Ahmed Tibi's Contradictions

I always marvel at MK Ahmed Tibi's willful distortions of the truth. Now, the doctor from Taibeh has seized the stage of the New York Times op-ed page to capitalize on Lieberman and Bibi's latest loyalty oath mischief. That business - a law that applies only to non-Jewish immigrants - is indeed shameful and another expression of the evil and stupidity currently residing in the foreign ministry. But Tibi's argument consists of a lie and a calculated one at that. According to Tibi,

there is far more wrong with the loyalty oath than simply the original intent of applying it only to non-Jews. Swearing allegiance to an Israel that is Jewish and democratic is logically inconsistent and an attempt to relegate Palestinian citizens of Israel to inferior status.

Palestinian citizens of Israel comprise 20 percent of the population. The insistence of some Jewish leaders on the state being “Jewish” is a punch in the gut to Palestinians who for more than 60 years have struggled to achieve equal rights in Israel.

There is racism and discrimination against Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in Israel. But the definition of the state is not the problem and in itself cannot be called racist. Furthermore, there is nothing new about that definition. Tibi apparently is trying to turn back the clock of history with some sleight of hand.

Israel's Declaration of Independence and its Basic Laws already define the country as a "Jewish State." Indeed, the United Nations itself called for its establishment in 1947. There are many people who want to distort the meaning of this simple description. In part, the word "Jewish" lends itself to such distortions because, unfortunately for the Jews, it describes both a confessional identity and a cultural, ethnic, or national one (this apparently confuses many people in the modern world; 300 years ago, few people would have recognized any sort of problem). But the original intent was quite simple: Israel is the "nation-state of the Jews," which means that any person who is "Jewish" may immigrate there. And 62 years later, this continues to be one of the guiding principles of the state. Is there a problem with that? Let Ahmed Tibi say so straight up: I don't believe that there should be a Jewish state.

The problem of course is that Tibi seems to have no issue with the nation-state or with nationalism per se - if he did, he would object to any number of Arab states in the region and nation-states elsewhere. He also would not be suggesting that

The international community could address our situation by calling on Israel to recognize us as a national minority.

Tibi, in other words, wants Kosovo or Bosnia. This is not the game of liberal democracy but of nationalist secession - in other words, exactly the game that Lieberman wants.

Hanin Zuabi the Flotilla Heroine

Footage released by Israel Army Radio seems to contradict claims by Balad MK Hanin Zuabi that she saw "no people carrying clubs" aboard the ship. It also shows her arguing with Israeli soldiers attempting to evacuated wounded activists. She can be heard insisting to an army soldier several times that the activists "want to stay here [on the ship]." Zuabi, who became the darling of flotilla fans in Israel, credited herself with having assisted in the evacuation of wounded activists from the ship.

Jews, Arabs, and Dogs Unite in 'Red Haifa'

BY CARMIA

A day ahead of schedule, a May Day march took place today on Khoury Street between the working class neighbourhoods of Hadar and Wadi Nisnas.

Residents of Massada Street, which together with Hillel Street is locally known for its alternative scene, had hung up banners announcing the march. This also happens to be the area where the incident with the café that refused entry to a soldier occurred.

A demonstrator selects a placard in preparation of the march.

"Uniting against privatization, exploitation, and capitalistic rule."

There was also a presence of teachers who bemoaned the privatization of the education system and the lack of government funding.

Several dogs clad in red also took part in the march.

The demonstration was formally kicked off with the marching band of the Communist Youth Alliance - Haifa.

The Hammer'n'Sickle Mobile with Hebrew and Arabic signs.

"Yes to a just peace"

A marcher carries a copy of the socialist paper, "The Struggle."

"Jews and Arabs building power for the workers"

Aside from Jews, Christians, Muslims (and dogs), there also seemed to be at least one Druze demonstrator.

Attorney Walid Hamis, a representative of the Balad political party, and the former mayor-deputy of Haifa as well as a recent mayoral candidate.

Perhaps the "The Socialist Zionist Left" (above) and the young man (below) agreed to disagree on this day in a show of unity.

