The rise of Avigdor Lieberman is raising fundamental questions about Israel and Zionism in the US media that have long been ignored. While Israel expansionism in the occupied Palestinian territories has been justified over the years as a "security issue" or a temporary measure that can be undone, Lieberman's platform of "no loyalty, no citizenship" has revealed Israel's ethno-nationalist nature in a way that can't be ignored.
The Los Angeles Times addressed this question yesterday in the editorial "Israel's identity crisis." The editorial compares Israel to the United States in the 1940s, before the civil rights movement, before equality between its citizens was considered possible. The Times explains the reality of Palestinians inside Israel:
They've been second-class citizens from the start -- a bit like African Americans before the civil rights movement. Today, 20% of Israel's citizens are Arab (about 1.3 million people), but their roads generally aren't paved as fast as those in Jewish neighborhoods, and their schools and healthcare institutions don't get equal funding. Worse, they've faced impediments to their ability to buy property and limitations on where they can live. Not surprisingly, the number of Arabs living in poverty is triple that of Jews.
The editorial then goes on to the implications of Lieberman's success in the recent Israeli elections:
These developments present very basic and very obvious civil rights concerns. But they also raise a deeper, fundamental question that Israelis generally prefer to avoid: Is it possible to be both a Jewish state and a democratic state? Or, put another way: Can a nation founded as a Jewish homeland -- with a "right of return" for diaspora Jews but no one else, a Star of David on the flag and a national anthem that evokes the "yearning" of Jews for Zion -- ever treat non-Jews as true, equal citizens?
No one ever said democracy was easy, especially not for a country facing existential challenges and internal disaffection, but history suggests that Israel may be moving in an unhelpful direction. The United States was wrong in 1940 when, fearing left-wing subversion, it declared it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government. And it was wrong again when, fearing a fifth column in its midst, it interned American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Israel should expand, not rescind, the basic democratic rights of its Arab minority if it wants to ensure loyalty and good citizenship.
Of course the Times could have also chosen to make the comparison to the Jim Crow laws which instituted apartheid in the US.
A common defense of the "special relationship" between the US and Israel is that we share common values. How long will this rationale continue to hold up as it becomes increasingly clear that the values Israel shares started going out of vogue in the US 40 years ago and are now considered racist? (Adam Horowitz)
Talk about 5th column—it is pretty indecent that certain elements in mainstream media are calling for barely disguised jihad against a Western ally and liberal democracy.
Just because terrorists haven't attacked us again physically doesn't mean they aren't finding other ways to destroy the West.
Suzanne -
blah, blah, blah, blah. LOL!!!!!!
[The LA Times is conducting a] barely disguised jihad against a Western ally and liberal democracy.
Wow, Suzanne, Babe! You're on-game today!
The question, 'Is it possible to be both a Jewish state and a democratic state?' seems to be an intentional diversion. This clever softball pitch allows Zionists to glibly answer, 'Why, of course! Israeli Arabs have the vote now.'
In fact, it's precisely because Israeli Arabs have the vote that Israel is obsessed with retaining a Jewish majority.
South Africa and the segregationist South were both nominally democratic. Democracy in itself doesn't guarantee equal protection of the law.
Israel's problem is not a deficit of democracy, as the Times' misdirected question implies. It's ethnic supremacy — unequal treatment — encoded in the law. Abolition of apartheid — not expansion of minority 'democratic rights,' whatever that means — is what's at issue here. And if Israeli apartheid is abolished, then the answer is NO — Israel cannot remain a Jewish state. Ethnic supremacy and minority human rights are axiomatically incompatible.
Israel does share American values — those of Ross Barnett, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace. If you don't remember those names, it's because their values passed from the scene fifty years ago. Israel soldiers on in the pre-Civil Rights era, with no Fourteenth Amendment. Why does America's first black president send three billion dollars a year to an avowed apartheid state? Somebody oughta aks him.
And if Jim Crow had been Jewish, I guess they would have called him 'Jim Crowitz.'
L-O-frickin-L.
Health care funding and roads are not equal in the United States.
Politicians who are successful get better roads and hospitals for their districts.
There are fewer Arab politicians and they have a weaker voting block in Israel. Since the Arabs have huge families some day they will vote in more and better representatives and get what they want. That's the way of democracies.
Suzanne — in the case of "support-anything" zionists like you, all they have to do is watch you tie yourselves up in contradictions.
From the editorial: "No one ever said democracy was easy, especially not for a country facing existential challenges and internal disaffection"
Well, that was basically the position the US was in through the entirety of the Cold War, but that didn't prevent it from moving forward on its civil rights challenges, even when many civil rights factions were indeed Communists, just as certain civil rights factions in Israel are Islamists. But the heavily nuclear-armed Zionists will use the "existential" threat and "internal disaffection" they supposedly face as an excuse until the cows come home, because fundamentally, they don't believe in equal civil rights for non-Jews.
