For the last week or so, some defenders of the Israeli status quo have argued in the TMZ Comments Section that there is no more discrimination against Arabs in Israel than against minorities in most countries.
So those folks will be happy to learn that in a Palestinian state, Jews will be treated as least as well as Palestinians in Israel – according to the Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad. The full article can be read here.
The prime minister is appearing at the Aspen Ideas Festival, where he was asked the following question by former CIA head James Woolsey:
"Now, if there is to be the rule of law in a Palestinian state, and if Jews want to live in someplace like Hebron, or anyplace else in a Palestinian state, for whatever reasons or historical attachments, why should they not be treated the same way Israeli Arabs are?" Woolsey asked. "That would be, there could be a sixth of the population consisting of them. They could vote for real representatives in a real Palestinian legislature, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and most importantly, be able to go to the sleep at night without worrying someone is going to kick down the door and kill them."
Fayyad responded by saying, "I'm not going to disagree with you. And I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel.
"In fact the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, co-existence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever.
"Jews to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel," Fayyad said.
The crowd at the Greenwald Pavilion applauded enthusiastically.
I like the line "certainly not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel." Let's hope, for the sake of the Palestinian state, that Jews will enjoy more rights than their Arab counterparts in Israel.
Maybe then Israel will be able to learn from the Palestinians how to treat their minorities?
15 comments:
And you actually believe him? Have there ever been a poll on this?
"Let's hope, for the sake of the Palestinian state, that Jews will enjoy more rights than their Arab counterparts in Israel. "
And the precedent is?
"Maybe then Israel will be able to learn from the Palestinians how to treat their minorities?"
You mean like in Hebron 1929?
Jerry, the Palestinians already have minorities of which they have authority over - women, gays, Christians etc. And they have already been in a position of power over Jews before 1947. So according to those precedents, what makes you think their behavior should be emulated? I must have misunderstood you. Or do you know something that I don't such as the Palestinian Authority does treat its minorities well.
It's an interesting statement by Fayyad, but it's also merely rhetorical, since, due to the well-documented (and worsening) anti-Arab racism among Israeli Jews, few if any of them would be willing to live as citizens, even dual citizens, in the proposed Palestinian state.
In any event, the declaration places the ball in Israel's court.
No doubt Jews would be treated the same way Christians are in the Palestinian territories. And how are Christians treated in the Palestinian territories? Well, Christians are fleeing there for other places. In general, we can look at the fact that 100 years ago, Christians made up 20% of the population of the Middle East. Now it is 2% and shrinking. Also, there were signficant Jewish (non-Zionist) minorities in many Arab countries some decades ago (e.g. Egypt). They pretty much were all pressured to leave, if not expelled outright.
So I think we can conclude how the Jews living in the Palestinian territories would be treated.
(I specifically mentioned the case of the Jews in Egypt because they were not Zionists and yet they were expelled in 1956...I know that the response will be made to what I wrote above regarding the Jews of the Arabs countries that "pro-Zionist Jews brought understandble Arab rage on themselves because of their support for Israel", or the golden oldie "Zionist agents persuaded Jews in Iraq to flee when there was no reason to").
When I read the title I actually thought he was being ironic... (re: what you point out in your last paragraph). Were people really applauding enthousiastically? Don't they know anything?
Very clever to have disabled comments on the other thread. I'll make it brief. You state that I "make a rather elementary mistake in Hebrew...." Leaving the implied insult aside, let me 'splain to you something about language, culture and translations.
You claim that I make an "elementary mistake" in that in Israel the translation of "ezrahut" is "citizenship" and not "nationality". Well, it can be either, but it depends on the context. (As BTW, it is in English, if you look at your US Passport where under "Nationality" you'll find "United States of America", which is also your citizenship.)
le'om is usually translated as "ethnicity", not "nationiality". (You can refer to this.) BTW, the tranlation of "nationalist" to Hebrew is le'omani Mr. Hebrew Expert!
One last note. Perhaps people here would stop questioning the nationality of Israeli Arabs if they stopped displaying the Palestinian flag in place of the national flag and refrained from objecting to the singing of our nationial anthem.
I don't see what the righwingers are complaining about. Fayyad basically said that Jews would enjoy the same rights as Arabs do in Israel. He didn't say that Jews and Christians would be equal to the Muslims, no more than Muslims and Christians have their rights protected in Israel. Look at all the land we have stolen from them.
The Jewish rightwing has made a big deal of Christians leaving the West Bank, as if it were directly related to their mistreatment by the Palestinian Authority. You can find all sorts of articles on the web -- almost all of them by Jews. Palestinian nationalism has always had a strong Christian element, and if they have a problem with their religious minorities, it's folks like Fayyad who want to deal with it. Sure, it is and will be a problem, as long as the religion is involved.
As for how the Palestinians will treat the Jews living in their state...well, we don't know, do we? After all, they have never had a government which governed Jews. Who knows whether somebody like Fayyad will be running the show, or some Hamasnik like Eli Yishai or Barukh Marzel.
Of course, if the Palestinians really let Israelis stay there, will they be citizens of Israel, and hence foreign residents, or citizens of Palestine. I hope they are asked to become citizens of Palestine, renounce their Israeli citizenship, and pledge loyalty to Palestine.
If they don't become citizens,
they should have to renew their visas every 3 months in or be deported -- like we do to the Palestinians with American citizenship who live in the West Bank (if they are lucky.)
There is so much that the Palestinians can learn from us.
But, hey, if you want Palestine to be free of Jews, that's your business.
I know, I know, it's hard to think of them as humans, isn't it, guys?