"A Palestinian workers' state from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river"

Iraqi Jews in the Meshulash ("Triangle")

Another interesting tidbit mentioned by Somekh: apparently the teaching corps for the Arab education sector in the Triangle (Meshulash) region in Israel in the 1950s was made up entirely of Iraqi Jews. It sounds like a fascinating story as is everything related to language teaching and study (Hebrew, Yiddish, Arabic, and other) in the days of the yishuv and early state of Israel. My friend Liora Halperin at UCLA is doing very impressive work on the period of the yishuv for her dissertation, which promises to open up some great discussions around this topic. For a sample, see her article, available to those with access to Muse.

Calling for a 3rd Intifada?

BY CARMIA

There is a lot of talk in the media about the possibility of another intifada, sparked by recent events in Jerusalem. On a trip to the Galilee with a stop in Nazareth, the largest Arab city in Israel and with a clear Muslim majority, I saw handwritten signs which appeared to attempt to incite the local population. The posters were plastered on several official notice boards of the municipality, but obviously without the necessary permits.

The top poster reads, "al-Quds [Jerusalem] is calling us... and Nazareth... is answering the call." The bottom left poster: "Al-Quds is calling us, alas who is answering?" The last poster states, "Raise your hands [illegible] al-Quds". The signs are topped off with a red hammer and sickle. The makers of the posters may have been hesitant in identifying themselves for a number of reasons, including to avoid paying the fee for posting on the boards. Perhaps there is a link to Abnaa el Balad.

Sons of the Land at the Holiday of Holidays

BY CARMIA

We are in the midst of the annual Holiday of Holidays festival (also known as חג של החגים or عيد الأعياد) in Haifa. This unique festival celebrates the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim holidays which are observed by Haifans around this time. I attend every year to enjoy the music and atmosphere, so I've posted on the holiday before.

The holiday is a long-running tradition and doesn't usually change very much from year to year. However, this year I noticed the presence of a group of people who appeared to want to hijack the message of the festival and were protesting "fake co-existence." What used to be the Tamuz Theater Cafe has been turned into a branch of the ابناء البلد (Abnaa el Balad, "Sons of the Land") movement.

"End the fake co-existence"

In their "office," they're displaying the usual Nakba pictures, along with more recent Gaza ones. Other "decorations" include the Palestinian flag, of course, as well as pictures of keys and Che Guevara.

"We're all Gaza"

I talked to the young guy standing outside, but unfortunately he couldn't seem to produce anything beyond slogans, like the "We are against this fake co-existence" one. His friend was more eloquent. A., the only Jew in the place, told me had grown up attending Arab schools and living in a mostly-Arab neighbourhood. According to him, the goals of the movement were to "educate the Arabs" to rise up so that they would "take the power." I asked him if they voted, and he was proud to say that they do not participate in Knesset elections, since it was a "fake democracy" and would not be able to fulfill their goals. Since the group doesn't vote, I asked him if that meant that "taking the power" would mean through violent means. A. tried to appear mysterious but basically affirmed what I was asking, and supported suicide bombings as a legitimate form of resistance. He proceeded to cite Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez as role models who had been able to "make life better" for their citizens.

"Waiting for their return"

Nineteen-year-old A. also told me that Abnaa el Balad was a secular movement, seeking the return of the Palestinian refugees to a Palestinian state which would be composed of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. This corresponds with what is written about the group on Wikipedia. He was proud to tell me that although the group was sometimes considered communist or socialist, he was actually an anarchist.

Schedule of movies to be screened that day

Does the opening of a branch here in Haifa, in the heart of the Arab Wadi Nisnas neighbourhood, reflect radicalization of Haifa's Arab youth? Their disillusionment? The dozen or so people in the office were all very young. Most of the writing was in Arabic and clearly aimed only at the Arab sector. They weren't so much interested in capturing Jewish attention and seeking cooperation, but rather in convincing and waking fellow Arabs. Is this the flip side of the Lieberman coin?

