Are Palestinian citizens of Israel banned from New York Times headlines?

US Politics
on 106 Comments

In his 1984 essay Permission to Narrate, the renowned Palestinian writer Edward Said explained that Palestinians were denied permission to narrate their existence and their experiences of dispossession and discrimination by the Zionist movement and Israel. Said explained:

A disciplinary communication apparatus exists in the West both for overlooking most of the basic things that might present Israel in a bad light and for punishing those who try to tell the truth. How many people know the kind of thing suggested by the following incident-namely, the maintenance in Israel of a rigid distinction between privileged Jew and underprivileged Palestinian?

Sadly, more than 30 years later, US media outlets, including the powerful New York Times, remain a part of the “apparatus” that refuses to report basic elements of Palestinians’ experiences, including the perspectives of Palestinians living in Israel. Reporter Diaa Hadid’s January 3 article in The New York Times on Palestinian citizens of Israel living in Haifa provides a recent case in point.

Rarely a focus of international media, Palestinians make up 20 percent of Israel’s citizens. Hadid’s article emphasizes Palestinian life in Haifa as more “liberal” than in other Palestinian towns and communities within Israel – with bars, arts, dating, unmarried co-habitation and a gay community. However, the article does not include any discussion of Palestinians’ status in Haifa and in Israel, as a minority community that suffers under a discriminatory government.

Immediately after publication, one Palestinian interviewee for the article, Ayed Fadel responded to the article on Facebook complaining that, “there are so many points missing, crucial ones, that the lack of them make this article shallow, offensive and degrading.” Mr. Fadel said that he spoke primarily about cultural resistance in his interview, but that was not reflected in the article. His complaints were quickly picked up on social media and on Mondoweiss. A Palestinian poet from Haifa, Asma’a Azaizeh also published an article in Arabic criticizing Hadid’s story in the Lebanese paper Assafir.

New York Times’ Public Editor Margaret Sullivan then took up the issue in a January 8 blog post critical of the article. She wrote that, “The Times can do better with providing more context and information, even in a feature story,” and “this article needed more political and historical information to put it in perspective.” With regards to specific complaints from Ayed Fadel and other interviewees, Ms. Sullivan wrote: “the writer can try to make sure that the main points – the overall thrust of the conversation – is represented … that didn’t seem to happen here.” Ms. Sullivan then posted a second blog post on the article in which Diaa Hadid accepted some of the criticism while defending herself against other complaints.

But simultaneous to this resistance and assertion of Palestinian experience that burst forth via the internet and penetrated one part of The Times, another part of The Times seems to have pushed back to silence Palestinian identity. Ms. Hadid’s article referred frequently to Arabs in Israel as “Palestinian,” and said they “have grown more assertive in expressing their Palestinian identity, allied with their brethren in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” At publication, the article’s headline noted the article was about “Palestinian culture.” Yet at some point after publication, for no reason that was explained or documented, The Times deleted the word “Palestinian” from the article’s headline, replacing it with “Arab Culture.”

Screenshot of the article's original headline.

Screenshot of the article’s original headline.

The current online headline for the article is now: In Israeli City of Haifa, a Liberal Arab Culture Blossoms. However, the online article notes at the very bottom: A version of this article appears in print on January 4, 2016, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: A Liberal Palestinian Culture Blossoms in an Israeli City.  

When they bother to report on them, The New York Times and many other US media outlets have historically preferred using the term “Israeli Arab” to describe Israel’s Palestinian citizens. One element of a colonial-style divide and rule policy, “Israeli Arab” is used by the Israeli government and a majority of Israeli Jews. UCLA Professor Saree Makdisi recently derided the LA Times for using “the generic term ‘Arabs’ or ‘Israeli Arabs’ to refer to the Palestinians who live inside Israel, falsely distinguishing them from the Palestinians who live in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 or those who were driven into exile during the destruction of Palestine in 1948.” Makdisi explained, “The fact that the Palestinians inside Israel are an integral part of the Palestinian people is absolutely central to the history of this conflict as well as key to its resolution.”

The Times’ headline change was made quietly, and contrary to the wishes of its reporter Diaa Hadid, who had defended the initial use of the word Palestinian in the headline in a tweet, and later told Public Editor Margaret Sullivan “that she had been unaware of the headline change … and that she would have objected to it.” Typically editors, not reporters, write story headlines.

Even recent New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief and now deputy international editor Jodi Rudoren acknowledged in a 2012 article that, “After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel.” Polling data supports Rudoren’s position.

Following on an email I sent raising questions about the headline change, Margaret Sullivan commented on the issue in her first blog post on the article:

Although headlines often change (and, in my view, such changes do not normally require an editors’ note or other explanation), Mr. Connors is probably right that this one involved something other than simple word count or search optimization. (I asked Mr. Slackman [the international managing editor] about the change; he said he was unaware of it but would look into why it was made.)

After her second blog post offered no more information on Michael Slackman’s promised investigations, Ms. Sullivan responded to my renewed inquiry saying, “Having written two posts last week about the Haifa story, I have no immediate plans to do anything more, although how and why headlines change between editions does interest me and I may return to it.” Michael Slackman did not respond at all to my subsequent request for further information.

I can only speculate why The Times’ surreptitiously changed the headline to insert terminology preferred by the Israeli government, did so in a manner that aroused the interest of the Public Editor, but now won’t say anything more about it. Clearly The Times continues to restrict what Palestinians – in this instance Palestinian citizens of Israel – are permitted to narrate in its pages. In Ms. Hadid’s article Palestinians were permitted to comment on culture, but not on their cultural resistance to the larger context of discrimination by Israel’s ruling Jewish majority. My quick search of other New York Times articles suggests that, while Palestinian citizens of Israel are now sometimes allowed to express their identity as Palestinian within the body of Times articles, that identity is banned from Times headlines.

Though Palestinians’ self-identification as Palestinians is recognized by Times staff as fact, The Times still will not grant permission for that proven element of the Palestinian narrative to make its way into the headlines. Saree Madisi’s excoriation of the LA Times over their continued use of the word “Arab” then applies equally well to The New York Times. Professor Makdisi asserted that its unacceptable “to look the other way, or pretend not to hear, when a people insists that they are a people and that they have a right to freedom and a will to be free.”

The New York Times should move forthrightly in the month ahead to address the disconnect between the language on-the-ground journalists are finally beginning to incorporate regarding “Palestinian citizens of Israel” and the antiquated, colonial language referencing “Israeli Arabs” still employed by editors in New York.

106 Responses

  1. Stephen Shenfield
    January 15, 2016, 6:02 pm

    From 1948 until Oslo it was a norm of Israeli discourse to recognize only “Arabs”. The word “Palestinian” was prohibited. No such species existed. That applied not only to “Israeli Arabs” but to all the other categories of Palestinians. For instance, the people in the refugee camps were “Arab refugees” not “Palestinian refugees.” The purpose of this norm was to minimize Israel’s guilt for the Nakba and any right the exiles might have to return. The expelled “Arabs” had not been robbed of their homeland but merely transferred from one province of the broad Arab homeland to neighboring provinces — not such a big deal. Viewing the Palestinians simply as “Arabs” makes possible the still popular argument that “the Arabs have so many states, why can’t we be allowed just one?” (During its heyday pan-Arab nationalism inadvertently facilitated this Israeli usage.)

    With Oslo the existence of “Palestinians” received official recognition, but it was not explained who they were, where they had come from, or why they had suddenly moved out of non-existence and into existence. It was not admitted that the earlier usage had been erroneous. Ordinary Israelis and Zionists still felt uncomfortable with the word, and not only because it was rather long.

    The people now in power in Israel seek to erase the terminological innovations associated with Oslo and return to the previous usage. I don’t think it is just a strategy to divide the Palestinians by recognizing some of them as Palestinians but not others, although that is perhaps a half-way stage. The goal is again to prohibit the word “Palestinian” in all contexts.

  2. italian ex-pat
    January 15, 2016, 8:07 pm

    @ Stephen Shenfield

    “The goal is again to prohibit the word ‘Palestinian’ in all contexts”.

    Of course. And not only in Israel. Haven’t we, here in the US and by our own politicians, been told time and time again that the Palestinians are an’ invented’ people?

    • MHughes976
      January 16, 2016, 12:30 pm

      It’s been going on for some time. As the Greek Bible began to take shape the word ‘Philistines’ in the Hebrew text mutated at almost every significant point to ‘assorted foreigners’.

      • YoniFalic
        January 17, 2016, 11:20 am

        One must be careful not to project modern political textual issues back to the time period of the creation of the Septuagint.

        The Wikipedia statistics are correct.

        The Hebrew term “pelishtim” occurs 286 times in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (of which 152 times in 1 Samuel), whereas in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, the equivalent term phylistiim occurs only 12 times, with the remaining 269 references instead using the term “allophylos” (“of another tribe”).[2] According to Joshua 13:3 and 1 Samuel 6:17, the land of the Philistines (or Allophyloi), called Philistia, was a pentapolis in southwestern Levant comprising the five city-states of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath, from Wadi Gaza in the south to the Yarqon River in the north, but with no fixed border to the east.[2] The Bible portrays them at one period of time as among the Kingdom of Israel’s most dangerous enemies.[2] Biblical scholars have connected the Philistines to other biblical groups such as Caphtorim and the Cherethites and Pelethites, which have both been identified with Crete, and leading to the tradition of an Aegean origin,[3] although this theory has been disputed.[4][5]

        In the koine Greek of Josephus and Philo, Judeans, Galileans, Peraeans, Nabateans, Decapolitans, Pentapolitans, Gaulanitians, and some Phoenicians were considered Palestinians. The translators of the Septuagint were probably just trying to prevent a koine Greek reader from being confused by the similarity of Φιλιστία (Philistia) and
        Παλαιστίνη (Palestine), which was applied to region in which Judeans lived.

        Of course, modern Jews all descend from non-Judean (Judaic) convert populations, whose only link to Palestine is fictional. The Judeans of Palestine all converted first to Christianity and then to Islam. Ancient authors almost always make a clear distinction between “Judean” and “Judaic”.

        BTW, this link points to a helpful Septuagint and Greek New Testament site.

        link to ellopos.net

      • YoniFalic
        January 17, 2016, 11:37 am

        BTW, I accidentally omitted Samarians from the list of peoples considered Palestinian in koine Greek.

      • echinococcus
        January 17, 2016, 3:07 pm

        Falic,

        Thanks for the note, and many thanks for the link to a translation I had not paid attention to –a surprisingly good translation.

      • MHughes976
        January 17, 2016, 4:16 pm

        Well, I think that Koine speakers were already accustomed to speak of ‘Palestine’ as the standard name of Palestine, as per Aristotle authorised by Herodotus. I do suspect thst the LXX translators, knowing of this (in their time) established usage, wished to convey the otherness and foreignness of the non-Jewish presence in Palestine. Thanks for the reference to elloipos – I see that they recommend the Victorian translation of the LXX by Sir Lancelot Brenton, a copy of which stands on my shelf. It has indeed never been superseded! Mind you, one should indeed be careful not to read modern motives into ancient actions, as you say.

      • echinococcus
        January 17, 2016, 4:51 pm

        Hughes,

        Using philistaioi for people of the Pentapolis while calling all non-Jewish others “others” doesn’t really look like conveying “the otherness and foreignness of the non-Jewish presence”, as the contrast is between Pentapolitans (not Jews) and the others; the Hebrew text calling all allophyloi “Pelishtim” indicates instead that the Judeans may have considered their own status in Palestine as that of latecomers.

      • RoHa
        January 17, 2016, 8:07 pm

        “the similarity of Φιλιστία (Philistia) and Παλαιστίνη (Palestine)”

        But they don’t seem very similar to me. One starts “fi”, the other “pa”. All they have in common is “..λ-στί…”, with differing vowels between the lamda and the sigma.