"Health care funding and roads are not equal in the United States.
Politicians who are successful get better roads and hospitals for their districts.
There are fewer Arab politicians and they have a weaker voting block in Israel. Since the Arabs have huge families some day they will vote in more and better representatives and get what they want. That's the way of democracies."
The Jewish state systematically and institutionally discriminates against its Palestinian citizens–whether you want to build a house, get an education, or participate in politics. Not a difficult thing to research. The system is as rigged against them as it was for blacks in the south during the Jim Crow era (not that their plight has improved that much). When Zionist leaders talked about a Jewish state, they were talking about a state for Jews. At least acknowledge that they weren't kidding around.
lol! Just wanted to see of you all were still alert.
BTW–I heard that Israeli Muslims have a strong presence in the construction industry. Lots of family owned businesses etc.
Can't verify it, but have heard that more than once.
I'm not going to deny there's a social and cultural disparity between Jews and Arabs…but who's to say that an identical problem doesn't exist in Arab countries (as well as in Europe) in part because of cultural habits that prevent people from assimilating/adapting to modernization?
Sometimes it's not just oppression of the poor. Too simplistic–lazy person's way out of an answer.
Big difference, The Arabs in Israel are a true 5th column. The blacks and japanese in the United States were not. And in fact went out their way to shoe loyalty and patriotism . The Arabs in Israel are in university, the judiciary, just the defense establishment. For what I think would be obvious reasons. But I ask this. Why is it ok for numerous Arabs states to have an official religion. European States. Asian countries. Yet the one JEWISH state. That's the one that makes you people foam at the mouth.
The trolls seem very lame today.
An objective account of Israeli Arab conditions,
link to themilitant.com
Explicitly religious states, and established churches, were the norm in Europe, and in ancient times, from which the religious freedom of the United States was a reaction and an improvement. Different American colonies had different established churches, Anglican in Virginia, Catholic in Maryland, etc., until the movement to separate church and state arose at the time of the revolution. Separation became an issue on which different states could unite, reducing its force as a wedge issue.
Jefferson counted his authorship of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom as one of only three accomplishments to be inscribed on his grave. You can read it here: link to pbs.org
I especially like his final argument: "and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
oh yeah…with a name like the militant, you JUST know he's objective. He's a leftie. He has a skewed perspective.
Not objective. Sorry.
He tries to raise the point that Mizrahim are treated like crap too (everybody except those whities from Europe, right?)
I'll let Eurosabra, who I believe is Oriental Jewish herself, speak to that.
However, my understanding is that immigrant and first generation cultural differences have generally faded and intermarriage is becoming very prevalent.
Something that would probably happen too between secular Arabs and Jews if Arabs made themselves more culturally palatable. I know that sounds mean, but these 2 people are on different pages in a lot of ways.
When all is said in done, I think the Arab Israelis have made it clear that they'd rather slit their wrists than lose their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinian nationals.
I don't blame them.
"Why is it ok for numerous Arabs states to have an official religion. European States. Asian countries. Yet the one JEWISH state. That's the one that makes you people foam at the mouth."
Israel can be a Jewish state if it wants. It just shouldn't insult the rest of us by calling itself a democracy too.
When all is said in done, I think the Arab Israelis have made it clear that they'd rather slit their wrists than lose their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinian nationals.
Palestinian nationals? What, prey tell, are Palestinian nationals? Until there is a Palestinian nation, there can be no such thing as "Palestinian nationals."
Those living under Israeli occupation are subject to Israeli sovereignty and are thus Israeli nationals, Israeli nationals that just happen to have been stripped of all civic rights accorded to other Israeli nationals.
No shit the Israel Arabs with recognized civic standing don't want to swap places with the "helots" in the territories.
Next brain wave?
"Sometimes it's not just oppression of the poor. Too simplistic–lazy person's way out of an answer."
Right. Sometimes it's the majority's hatred of the minority, as when Israeli schoolgirls write vengeful messages on artillery shells about to be fired at Israel's neighbors.
You have got to be kidding. You want to talk about real hatred just drop in on a mosque on any Friday.
'When all is said in [sic] done, I think the Arab Israelis have made it clear that they'd rather slit their wrists than lose their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinian nationals. I don't blame them.'
In the 1960s, as well as today, most American blacks would rather have slit their wrists than be deported to Africa. This had exactly zero to do with the validity of their struggle for equal protection of the law.
