March 15 protest in Nazareth. (Photo: Mary Slosson)
Calls for unity among the leaders of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as stern demands for an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, resounded from Mary’s Well in Nazareth tonight.
In a stand of solidarity with occupied Palestinians who rose up in Ramallah, Gaza City and other major hubs outside Israel today, nearly a hundred people gathered to sing songs and chant slogans in an effort to push Fatah and Hamas to put aside their differences. Thousands of others had gathered in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza’s major cities for the same purpose earlier in the day.
The demonstration in Nazareth, made up mostly of keffiyeh-clad youths, lasted a little over an hour, with torch lights illuminating the faces of the spirited youngsters where the angel Gabriel is said to have told Mary she would bear the son of God here in the northern-Israeli Biblical city, gateway to the Galilee.
“Our country, we love you so much, we give our souls and blood just to keep you alive,” sang 22-year-old Moataz Baslone, a Nazarene coffee-shop employee who rallied the crowd through a megaphone in a traditional call and response.
Baslone and the sign-carrying organizers were members of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality, a leftist political coalition in Israel.
Demonstrator Mubada Jarjoura, a 49-year old travel agent in Nazareth, said the demonstration was about the possibility of a better future.
“The only hope is to make Hamas and Fatah unite. As long as they are not united in front of the occupation the Israelis will take the advantage and keep destroying and building illegal settlements -- by the way there are no legal settlements,” he said. “I’m happy to see this, but we need more and more and more.”
Jon Dillingham is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles. He is an MA candidate in the Specialized Journalism program at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
tears filled my eyes when i saw the photo and then i cried reading this.
Is the phrase “made up mostly of Keffiyeh-clad youths” supposed to signify or symbolize something?
I don’t see the significance of that description.
I don’t see one wearing a keffiyeh and most people in the picture are not what I would call “youth” but again I wasn’t there.
In any case I suppose the significance is that the keffiyeh has long become a symbol of revolutionary activism and possibly the author wanted to bring this image back and tying this to the revolutions rocking the Arab world.
I’m just happy to see Hadash (Jabha) on this site. I wonder if folks actually know the political program of this group, the largest political grouping of Israeli-Palestinians. (Though it is defined as a joint Jewish-Arab organization.)
Why do you wonder, clenchner?
Here’s a summary of Hadash’s positions (as well as those of its closest rival and former partner, Balad) in English, from the Alternative Information Center website: link to alternativenews.org
Party website:
Arabic: link to aljabha.org
Hebrew: link to hadash.org.il
What do you think about the positions, Shmuel?
It is the Israeli political party with which I most identify and, were I still living in Israel, the one I would probably vote for.
It’s positions on equality are admirable (and important to voice), but eventually come up against the brick wall of discriminatory Israeli law and practice – with isolation and harassment of Palestinian MKs (members of Knesset) and the ever-present threat of banning, if demands for equality become too explicit. I respect the party’s efforts and ability to walk a very fine line. I also appreciate its socialist ethos.
Considering the limitations under which it operates, its two-state position (an “Arab-Palestinian state” alongside an Israeli [the word "Jewish" does not appear in its peace platform] “state of all its citizens”) is not an unreasonable one, although I have my critique of it (which is why I joined the one state movement rather than Hadash at the time, but happily marched and protested with and voted for Hadash).
Just in case Richard misses this on another thread:
I have a new theory about Richard. Over the past few days, I encouraged him to comment over at Haaretz and Arutz Sheva, or at other Israel-centered sites. He regularly insists that:
* A peaceful solution depends on shifts in Israeli (Jewish) public opinion
* BDS frightens Israelis, makes them less likely to agree to his 2-state solution
* We “dissenters” are marginal figures
The logical thing for Richard to do, then, is not to spend 2011 making another 5286 comments on a site that he says is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He should comment where more Israelis can see his “better argument.”
He bridled and got nasty at my polite suggestions — which even included Haaretz threads he could contribute to.
Richard is clearly not stupid. So what motivates him to spend so much time at Mondoweiss, where he has convinced absolutely no one, and is in agreement only with hasbara trolls?
In my view, RICHARD IS ACTUALLY ARGUING WITH HIMSELF. He has enough of a conscience to be uncomfortable at the present state of affairs in Israel/Palestine. But he can’t admit it, so he hammers away at the same points, even when Shmuel and others patiently disprove him.