      • YoniFalic
        January 17, 2016, 9:22 pm

        At the time of the creation of the Septuagint, Φ and Π seem to have differed only in the aspiration of the former and the lack of aspiration of the latter. Our modern distinction of /p/ and /f/ is probably much too large. Transliteration of Hebrew Aramaic פ into Greek seems often inconsistent.

        Also, remember native Hebrew Aramaic speaker probably perceived them as a single phoneme rather as English speakers hear both t’s in tot as the same sound even though the initial t is aspirated while the final t is not. I believe Hindi and Urdu speakers hear two different t-sounds in the word “tot”.

      • echinococcus
        January 18, 2016, 3:39 am

        RoHa,

        It’s a transliteration of the same word at different times (or even by different contemporaneous informers hearing even slightly different dialects): the [Ph] sign did not in those times show /f/ but /p’/, (aspirated /p/, equivalent to the English initial [p]); [ai-ae] was a diphthong. The/i/-/a/ switching exists between the different neighboring local dialects today and is documented in-between Hebrew, Samaritan, Hebrew transcriptions of the time from Philistine, etc. Sorry if it comes across as pedantic for such unimportant detail but it’s the same unit.

      • MHughes976
        January 18, 2016, 11:36 am

        Maybe we can agree to differ rather than pursue a question rather tangential to Mindoweiss’ main concerns. I think we are agreed that names had a political significance back then.

      • MHughes976
        January 18, 2016, 12:11 pm

        As for names that sound like ‘Palestine’ there’s a good study by Mark Weeden of SOAS, London, called ‘After the Hittites: the Kingdoms of Karkamish and Palistin’ (2013). For my money the Hittites called themselves Palestinians, at least after the loss of their northern territories and relocation of the capital to Karkamish maybe not long after 1200, and the ‘ist’ element in the name represents a word like ‘hestia’, making ‘Palestine’ = ‘the land of hearth and home’. Mind you, there’s a danger of being over-imaginative in relating the northern Philistines with the ‘classic Philistines’ further south, seemingly called ‘Peleset’ by the Egyptians. And sometimes Palestine seems to be Walestine – makes you wonder who the Welsh really are.

      • RoHa
        January 18, 2016, 6:35 pm

        “And sometimes Palestine seems to be Walestine – makes you wonder who the Welsh really are.”

        Oops! For years I have been saying that one of the few things about Jesus we can be sure of is that he wasn’t Welsh. But maybe we can’t even be sure of that.

      • RoHa
        January 18, 2016, 6:53 pm

        Thanks, YoniFalic and echinococcus. Good point. I had completely forgotten about the ancient pronunciations of Φ and Π. (Θ and Χ were also aspirates, weren’t they?)

        For the original ancient Greeks the sounds were obviously very distinct (hence the different letters) but by Koine days the purists were tucked away in the attic and Greek was being used by shifty Levantines who probably spoke like Americans.

        So, when I look at it that way, I can see that the translators could have concerns about confusion.

        Life would be much easier if people spoke clearly and learned how to spell.

      • Mooser
        January 19, 2016, 2:21 pm

        “Life would be much easier if people spoke clearly and learned how to spell.”

        It’s true, a person’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him, as soon as he speaks he may make another man despise him!
        Why, if you spoke as they do, RoHa, instead of the way you do, you might end up selling flowers, too.

      • echinococcus
        January 19, 2016, 2:49 pm

        RoHa + Falic,

        Sorry for the redundant message due to moderation delay.
        RoHa: Americans may be shifty albeit Western, but one thing they do different than you guys is to speak understandably (dunno re spelling.)
        Let’s bury this topic at good last.

      • Philemon
        January 20, 2016, 9:57 pm

        Roha, if any members of your family speak Japanese, you might also be familiar with the bilabial fricative, which is usually transliterated into English as “f” or “h”. Of course, Japanese doesn’t have an alphabet as such.

        Roha: “Life would be much easier if people spoke clearly and learned how to spell.”

        Mooser: “It’s true, a person’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him, as soon as he speaks he may make another man despise him!”

        Linguists don’t care what letters you use, actually, so long as your pronunciation of those letters doesn’t violate their sound change laws. (Although, really, they won’t despise it. They like a challenge.)

        There’s some useful vocabulary for historical sound change here: link to nativlang.com

      • Philemon
        January 20, 2016, 11:29 pm

        Well, I thought to myself, no one is speaking up for the linguists here. Well, except to equate them with ‘Enry ‘Iggins (i.e., Henry Sweet).

        So, I also thought to myself, if no one else is speaking up for the linguists, so I will.

        Historical Linguistics is no slouch among academic disciplines. There you go.

      • RoHa
        January 21, 2016, 2:25 am

        Philemon, in my household everyone speaks Japanese, except for the cat, and she understands it. We use it at least as much as English. Mine is pretty ropey, but I do know what an unvoiced bilabial fricative is. I also know that it is not the same as an aspirated unvoiced bilabial plosive.*

        “Linguists don’t care what letters you use,”

        Though they prefer IPA.

        “They like a challenge.”

        Yeah? Where were they when Britain was suffering the horrors of the Great Vowel Shift?
        What did they do to meet that challenge? Nothing! And so we, today, have to live with the devastation wreaked by that catastrophe.

        (*And a lot more about phonetics than that. Among the various bits of paper showing what an unbearable smart-arse I am is a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics.)

      • Bumblebye
        January 21, 2016, 4:03 am

        @RoHa

        I’ve heard of the great vowel shift in New Zealand, and prior to that one in the US – but when was the one in Britain? Given all our weird and wonderful accents did it happen in one part or all?

      • RoHa
        January 21, 2016, 5:04 am

        It is generally regarded as taking place between 1350 and 1600. 250 years of terror and misery, as the English and the Scots tried to teach their children how to speak (after all, Norwegians learn Norwegian, the Greeks are taught their Greek) but heard horrible, tortured, sounds emerging from their own mouths.

        “Alas, the Great Vowel Shift is upon us” they attempted to cry, but, of course, it came out sounding wrong. Some were in such despair that they fled to Wales, where they could avoid using English. (America was not really an option for that in those days.)

        By 1600 (and not1601) it was over. The English language, that marvellous invention of Mr. G. Chaucer, had been irreversibly changed. Only the sterling work of Mr. W. Shakespeare, at the end of the period, kept it as a working system.

        (Later, of course, Mr. C. Lamb and Mr. P. G. Wodehouse brought this revamped language to full perfection.)

        If you can bear to read it, Wikipedia actually has quite a good account.

        link to en.m.wikipedia.org

        Of course, this was before Tasman (who was a Dutchman, and so didn’t count) saw NZ, and long before Cook got there, so whatever you do there is your own filthy business, and can’t be blamed on the Great Vowel Shift.

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2016, 3:15 pm

        “Linguists don’t care what letters you use, actually, so long as your pronunciation of those letters doesn’t violate their sound change laws.”

        Well, except in France, you see. The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce in properly.

        And “bilabial fricative” sounds to me like a fancy name for what plain-speaking folks call ‘osculation’.

      • RoHa
        January 21, 2016, 5:30 pm

        Very similar, Mooser, but with no contact.

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2016, 9:35 pm

        “Very similar, Mooser, but with no contact.”

        Very smart. What do you get when you kiss a girl? You get enough germs to catch pneumonia. And after that, they never phone ya’.

      • Philemon
        January 22, 2016, 9:44 pm

        Roha wrote: “If you can bear to read it, Wikipedia actually has quite a good account.”
        link to en.m.wikipedia.org

        Oddly enough, I find it heartening that historical linguistics is so uncontroversial nowadays that Wikipedia would have a good account.

        Linguists, the ones who try to do the historical thing, must resign themselves to the fact that they cannot prevent language change. Moreover, records of past language changes are imperfect and incomplete much to their dismay (you should see their little faces light up when they discover some heretofore unattested stuff). So, all they can do, most of the time, is to try to accurately describe language change after the fact. It is rather similar to geology in its methodological limitations.

      • Philemon
        January 22, 2016, 9:47 pm

        “Well, except in France, you see. The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce in properly. ” Oh, that’s l’Académie française with its precious dictionnaire.

        Mooser, Hal David had nothing on you when it comes to lyrics. I think your lyrics would have been much better than his. His were a little too soppy.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2016, 12:04 am

        “Very similar, Mooser, but with no contact.”

        Really? “No contact”? That’s not how the French do it!

  3. Jackdaw
    January 16, 2016, 2:22 am

    I’m waiting for the day when two queers can kiss on a dance floor in a pub in Hevron.

    Won’t that be something?

    • diasp0ra
      January 16, 2016, 6:07 am

      @JD

      Is that before or after they are blackmailed by Israel into collaborating with them?

    • talknic
      January 16, 2016, 6:19 am

      @ Jackdaw

      “I’m waiting for the day when two queers can kiss on a dance floor in a pub in Hevron”

      Same could be said of most pubs in Sydney FFS

    • eljay
      January 16, 2016, 8:44 am

      || Jackdaw: I’m waiting for the day when two queers can kiss on a dance floor in a pub in Hevron.

      Won’t that be something? ||

      What’ll really be something is the day two queers can kiss in either of two neighbouring secular and democratic states:
      – Israel, the Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally; and
      – Palestine, the Palestinian state of and for all of its Palestinian citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

    • a blah chick
      January 16, 2016, 10:21 am

      There are some tough neighborhoods in Detroit that are far from “queer” friendly. No gay bars or pride parades either. According to Bill Maher that makes them suitable for bombing.

    • Mooser
      January 16, 2016, 12:32 pm

      “I’m waiting for the day when two queers can kiss on a dance floor in a pub in Hevron.”

      C’mon “Jackdaw”. You are playing right into the old antisemitic trope that Jews are voyeurs.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 17, 2016, 1:15 am

        I’m waiting for the day when two queers can kiss

        can some guy just kiss jack so we can get this over with? at least ask him to dance, he’s been waiting for o so long.

      • Kay24
        January 17, 2016, 6:58 am

        Annie….:))

      • justicewillprevail
        January 17, 2016, 8:44 am

        I hope he gets kissed by a Palestinian guy, like the Time Out video. that would be sweet. Post us up a picture, Jacky.

      • Mooser
        January 17, 2016, 12:19 pm

        “can some guy just kiss jack so we can get this over with?”

        Not me. I’m saving myself for the man I marry!

  4. Ossinev
    January 16, 2016, 6:55 am

    Meanwhile quietly in the background the EU is finally acting as opposed to condemning and the Yahoo and his lunatic underlings, still sleepy and drowsy from another year of nourishing US Congress breastfeeding, have finally woken up to the dawning reality:

    As per today`s Haaretz

    “New EU Draft Resolution Draws Stark Distinction Between Israel, West Bank Settlements
    Israel working frantically to block pending resolution, expected to be published on Monday, that top officials says could lead to additional sanctions against Israeli settlements”

    Watch and listen for a chorus of the tired old “anti-sem itism” rants plus new potential Zionist market leading epithets such as “commercial terrorism” , “trade terrorism”.

    BOYCOTT UGLY APARTHEID ISRAEL
    SUPPORT BDS
    TELL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS ABOUT BDS

    • amigo
      January 16, 2016, 11:16 am

      Ossinev , my apologies , I had not seen your post before I posted that report on another thread.

      Good news .I think most European pols are tired of the accusations of antisemitism and insults from ziosville.The Swedish Fm is probably getting her pound of flesh on this one , to teach nuttyahoo not to keep up his insults.Personally, I wish he would and even increase them .