Israel deprives the occupied territories of trade, water, transportation, ports, airports, investment, liberty and sovereignty, and then points to the resulting dismal conditions there as indicative of Palestinians' inability to govern themselves. Just as it was widely accepted in 19th century America that Negros would never be culturally capable of participating in the white man's system of democratic government.
I'll bet with three billion dollars a year of dirty money extorted from American taxpayers, Palestinians could make the desert bloom, too. And I would be equally unimpressed. Las Vegas beats the frig hell out of your crappy oriental deserts.
Jim
The Palestinians get $1.8 billion from the US alone–and that's a cutback from before terrorists like Hamas came into power.
Free lunch for ungrateful Palestinians
Israel gets substantially more than 3 billion, but see, there's a return on investment. Some people don't have a clue about strategic global politics and national self interest, so they come up with these pithy ideas about how America hands money out like candy. That's why people like that will NEVER be in charge. Have you noticed? It's like asking a someone who's been blind since birth to fly an airplane without lessons.
As for the rest of your snarly venom…I'm sure the Arabs deeply appreciate your concern for their wellbeing…but how about taking it closer to home?
Where are the compassionate left wingers (I'll leave the jihadists and stormfronters out of this) when it comes to say, people in Appalachia?
They are some of the poorest people on the planet, living 20 in a 3 room house, illegally digging coal out of the side of some craggy hill because it's the only way to heat their homes, walking 16 miles round trip to and from work, choosing between bread and milk, losing their teeth from a diet that's mostly soda…
…and every 10 years or so, the media pays them a visit.
Where is your bleeding heart when it comes to Appalachia, you FAKE, PHONY, & FRAUD??
You effers have been notoriously MIA when it comes to some of the most impoverished people in this country.
Selective sympathy because…
…your compassion is purely based on agenda…
"…but see, there's a return on investment. Some people don't have a clue about strategic global politics and national self interest,…"
Please specify some of these 'returns' I'm supposed to be getting for my tax dollars.
The West Bankers are under belligerent occupation, pending a peace settlement. They are not Israeli citizens, their passports (for post-'67 born and former Jordanian citizens who desire one) are issued by the PA. With the exception of East Jerusalemites they are not on territory that Israel itself considers Israeli sovereign territory. They are thus Palestinian nationals and citizens of the Palestinian authority, which exercises some functions of a state, again pending a peace settlement. Functionally, enough states recognize Palestine that a Palestinian Authority passport works as a proof-of-citizenship document for life abroad.
Unless of course you wish to argue that the West Bank is Judea and Samaria, in which case it is Israeli land with some Jordanian Arabs on it, who need to regularize their temporary residence visas or leave.
@Suzanne
"The Palestinians get $1.8 billion from the US alone–and that's a cutback from before terrorists like Hamas came into power."
That's 1.8 billion–in 16 years. Humanitarian assistance for a jailed population, put on a starvation diet by Israel.
Compare: Israel: 48 billion at 3 billion a year annually, plus guaranteed oil and cutting edge military updates for The IDF, all free of charge, sans any conditions, with Uncle Sam borrowing with interest from China to pay for its gifts to Israel, the same Israel who gets
its annual dole upfront in cash, sans interest. Israel has the 4th strongest Military in the world and its GDP and standard of living is at least as good as
Spain's.
And since 2006, as the article points out, since the Palestinians had a free election but elected the wrong
guys according to the USA's masters, AIPAC-Israel, Uncle Sam has cut off all aid to Palestinians.
1.8 billion to the Pals as compared to 768 billion to the Israelis–plus all the other special deals Citizen shows.
Actually Israel gets much more from Uncle Sam. You can look it up on the internet. In fact Israelis get more from the USA government per capita than the USA gives its own citizens.
Let's hope our mutt president gets some moral balls.
As I type this Israel is asking Obama and Congress for more additional money because its in the financial hole due to what it expended
massacring the imprisoned Palestinians in Gaza.
BTW, since Israel has 200 nukes but does hot belong to the world's nuclear control organization it legally should get no money from the US. Further, official US policy also says it should get no money from the US because it has not rid itself of the settlements. End-timer, bible thumper Shrub fudged
this single condition to endless giant chunks of US taxpayer money by signing a memo letter contradicting his own governments official policy. Let's see what Obama does with Shrub's letter.
People could explain the US-Israeli reciprocal relationship until they are blue in the face and your straw-filled brain still won't get it.
Stick to your conspiracy theories, I hope they give you acid reflux.
One thing is for sure, the US is not going to sever its ties with Israel because of squalling ignorant 5th-column brats like you.
So go take a hike in the woods and get lost.
"your compassion is purely based on agenda…"
Yes but my agenda is to cut off aid to Israel until it quits shooting why phosphorous shells at UN schools thereby making the rest of the world hate us.