[Shaul] Mofaz is a war criminal

I agree that the often praised co-existence in Haifa is in some instances seen more on paper than in reality. I do think, however, that the Holiday of Holidays is a festival which is truly multicultural and that people of all of the city's and country's faiths participate in it. In fact, if anyone is excluded from this holiday, it's Sabbath-observing Jews, since most of the festivities take place on Saturdays, as a religious friend of mine pointed out. In any case, Abnaa el Balad aren't pushing for more or better co-existence. They're pushing for a one-state solution, to be called Palestine.

And the Winner is.... "Ajami"!

BY CARMIA

Ajami movie poster up in Nazareth

The Israeli Film Academy has just wrapped up its annual awards ceremony. The Ophir Prize is often called the "Israeli Oscar" and this year, Haifa was awarded the honour and hosted the ceremony in the Auditorium (the same complex where the Cinematheque is located). This makes the city look really happening, especially as the decorations for the annual International Film Festival, which launches next week, are already up.

The film that came out as the big winner this year was none other than "Ajami," named after the Jaffa neighbourhood which it is based in. It took home the Ophir Prize for best film, best directing, best script, best editing, and best composition. Co-directed by the Jewish-Arab duo of Scandar Copti (resident of Ajami) and Yaron Shani, the film reflects the mixture of Jaffa. It's a gripping tale of all the balagan that goes on in Ajami: relations between Jewish and Arab neighbours, West Bankers and Israeli Arabs, Christians and Muslims, and everything in between. Most of the dialogue is in Arabic, but the local version of it, which is peppered with Hebrew.

I couldn't find an English trailer; for now it seems there's only Hebrew and Arabic.

ADDENDUM: It seems that the people at Global Voices really enjoyed my piece. Their post on Ajami, published a day after this one, is surprisingly similar to mine.

The Other Gilad?

BY CARMIA

$10,000,000 for any information which leads to the finding of the missing soldier Majdi Halabi

It's been almost four and half years since the disappearance of the Israeli soldier Majdi Halabi. The then 19-year old soldier from the Druze town of Daliyat-el-Carmel was on his way to his base, but never made it to his destination. He hasn't been heard from since, and the Israeli public hasn't heard much about him, either. While everyone knows the names Gilad Shalit or Ron Arad, hardly anyone could tell you who Majdi Halabi is.

The fact that for a while already there has been a $10,000,000 reward on any information that leads to his discovery hasn't brought about any results either. You might see a sign about him if you are the Horev Centre in Haifa or pass by the University of Haifa, or catch the huge billboard up at the entrance of Halabi's hometown. That's how I learned about Halabi a few years ago. Someone has opened a Facebook profile in his name to "support the family." The Hana Fitness Centre in Daliyat-el-Carmel held a "sports event," sponsored by Speedo and others, on the fourth year anniversary of his disappearance. These all seem to organized by family members and fellow townspeople. But that's all. It just doesn't seem to be enough for a state that prides itself on its high concern for its soldiers.

Burning Crosses in the Middle East

BY CARMIA


Cross burning in Haifa

If you were in Haifa last night, you may have seen the burning crosses. Although burning crosses has different connotations in the United States, here it is done by Christian Arabs to mark the eve of عيد الصليب (Eid el-Salib), or the Feast of the Cross. The sight is pretty similar to the Jewish holiday of Lag Ba-Omer, with lots of children out until late, making fires. Along with that, there is the non-stop sound of fireworks going off. Today, the actual day of the holiday, it is quieter and there are special ceremonies at the churches. Hebrew readers can find out more about the holiday and its local customs here, under "חג הצלב".



Cross burning in Sakhnin

Dolls and Wheelchairs

BY CARMIA

There is a prevalent belief in Israel that everything that happens "abroad" (which usually means North America and Europe) gets here ten later. Witness the relatively recent sushi craze. Or, to cite another example, recycling has made its inroads but is still limited to plastic bottles and paper, at least in Haifa. Yet, environmental awareness is practically non-existent. So, too, is the concept of wheelchair accessibility.

For just over a week and ending tonight, Beit Hecht in Haifa hosted an exhibit, called "Magic of the Dolls." The building of Beit Hecht itself is quite unique. Most people who have been to Haifa know that there is a German Colony downtown, where German Templars used to live. Few people, however, know that there are still Templar buildings in other neighbourhoods of Haifa: Neve Sha'anan and the Carmel Center. Beit Hecht is one of such buildings.