Further proof: Richard’s behavior during the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla. He briefly criticized Israel, and then disappeared during a self-imposed 2-week sabbatical from Mondoweiss. When he returned, he squirmed and briefly tried to criticize the people on the Flotilla, but then he referred all questions to a single post on his own blog.
In other words, of his 5286 Mondoweiss comments last year, one or two at most were about Israel’s attack, the killing of 9 human beings, and the coverup afterward. Instead, he went back to his old standbys: trying to justify the invasion of Gaza, and making the case that Israeli “settlers” are entitled to keep land they “purchased” in the West Bank.
In my view, Richard actually has painful doubts. Sometimes he deals with them by hiding from us. Mostly, he deals with them by repeating his same talking points, day after day, week after week, year after year.
I seem to remember that I read about Hadash on Jerry Haber’s blog for the first time. You seem to be close concerning Hadash. I hadn’t even heard about them before.
I note the criticism of the Hadash led march for human rights in Tel-Aviv last year, the accusation that any supporter of a 2ss must be a Zionist, and the implication that ‘the Palestinian voice’ is inherently antagonistic to the Israeli left and to the 2ss.
References to Hadash give lie to those assertions, and complicate the picture – helpfully in my opinion.
FYI, the AIC article is pretty fair. Folks not familiar should know that AIC is to the left of Hadash, they are generally one staters.
clench, am i right when i say that israeli governing coalitions never include arab parties (and therefore reflect racist american presidential nominating process when south was segregated and mississippi freedom democrats were excluded from atlantic cityconvention in 64)? benny morris says that barak specifically excluded arab partners in making coalition in 99– thereby constraining his movements at Camp David.
this suggests to me that 20 percent of voters will be disfranchised when it comes to top leadership
but fill me in
You’re not wrong Phil, but the picture is a bit complicated, especially as a narrative over time.
Until the first Intifada, and for some time after that, many Palestinian Israelis (upwards of 50%) voted for ‘Zionist’ parties. Mostly Labor and Meretz. So Arabs were routinely part of governing coalitions. During the 90s, Arabs started to appear in the Israeli cabinet as ministers and deputy minsters, breaking a glass ceiling.
Center-left governments routinely excluded the ‘non-Zionist’ parties (meaning Arab parties) from coalitions, while relying on them for ‘outside support.’ This political dance granted those parties a certain amount of leverage/access, though obviously far less than in a non-racist country.
In parallel, Hadash was brought into very close cooperation with Labor folks running the general trade union. Not the same thing, but seen as significant at the time.
The years since the 2nd Intifada have seen a reversal of sorts, but the picture is still mixed. The right is more fully in charge. Left Zionists like Meretz, or former Laborite Avram Burg, are more open about the need for a left alliances that include both Zionists and non-Zionists, which is to say they’d rather work as senior partners to an Arab-Jewish coalition than see those Arab partners as mere satellites to the ‘main’ left wing opposition. My opinion is that this is sincere, and reflects a maturation of Israeli politics on the (Zionist) left.
Obviously, Israel is a deeply racist society, and this racism doesn’t pass over the left, or the Arab community. The racism, btw, isn’t restricted to Jew vs. Arab – it’s a cesspool of stereotypes about every group under the sun.
But I don’t conclude that one fifth of Israelis can be called ‘disenfranchised.’ It’s more like they are partially franchised, as Israel is an incomplete democracy – an ethnic democracy. Asserting that it is or isn’t democratic in general obscures the reality, which is in shades of gray.
If you want to assert that Israel is non-democratic, I think it’s better to refer to the occupation and subjugation of non-citizen Israelis as the central point of evidence. But Israel does have democratic traditions, and even on the right (Likud) there are figures like Begin the father, Begin the son, and Meridor who not only defended Arab political participation and civic rights, they have often been more ‘liberal’ than folks on the left (Labor).
when I wrote ‘non-citizen Israelis’ I meant ‘non-citizens of Israel’ referring to the Palestinians in the OT.
clenchner,
Hadash makes the best of a bad situation, but is by no means above criticism. I criticised last year’s protest and believe that supporting a “Jewish state” is a Zionist position (although that would not appear to be Hadash’s position). I have also explained that, in my opinion, the one-state idea* best embodies the principles of equality, but that 2 or more states that uphold those principles would be peachy.
For more on my attitude to Hadash, see my comment to Richard, above.
* We can only talk about ideas, because an equitable solution of any kind seems unfeasible in the foreseeable future.
* Yep.