      • MHughes976
        January 16, 2016, 3:06 pm

        To me this is only half good news – it resists Israeli policy, but the suggestion of a ‘stark distinction’ is misleading and conscience-salving. Israel 67 is where what Beinart calls ‘fundamental oppression’ (he does have a few apt phrases!) is taking place but Israel 48 differs at very best by being the place where the same oppression is organised rather than overtly taking place. That’s not a very stark distinction,

      • amigo
        January 16, 2016, 4:30 pm

        MHughes 976

        You may be right but half good news is an improvement on what we have seen to date.I think EU pols are tiring of Israel.I read somewhere yesterday , that the EU intends to sue Israel for destroying infrastructure in the Wets bank ,paid for by the EU taxpayer.As I said on another thread , even Charlie Flanagan , (Ireland,s FM )who was a member of the ,”Ireland friends of Israel ” has done a complete u turn .Ireland along with Sweden and to some degree ,France are the three member states pushing these additional sanctions.

        We will see Monday , just how serious they are.

  5. mariapalestina
    January 16, 2016, 8:44 am

    I refuse to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel as Arabs. They consider themselves Palestinians. To me the designation Arab Israelis refers to Israel’s large Jewish Arab population.

    • yonah fredman
      January 16, 2016, 7:12 pm

      mariapalestina. There is something called the Arab League of which the PLO (or the PA) is a member, do you advocate the Arab League kick out the Palestinians because they are not Arab or that the PA quit because they are not Arabs? I didn’t think so. Palestinians are Arabs, are they not? Yes, changing headlines to replace Palestinians with the term Arabs is an attempt to suppress Palestinian nationalism and the majority self identification of most Palestinian citizens of Israel. But your formulation of the issue is confusing.

      • talknic
        January 17, 2016, 2:35 am

        @ yonah fredman “There is something called the Arab League of which the PLO (or the PA) is a member, do you advocate the Arab League kick out the Palestinians because they are not Arab or that the PA quit because they are not Arabs?:”

        Whoa. They’re not “Palestinian citizens of Israel”!

        Why is it there’s almost always something missing in the Ziosphere?

      • echinococcus
        January 17, 2016, 5:53 am

        Mister Fredman, who writes:

        There is something called the Arab League of which the PLO (or the PA) is a member, do you advocate the Arab League kick out the Palestinians because they are not Arab or that the PA quit because they are not Arabs?

        did you think what this would give in a goose-and-gander switch, like:

        There is something called the USA, of which the ZOA, Zionist Organization of America (or the American Zionist Movement) is a member, do you advocate the USA kick out the Zionists because they are not American or that the ZOA quit because they are not American?

        This is the charitable version. One may also do it with other groupings, like humanity, etc.

        Ever heard of something like the part and the whole? Not the rat and the hole, as in Zionist logic.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        January 17, 2016, 7:22 pm

        It is not an official position of the PLO or PA that Palestinians are not Arab, but it is a common reaction of Palestinians disappointed at the limited help and solidarity they receive from other Arabs or feeling not understood by them. It is also a protest against the Israelis’ stigmatization of them as Arabs. In both contexts a distinct Palestinian identity is ultimately a product of the Nakba. It is more of a political statement than an objective assessment, because of course Palestinians still have a lot in common with other Arabs. They speak a dialect of Arabic, after all. But over time the divergence may widen and acquire more objective substance.

      • Mooser
        January 17, 2016, 7:35 pm

        “In both contexts a distinct Palestinian identity is ultimately a product of the Nakba. It is more of a political statement than an objective assessment, because of course Palestinians still have a lot in common with other Arabs.”

        So if it wasn’t for the Nakba the Palestinians wouldn’t exist? Where have I heard that before?

        “It is more of a political statement than an objective assessment, “

        Nope, nothing “objective” about it at all. Palestinian identity is politics? Wow.

      • echinococcus
        January 17, 2016, 8:07 pm

        No need to discuss Fredman’s delirium in his own terms. Of course Palestinians are Arabs, just as much as any of the Israel Jews coming from Iraq or Yemen or Algeria.
        The fact is that the Palestinians’ being Arabs, i.e. with Arabic as a mother tongue, is totally irrelevant.
        As Palestinians, they are the owners of Palestine and the sovereignty over it.
        Other Arabs, for example the Israel Jews from Iraq or Morocco, or the Muslim Arabs from Saudi, are NOT.
        Palestinians are also humans (no matter what Zionists say), but not all humans own Palestine, either.
        You don’t let the surgeon cut you up only because he happens to be a German speaker, but because what is relevant is that he is a surgeon.

        The Palestinian reaction is one of requesting to be identified by the relevant qualifier –every time they must say the word “Palestinian” the Zionists acknowledge that the addressee owns the whole shooting match. Not of distancing oneself from being Arabs.

      • Sibiriak
        January 17, 2016, 11:02 pm

        Stephen Shenfield: It is not an official position of the PLO or PA that Palestinians are not Arab

        —————

        Cf. The Palestinian National Charter

        Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people ; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

        * * *

        Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people , through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.

        Article 5:
        The Palestinians are the Arab citizens who were living permanently in Palestine until 1947, whether they were expelled or remained there. Whoever is born to a Palestinian father after that date, within Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.

        ETC. [emphasis added]

        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        Arab nationalism has certainly weakened since the time that Charter was written, but not to the point that Palestinians are not considered, or do not consider themselves, Arabs. No?

        Identities can overlap; they are not necessarily exclusive. Arabness can be part of the Palestinian identity without undermining the uniqueness of that identity.

        Cf. 2003 Permanent Constitution draft

        Article (2) Palestine is part of the Arab homeland. The state of Palestine abides by the Charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal. The Palestinian people work on behalf of its realization. [emphasis added]

        link to palestinianbasiclaw.org

      • gamal
        January 17, 2016, 11:11 pm

        “It is not an official position of the PLO or PA that Palestinians are not Arab,”

        why would it be?

        ” but it is a common reaction of Palestinians disappointed at the limited help and solidarity they receive from other Arabs or feeling not understood by them”

        this is just nonsense, Palestinians tend to have an acute understanding of the realities pertaining in the Arab world. You don’t know how to talk to Arabs. We just had Sandlin explaining that his co-congregants were weeping, crocodile tears he implied, but crying none the less over Palestine, “feeling not understood by them” thank god you’ve come along with your objective understanding. 0ne of my earliest memories is watching my father string a tape into a reel to reel first song was Sanarjiou, in the Arab world you here it everywhere, to this day, no one has forgotten or abandoned Palestine, the Shi’i are with their Sunni and Christian comrades in Palestine.

        “it is a common reaction of Palestinians disappointed” now they handing in their Arab membership cards, do you understand the difference between what people say and what they mean, if you don’t i wouldn’t talk to Arabs, it’ll confuse you.

        you think Palestinian identity could be founded on being “disappointed at the limited help and solidarity they receive from other Arabs or feeling not understood by them”

        they are not made of cardboard

        if its a feeling is it objective or subjective here? whats objective in the world of identity?

        “It is also a protest against the Israelis’ stigmatization of them as Arabs.”

        While Palestinians understand why Israeli discourse utilizes Arab i would be surprised to find many Arabs who feel stigmatized by being called Arab, perhaps you’ve spoken to one who feels differently or conducted a survey?

        ” In both contexts a distinct Palestinian identity is ultimately a product of the Nakba”

        what is a “distinct Palestinian identity” and how could it be produced by the Nakba?
        Palestinians are distinct in an Arab way from other Arabs, because they are both.

        ” It is more of a political statement than an objective assessment”

        word salad, Palestinians exist outside of the context of their political contest with the conquistadores, but not for you, do you really think it is possible for some one to be as confused about their own identity as you are about Palestinian identity.
        Palestinians are making a Political statement by existing? who is making these “objective assessments”, this is reductive to the point of idiocy, it is impossible to talk about humans in these terms.

        what is an Arab from the Galilee if not a Palestinian?

        “because of course Palestinians still have a lot in common with other Arabs”

        all of whom come from somewhere else, or where do other Arabs come from? where is the Arab homeland? Palestinians have cultural differences with Egyptians and each other, but Egyptians are not even Arabs either are they?

        “They speak a dialect of Arabic, after all”

        as do people from Algeria to Iraq, what of it, its a function of Arab identity, which you seem to know nothing about, Arabs come from many places, its evolved over time.

        ” But over time the divergence may widen and acquire more objective substance.”?

        but there never was a time when all Arabs were the same, what is a “more objective substance” when it comes to identity? not all Arabs even speak Arabic as a first language, some of them can be found in Arabia to this day, they must struggle mightily with identity issues, or possibly they know what Arab means, not everyone does you know,.

        one of the aspects of Palestinian culture and identity is that it is Arab and no less Palestinian for being so, you been reading Burton or something? perhaps watching that old PBS special “The Sword Of Islam”.

        Since that September 1970, just a couple of years after Karameh, every Arab has known the treacherous attitudes of the regimes, Arabs rarely confuse the State with the people, I am surprised your Arab students didnt point that out to you,

        ok if Palestnians are not Arabs what are they, are Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians etc Arabs, what distinguishes yer Iraqi from yer Libyan? and why is it of interest to you what impact does this drivel have on any real world issues?

        They Know Who They Are

        you could try, i guarantee it will surprise you, even though Chris talks to some pretty treacherous Phoenicians and Scythians, still it’ll help.

        (Pan-Arab Identity particularly strong in the under 30 age group,)

        Everyday Arab Identity: The Daily Reproduction of the Arab World

        by

        Christopher Phillips

        link to books.google.ie

    • Mikhael
      January 19, 2016, 1:08 pm

      mariapalestina January 16, 2016, 8:44 am

      I refuse to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel as Arabs. They consider themselves Palestinians.

      Some of them do, and the use is of the term is increasing among them, but many do not, and in fact, for years few of them did. Here is one prominent example of an Israeli ARab citizen who does not see herself as Palestinian, Lucy Aharish:

      Unlike many other Arab citizens of Israel, she says she has never defined herself as Palestinian. “I have a country,” she says, “I have a passport. When I am abroad, I say I am Israeli.
      read more: link to haaretz.com

      It’s only relatively recently that large numbers of Israeli citizens who are part of the Arabic-speaking non-Jewish national minority groups begun to adopt a “Palestinian” national identity and it’s hardly unanimous. While Israeli citizens who belong to the Arab minority are not unanimous about calling themselves “Palestinian” they are almost nearly completely insistent about their Arab identity — the few who minimize their Arab identity tend actually to belong to super- pro-Israel factions within Israeli-Arab society, such as elements among the Druze who deny they are Arab (and of course deny they are “Palestinian” as well) and even Christian groups within Israeli-Arab society who wish to be identified as “Aramean”. Not only are Arab citizens within Israel pretty clear in insisting that they identify as Arabs, it’s also the official Palestinian line, see Article 1 of the Palestine Draft Constitution of 2003:

      Palestine is part of the Arab homeland. The state of Palestine abides by the Charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal.

      link to palestinianbasiclaw.org

      Or the Palestine National Charter of 1968:

      Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      But you (presumably a non-Arab and a non-Palestinian) know better.

      To me the designation Arab Israelis refers to Israel’s large Jewish Arab population.

      A designation that nearly all of Israel’s Mizrahi- and Sefaradi-Jewish population (from which I am descended) eschews vehemently. Just because one’s ancestors formerly lived in majority Arabic-speaking societies and used Arabic (or Jewish dialects of Arabic) in the past does not mean one is an Arab. Israeli Jews who are descended from families that made aliyah from places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc. overwhelmingly regard themselves as part of the Jewish people, and see Ashkenazim as their close kin, not Arabs.

      But I guess you (a non-Mizrahi Jew and a non-Israeli) know better about how we define ourselves.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2016, 3:22 pm

        mik, she didn’t say she didn’t see herself as palestinian, she said she didn’t define herself that way. and why did you cut the quote off???