The dolls exhibit hosted works by many different artists, each unique in its material, theme, size, and style. Unfortunately, for anyone who has limited mobility, which included someone in my party, almost half of the exhibit was off-limits as the only way to access the second floor was by a long and steep stairway. There was an elevator, but it didn't work, and I'm not sure when the last time it ever worked was. Though the staff did express sympathy, apparently it hadn't occured to anyone to try to make the entire exhibit accessible, or at least to warn us before we purchased our tickets.

The dolls which we did manage to see were captivating. They ranged from the realistic to the fantastical and cartoonish.

The doll below, however, puzzled me. It was labeled, "The Druze Woman Who Bakes Pita with Za'atar." "The Druze woman" baking pita is indeed a familiar sight in Haifa and the surrounding area. But I've never seen a Druze woman wearing this kind of costume, which looks closer to the clothes worn by some Bedouin women.

Maybe in ten years, this lovely exhibit, in its entirety, will be accessible to all.

High Court Strikes Down Central Elections Committee Decision

As predicted, the High Court today struck down the Central Elections Committee's ban on two Arab parties. See our previous posts for background and initial fallout.

The High Court of Justice on Wednesday revoked a government decision to exclude Israeli-Arab parties from contesting in the national elections next month.

The court issued its decision in response to a petition submitted by Arab politicians against the ban. A spokesman for the Courts Administration said judges overturned the ban in an unanimous vote Wednesday (Ha'aretz). 

Labor Party MKs Criticize Cabel's Vote on Arab Parties' Disqualification

MK Eitan Cabel (Labor)

For the latest sum-up of the Central Elections Committee vote see this article in the English edition of Ha'aretz.

Labor party backbenchers expressed their opposition to Cabel's vote in favor of the disqualification:

Senior Labor Party figures lashed out at the party's CEC representative, Eitan Cabel, who voted in favor of banning the two Arab parties. 

"[MK] Shelly Yachimovich and I thought we must object to the move to ban the Arab lists for reasons of freedom of expression," said Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. "The minority's right to be heard must be preserved," he said. 

MK Ophir Pines (Labor) said from overseas that he strongly objected to Labor's stance in the vote and that it was not the position that had been agreed on. 

Cabel explains and qualifies his vote:

"It's true we said we wouldn't ban, but [Balad leader MK Jamal] Zahalka's statement that he was in touch with Bishara led me to think that we must draw the line somewhere," he said. "I'm making no apologies because I fight more than most in the Knesset for equal rights for Arabs. I know it won't stand up in the Supreme Court, and rightly so, because there is no evidentiary basis for the [committee's] decision." 

Israeli Arab Parties Disqualified from Elections

Logo of Bala"d (acronym for "National Democratic Assembly")

In a shocking and shameful decision, the Central Elections Committee (see English)  today (English) disqualified Bala"d and Ra"am-Ta"l, two Israeli Arab parties, from running in the upcoming 18th Knesset election. The disqualification hinged on the votes of the representatives from Kadima and the Labor Party on the committee. Kadima apparently endorsed the disqualification of both the parties, while the Labor Party voted only to disqualify Balad. To no one's surprise, the right-wing parties were jubilant about the outcome. Avigdor Liberman, most notably, called it the first step in a bid to outlaw the parties entirely. While the Arab parties themselves boycotted the vote, only Meretz, it appears, voted against the disqualification moves. 

From the coverage, it is unclear on what grounds the parties were disqualified. Past attempts to disqualify the parties were struck down by the Supreme Court. In conversation with Carmia, Meretz's Zehava Gal-On expressed confidence that this would be the likely outcome again, once the disqualification is challenged in the court. Nevertheless, Gal-On expressed consternation about Labor's support for the measure. She said it was "unimaginable that something like this could happen in the State of Israel."

