology is in order. Diffuse this argument...do the right thing...and be careful when choosing your words in a debate.

Admin

she is saying considered and that doesn't mean it WAS intended to be so stop making out it was. also, from what i understand, two people apologized to each other for the misunderstanding and it was sorted out and i can assure you that the person who made the comment in a joking way is far from antisemetic.

while were on the subject, i wonder if everyone who has ever made a blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc joke has been singled out and asked to apologize?

bullshit they have. just special treatment for you guys, that's all it is. Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel cannot hide behind the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for ever. just because they have been victims of racism and genocide throughout history, does not entitle them to to do the same to other people and then cry "anti-Semitism" when they themselves, get accused of committing crimes against humanity which is what happens here.

the only reason you call antisemetism here is to take focus off the subject being discussed to try and end discussion about Israel.

i wonder what Eddie Vedder would say. i mean afterall it IS a Pearl Jam Message Board not the Rafie and Yosi message board with special rules for them only. i think he would demand consistancy which does not happen around here.

if it did, then in that thread you so kindly bought up to use as a way to try and validify your lie, he would be asking the same question i am.

why was Yosi allowed to threaten violence against me by telling me "if you said this shit to my face you'd be gagging on your teeth right now."

why was that ignored?

why didn't HE have to apologize to me?

is the message being sent to posters that a joke taken the wrong way (and yes we understand that along with blonde jokes they are not acceptable on the forum), is not ok, but threats of violence are?

double standards. one for Jewish people. one for everyone else.

just like in the real world.

If you have a problem with Yosi, bring it up with him.
As for the comment in that thread, I personally was offended by it. The thread was locked before I got am opportunity to voice my problem with it. Who are you to tell me if I should be offended or not? I don't go around telling you not to feel disgusted by the things you post about here. Quite the opposite, free speech grants us all the right to feel and say what we want as long as it does not "feed into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, [because] it can be considered a racial slur."
Please lets not bring the subject up again. I read the previous thread and do not need to re-read all you "blond joke" arguments. I would prefer that this thread was not locked. The discussion here is rather educational and (mostly) civilized for now.

you are the one that brought the subject up again, remember?

and free speech yes. just remember, it does not grant you the permission to label people antisemite when they are clearly not and if you do then don't be surprised if they get upset about that.

rafie

TriumphantAngel wrote:

and free speech yes. just remember, it does not grant you the permission to label people antisemite when they are clearly not and if you do then don't be surprised if they get upset about that.

I only know the people here from the things they post. Never met any of them in person. Just as you (rightly so) have probably surmised about myself that I am pro Israel and a proud Jew/Israeli, I make up my mind about people here by how they represent themselves in their posts. I stand by my impressions of those people just as you stand by yours. I never mentioned names and only vaguely mentioned the thread so only people who already read it would know what I was talking about. I do not label these people anything, I prefer to ignore them. Seeing how I am not ignoring you, I obviously do not believe you to be such a person.
Good night.

gimmesometruth27

i can see how that post you all are debating could have been taken out of context...but having been reading his posts all these years i can tell that he was joking...

rafie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can see how that post you all are debating could have been taken out of context...but having been reading his posts all these years i can tell that he was joking...

Thing is, I have not known him for years.
Now I really need to go to bed (almost 1 A.M. and I have to work tomorrow).

TriumphantAngel

_outlaw wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090204665.html

Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution
By George Bisharat
Friday, September 3, 2010
"Where is the Palestinian Mandela?" pundits occasionally ask. But after these latest Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington fail -- as they inevitably will -- the more pressing question may be: "Where is the Israeli de Klerk?" Will an Israeli leader emerge with the former South African president's moral courage and foresight to dismantle a discriminatory regime and foster democracy based on equal rights?

For decades, the international community has assumed that historic Palestine must be divided between Jews and Palestinians. Yet no satisfactory division of the land has been reached. Israel has aggravated the problem by settling roughly 500,000 Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, eliminating the land base for a viable Palestinian state.

A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.

Palestinian refugees have lived in exile for 62 years, their right to return to their homes denied, while Jews from anywhere can freely immigrate to Israel.

Israeli leaders Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have admitted that permanent Israeli rule over disenfranchised Palestinians would be tantamount to apartheid. Other observers, including former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have said that apartheid has already taken root in the region.


Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.

The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege. A carefully crafted multiyear transition including mechanisms for reconciliation would be mandatory. Israel/Palestine should have a secular, bilingual government elected on the basis of one person, one vote as well as strong constitutional guarantees of equality and protection of minorities, bolstered by international guarantees. Immigration should follow nondiscriminatory criteria. Civil marriage between members of different ethnic or religious groups should be permitted. Citizens should be free to reside in any part of the country, and public symbols, education and holidays should reflect the population's diversity.

Although the one-state option is sometimes dismissed as utopian, it overcomes major obstacles bedeviling the two-state solution. Borders need not be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided and Jewish settlers could stay in the West Bank. Moreover, a single state could better accommodate the return of Palestinian refugees. A state based on principles of equality and inclusion would be more morally compelling than two states based on narrow ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, it would be more consistent with antidiscrimination provisions of international law. Israelis would enjoy the international acceptance that has long eluded them and the associated benefits of friendship, commerce and travel in the Arab world.

The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.

Israeli perspectives are already beginning to shift, most intriguingly among right-wing leaders. Former defense minister Moshe Arens recently proposed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel annex the West Bank and offer its residents citizenship. Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin and Likud parliamentarian Tzipi Hotovely have also supported citizenship for West Bank Palestinians, according to the Haaretz. In July, Hotovely said of the Israeli government's policies of separation: "The result is a solution that perpetuates the conflict and turns us from occupiers into perpetrators of massacres, to put it bluntly."