        Unlike many other Arab citizens of Israel, she says she has never defined herself as Palestinian. “I have a country,” she says, “I have a passport. When I am abroad, I say I am Israeli.” But at the same time, she says she fears that, despite her success and torch-lighting honor, she will eventually discover that as an Arab she will never be accepted fully by Israeli society. She hopes to live abroad at some point, probably in the United States. Is it because she fears the truth?  Probably, she says. “I would rather leave with that a little bit of doubt left.”
        read more: link to haaretz.com

        also, i really do not think using, as an example ” the first Arab Muslim news anchor on Israeli Hebrew television”.

        The backlash began on March 8, with the announcement of the 14 individuals chosen to light a torch at this year’s official Independence Day ceremony. Lucy Aharish, 33 and the first Arab Muslim news anchor on Israeli Hebrew television, had not done enough to merit the honor, according to some. Others on the extreme right say she is not sufficiently loyal to the state, while on the other side of the spectrum she has been accused, by both Arabs and Jews, of playing the obedient Arab, salving Jewish consciences. Aharish isn’t sure if she deserves the honor, either, but she’ll be damned if anyone will tell her she can’t receive it. “Do I need to care what other people are thinking?” she tells Haaretz in a recent interview.

      • RoHa
        January 19, 2016, 7:11 pm

        “Just because one’s ancestors formerly lived in majority Arabic-speaking societies and used Arabic (or Jewish dialects of Arabic) in the past does not mean one is an Arab.”

        No, but it means that one’s ancestors were Arabs.

        In the conventional sense of “Arab”, Arabs are people who live in majority Arabic-speaking societies and use Arabic as their first language.

        The Jews from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. were Arabs, regardless of how they defined themselves.

        Even if their parents came from Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, etc., Americans and Australians who grew up in America or Australia and use English as their first language are not Arabs, regardless of how they define themselves.

      • Mikhael
        January 20, 2016, 5:39 am

        Annie Robbins January 19, 2016, 3:22 pm

        mik, she didn’t say she didn’t see herself as palestinian, she said she didn’t define herself that way. and why did you cut the quote off???

        “an,” Lucy Aharish has famously rejected the “Palestinian” label. She is one of the most well-known examples of Arab citizens of Israel who make a point of saying they are not Palestinian. Of course, many people in this group have adopted this label in recent years and it seems to be the official Mondoweiss editorial policy to define them as “Palestinian-Israelis”, but the fact is that many do not see themselves or define themselves that way. They nearly all define themselves and see themselves as Arabs, however.
        (And what is the practical difference between “not defin[ing]” and “not see[ing]” one’s self as a Palestinian?) And as members of this cohort have Israeli citizenship, “Israeli-Arabs” (or as I prefer, “Arab citizens of Israel”, which may be more clunky but avoids questions of loyalty and national identity than “Arab-Israeli/Israeli-Arab”) is a more neutral and inclusive term.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2016, 1:40 pm

        She is one of the most well-known examples of Arab citizens of Israel who make a point of saying they are not Palestinian.

        of course she’s well known! she’s a friggin traitor! why wouldn’t she be well known? this proves nothing! i am over discussing her, she’s totally NOT typical of anything.

      • Mikhael
        January 20, 2016, 6:18 am

        RoHa January 19, 2016, 7:11 pm

        Just because one’s ancestors formerly lived in majority Arabic-speaking societies and used Arabic (or Jewish dialects of Arabic) in the past does not mean one is an Arab.

        No, but it means that one’s ancestors were Arabs.

        No, it doesn’t.

        In the conventional sense of “Arab”, Arabs are people who live in majority Arabic-speaking societies and use Arabic as their first language.

        The Israeli Jews whose families made aliyah from Arabic-speaking countries (and Mizrahi Jews who have emigrated to countries outside Israel, primarily in France, the USA, UK and Canada) overwhelmingly reject an Arab identity, just as their ancestors did when they lived in Arab countries; therefore it is wrong to insist that they are Arabs, just as Kurds, Iraqi Turkmen, Circassians and Armenians are not Arabs. By your logic, if people with origins in these groups are raised in a mostly Arabic-speaking environment (as some are) and lose ability in their ancestral languages then they cease to be Kurds, Turkmen, Circassians or Armenians but become Arabs, yet they would vehemently protest this.
        In the case of many of the Israeli Jews whose ancestors immigrated to Israel from Arabic-speaking societies, not only did the vast majority of them (with very few and notable exceptions) never identify with Arab nationalism, historically they descend from groups that until a little over a century ago spoke their own unique Jewish dialects of Arabic, and if one goes back even further, they primarily descend from Aramaic and Hebrew speakers. In 2016, Israeli Jews whose families came from places like Morocco, Egypt, Syria or Yemen
        usually don’t speak Arabic, except for a few words of slang

        Even if their parents came from Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, etc., Americans and Australians who grew up in America or Australia and use English as their first language are not Arabs, regardless of how they define themselves.

        If the non-Arabic-speaking children or grandchildren of Arabic-speaking immigrants to the USA or Australia reject an Arab identity and only wish to be accepted as Americans or Australians, then you would be correct; and it would be wrong to insist that they are Arabs only because of such ancestry. Yet if they embrace and affirm an Arab identity, then they are Arabs and it is correct to identify them as such.

      • gamal
        January 20, 2016, 3:07 pm

        “In the conventional sense of “Arab” ”

        Roha have a word with the Shuwa Arabs, famous for their beauty, but not their grasp of allowable identities. i can attest that the Shuwa Arab men and women of Maiduguri were very appealing.

        listening to huge muscled Lebanese kids in Melbourne speak Arabic with a powerful Strine twang kept me going on many a long night in Brunswick.

        Shuwa Arabic is spreading in the north, some say because of the conflicted relationship of Hausa to Kanuri,

        link to academia.edu

      • Shmuel
        January 20, 2016, 3:56 pm

        she’s a friggin traitor!

        She’s a Zionist Israeli. I’m an anti-Zionist Israeli. Which of us is the traitor?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2016, 6:23 pm

        she’s a zionist palestinian in my eyes. she embraces not only her lesser status in society but the lessor status of all palestinians, whether they define as arab or whomever. whereas, as an anti zionist, you do not accept the lessor status/reduced or no rights of anyone. so you are not a traitor to humanity, she is.

      • oldgeezer
        January 20, 2016, 4:30 pm

        @Shmuel

        Neither of you.

      • Shmuel
        January 20, 2016, 4:32 pm

        Neither of you.

        Thanks oldgeezer. That was my point.

      • zaid
        January 20, 2016, 7:13 pm

        @Mikhael

        My Arab friend let me explain things for you.

        Lucy Aharish doesnot represent and was not elected by the Palestinian Israelis , Hanin Zoabi was.

        “Some of them do, and the use is of the term is increasing among them, but many do not,”

        That is because they are both Arab and Palestinian, and during the height of Arab nationalism they emphasized the Arab ,but now with the collapse of all Arab national parties (Bathist or Nasirism) they are emphasizing the Palestinian Identity more .

        “the few who minimize their Arab identity tend actually to belong to super- pro-Israel factions within Israeli-Arab society, such as elements among the Druze who deny they are Arab (and of course deny they are “Palestinian” as well) and even Christian groups within Israeli-Arab society who wish to be identified as “Aramean””

        The majority of christian (almost all) identify as Arab/Palestinian and the whole Aramean thing is not picking up real support among them and they realize it is a Zionist plot.

        Regarding Druze, you are right but the educated elites are against that, and the more they are educated the less they will fall for the Zionist hoax against their original Identity (the movement is growing).

        Note: Druze are mostly of Turkish and Kurdish origin and that is why geneticist finds similarity between them (Kurds,Turks and Druze) and the Ashkenazim Jews , which is logical since all four are originally from the Khazar empire area.

        “A designation that nearly all of Israel’s Mizrahi- and Sefaradi-Jewish population (from which I am descended) eschews vehemently.”

        Of course they do, and you know why?

        …..because it is the truth.

        Mizrahi Jews have nothing in common with Ashkenazi Jews with respect to race/origin/genes.They are as Arab as it can get, and some of them are actually Authentic Arab (from Arabia),and that is why they desperately deny it (defense mechanism).

        “overwhelmingly regard themselves as part of the Jewish people, and see Ashkenazim as their close kin, not Arabs.”

        They are delusional.

        “But you (presumably a non-Arab and a non-Palestinian) know better.”

        I am an Arab and a Palestinian and i do know better and you are wrong.

        “But I guess you (a non-Mizrahi Jew and a non-Israeli) know better about how we define ourselves.”

        We know how you define yourself and we know that you are delusional.

        It must be frustrating to look at the mirror and see the same face of those you are taught to hate .

        I said it before and i say it now:

        When a Mizrahi Jew says death to the Arabs he means the Arab inside him and not the Arab in Gaza or East Jerusalem.

        Alsalam Alykom Akhi Al Arabi.

      • RoHa
        January 20, 2016, 8:54 pm

        gamal, I don’t think I could help the Shuwa Arabs. I don’t know anything about allowable identities. All I can tell them is the conventional meanings of English terms.

      • echinococcus
        January 20, 2016, 11:25 pm

        Michael,
        Who cares how you “define yourselves”? Objectively, do you have anything in common with an Eskenazi except religion and the culture of Zionist invasion, theft and ethnic cleansing? A mother-tongue Arabic speaker is an Arab. Herrenvolk-Israelis are now an unfortunate reality, of course, but that is not a reason for trying to anachronistically smuggle this Boer-like identity to the past.

      • YoniFalic
        January 20, 2016, 11:37 pm

        I would describe my family in Israel by the designation settler invaders, and I would say that I was a settler invader until I completely rejected Zionism as well as the completely bogus ethnic Jewish identity and until I left Israel for the USA.

        I will not return until Israel has been dismantled and replaced by the State of Palestine.

        Lucy Aharish is a native collaborator. It is arguable which group is more despicable: settler invaders or native collaborators.

      • Shmuel
        January 21, 2016, 2:07 am

        she’s a zionist palestinian in my eyes

        But not in her own eyes. There are more discussions on this blog about “who is a Jew” than there are in the Knesset. I see a parallel. If Lucy Aharish does not consider herself a Palestinian, who are we to “educate” her about her own identity? The same goes for those who believe that their own understanding of what does and does not constitute a Jew (assuming that Jews even exist, of course) is what counts, and everyone else had better just adapt.

        she embraces not only her lesser status in society but the lessor status of all palestinians, whether they define as arab or whomever.

        She is a citizen of an ethnocracy (or ethnic democracy), who happens to belong to the “wrong” ethnicity, She was raised in an all-Jewish town and, despite the racism she experienced from her peers, internalised the democratic apologetics she was taught — from the Declaration of Independence’s “irrespective of religion, race or sex” to the all-pervasive “if only the Arabs would ….”, and decided that she was going to be the Arab who would.

        Like so many Israelis and non-Israeli supporters of Israel, she is an apologist for institutional racism and war crimes. Calling her a traitor implies a basic “tribal” (to use a popular MW word) loyalty, but also lends credence to the idea that Israelis who do not support their country (Palestinian Israelis first and foremost, but not only) are traitors of a different sort. That is the current atmosphere in Israel. Wait for the purges.

        whereas, as an anti zionist, you do not accept the lessor status/reduced or no rights of anyone. so you are not a traitor to humanity, she is.

        Were we discussing “treason” to humanity (that is to the idea of common humanity and equality), Aharish would be no more of a “traitor” than any Jewish Israeli who shares her views. Aharish is not called a “traitor” because she is human, but because she is a Muslim Arab.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 5:52 am

        i agree Aharish is no more of a “traitor” than any Jewish Israeli who shares her views. maybe the word i should have used is collaborator. she collaborates in a system that denies her own equality.

        that said, she’s young. there’s room for her to grow and become more aware.

      • Mikhael
        January 21, 2016, 5:23 am

        Annie Robbins January 20, 2016, 1:40 pm

        of course she’s well known! she’s a friggin traitor!