Gal-On is right. I am no fan of these parties and the politics of their leaders. In fact, I abhor them as much as I do their counterparts on the far right. But the rationale given by Eitan Cabel for his support of the disqualification was so flimsy as to seriously cast doubt on the man's judgment. Apparently Cabel objected to the "defiance" of Jamal Zahalka at the committee hearings. Cabel referred to his "patriotic feeling" as having swayed his vote. Is this man serious? Is he really going to jeopardize the most basic democratic institutions of the state because of some vague feeling?  

Let's be clear. The behavior of Zahalka, Ahmed Tibi, and, before his abscondance, of Azmi Bishara in the Knesset is often repulsive. Many reasonable people can find their views odious. But are they inciting to ethnic hatred, as other disqualified parties were found to have done? Can it be proven that they are actively working to eliminate the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people? These are the two conditions for which parties may be disqualified. 

What this looks like is an exercise in stifling dissent. It is an attempt to outlaw "unpopular" opinions. The Arab parties, just like the right-wing, centrist, and left-wing Zionist parties deserve to be criticized, lampooned, vigorously opposed using democratic means. But as long as they are not breaking the law, they cannot be outlawed simply because they don't meet some standard of "patriotism" set by people such as Avigdor Liberman. As long as their struggle is conducted within the means of parliamentary democracy, it must be protected with the utmost resolution. Unless Zahalke et al. are calling for physical attacks against other Israeli citizens and institutions or hoping to accomplish this using the aid of an enemy state or terrorist organization, they have the right to excoriate Israel in whatever terms they see fit. They can even resort to vile, disgusting mischaracterizations of Israeli policy and society to do this. Indeed, they may even lie.  

To me, much of this is depressingly familiar from the days of the Bishara affair. I will not recycle here the arguments I made in its wake. Suffice to say that when so many parliamentarians show a blatant disregard for the basic tenets of liberal democracy, we are in serious trouble. If parties are going to be banned, the evidence must be incontrovertible that they indeed represent forces for which no room exists on the democratic spectrum. Let us hope that the Supreme Court reflects carefully on this matter. Unless there is evidence which has not yet been revealed to the public, a disqualification of Ra"am-Ta"al and Bala"d is unconscionable. 

ADDENDUM: The Parties Law of 1992 has the following limitations on a party's potential registration:

• Any rejection (in the party's goals or activities) of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
  
• Any incitement to racism.
  
• Any support of the armed struggle of an enemy state or terrorist organization against the State of Israel
  
• Any hint of a cover for illegal activity.
  

Peres and Barak - the New Mukhtars

Peres visited the Kotel after winning the presidency

With car bombs going off in Lebanon and civil war raging in Gaza, it might seem trivial to focus on Israeli domestic politics. But unless they are on location (Gaza, Nejmeh) , bloggers are not especially useful for providing breaking news updates.

It turns out that Shimon Peres has won the presidency, and in a fairly convincing fashion, garnering 58 votes in the first round (there are 120 legislators in the parliament). As I have said before, this is a stabilizing factor for the Olmert government. One of his first moves - a visit to the Kotel - hard to separate from the support given to him by Shas. His stated goal: to unify Israeli society. The models that he singled out are his now deceased colleagues: David Ben Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ariel Sharon (Ha'aretz). Peres, the grandfather of Israeli politics, the last man of his generation.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak defeated Ami Ayalon in the race to head the Labor Party. In retrospect, it is clear that Ayalon's late compromises - joining up with Peretz, reneging on his promise to quit the government if elected - hurt him badly, especially on the kibbutzim. The Arab votes that Ghaleb Majadale was supposed to collect did not materialize (he was defeated by Fuad), and Peretz's machine in the periphery was obviously not enough.

By and large, this election shows Labor Party members' rejection of Peretz, and the privileging of an effective defense policy over promises of social change. Or at least it is clear that Labor Party members do not trust Peretz enough to implement such a policy anyway.

The question now is not whether Barak will stay in the government but on what conditions. He is in a much better position to dictate terms than Ayalon would have been. Ayalon had obligated himself to appoint Avishai Braverman (who will, once again, be receiving the short end of the stick) as Minister of the Treasury, and he would have had to make concessions to Peretz. Barak has fewer commitments, and he is in a superior position to fire people. Shelly Yehimovich, who picked the winner, might end up with an appointment - perhaps the Education Ministry is even in her reach, as Yuli Tamir is on bad terms with Barak.