JES
"You claim that I make an "elementary mistake" in that in Israel the translation of "ezrahut" is "citizenship" and not "nationality". Well, it can be either, but it depends on the context. (As BTW, it is in English, if you look at your US Passport where under "Nationality" you'll find "United States of America", which is also your citizenship.)"
You are absolutely right about how context makes a difference -- not for translation in this case but for the underlying concepts.
In Israel, citizenship and nationality are distinct. In America, they are the same, which is why the passport lists US as a nationality. That is why IN AMERICA becoming an American citizen is the same as becoming part of the American nation. If that were true of Israel, then there would not be two different categories, nationality and citizenship. But there are. By nationality you are Jewish; by citizenship you are Israeli.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make.
It was also a point that the wikipedia article you referred me to made -- and I am sorry to say that you misunderstood that, too. The article says
"The official term for this category in Hebrew was le'om (לאום), and it was officially translated into Arabic as qawmīya (قومية). These terms can be translated into English as "nation", but in the sense of ethnic affiliation rather than citizenship."
What this says is that you shouldn't confuse nationality on the Israeli Teudat Zehut with citizenship (which JES is EXACTLY what you are doing.)
Finally, check your Hebrew-English dictionary. Le'om is translated as "nation, people, folk". Leumi is translated as "national"; "leumoni is translated as nationalistic/chauvinistic, and today it has the latter sense, i.e., extreme nationalism.
The term for ethnicity in modern Hebrew is "etniyut"
I hope it is all now clear.
By the way, it would ALWAYS be wrong to translate the Hebrew Erahut by Nationality and Le'umiyut by Citizenship.
If you don't believe me, look at the Alcalay Hebrew English dictionary.
Jerry,
Nobody has a problem with Fayyad's statement. But
Telling Jews to forget about Hebron 1929 is like telling Palestinians forget about 1948. Aren't you championing for Palestinian right to that land? Do you do that for the sake of property rights, or just support the underdogs?
"Who knows whether somebody like Fayyad will be running the show"
That's the point. The only people we hear that get a lot of support are more on the extremist side. People like Fayaad are considered American puppets. I have nothing against him. I wish more people were like him. But I don't know how representative he is of real Palestinian feelings and how much support he has from the population.
The only thing we can base our assumptions on is how they treat Christians, women, and gays, let alone journalists. And their criminal and justice system is in shambles. The imprison fellow Arabs from rival factions.
Well Jerry, first of all it's hard to argue with someone so thick-headed that they can't even fathom the basic tenet of Progressivism: That it is possible to increase the size of the pie for all.
That said, let me 'splain some things to you. First that the following is a tautology:
In Israel, citizenship and nationality are distinct. In America, they are the same, which is why the passport lists US as a nationality. That is why IN AMERICA becoming an American citizen is the same as becoming part of the American nation. If that were true of Israel, then there would not be two different categories, nationality and citizenship. But there are. By nationality you are Jewish; by citizenship you are Israeli.
If not, then why is it that in the US they find it necessary to use two legal terms for the same thing? (And I suggest that you read what you actually wrote slowly and carefully before responding.)
Second, that the terms ezrahut and le'om have entirely different legal meanings, because the first carries with it legal (civil) obligations, while the second does not.
Thirdly, we were both incorrect about the translation of "nationalist". While you maintained that "[t]he Hebrew for "nationalist" is Le'om", I state that it was le'omani. I'll leave it to you to figure out who was closer.
I hope that it is all clear to you now!
"some defenders of the Israeli status quo have argued in the TMZ Comments Section that there is no more discrimination against Arabs in Israel than against minorities in most countries."
LOL, like so:
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0402.htm
If a German minister would echo Ariel Atias' sentiments (“We can all be bleeding hearts, but I think it is unsuitable for Germans and Jews to live together.”), the Jewish community would scream bloody murder, and rightly so.
It's becoming easier and easier to beat Israel's record in this field.
I agree that words are words, and actions speak louder. But it cuts both ways.
Fayyad's statement carries as much weight as, say, Ahmadinejad's statement that the Zionist regime will be wiped out from the pages of history. Those who make a lot of fuss about the latter should attach a transcendental importance to the former as well.
Oh yes, and Jerry, have you ever heard the expression in the US "without regard to race, creed or national origin"?
I would say that the Hebrew equivalent of that is l'lo kesher l'dat, gez'a o'leo'm....
Late to the party...
"Telling Jews to forget about Hebron 1929 is like telling Palestinians forget about 1948."
Errm... don't you guys basically tell them that all the time? Oh pardon me, not "forget about it" but "get over it".
I mean, can we actually be serious here? You know which country Israel has good relations with? And which country is a prime destination for Russian Jewish emigrants, second only to Israel, if at all?
Germany. You know? Germany.
And you're going to tell me now that "Hebron '29" is going to be an insurmountable obstacle to Jews trusting a Palestinian state? You just can't be serious.
The way I see it, the Palestinians are calling the "ethnic cleansing" bluff by saying "sure the settlers can stay as Palestinian citizens". Little else remains for the right wing except denouncing them as liars, and not accepting the offer.
Thus the game is:
1. We want Palestinians to accomodate to our terms.
2. If they do, we won't accept it because we just *know* they are not serious.
This can be further boiled down to:
1. We will never accept any Palestinian offers.
And that, of course, is the gist of the settler-affine lobbies' policies in all regards. They don't want to leave the territories, they don't want to live there as Palestinian citizens, they want to stay the colonial masters they are now. Colonial masters usually do.
However, other Israelis, the Palestinians, and the, I dunno, one billion or so people indirectly affected by the festering conflict this generates, have different interests. It's high time they become a little more assertive in pursuing them.
Post a Comment