        LOL, she’s a traitor because she’s a loyal citizen of the state she lives in? Because she speaks her mind? Because she’s a proud Arab? Because she denounced the PM when he used divisive language about “Arabs being driven to the polls in droves”? Because she condemned incitement to violence by Arab politicians in Israel because some Jews want to pray at the Temple Mount?

        this proves nothing!

        It proves that not all Arab citizens of Israel are comfortable with referring to themselves as “Palestinian”.

        i am over discussing her, she’s totally NOT typical of anything

        Lucy is an atypical Arab woman in that doesn’t take sh*t from anyone, that’s true.

        But I get it, an American lady who lives in San Francisco knows better who is a “traitor” and what is better for the Arab population in Israel and how dare an Arab woman who lives in Israel freely express her opinions.

      • Shmuel
        January 21, 2016, 6:39 am

        i agree Aharish is no more of a “traitor” than any Jewish Israeli who shares her views. maybe the word i should have used is collaborator. she collaborates in a system that denies her own equality.

        On a personal level, she seems to have done OK within that system. Is there some sort of higher group loyalty (as defined and understood by others) she is supposed to have? Do women who support systems that discriminate against women, but within which they have found success, owe some higher group loyalty to their gender? Are they somehow more guilty or worthy of censure than the men who established and perpetuate those systems (who are “merely” sexist, but at least show solidarity with their own gender)?

      • diasp0ra
        January 21, 2016, 7:16 am

        @Mikhael

        It really proves nothing though, in either way. To say that there are a minority of Arabs in Israel that reject Palestinian identity and identify as Israelis is known.

        But what does this really mean?

        There were pro Apartheid black leaders in South Africa, that would have benefited more from the Bantustan system than a democracy. They also received disproportionate airtime in South Africa relative to their importance during Apartheid, similar to Miss Aharish. Like it or not, she is of Palestinian origins, even if she doesn’t want to be identified as such, and that is her right.

        People like Miss Aharish are a dime a dozen throughout history, they are tokenized and play the role of the “native collaborator” to make the colonists feel more legitimized and humane. In return, they receive benefits in the colonial society they would normally not have. Of course this person would be in support of this system, but no matter how hard they try, they will always be outsiders.

        No matter how much she tries to fit in and appease the “right” ethnicity in the Israeli ethnocracy, “Death to the Arabs” affects her just as much as any other Palestinian that the settlers would set on fire, regardless of how she identifies.

      • gamal
        January 21, 2016, 7:31 am

        “No matter how much she tries to fit in and appease the “right” ethnicity in the Israeli ethnocracy, “Death to the Arabs” affects her just as much as any other Palestinian that the settlers would set on fire, regardless of how she identifies.’ Diasp0ra

        “Lucy is an atypical Arab woman in that (she) doesn’t take sh*t from anyone, that’s true.” Mikhael

        You see D, he cant even give her affirmation without denigrating what she is, your thesis seems to have been vindicated.

      • echinococcus
        January 21, 2016, 7:41 am

        When biologically Jewish people, some of them already early NSDAP members, protested that they had absolutely nothing to do with Jews, the Nazis did not consider that. They got the same treatment as the tribal and religious ones.
        It seems that the corresponding type of Zionist-accultured Palestinians are getting the same treatment from the Zionists.

      • Mikhael
        January 21, 2016, 8:25 am

        diasp0ra
        January 21, 2016, 7:16 am
        @Mikhael

        It really proves nothing though, in either way. To say that there are a minority of Arabs in Israel that reject Palestinian identity and identify as Israelis is known.

        Until relatively recently, very few defined themselves as “Palestinians” at all. Some of them who regard themselves as “Palestinians” also define themselves as Israelis. But my point was that whether or not they also define themselves as Israelis or Palestinians, the Arabic-speaking non-Jews who have Israeli citizenship nearly unanimously regard themselves as Arabs, and the Israeli designation of them as “Arab-Israelis”/”Israeli-Arabs” is the most neutral and correct way to define them. They are Arabs, and whether they identify with the State of Israel (as Ms. Aharish or others do) or not, as long as they hold Israeli citizenship they are Israelis.

        i ci and that is what I was responding taccepted

        But what does this really mean?

        There were pro Apartheid black leaders in South Africa, that would have benefited more from the Bantustan system than a democracy. They also received disproportionate airtime in South Africa relative to their importance during Apartheid, similar to Miss Aharish. Like it or not, she is of Palestinian origins, even if she doesn’t want to be identified as such, and that is her right.

        A very irrelevant analogy. Ms. Aharish doesn’t live in a Bantustan, she isn’t denied the franchise like the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa were, and she vehemently lambastes bigots in Israeli society whether they are Jews or Arabs. Not too long ago, the Mondoweiss commentariat was celebrating her when she tore into Bentzi Gopstein on a talk show and when she denounced Bibi for his election divisiveness.

        Bit now the eminent Annie Robbins denounces her as a traitor because she has the nerve to say publicly that she doesn’t see herself as a Palestinian.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        People like Miss Aharish are a dime a dozen throughout history, they are tokenized and play the role of the “native collaborator” to make the colonists feel more legitimized and humane.

        Ms Aharish uses the same free-speech rights to speak her mind just like fellow Israeli Arabs, Ahmed Tibi, Ayman Odeh or Haneen Zouabio. I guess they are collaborators too for standing for Knesset and accepting a salary from the state.

        In return, they receive benefits in the colonial society they would normally not have. Of course this person would be in support of this system, but no matter how hard they try, they will always be outsiders.

        Death to the Arabs” affects her just as much as any other Palestinian that the settlers would set on fire, regardless of how she idintifies.

        It affects every citizen of Israel and that’s why Israeli law enforcement pulled out all the stops to catch and punish the perpetrators within the full measure of the law.

        She’s never been afraid to speak out against discrimination that Israel’s Arab citizens face, nor is she afraid to speak out against calls of “Death to the Jews” either.

      • Mikhael
        January 21, 2016, 8:35 am

        You see D, he cant even give her affirmation without denigrating what she is, your thesis seems to have been vindicated.

        Nope, the people who denigrated her are people like Annie Robbins of San Francisco, who calls her a traitor, and the crap she’s had to take from some in the Arab community who call her a whore because she’s a Muslima who’s dated Jewish men,in addition to Jewish bigots like Bentzi Gopstein who say it’s impossible for her, a sa non-Jew, to be be loyal to the country she she lives in.

      • MHughes976
        January 21, 2016, 9:18 am

        Ms. A seems to be saying, per Annie’s quote, that she is in some degree making the best of a bad job. We might see her as taking up the offer made by Zionism since Altneuland, which amounts to saying that though the on,y natural rights in the Holy Land (now commonly called birthright)!belong to people who are Jewish, others may share these rights by the grace and generosity of the true heirs. I think it is very important to the Zionist project that a small,,culturally compatible non-Jewish minority survives – looking smart and well cared for – in the long term, whatever terrible things ‘have to’ be done to many from the same background. But then the tender mercies of people operating a plan of conquest are not very nice, even if they seem like the best of a bad job to some people.

      • hophmi
        January 21, 2016, 11:08 am

        So interesting to watch the ceramics artist from San Francisco sit in high judgment of Lucy Aharish and to call her a traitor. So, so interesting. What an utterly disgusting display of white American privilege. What a colonialist mindset; Arabs are only entitled to hold certain political opinions for Annie. I would call you a “traitor to humanity,” but such language is offensive to me, even to describe someone like you.

        I find inappropriate the notion that Jews pf Middle Eastern origin are “Arabs.” With a few exceptions, all of recent vintage, most Jews from Arab societies do not so identify, and Jews living in Arab countries were usually treated as both an ethnic and as a religious minority, were not seen as Arabs, and did not generally think of themselves as Arab.

      • Steve Grover
        January 21, 2016, 11:59 am

        YoniFalic sez:
        “I will not return until Israel has been dismantled and replaced by the State of Palestine”
        It looks like you never will return and there isn’t a single person in Israel who cares.
        Have you formally renounced your Israeli citizenship? Do you accept funds from the Israeli government or the IDF? Have you become a citizen of the U.S.A.?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 1:00 pm

        On a personal level, she seems to have done OK within that system. Is there some sort of higher group loyalty (as defined and understood by others) she is supposed to have?

        at a time of war? yes.

        Do women who support systems that discriminate against women, but within which they have found success, owe some higher group loyalty to their gender?

        if there was a system in place that allowed for women to be gunned down in the street merely because they are women — if girls (vs boys) were pulled out of their bed and night and tortured and imprisoned based on their sex alone, then women working as security officers or defending, supporting and identifying with that system because she wasn’t personally in danger, then yes i would say she owes some higher group loyalty to her gender.

        Are they somehow more guilty or worthy of censure than the men who established and perpetuate those systems (who are “merely” sexist, but at least show solidarity with their own gender)?

        no i don’t think she’s more guilty nor did i say she was. i’m not comparing her to gopstein. she picked up netanyahu’s condemnation of palestinian leaders spreading incitement (as i recall, paraphrasing).

        the both sides narrative, in an environment when one side has all the power, after decades of injustice and failed ‘peace’, makes it clear to me no matter how ‘nice’ palestinians are (whether they call themselves arabs is insignificant in this scenario) they will never be ‘equal’, says to me this narrative can only serve to placate the people while more rampant abuse and ethnic cleansing takes place.

        i don’t compare this to women in a modern western style male dominated society because women have a voice within society and the legal system to change the system even though change is not fast enough. there’s no indication of such a structural change taking place in within israel or occupied palestine, in fact the opposite — it’s getting worse. because one token arab is finally allowed a voice on a hebrew speaking tv program saying we should all get along placates the system. it’s no different than claiming a rtwng clarence thomas hypocritical anti affirmative action judge (who himself benefited greatly from affirmative action) somehow represents progress in american society because he made it to the supreme court (especially after anita hills testimony!).

        and contrary to what mik keeps claiming, i don’t hold my position because she doesn’t identify as palestinian. it’s way deeper than her self identification as israeli. but as i said before she’s young. she might wake up.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 1:13 pm

        and one more thing. i don’t blame the palestinian parents in israeli society, like her parents, who chose to send their kids jewish schools (vs palestinian or multi ethnic) thinking it might offer them more options (she was the only palestinian kid in her class). 20-30 years ago there may have been more reason to hope a change could be made. but that possibility seems a lot dimmer today which is why Sayed Kashua packed his bags. anyone still holding out hope believing a system of equality could emerge in this climate without radical resistance from within and pressure from the outside is fooling themselves.

      • eljay
        January 21, 2016, 1:17 pm

        || hophmi: … What an utterly disgusting display of white American privilege. What a colonialist mindset … ||

        Says the American Zio-supremacist who advocates Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. Man, that’s rich.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 1:48 pm

        eljay, and did you notice the blatant hypocrisy in hops’ comment? what kind of “ display of white American privilege” allows him to say this in the very same comment!:

        I find inappropriate the notion that Jews pf Middle Eastern origin are “Arabs.”

        “So, so interesting….What a colonialist mindset; So interesting to watch” an attorney from New York “sit in high judgment of…”

        i don’t take anything he says seriously.

      • bryan
        January 21, 2016, 1:44 pm

        hophmi – “I find inappropriate the notion that Jews [o]f Middle Eastern origin are “Arabs.” With a few exceptions, all of recent vintage, most Jews from Arab societies do not so identify”

        Absolutely right: they spoke Arabic, they wore Arab costume. ate Arab food, played Arab music, and had an Arab mindset (as Ben Gurion and other Europeans never ceased to remind them) – but other than that they weren’t at all Arabic. And yes perhaps they were self-hating Arabs because they were lured to a society where Arab ways were so viciously denigrated that they were only to keen to become Uncle Toms.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 1:51 pm

        bryan i just saw your comment, wasn’t meaning to echo you.

