A Times-reader writes:
I was really struck by the number of times Ethan Bronner
used the word collaborator in this piece about a musical production in Israel between a Palestinian and an Israeli. Four times. The Arabic word is a strong
epithet. I don't think Bronner meant to use it in such a way. But does
the use of the word indicate that he's unaware of how Palestinians
employ the term or has he picked up the term and inadvertently applied
it here? Hard to gauge. Others might have thought this one through a
bit more than I have.
used the word collaborator in this piece about a musical production in Israel between a Palestinian and an Israeli. Four times. The Arabic word is a strong
epithet. I don't think Bronner meant to use it in such a way. But does
the use of the word indicate that he's unaware of how Palestinians
employ the term or has he picked up the term and inadvertently applied
it here? Hard to gauge. Others might have thought this one through a
bit more than I have.
Also striking is if you add up his figures there are as many
Palestinians as Jews between the river and sea…and probably more.
But roughly 5.5 million and 5.5 million. All right, I've just gone
back and he hedged and said more than 7 million Israelis which wouldn't
make it precisely 5.5 million and 5.5 million.
Palestinians as Jews between the river and sea…and probably more.
But roughly 5.5 million and 5.5 million. All right, I've just gone
back and he hedged and said more than 7 million Israelis which wouldn't
make it precisely 5.5 million and 5.5 million.
Note that John Mearsheimer has also raised this point: he believes there are more Palestinians in historical Palestine than Israelis, due to the fact that 750,000 Israelis are living overseas. His estimate: about 5.2 million Palestinians, and 4.75 million Israelis. Again this raises the new central issue here: will there be democratic representation for a minority that may not even be a minority?
I guess I would have missed this emphasis. And when I read the article the first time, only the last use of it caught my attention. I was more preoccupied with the–and this is were the reader is led–with the stupidity of the Israeli pro-peace forces or left.
But on second reading it definitively sticked out. I just posted the text below (I slightly amended it here)
here: Will That Be Coordination, Cooperation, or Collaboration?
I wonder, what you think of the extensive use of collaboration in the following context:
Musical Show of Unity Upsets Many in Israel
Ms. Nini asked if she could bring along her current artistic collaborator, an Israeli Arab singer, Mira Awad.
Ms. Awad said as she and Ms. Nini, and their artistic collaborator, the guitarist Gil Dor,…
The two women have been collaborating for nearly eight years.
Both singers and their collaborator, Mr. Dor, say that they spend many hours arguing …
I love words that have a precise and unambiguous meaning. Maybe since they are rare. But I always love it when I find one of the rare gems in the work of an author.
If I look at your article, the answer is probably: no problem, the author intuitively understood the difference, although he doesn't give us any evidence for arriving at the same solution. Musicians often "cooperate".
But–leaving apart the misguided action of the left, I basically prefer communication to easy judgments, my overall impression after reading the article is that the word is used so prominently without ever using an alternative term to drive this basic message home:
It feels the above bold sentence is the center of the argument, and the extensive use of collaboration ultimately leads a mental collaboration whose usage surely is not supported by your wonderful analysis, but that is ultimately at the core of the misguided action of the left in Israel.
will there be democratic representation for a minority that may not even be a minority? Maybe, the Afrikkaners gave it. Albeit with some pressure–the real question, Phil, is, will Americans put the pressure on Israel, given the nature of political campaign financing? With two-thirds of Demo funds coming
form organized jewry and one-third of Repub funds coming from the same type of orgs?
"Note that John Mearsheimer has also raised this point: he believes there are more Palestinians in historical Palestine than Israelis"
When you include historic Palestine, which contained heavily populated areas in Jordan, of course there are more non-jewish Arabs, then there are Arab and non-arab Jews in the area. After all, Jordan was ethnically cleansed of Jews. In fact, it is against the law to sell any land to a Jew there.
Demographics only matter if they are within a system where they matter, since Israelis and Palestinians inhabit different political systems, West Bankers–even those who are eligible as East Jerusalem residents–do not vote in the Israeli system. Neither do Syrian Golanis, on Israeli-annexed land, deign to vote within the Israeli system or take out Israeli citizenship, although anyone born post-1981 in the Golan has a right to ius solus citizenship. Since both the Fateh and Hamas Charters claim sovereignty over all of Israel's territory, "one man, one vote" is an endorsement of Palestinian sovereignty over Israel's territory and Israel's citizens in place of Israel, the proposition that Palestinians should have the right to vote Hamas into power over Jews simply because they wish to. No one except the British have ever treated the Holy Land as an indivisible administrative entity, even the Arab Empire pre-1517 divided government in Ramle from religious institutions in Jerusalem, and currently the UN regards the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan as under temporary belligerent occupation.
The current system is somewhat stable, since Palestinians DID vote in PA elections, and de-facto security control over much of the West Bank is in Palestinian hands.