Suzanne wrote:
"However, my understanding is that immigrant and first generation cultural differences have generally faded and intermarriage is becoming very prevalent.
Something that would probably happen too between secular Arabs and Jews if Arabs made themselves more culturally palatable. I know that sounds mean, but these 2 people are on different pages in a lot of ways".
Writing "If Arabs made themselves more culturally palatable" is not just mean, it is mean, nasty, patronizing, disdainful, pompous, arrogant, contemptuous. Racist, in a nutshell.
"There are fewer Arab politicians and they have a weaker voting block in Israel."
That is hardly the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that Israel is an ethnocracy whose Palestinian citizens are by definition not equal to its Jewish ones. The very premise behind Israel's raison d'etre guarantees that its Palestinian citizens will always be an underclass. In what kind of a "democracy" can certain parties be barred from running candidates in an election because they are the "wrong" religion, ethnicity, or "nationality"?
Eva
Stop being a self righteous ass. There are cultural differences and differences in values between modern Westerners and those from more traditional backgrounds. The Muslims are the first to say so. And you certainly seem to sympathize with their jihad.
You are as as likely to marry a traditional Arab as an Israeli is so put some ketchup on your hypocrisy and choke on it for lunch.
Is there anything redeeming about you intellectually dishonest yipping chihuahuas? I doubt it. (I'm sure you'll find something racist in my reference to a midget dog that barks at nothing too–pompous bitch)
Suzanne, nice how you ignored my original comment on your comment showing how you misrepresented the very article you used for
support reference. Anybody can go to that article and see which one of us is telling truth and which is engaged in hasbara deception. Further, my comment outlines exactly the nature of what you refer to as "the US-Israeli reciprocal relationship." It's a "special relationship"
as it is always called by both US and Israeli spokes people. The specialness consists of how glaringly one-sided it is in terms of benefit.
The whole world knows this except the American masses. Time to wake up, Americans.
The rest of your response to my original comment in this particular thread consists of calling me names. You better go back for hasbara re-training. Readers will plainly see it is you who are a member of the 5th column in the USA.
Good spot, Eva. Suzanne is so bigoted she's not aware of it. We have to make Americans more aware of all the ways zionist Israelis are not culturally palatable to citizens of the USA who unknowingly support those barbarians. As Suzanne says (above), Israel is an Eastern, not a Western state.
Errr…Suzanne… intermarriage? Between (presumably non-Jew) Arabs and Jews? In Israel? How exactly is that supposed to happen? Israel does not recognize interreligious marriage, as you should know. No matter how "culturally palatable" they are.
Koshiro
I believe Israel recognizes civil marriages performed abroad. They are wrong, in my opinion, not to provide for civil marriages within the state. There's a fight about that and I hope the secularists win.
Nevertheless, I don't truly believe Nazi hypocrites here really care one way or another about intermarriage of Israeli Jews with others.
culturally palatable really means modern. I agree that it was a bit hostile the way I put it, but Arabs are not on my top 5 list of favorites these days.
That said, there are things in Arab culture I like and find interesting and I don't immediately harbor antipathy towards Arabs individually unless they get all crazy in the eye about Israel.
I can say quite comfortably that my attitude towards Arabs in real life is a hell of lot more amicable than the anti-semitic hermits that hang out here.
They are haters. And if you dig deep enough…you'll see their hatred doesn't start and stop with Jews. It never does…
Keep speculating on who hangs out here, Suzanne. You know nothing about their personal lives. If you go back over the last two years of comments on this blog, you will find many regulars have on-going good relationships with Jews, and many have inter-married, etc. None of them however, actually pat themselves in blog public about how tolerant they are in alleged real life, as you just did. Keep dreaming
you're a wonderful human being who only has the best interests of the world of humans at large. The constant infantile slant of your
comments as soon as anyone picks apart your latest attempt to be knowledgeable–says everything.
citizen–congrats! you just did EXACTLY what you accused me of.
I know precisely what you are. Your words are transparent– and that's why my posts enrage you.
I know the truth hurts but for some strange reason you are compelled to read my posts. Maybe there's hope for you yet. hahaha!
Yeah, so what if they recognize marriages concluded in other countries (due to grudging acceptance of international standards)? Still doesn't change the fact that they don't have civil marriages in Israel itself, and do not in fact allow interreligious (or just plain nonreligious) couples to marry. And marrying abroad is not quite so easy, especially if we're talking about a Palestinian.
In any case, it is quite obvious that the Israel state has erected fairly large obstacles to recognized interreligious marriage. And under that light, your assertion that there would be more of them if the Arabs were just nicer is unfounded and unlikely.