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2016, 5:58 pm

        “Steve Grover” says “Have you… Do you…Have you…”

        Ah, this should be fun. We can watch as the Zionist-American civilian and dipsomaniac tells an Israeli and IDF vet how it is, and what “Grover” wants for his money.
        Or maybe “Steve Grover” is going to send out some more of his ethnoplenipotentiary e-mails demanding “Yoni Falic” be fired.

    • zaid
      January 20, 2016, 6:26 pm

      People in this site and elsewhere dont fully understand what the word Arab means in the modern use.

      “The Arab League, a regional organization of countries intended to encompass the Arab world, defines an Arab as:

      An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic-speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic-speaking peoples.”

      “According to Sadek Jawad Sulaimanis the former Ambassador of Oman to the United States:

      The Arabs are defined by their culture, not by race; and their culture is defined by its essential twin constituents of Arabism and Islam. To most of the Arabs, Islam is their indigenous religion; to all of the Arabs, Islam is their indigenous civilization. The Arab identity, as such, is a culturally defined identity, which means being Arab is being someone whose mother culture, or dominant culture, is Arabism. Beyond that, he or she might be of any ancestry, of any religion or philosophical persuasion, and a citizen of any country in the world. Being Arab does not contradict with being non-Muslim or non-Semitic or not being a citizen of an Arab state”

      Wikipedia

      there is no contradiction between being an Arab and a Palestinian , just like there is no contradiction between being Algerian and Arab.

      Yonah :”majority self identification of most Palestinian citizens of Israel”

      The majority of Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians and as Arabs , listen to their elected representatives in the Kenesset.

      @ Stephen

      The identity of the inhabitants of the middle east (Arab world) was an Islamic one , and the whole Arab thing is a product of the dissolving of the Islamic caliphate and the rise of Arab nationalism like Nasrisim and bathisim and the main founders of such ideologies where actually Christians like Michel Aflaq who prefered it over Islam.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      it is basically a substitute of the Islamic identity (the British wanted that) and it seems that this Arab Identity is not going to last long ,it is already crumbling, and identities like Egyptian, Berber,Lebanese and Palestinian are already more popular than Arab.

      Arab identity is going to vanish within few decades.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • eljay
      January 21, 2016, 8:16 am

      || mariapalestina: I refuse to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel as Arabs. … ||

      IMO:
      – The problem isn’t whether a citizen of Israel is a Palestinian or an Arab (or a Muslim / Jew / Christian / atheist / etc.). As far as I’m concerned they’re all Israelis, and how they choose to define themselves (Israeli, Jewish Israeli, Palestinian Israeli, Arab Israeli, Christian Israeli, etc.) is or should be up to them.

      – The problem is that in addition to being an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist, belligerent and intransigent state, Israel exists as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – rather than as a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally (and regardless of how they define themselves).

    • Sibiriak
      January 21, 2016, 9:17 am

      “Poll: More Than a Third of Jewish Israelis See Arab Citizens as ‘Enemies’ “

      […]a full 36 percent of Jewish Israeli respondents to an INSS poll said they saw their fellow Arab citizens as “enemies.”

      A further 44 percent of respondents said they considered Arab Israelis “people who needed to be respected but also treated with suspicion.” Only 20 percent said they considered Israeli Arabs as their “equals.” Six hundred Israeli Jews and 200 Israeli Arabs took part in the poll, which was conducted through face-to-face interviews.

      More than half of Jews polled by the INSS – 53 percent – went on to say that they believed Israel should stress, in its relations with its Arab population, that there would be consequences and “punishment” for “behavior not befitting” of Israeli citizens. Only 26 percent believed that solving the growing crisis required making the lives of those Arab citizens more “equal” to those of the country’s Jewish citizens. A further 20 percent thought nothing new needed to be done.

      How the local Arab community sees itself, according to the same poll, stands in contrast to how it is seen by Jewish citizens: A full 70 percent of the Arab citizens polled by the INSS said they identify with being “Israeli” in some form or another, be that as an “Arab with Israeli citizenship,” an “Israeli Arab,” or even a “Palestinian Israeli.” Only 30 percent of those polled left out “Israel” when defining themselves, preferring to be identified as “Arabs,” “Muslims,” “Christians,” or – in five percent of the sample – just “Palestinian.”

      Fifty three percent of Arab Israeli citizens polled said they had “good relations with Jews,” while 19 percent said they either did not have, or were not interested in having contact with Jews. The Jewish respondents were not polled on this same question in parallel.

      Finally, a full 70 percent of Arab Israelis in the poll said the most pressing problem for them was “equality of rights for Israeli Arabs.” Only 30 percent considered the issue of Palestinian rights more important. […]

      link to haaretz.com

  6. talknic
    January 16, 2016, 8:36 pm

    “Palestinian citizens of Israel” Uh?

    Terminology in the argument against continued Zionist colonization and their putrid propaganda needs to be precise because the Zionist spinmeisters will stop at nothing in their attempts to delegitimize and dis-associate from non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel and the rightful non-Jewish inhabitants of whatever remained of Palestine after Israel’s borders were proclaimed effective.

    The legal status of these so called “Palestinian citizens of Israel” regardless of their being Jewish or Arab or not is…
    .
    .
    wait for it…
    .
    .
    .
    .. Israeli!

    Simple fact is, Jewish Palestinians of 1948 also became Israelis and many of them were Arab, furthermore;

    If one must insist on calling Non-Jewish Israelis “Palestinian citizens of Israel”, by the same criteria the other Israelis (Jewish) are “Palestinian, Polish, American, Canadian, British, Russian, Australian, German, Japanese, Chinese, Brazilian, Chilean, etc etc AND Arab … citizens of Israel”

    As to being Arab or not, Israel was an Arab majority by 1950

    By 1950 the population of Israel was estimated to be about 1,370,000

    There were approximately 156,000 non-Jewish Israeli citizens who were not dispossessed from within the borders of the territory proclaimed by the Israeli Government and recognized as the State of Israel on the 15th May 1948 effective at 00:01 (ME time) and; there were an additional 500,000 Arab Jewish refugees from the Arab states. Many of whom were cared for by UNRWA until 1952/3 when the Israeli Government took over that responsibility.

    That’s approximately 656,000 Arabs of a population of about 1,370,000. Which is about 47%.

    This figure does not yet include the non-Jewish Israeli citizens who by 1950 were dispossessed from Israel’s proclaimed and recognized territory and it does not yet include the indigenous Arab Jews of Palestine. Nor does it include Palestinians from outside of Israel’s self proclaimed borders.

    By simple maths we can see the Arab population of Israel by 1950 was well in excess of 50%. Which means a large number of Israeli Jews today are of Arabic descent. Arab DNA is deeply and inescapably inherent in the Israeli population

    The closer you look the more bullsh*t you’ll find link to wp.me

    • echinococcus
      January 17, 2016, 5:40 am

      Talknic,

      The legal status of Palestinians who, after being enslaved, were forced to accept the Nth class “citizenship” of an illegitimate invader entity is currently, as you say, “Israeli” in the eyes of colonial powers.
      There is no need though to continue turning the knife in the wound by repeatedly trumpeting this insult, presenting it as something positive.

      They are Palestinians, i.e. owners of sovereignty over the entire territory of Palestine, holding an imposed citizenship that insults them collectively.

      • talknic
        January 18, 2016, 8:41 pm

        @ echinococcus “… … no need though to continue turning the knife in the wound by repeatedly trumpeting this insult, presenting it as something positive”

        I’ve not trumpeted it as positive or negative. Simply a statement based on Israel’s alleged commitment per its Declaration, subsequent plea for recognition

        My argument is: If there is an insistence that there is or must be a Jewish State, then here are the rules that state and its spokespersons agreed to and;
        here are the Jewish leaders’ and representatives’ official statements leading up to and after Israeli statehood was proclaimed to the world in its plea for recognition. Statements that show them to be ghastly liars.

        If that state can’t live up to its legal commitments, it really needs explaining why is it worthy of statehood at all!

        “They are Palestinians, i.e. owners of sovereignty over the entire territory of Palestine, holding an imposed citizenship that insults them collectively”

        If only you’d said We ” are Palestinians, i.e. owners of sovereignty over the entire territory of Palestine, holding an imposed citizenship that insults” us “collectively”

        Like him or not, it’s Abbas who has spoken to the world from the UN podium on behalf of the people of the State of Palestine

        [ OT Re conversation on Armistice Lines vs Israel’s borders at: link to mondoweiss.net ]

      • echinococcus
        January 19, 2016, 10:51 am

        Talknic,
        All you write there is factual, of course.
        But. There are a lot of other facts around these few.
        First off, it is a fact that Palestinians with Israel citizenship are entered as “Israeli” in different places but there is no need to insult by stripping them of the more acceptable description as Palestinians with an Israel citizenship.

        Then, I know your position, who doesn’t? Holding Zionists to their initial commitments can be done without having to recognize an illegal giveaway with no plebiscite or anything to justify it but the colonial powers’ will, but that’s already been discussed.

        As for Abbas, the fact that he speaks at the UN from a position where he already gave away his people’s rights, not his to give, does not provide him any legitimacy, he remains a puppet installed by and for the Zionist entity. I believe that this sham “statehood” in the absence of any sovereignty damages Palestinian resistance, again by giving away what it is not theirs to give, but I am an outsider of course; I see that Palestinian resistance, or whatever relics there are of it, is divided on that.

    • Sibiriak
      January 18, 2016, 12:08 am

      talknic: The legal status of these so called “Palestinian citizens of Israel” regardless of their being Jewish or Arab or not is… wait for it….. Israeli! .
      ——————-

      Palestinian citizens of Israel are indeed Israeli citizens–that’s tautologically true.

      But citizenship is not the only possible kind of legal status. Groups of individuals in a state can also have the legal status of national minorities or indigenous minorities . Citizenship status and national/indigenous minority status are not mutually exclusive.

      See:

      * UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities

      *UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

      *Council of Europe’s 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

      *The Organization of American States’ 1997 draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

      Etc.

      (Note: “national minorities” are identified separately from “ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities”.)

      Consider, for example, this policy briefing for the European Parliament (not an official EU position):

      Shackled at home: The Palestinian minority in Israel

      […]Like Jews, Palestinians are indigenous to Israel. Yet the Israeli Palestinians have involuntarily become a minority — defined by their historical origin (Palestinian), culture, language (Arabic) and religion (generally Christian, Muslim or Druze) — in their homeland since the establishment of Israel so me 64 years ago. Although Israel does not recognise its Palestinian population as indigenous, the group meets the criteria of ‘indigenous minority’ as described by José Martínez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur to the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities:

      Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations
      their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as people.

      For Palestinians, preserving their identity in Israel has been both a choice and an obligation. […] [emphasis added]

      link to europarl.europa.eu

    • Mikhael
      January 20, 2016, 6:42 am

      talknic January 16, 2016, 8:36 pm

      “Palestinian citizens of Israel” Uh?

      The legal status of these so called “Palestinian citizens of Israel” regardless of their being Jewish or Arab or not is…
      wait for it…

      .. Israeli!

      Simple fact is, Jewish Palestinians of 1948 also became Israelis and many of them were Arab, furthermore;

      The above is a good example of the broken clock adage, although it’s highly dubious if talknic is right two times in a lifetime. Of course, “Jewish Palestinian” only meant a Jew who once held Palestinian citizenship between 1925 and 1948, whether or not he/she was born in the former British Mandate of Palestine (like my father), or in the Ottoman-administered lands that preceded it (like my paternal grandparents) or outside the Middle East entirely (like David Ben-Gurion or Golda Meir, who were issued Palestinian citizenship by the British. All were “Jewish Palestinians/Palestinian Jews”. All the erstwhile Palestinian Jews/Jewish Palestinians ceased to have that status upon the termination of the Mandate, when “Palestine” as a geopolitical entity ceased on May 15, 1948.

      As to being Arab or not, Israel was an Arab majority by 1950

      Wrong.