Israeli Arab MK Heaps Vitriol on Syrian Dissident

(Photo source: al-Jazeera)

I'm sure the special effort MK Muhammad Barakeh (Hadash) made to show his disgust for the democratic opposition to the Syrian government will be well rewarded some day. Speaking about Farid al-Ghadiri's visit to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Barakeh not only said that he disapproved of the Syrian-American politician's trip to Israel but that he "condemns and rejects [it] with disgust." He added that

Al-Ghadiri decided to incite against his countrymen and his homeland and chose to be a mercenary for the Americans. He came to be used as a poor servant of the militarist agenda of the extreme right-wing. Scum is a bad thing, but American scum of this type is the worst of all (Ynet Hebrew).

I have never heard MK Barakeh say one good thing about his fellow countrymen, or one bad thing about Syria's oppressive regime. See also al-Jazeera's coverage (Arabic).

The heavy man in the photograph pointing and yelling at al-Ghadiri, who is ignoring his interlocutor very successfully, is MK Ahmad Tibi (Ra'am Ta'al).

Tom Segev on the Jewish Lobby, Jimmy Carter, and Berkeley

"Ugly Fountain," Berkeley (May 2007)

In the question and answer session at a lecture that Jimmy Carter gave here in Berkeley on May 2, the moderator [thanks, Yaman] of the Q&A session mentioned a conversation that he had had with Tom Segev earlier that day. He quoted the Israeli journalist and historian as having told him that "it's a very healthy thing for friends of Israel not to feel as if they can't criticize the occupation."

Segev repeated these remarks during the question and answer session of his own lecture on May 8. In response to the question, "In this century, how much do you think the Israeli lobby in the U.S. has succeeded in influencing [indistinct], particularly the Republican right," which to me seemed like a total non sequitur given the subject of the lecture, Segev first asked for clarification of the term, and - unless I misinterpreted the exchange that followed - accepted the redefinition of "Israeli lobby" as "Jewish lobby," without flinching. He then said that

One relatively new development in American society is that for first time I hear an argument about that. This is a new subject [applause from the audience]. This is what I found interesting about Carter’s speech and his book. You have to rethink the meaning of friendship. You will no longer believe that friendship with Israel means supporting the Israeli government, but rather make a distinction between the government and the country. This tendency to reformulate what it means to be friends with Israel is very interesting and encouraging.

As you can see, Segev did not really engage the question. Maybe he didn't understand it or perhaps he simply chose to ignore its ugly tone. In either case, I am stunned by the indifference to American Jewish concerns and debates that his non-response betrayed. I am not in principle about what Segev said here; I am simply amazed that he failed to connect this question to some of the ugly tendencies that we saw in the wake of the Mearsheimer and Walt article as well as the Jimmy Carter book. This kind of myopia and lack of interest in the concerns of American Jewry are, however, quite typical of people on the Israeli left.


The next question was equally astounding: "What do you propose Israel do with Jerusalem, in light of Carter’s speech?"

Segev's response: "I don't think there is anything that we need to do in light of Carter's speech." He then went on to share his own impressions of Carter's book and the man himself:

Carter doesn’t really say much. What he says in his book, is that if Israelis and Palestinians are nice to each other there will be no war. The story is very complicated. Jerusalem has been a problem without a solution for 3,000 years. It may remain a problem like this. The challenge is managing this problem. Barak was once caught reading a book on “300 solutions to the problem of Jerusalem.” If a problem has that many "solutions," this might mean that there is no real solution. I was struck by how a former president of the United States could come up with a plan ... that the best thing you can say about it is that it is so naïve. It is only one of many other plans. I actually had a chance to tell him that – this is one of the great Berkeley moments that I was thinking of earlier. I was introduced to him, and I told him this.

