From today’s daily press briefing with State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly:
QUESTION: George Mitchell yesterday, using the phrase “Jewish state,” he said, “Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Jewish state.” Was that a slip of the tongue, or does the word “Jewish” signal a new departure for the Obama Administration in dealing with Israel-Palestine? And that being what it is, as he said it, what does it mean as far as the Obama Administration is concerned for Palestinians living inside Israel?
MR. KELLY: Well, Secretary Clinton said in March during her meeting with Foreign Minister Livni that both she and President Obama are committed to Israel’s security and to its democracy as a Jewish state. What Senator Mitchell said is not – does not represent any kind of new policy. We believe that Israel is a pluralistic democracy that guarantees the rights of all its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.
As the President has said, we’re going to do everything that we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process. And the President has reiterated to Prime Minister Netanyahu that the framework of the Roadmap can advance the interests of Israel, the Palestinian people, and the United States. And our position remains that the question of Palestinian refugees is one to be decided between the parties of the permanent status negotiations.
QUESTION: But on the issue of Arab Israelis, you’re saying that their rights as Israeli citizens are guaranteed on an equal footing with their Jewish counterparts.
MR. KELLY: Right.
QUESTION: Arab Israelis say that precisely, they’re not treated as their Jewish counterparts; they’re treated as second class citizens. Now within that appellation that both Clinton and Mitchell are talking about when they refer to the Jewish state, what is the angle on those rights, the rights of Israeli – Arab Israelis within a final settlement?
MR. KELLY: Well, as I said before, we believe that Israel is a pluralistic democracy, and its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, enjoy the same full rights as citizens.
Mr. Kelly, just because you believe it doesn’t make it so. That being said, putting equal rights on the agenda would be a great step in the right direction for the Obama Administration. Also, kudos who whomever the mysterious questioner was in this exchange.
{ 31 comments }
I think that the Obama Administration is manoeuvring into position where Israel and apartheid become synonymous. This is the possibly last option for defanging the AIPAC. The accusations of treason fell of its teflon body like a water of the duck's back.
Watching the CSPAN footage of the briefing, one can see that as he's fumbling to answer, Mr. Kelly has his head down the entire time, reading canned lines from his cheat sheet. Besides belying the idea that he's well-versed on the topic or all that much of a maneuverer, this tells me that the State Department probably has extremely strict guidelines when it comes to press questions regarding Israel's internal politics. I can imagine questions about how the "pluralistic Jewish democracy" (laugh) treats its Arab citizens might even have their own underlined directive: "do not touch!" I tried to see or hear who the poser of the questions was, but Mr. Kelly didn't offer the names of anyone, unlike some of the other State Dept. spokespeople, and the camera didn't pan to the journalist. You can visibly see the relief in Kelly's face and the color rush back into it when the next question comes, about the Obama administration's "preferences" regarding the upcoming Iranian presidential election, a much more friendly topic. The video can be found here: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/10/HP/A/...
They have the same rights, but there is social discrimmination, and inconsistent application of the law. Those are questions for reform.
They don't have the same rights. Two examples off the top of my head of not having the same rights are the differences on rights of return and the laws on marriage to a non-Israeli spouse. I am sure there are numerous others.
Mr. Kelly under truth serum would have said: "For purposes of appeasing our Jewish Zionist constituency and ruling coalition partners, we publicly profess to believe that Israel is a pluralistic democracy, and its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, enjoy the same full rights as citizens, even though we know the truth to be otherwise. If we acknowledge the truth, then we have to acknowledge that America and the Democratic Congress are currently backing a Jim Crow apartheid state, and have been backing it for decades. The implications of this are monumental. Plus, if we acknowledge the truth, wealthy Jewish Zionists might stop giving money to the Democratic Party, which we need to buy our way into power, and give it to the GOP instead. Therefore, we will continue to lie. Truth is all relative according to left-liberal doctrine anyway, so what's the problem?"
the laws of marriage to a non Israeli spouse were recently imposed and should be repealed. the laws regarding the right of return should not be repealed, certainly not at this point in time.
exactly right adam, just because they "believe the jewish state is pluralist" doesn't make it so.. besides being a contradiction in terms. the inequality all serves to inflate the jewish population count however possible.. utterly nauseating, like the blumenthal video — i can't believed I've watched it 5 times!!
RE: "Obama administration supports equal rights for all Israeli citizens." ***FROM JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE: "His name is Ezra Nawi" "Join Naomi Klein, Neve Gordon, Noam Chomsky and thousands of others and tell Israel not to jail Ezra Nawi, one of Israel’s most courageous human rights activists. His crime? He tried to stop a military bulldozer from destroying the homes of Palestinian Bedouins in the South Hebron region. Nawi, a Jewish Israeli of Iraqi descent, is a threat to the settlers and the Israeli government because he has brought international attention to efforts to illegally remove Palestinians from the Hebron region. He will be sentenced in July." ***WATCH the video of Nawi trying to stop the home demolition and SEND A LETTER to the Israeli Consulate – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/10-7 MORE INFO ON NAWI – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/10-7
Idiotic. You are saying that Arabs can live in a Jewish state but Jews cant live in an Arab one? Racists
I think that those Jews living in the illegal West Bank settlements should be given Palestinian citizenship and have their Israeli citizenship revoked…
Good point, Ethan. America should back neither Jewish states nor Islamic states. To do either is to endorse and encourage anti-American political systems.