Is one of these politicians the Israeli de Klerk? That remains to be seen. Gaza is pointedly excluded from the Israeli right's annexation debate. They still envision a Jewish state, simply one with a larger Palestinian minority. But their challenge to the two-state orthodoxy, which empirical experience has proven unrealistic, is healthy.

If Americans aspire to more than managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via perpetual and inconclusive negotiations, we should applaud this emerging discussion. Having overcome our own institutionalized racial discrimination, we can model the virtues of a vibrant, multicultural society based on equal rights. President Obama, moreover, would be a fitting emissary for this vital message.

The writer is a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestinian Studies.

bump.

TriumphantAngel

Should Israel be encouraged to enact legislation guaranteeing equal rights for all of its citizens as part of any peace agreement with the Palestinians?

George Bisharat and Nimer Sultany: Second-class citizens
Published by Diane Warth on 16 August 2010 0

Comments BY GEORGE BISHARAT and NIMER SULTANY

Israel’s systematic discrimination against Arabs was highlighted recently when Donna Shalala, University of Miami president and former Health and Human Services secretary, was detained for three hours, grilled and subjected to an extended luggage search upon her departure from Israel.

Shalala, of Lebanese Arab descent and a long-time supporter of Israel, had visited the country with other university leaders at the invitation of the American Jewish Congress, but had stayed beyond the planned itinerary for several days. It seems evident that, despite her stature, she was a victim of profiling.

But the indignities that Shalala suffered pale in comparison to those faced by the 1.3 million Palestinian citizens of Israel on a daily basis, and not just at the airport.


Adalah, the Legal Center for Minority Rights in Israel, counts more than 35 Israeli laws explicitly privileging Jews over non-Jews. Other Israeli laws appear neutral, but are applied in discriminatory fashion. For example, laws facilitating government land seizures make no reference to Palestinians, but nonetheless have been used almost exclusively to expropriate their properties for Jewish settlements.

Consider what it would be like if:

• Our Constitution defined the union as a “white Christian democratic state?”

• Our laws still barred marriage across ethnic-religious lines?

• Our government appointed a Chief Priest, empowered to define membership criteria for the white Christian nation?

• Our government legally enabled immigration by white Christians while barring it for others?

• Our government funded a Center for Demography that worked to increase the birth rates of white Christians to ensure their majority status?

These examples all have parallels in Israeli practices.

While Israel’s Palestinian citizens have rights to vote, run for office, form political parties and to speak relatively freely, they remain politically marginalized. No Palestinian party has ever been invited to join a ruling coalition. In recent years, Palestinian politicians and community leaders have been criminally prosecuted or hounded into exile.

Nadim Rouhana, social psychologist and director of Mada al-Carmel (a center studying Palestinian citizens of Israel) reports: “Our empirical research reveals that many Palestinian citizens are alienated from the Israeli state. At a deep psychological level, the daily message conveyed in Israeli public discourse is: `You are not one of us. You don’t belong here. You are permanent outsiders.’ Imagine: we, whose families have lived here for centuries, hear this even from recently immigrated Jewish Israeli politicians.”

Palestinian rights are not respected in the Israeli legal system. Israel has no written constitution, only “Basic Laws” that were enacted piecemeal over time. None enshrines equality, and efforts by Palestinian lawmakers in Israel’s Knesset to add an explicit guarantee of equal rights have been rebuffed.

The 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence promised equal rights to all citizens in a Jewish state, and has occasionally been cited by the Israeli High Court. But a declaration of independence does not play the same legal role as a constitution or basic law. As students of American history know, the U.S. Declaration of Independence held that “all men are created equal” but failed to provide legal leverage to dismantle slavery, or to empower women to vote. Equal rights were only installed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and women’s suffrage only by the 19th Amendment. Lacking the necessary tools, the Israeli High Court has failed to consistently protect equal rights for Palestinian citizens.

Shalala’s treatment in Israel was, no doubt, demeaning. The incident’s effect nonetheless will be constructive if it serves to alert more Americans to Israel’s discrimination against its Palestinian citizens — and creates pressure on Israel to adopt equal rights for all. Only then will durable peace prevail in the Middle East.

George Bisharat is a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Nimer Sultany is a civil rights attorney in Israel and doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School

redrock

rafie wrote:

Thank you for the name TA. Just read up on the guy a bit and can understand why I never heard of him before. He was pretty much operating on his own with VERY few supporters for his ideas. He was also operating during WW 2, while the Zionist movement was at it's height, more than 60 years after the first modern Jewish settlements were founded. At that time there were already around 400,000 Jews living in the region. This story is pretty much a very small footnote in Jewish history.
But thank you all for furthering my education a bit.

Hmmm... strange how these historical facts are not worth bothering with for Israel. Since the ottoman empire refused the plan to have a jewish settlement in Palestine, other places were being considered (thus where Africa comes in) The Kimberley plan was not just the wild rantings of just one man, but part of the bigger picture of what whas happening in those times. Sure enough, this man was very influential, intelligent and charismatic. This plan was similar to those for settlements in South America, etc. and had the support of numerous people but not from the Australian government nor the jews that had settled in Australia. These had completely integrated themselves and did not wish to have a segregated jewish community. The Australian government decided it was against their policies as well. Pretty much a slap in the face really. But if we look at the similar proposed settlements that were actually approved, they quickly imploded and did not work. I still find it really strange that a history teacher (not just you but anyone who studied their country's history to that level) would not know about this. It's no smaller of a footnote than the settlements in South America, etc. Probably a bit of a bigger footnote seeing the people involved and how the jews themselves (those that were integrated) were against such a proposal.