      There were approximately 156,000 non-Jewish Israeli citizens who were not dispossessed from within the borders of the territory proclaimed by the Israeli Government and recognized as the State of Israel on the 15th May 1948 effective at 00:01 (ME time) and; there were an additional 500,000 Arab Jewish refugees from the Arab states. Many of whom were cared for by UNRWA until 1952/3 when the Israeli Government took over that responsibility.

      Jews from Arab countries were not and are not Arabs even when they lived in Arab countries. Their descendants who live in Israel today are not Arabs.

      UNRWA never took care of the Jews who made aliyah from Arab states, as they never officially qualified as war refugees, but it did briefly provide some assistance to the Jews who were expelled from the parts of the former British Mandate that were conquered by the Arab Legion and annexed by Transjordan (chiefly the Old City of Jerusalem.)

      By simple maths we can see the Arab population of Israel by 1950 was well in excess of 50%. Which means a large number of Israeli Jews today are of Arabic descent.

      A large number of Israeli Jews are descended from families that immigrated from Arabic-language-dominated societies. They are not Arabs.

      Arab DNA is deeply and inescapably inherent in the Israeli population

      Just as there no such thing as “Jewish DNA,” there is no such thing as “Arab DNA”. What a racist notion. There are, however, genetic markers shared by the many different population groups and nationalities that have lived in the Middle East region (which of course is a Eurocentric concept) for millennia. Mizrahi Jews, Sefaradi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews alike have common genetic markers with Arabic-speaking non-Jews of the region that show that all of these groups can trace their ancestry to it, but there is DNA that encodes Arabness, just as there is no DNA that encodes Jewishness.

      • Mikhael
        January 21, 2016, 4:39 am

        zaid
        January 20, 2016, 7:13 pm
        @Mikhael

        My Arab friend let me explain things for you.
        Lucy Aharish doesnot represent and was not elected by the Palestinian Israelis , Hanin Zoabi was.

        It’s not clear whom you are addressing, I see my name but I am not your friend nor am I an Arab. Despite your confusion, I will reply.

        Lucy Aharish is both a citizen of Israel and she is an Arab. She is clear that she is proud of both strands of her identity. Like many of her fellow Arab citizens of Israel, she does not embrace a Palestinian national identity, which is something that has only come in vogue in recent years among that sector. Increasingly, more Arab citizens of Israel do so, but it is hardly a unanimous self-designation. She is a prominent example of one who does not identify as such. It is her right as an Israeli citizen to personally proclaim herself whatever she wishes, although her official nationality designation in the population registry is “Arab”. Since not all Arabs in Israel regard themselves as “Palestinian”, but nearly all (with few exceptions, such as some in the Druze community and a few in the Christian-Arab community) regard themselves as Arabs, “Israeli-Arab” is the most neutral and inclusive term for this sector. Of course, “Israeli-Arab” is not applicable to the Mizrahi-Jewish population in Israel; neither on an objective nor a subjective basis.

        That is because they are both Arab and Palestinian, and during the height of Arab nationalism they emphasized the Arab ,but now with the collapse of all Arab national parties (Bathist or Nasirism) they are emphasizing the Palestinian Identity more

        Not only did Palestinian Arabs not emphasize a Palestinian national identity in the past in favor of pan-Arab nationalism, many prominent Palestinian Arabs have denied that such a thing existed. In his testimony before the Peel Commission, Awni Abdel Hadi, no friend of Zionism, stated (incorrectly) that “Palestine is a term the Zionists invented…. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” Zuheir Mohsen stated in an interview with the Dutch magazine Trouw that … ” the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.” Azmi Bishara said much the same thing link to youtube.com
        Nevertheless, a distinct Palestinian Arab national identity has come into existence in recent decades.

        the few who minimize their Arab identity tend actually to belong to super- pro-Israel factions within Israeli-Arab society, such as elements among the Druze who deny they are Arab (and of course deny they are “Palestinian” as well) and even Christian groups within Israeli-Arab society who wish to be identified as “Aramean””

        The majority of christian (almost all) identify as Arab/Palestinian and the whole Aramean thing is not picking up real support among them and they realize it is a Zionist plot.

        I wasn’t endorsing a view that Christian Arab citizens of Israel should abandon an Arab identity, nor even, if they wish, a Palestinian identity. I was responding, however, to mariapalestina’s assertion that she “refuse[s] to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel as Arabs. They consider themselves Palestinians.” As I admitted, some Arab citizens of Israel (clearly not all, Lucy Aharish being a prominent example of one who does not) do indeed refer to themselves as “Palestinians.” “mariapalestina” also stated, however, that the only “Israeli Arabs” are Mizrahi Jews (who overwhelmingly do not identify as Israeli Arabs) and that Israel’s Arabic-speaking Muslim, Druze and Christian citizens do not like to be known as “Israeli Arabs” and use of that term impugns their Palestinian identity and uses nomenclature that they reject. However, the only Arab citizens of Israel who reject the term “Israeli Arab” wholesale are the small minority of Christians who have adopted an “Aramean” identity as well as some — but not all — Druze citizens of Israel.

        Regarding Druze, you are right but the educated elites are against that, and the more they are educated the less they will fall for the Zionist hoax against their original Identity (the movement is growing)

        Druze are first and foremost loyal to their Druze identity and the Druze community, as a general rule. They will generally be loyal to the state they live in, and back it to the hilt if they perceive it to be in the interests of their community. While there are some legitimate grumblings among Israeli Druze of inequality in spending, overall most in the community recognize that they are well off in Israel. Most of the “educated elite” among the Druze in Israel, who include among their number past commanders of Israeli infantry brigades and an acting president tend to support the Israeli state. Only a few ideological cranks like Abdullah Abu Ma’aruf oppose the State of Israel (which pays him a nice Knesset member salary) for ideological reasons — although he gave up his Russian citizenship to serve in Knesset.

        Note: Druze are mostly of Turkish and Kurdish origin and that is why geneticist finds similarity between them (Kurds,Turks and Druze) and the Ashkenazim Jews , which is logical since all four are originally from the Khazar empire area.

        All the reliable DNA evidence suggests that the ancestors of today’s Druze populations lived in the Levant for tens of thousands of years. The Khazar theory of the ethnogenesis of Ashkenazi Jews has also been savaged and only ignorant misfits subscribe to it.

        A designation that nearly all of Israel’s Mizrahi- and Sefaradi-Jewish population (from which I am descended) eschews vehemently.”
        Of course they do, and you know why?
        …..because it is the truth.

        Mizrahi Jews do not identify as Arabs because they are not Arabs, just as Danes do not identify as Swedes nor Swedes identify as Norwegians. Jews and Arabs are ethnically related national groups (and when I say “Jews” of course I mean all historical Jewish population groups — whether Ashkenazi, Sefaradi, Mizrahi, Romaniote or Italki Jews) — however, being “related” doesn’t imply they have the same identity. Different Scandinavian peoples would also protest being lumped in with their neighbors.

        Mizrahi Jews have nothing in common with Ashkenazi Jews with respect to race/origin/genes.

        Except they do (leaving aside your quaint usage of the term “race”, which is not relevant). It’s been conclusively demonstrated that Ashkenazi Jews and Mizrahi Jews (as well as Sefaradi Jews and smaller groups like the Romaniotim and Italian Jews) in large part descend from a common ancestral gene pool less than 2,000 years ago, although Ashkenazim also are descended in large part from neolithic European lineages due to their male forebears who migrated from the Middle East having married and mated with local European women in Southern Europe, Asia Minor and the Balkans during the late Roman Empire who (presumably) converted to Judaism.
        link to nature.com
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
        link to digitalcommons.wayne.edu
        link to nature.com

        They are as Arab as it can get, and some of them are actually Authentic Arab (from Arabia)

        Yemenite Jews probably descend in part from pre-Islamic Arab converts to Judaism. That does not make their descendants who live in Israel Arabs today. It makes them Israeli Jews of Yemenite-Jewish descent.

        and that is why they desperately deny it (defense mechanism)

        They don’t need to deny it as a defense mechanism since there’s nothing wrong with being an Arab in Israeli society. However, Mizrahi Jews (with very few exceptions) never regarded themselves as Arabs when their forebears lived under Arab rule, nor is it how they were regarded by their Arab neighbors. (Andlet’s leave aside the fact that “Mizrahim” in Israel also includes Jews who never spoke Arabic — or Jewish dialects of Arabic nor lived in Arab countries– e.g., Iranian Jews, Indian Jews, Georgian Jews, and Kurdish Jews are also Mizrahim).

        overwhelmingly regard themselves as part of the Jewish people, and see Ashkenazim as their close kin, not Arabs

        They are delusional.

        The delusional Mizrahim are the handful of characters who have started to declare themselves as “Arab Jews” so the can play identity politics games. Misfits.

        And of course the Mizrahim and Sefaradim in Israel whose families used to speak Arabic or Judeo-Arabic dialects see their fellow Israelis of Ashkenazi descent as their close kin — not only due to the fact they have common ancestry going back thousands of years but in the present day Ashkenazim, Mizrahim and Sefaradim marry among each other at a rate approaching 50%. Practically every Ashkenazi in Israel has Mizrahim and Sefaradim in the family and practically every Mizrahi/Sefaradi Jew in Israel has close Ashkenazi relatives, if not spouses, then brothers/sisters-in law, nieces, nephews, etc. While many Mizrahim in Israel have Ashkenazi extended family members very few have Arab non-Jewish relatives, so in a very actual, present-day sense, Ashkenazim are the close kin of the Mizrahim, not Arabs. No delusion.

        I am an Arab and a Palestinian and i do know better and you are wrong.

        Again, mariapalestina asserted that calling the Arab citizens of Israel “Arabs” negates their Palestinian identity, should they wish to adopt it. I merely submit that it does not and it is a neutral term to use. Not all of the Arab citizens of Israel want to be Palestinian, but nearly all refer to themselves as Arabs.

        It must be frustrating to look at the mirror and see the same face of those you are taught to hate .

        Are you kidding? It’s great seeing my handsome face every day, although it’s gotten me in plenty of trouble. But what group do you think I’ve been taught to hate? I’ve never been taught to hate any ethnic group or national group.

        I said it before and i say it now:
        When a Mizrahi Jew says death to the Arabs he means the Arab inside him and not the Arab in Gaza or East Jerusalem.

        The Mizrahi Jews who say things like “Death to the Arabs” say it in an angry response to Arabs saying “Death to the Jews” and out of anger at Arabs who have made good on such words. It’s not as if Arabs only mean “Death to the Ashkenazi Jews” (who are in any case the close kin of Mizrahi and Sefaradi Jews) . They say it because they know that their fellow Israeli Jews, whether Mizrahim or Ashkenazim, have been knifed, bombed, shot and had rockets launched at them. They say it because they have been told by their parents and grandparents of the atrocities suffered during riots in Allepo in 1947 or in Baghdad in 1941 or n Jerusalem in 1929 (when my great uncle was slashed across the face by an angry Arab who didn’t care whether he was so-called “Arab Jew”). Of course, the majority of Israeli Jews of Mizrahi origin, just like the majority of Israeli Jews of Ashkenazi origin, do not hate Arabs or wish death to the Arabs.

      • zaid
        January 21, 2016, 12:35 pm

        “Mizrahi Jews, Sefaradi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews alike have common genetic markers with Arabic-speaking non-Jews of the region that show that all of these groups can trace their ancestry to it”

        Ashkenazi Jews share genetic markers with European (apparently) and some groups in the middle east which have roots in Khazaria like Turks ,Kurds and northern Iranians, but they have nothing n common with Semitic groups like Palestinins,Syrians or Saudis.

        Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews have the same genetic markers as the groups they lived among like Yemenis and North African.

      • oldgeezer
        January 21, 2016, 1:54 pm

        @mik

        Irish dna shows that they originated in the middle east between 3 and 4,000 years ago.