"inconsistent application of the law. "…..???????? My gawd, that gets the Oscar for the understatement of the century!
Yeah, and states ruled by political parties with the word 'Christian' in their names (like Merkel's Christian Democratic party) should be regarded as anti-American too.
Israel is a pluralistic state? Come on! Israel is an ethnocracy. Pluralistic ethnocracy is an oxymoron.
"<iwe believe that Israel is a pluralistic democracy, and its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, enjoy the same full rights as citizens.</i>" He's kidding, right?
"we believe that Israel is a pluralistic democracy, and its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, enjoy the same full rights as citizens.". He's joking
Err….no. Arabs can't move into the Jewish territory on the whim, while Jews can move to the Palestinian territory on the whim. Arabs are subject to to military occupation law while Jews are subject to Israeli civil law. That is institutional racism, otherwise known as apartheid.
It gets worse than delusions that Israel is a pluralist state: DEBKAfile: Mitchell presents US land swap plan that leaves Israel settlement blocs in place – report. The questioners must also ask why Stuart Levey does not add the IDF to the list of terrorist organizations.
If you haven't listened to my points for two years, that is EXACTLY what I've been proposing.
Ethan good point, there are 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries who think the same thing. The only difference is Israel has Arab MKs in the Keneset and these Jews are still waiting for their land and possessions back which were confiscated before they were kicked out of their homelands. If there were any sort of representative government in these countries they sure wouldn't have an opportunity to be elected by the people as members of parliament.
Years of propaganda have worked. We believe that democracy and ethnic nationalism are not mutually exclusive. Imagine if Spain or England required their Jews to swear to defend either country as a Christian democratic state. The Zionists would squeal "anti-Semitism." But we are supposed to put aside our cognitive powers, and accept this drivel.
Article 27 of the Regulations of the Obligations of Tenders, which in concert with an ILA policy prevent Arab citizens from participating in bids for JNF-controlled land (which controls 13% of all the land in Israel). The 2007 US State Department annual report on human rights practices in Israel identifies discrimination against Palestinian citizens in most spheres of their lives.It says: “The government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens.” – It's gotten much worse in the past two years The country’s big monopoly corporations such as the telecoms firm Bezeq and the Israel Electricity Company have Arab employees in the single figures even though they have a combined staff of more than 20,000. Some of the worst discrimination is faced by the 140,000 beduin living in the Negev. Many of their communities have never been recognised by Israel, even though they predate the state. Do you want me to list more?
They DO NOT have the same rights. Many rights and privileges are defined by a matrix of laws separating those with the right to return (already exercised and/or inherited or in futuro) from those sans same, in application. The Supreme Court is not supreme, so the Basic Laws have no teeth.
people under occupation are not consider citizens of their occupiers, are we allow Iraqis and Afghanis to move back and forth because we occupy them?
Jews living in Arab territories are there illegally – Arabs had their homes demolished to accommodate them. They are settlements that steal water resources from the Palestinians and have generally have been lethal to the Arab population in many different ways. Under international law those jews living in settlements inside Palestinian territories have to be removed. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with military domination and theft of land. You can't be that stupid Ethan. You must have forgot about those things – I suppose it does happen from time to time. I forgive you.
Jews living in Arab territories are there illegally – Arabs had their homes demolished to accommodate them. They are settlements that steal water resources from the Palestinians and have generally have been lethal to the Arab population in many different ways. Under international law those jews living in settlements inside Palestinian territories have to be removed. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with military domination and theft of land.
Israel already knows what the Two State Solution demands: 1. Complete territorial integrity and control, including air-rights and all the other rights conferred by statehood. 2. All "settlers" living in the Palestinian State are required to become citizens of Palestine. No more "apartheid" roads. 3. Physical connection between Gaza and West Bank. 4. Palestinian freedom to travel anywhere, including inside the Jewish State. 5. Reparations to Palestinians who are not allowed to "return" to their ancestral homes. 6. Borders based on the 1967 U.N. Resolution. Removal of the 'Prison Walls'. These are just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are other provisions. Thanks go to Adam and Phil for all they do to help solve this mess!
You say, " …there is social discrimmination, and inconsistent application of the law. " Sounds like Apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow South.
That's only because Israel is trying to dump their own David Koresh's off on the hapless Palestinians.
I don't think that even the Apartheid government called in airstrikes. Israel has really outdone the Afrikaners.
Occupiers are not citizens of the lands they occupy any more than people under occupation are considered citizens of their occupiers. Are Iraqis and Afganis to be made to accept Poles, Americans, British, Australian, Swedish, Irish, Serbian and Ukrainian citizen to arrive in their country and start building? Can I just get myself a nice settlement on few acres with a view of Eufrates? I claim biblical connection to the garden of Eden and I definately am a direct descendant of Adam and Eve (even my name makes it plain!). Do you thing occupying forces should protect me from local outraged terrorists?
Comments on this entry are closed.