        I’m all for the Irish reclaiming their indigenous homeland.

      • zaid
        January 21, 2016, 2:49 pm

        @Mikhael

        “It’s not clear whom you are addressing, I see my name but I am not your friend nor am I an Arab. Despite your confusion, I will reply.”

        Still……You are an Arab.

        ” It is her right as an Israeli citizen to personally proclaim herself whatever she wishes, although her official nationality designation in the population registry is “Arab”.”
        She can identify herself whoever she likes but that wont change the fact that the Palestinians in refugee camps in Gaza, the West bank and elsewhere are relatives of her and they are the same people who lived together before the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
        A black man can identify as white but that wont change who he is and who his people are.
        “Since not all Arabs in Israel regard themselves as “Palestinian”, but nearly all (with few exceptions, such as some in the Druze community and a few in the Christian-Arab community) regard themselves as Arabs, “Israeli-Arab” is the most neutral and inclusive term for this sector. Of course.”

        Arab and Palestinian are not mutually exclusive. just like Algerian and Arab are not mutually exclusive.

        Arab Israeli Identify as both Arab and Palestinian and they always did, but sometimes based on Political waves they emphasis one over the other and currently thank god they are bouncing back to the Palestinian Identity.

        ” “Israeli-Arab” is not applicable to the Mizrahi-Jewish population in Israel; neither on an objective nor a subjective basis.”

        It is applicable in the since that it is the truth.

        “many prominent Palestinian Arabs have denied that such a thing existed. In his testimony before the Peel Commission, Awni Abdel Hadi, no friend of Zionism, stated (incorrectly) that “Palestine is a term the Zionists invented”

        These statements are a result of Arab nationalism which had the lead back then, but not anymore.

        “……..Nevertheless, a distinct Palestinian Arab national identity has come into existence in recent decades.””

        Same goes for Egyptian , Jordanian, Lebanese and Saudis.

        As i explained to you that the Identity in the region prior to Sicos Picot was Islamic ,but that does not contradict that they had different backgrounds/dialects and cultures .

        “clearly not all, Lucy Aharish being a prominent example of one who does not”
        You do realize that she is just a news anchor and that the elected representatives of the Israeli Palestinians sees it otherwise.

        “Most of the “educated elite” among the Druze in Israel, who include among their number past commanders of Israeli infantry brigades and an acting president tend to support the Israeli state. Only a few ideological cranks like Abdullah Abu Ma’aruf oppose the State of Israel (which pays him a nice Knesset member salary) for ideological reasons — although he gave up his Russian citizenship to serve in Knesset.”

        The opposite is true, the support for Israel among the Druze community comes from the Clerics, while the educated are all oppose to Zionism, and by the way Commanders of IOF infantry brigades doesnot count as Educated Elites.

        Rabah Al Halabi is a Druze Professor in the Hebrew University and he writes about this identity subject and his position is contrary to what you wish for .(he is not a crank).

        link to amazon.com

        “Refuse and your people will protect you” is a recent rapidly growing group of young Druze who identify as Palestinins and refuse Military service in the IOF.(they are not cranks)

        Samih AL Qasem is the most prominent Druze poet who was a hardcore anti Zionist . (He is not a Crank).

        “All the reliable DNA evidence suggests that the ancestors of today’s Druze populations lived in the Levant for tens of thousands of years”

        The Druze population didnot even exist Tens of thousands of years ago, Druze is an offset of Islam!

        They themselves trace their origins to Turkish and Kurdish tribes, and some to Arab (Bani Maaruf clan in Arabia).

        The reliable DNA evidence exists in your mind only. Solid geneticists says otherwise.

        “The Khazar theory of the ethnogenesis of Ashkenazi Jews has also been savaged and only ignorant misfits subscribe to it.”

        Ignorant misfits like professors of History and renewed Geneticists ,linguistics and archaeologist!

        “Mizrahi Jews do not identify as Arabs because they are not Arabs…”

        They are delusional.

        “Except they do (leaving aside your quaint usage of the term “race”, which is not relevant). It’s been conclusively demonstrated that Ashkenazi Jews and Mizrahi Jews (as well as Sefaradi Jews and smaller groups like the Romaniotim and Italian Jews) in large part descend from a common ancestral gene pool less than 2,000 years ago, although Ashkenazim also are descended in large part from neolithic European lineages due to their male forebears who migrated from the Middle East having married and mated with local European women in Southern Europe, Asia Minor and the Balkans during the late Roman Empire who (presumably) converted to Judaism.”

        Except they don’t.

        Although some Zionist tried to prove that with genetic studies, the end result backfired, and now the studies of Jewish genes almost came to a halt since it did not come with the results they wanted.

        Its also interesting that when they want to prove that they have roots in the middle east they compare their genes to non other than Palestinians and Arabs!

        And All the archaeological findings disproves the Jewish expulsion from Palestine since Jewish communities existed in Palestine after the so Called exile 2000 years ago .

        Here is a recent one:

        link to ynetnews.com

        “link to nature.com
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
        link to digitalcommons.wayne.edu
        link to nature.com”

        The links you provided ( but did not read ) doesnot prove anything.

        The first link disputes what you say and proves the opposite:

        “The extent to which Ashkenazi Jewry trace their ancestry to the Levant or to Europe is a long-standing question5, which remains highly controversial3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17. Our results, primarily from the detailed analysis of the four major haplogroup K and N1b founders, but corroborated with the remaining Ashkenazi mtDNAs, suggest that most Ashkenazi maternal lineages trace their ancestry to prehistoric Europe.”

        The second link is from 2000! And it is by a famous Zionist geneticist (Ostrer) who refuses to give his data to be verified.

        “To illustrate his point, Elhaik swivels his chair around to face his computer and calls up a 2010 email exchange with Ostrer.
        “It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people,” Elhaik wrote to Ostrer. “Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
        Ostrer replied that the data are not publicly available. “It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,” he wrote. “Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.” That last requirement, Elhaik argues, reveals the bias of Ostrer and his collaborator”

        link to forward.com

        Besides it does somehow prove my point , From the link:

        “the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations (specifically the Greeks) and also to the Turks”

        Turks are Khazars.

        “The Ethiopian Jews were placed close to the non-Jewish Ethiopians”

        Do you really need a study to prove that Ostrer…..

        The third ink is from Behar a zionst crank who abused the term Levantine and made it include Anatolia (turkey), Iran and Kurdistan in order to prove a Levantine origin of Ashkenazi Jews , then claimed that turks are Semites who immigrated north!

        No wonder people look upon as a joke now.

        The forth link is also from Doron Behar and it is about levites exclusively.

        Genetic studies beside that they often contradict each other , they actually cannot determine the origin (location) of people since as Falk puts it:

        “Here again the risk of circularity of the argument is exposed: Geneticist determine the genotypic details of socio-ethnologists’ classifications, whereas socio-demographers rely on geneticists findings to bolster their classifications.”

        link to journal.frontiersin.org

        “They don’t need to deny it as a defense mechanism since there’s nothing wrong with being an Arab in Israeli society. “

        Are you sure

        link to timesofisrael.com
        “They say it because they have been told by their parents and grandparents of the atrocities suffered during riots in Allepo in 1947 or in Baghdad in 1941 or n Jerusalem in 1929 (when my great uncle was slashed across the face by an angry Arab who didn’t care whether he was so-called “Arab Jew”).”

        Stop believing Myths.

        “Of course, the majority of Israeli Jews of Mizrahi origin, just like the majority of Israeli Jews of Ashkenazi origin, do not hate Arabs or wish death to the Arabs.”

        Not according to polls and surveys.

      • lysias
        January 21, 2016, 3:59 pm

        I recently read Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews by the late Iraqi Jew Naeim Giladi, which he first self-published in the 1980s, and which was later republished in 2003. In his book, Giladi made clear that he has always regarded himself as an Arab.

  7. YoniFalic
    January 17, 2016, 12:48 pm

    NY Times support for Zionist ideology seems to go deeper than banning “Palestinian” from headlines and than providing subtle support of the Zionist extreme organic nationalist ideas,

    (1) which define Jews to constitute a people (Volk in the German Nazi sense) that rightfully claims ownership of Palestine and

    (2) which define Palestinians to constitute a non-people (Nicht-Volk) or as part of the Arab people among whom Palestinians can be dispersed in order to solve the conflict over Palestine.

    Look at the amount of space that the NY Times has given to a pseudo-academic ideological scam artist like Harry Ostrer.

    Here is a link to a pop version of Ostrer’s ideological pseudoscholarship.

    link to books.google.com

    Here are NY Times links mentioning Ostrer.

    link to nytimes.com

    link to nytimes.com

    link to nytimes.com

    link to nytimes.com

    The NY Times kept referring to Ostrer on the issue of patenting DNA in the Myriad case (US 5,747,282 and other related patents) when the scholar writing the most cogent analysis on the issue was Law Professor Christopher Holman, who was never mentioned in the NY Times.

    link to docs.google.com

    link to google.com

    link to supremecourt.gov

    Eran Elhaik, who is a scientist at Johns Hopkins, showed how Ostrer dishonestly fudged his data.

    The Forward covered Elhaik’s work, but the NY Times has never mentioned him.

    link to forward.com

    The NY Review of Books at least counterposed Harry Ostrer’s pseudo-academic drivel with Nadia Abu el-Haj’s deep and serious scholarship. (I characterize her as one of the most important modern Jewish studies scholars today even if she does not so characterize herself. Her lectures were some of the most interesting that I attended while I was an undergraduate.)

    link to nybooks.com

    link to nybooks.com

  8. German Lefty
    January 17, 2016, 4:54 pm

    OT – I just read this article:
    ‘SNL’ Calls Out Anti-Semitism Of Ted Cruz’s ‘New York Values’ Comment
    link to huffingtonpost.com
    I am curious about your opinions. Do you agree with SNL that the expression “New York values” is anti-Semitic? I don’t. In my opinion, “New York values” refers to “liberal values”. Reading anti-Semitism into the expression “New York values” would imply that Jews are the epitome of liberalism. And they aren’t.

    • RoHa
      January 17, 2016, 6:50 pm

      I don’t know what Cruz said about New York Values, and I don’t really care. But I can’t see the term as anti-Semitic. Indeed, to call it anti-Semitic suggest that Jews so dominate New York that they control, or at least typify, the city’s values. That might be true, but I suspect the suggestion is also anti-Semitic. (No-one has, as yet, clarified the relationship between truth and anti-Semitism.)

      Nor can I see NY values as uniformly “liberal”. I suspect that the values of Wall Street, the Mafia, and the drug gangs might be similar, but not shared by many of the other residents of the city.

      • echinococcus
        January 18, 2016, 3:54 am

        RoHa,
        I suppose some nuances of American English as used by certain social strata don’t make their way to Downunder: what is “liberal” is co-extensive with anything describable as “New York values”, which in turn is determined by the dominant institutions –as you indicated, Wall Street, the Mafia, and the drug gangs, and most importantly the politicians (that you forgot), exemplified by, say, Charles Schumer, the equally very Democratic Dov Hikind, and that most quintessentially New-Yorkeress redneck the Empress Clinton.

    • JLewisDickerson
      January 17, 2016, 10:46 pm

      THE PERSPECTIVE FROM “FLY-OVER” COUNTRY:
      I think “New York values” essentially means “big city values” (i.e., “liberal values”, more or less) as compared to the values extolled in “God’s country” and cherished by the good old boys in places like San Antonio, Texas (where they know what Picante sauce should taste like, and where John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church Cult is located).

    • John O
      January 18, 2016, 3:55 am

      Some witty tweets from Cruz’s former room-mate at Princeton on the subject of “New York values”:

      link to forward.com

  9. gamal
    January 21, 2016, 5:44 am

    Shenfield: Palestinians are not Arab
    Mikhael: Arabs are not Palestinian

Leave a Reply