For Segev, one of the other highlights of spending the semester at Berkeley was the "absolutely thrilling experience" of teaching his seminar on "1967." He said that it was clear to him that he was meeting some of America's brightest students, who were extremely passionate about what they believed should happen to Israel, "even though most of them know almost nothing about the country." He also spoke fondly of his meetings with Salim Tamari from Birzeit University, a visiting professor in Berkeley's Department of History, whose lecture was the subject of an earlier post.

Another view of the I-House

Assorted Other Remarks

Segev on differences between his generation and young Israelis today:

The main difference between us and the younger generation is that the latter no longer believes in peace. The geopolitical situation has changed. The conflict has become deeper, more violent, more difficult to solve. My generation, including the Israeli peace movement, deserves very little praise. The new generation is a more realistic generation, less idealistic. They don’t believe in grand solutions but in conflict management. Peace may not be attained in the foreseeable future. But perhaps this generation will manage conflict in a more rational manner – this is the most optimistic thought I can share with you.

Segev on the conflict between memory and historiography:

Everything that happened in the region since the 6-day war has occurred in its shadow. This puts 1967 somewhere between history and memory. There is always someone in the audience who tells me, “why do you even bother going to the archives, I can tell you all about the war.” Of course, a soldier in a tank never knows anything about the general picture of the war. I would not be able to convince him that anything was different from how he remembers it. Documents will always be trumped by memory. 1967, furthermore, is not quite easy to document.

On sources:

Israel has a relatively liberal policy on opening archives. But there are some things that we just don’t know. We don’t know if Israel in 1967 already had an atomic bomb. This makes a big difference – did any cabinet minister know? Did it play a role? Much of Israel’s foreign policy was conducted by the Mossad, which doesn’t open its archives. Much of what was done in the territories was conducted by the Shin Bet, which also doesn’t open its archives.
[...]
Fortunately, Israeli officials have the commendable habit of taking home documents and not bringing them back. Much of the more significant information comes from records that are “private papers.” An important factor in the success of Israeli historians is their ability to talk to widows of important politicians. I spent many days in the kitchen of Miri Eshkol ...

In response to the question, "Is there any truth to the rumor about plans to trade villages inhabited by Israeli Arabs in Israel proper for settlements in the W. Bank?"

This is an idea that even voicing it should be made illegal. These people are Israeli citizens, they enjoy every right, and they have no wish to be anything else. If you want an indication of how far Israel has come from its original values that it once cherished - it’s possible to say things today that a few years ago no one would have dared to say. Everything is in the open today. I think this is a very dangerous idea. Fortunately very few Israeli Jews and Arabs would go for it.

Israeli Arabs not a Strategic Threat to the State of Israel

Street scene in Akko (Acre), January 2006

The 'Azmi Bishara affair has unleashed a fury of discussion about Israel's Arab population and its relation to the state, among Jewish and Arab citizens of the country. There is no doubt that this latest eruption is linked to the trauma of last summer's war with Hizbullah, which still lingers and manifests itself in a sense of profound malaise and depression. Few Israeli Jews will forget the declarations by some Israeli Arabs interviewed on television, who declared their support for Hizbullah, even as Israeli Arab children were killed in katyusha attacks and the entire north of the country cowered in bunkers and "safe rooms."

The inability of the Israeli army to stop the rocket barrages fired at the country's civilian population was rightly perceived as a major failure that left many wondering what had gone wrong. It also set up perfect conditions for the scapegoating of ethnic minorities. Indeed, the counter-charge leveled at the state by Bishara has been that Israel is looking to pin the blame for the defeat on the Arabs - a rather fanciful and demagogic move by the now-exiled former MK. The truth is that the Israeli political echelon, public, and media did not blame Israeli Arabs for the katyusha attacks. However, more than half a year after the end of the war, suspicions toward Israel's Arab citizens surely have reached a high. Some the key post-war markers that have paved the way to this state of affairs include the release of the 'Future Vision" report, the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as a minister in Olmert's government, and the various announcements by Shin Bet and government officials about the alleged dangers to the state posed by certain Israeli Arab organizations and leaders. The Shin Bet has since denied that Yuval Diskin made the remarks, to the effect that "Israeli Arabs constitute a strategic threat to the state" attributed to him. Nevertheless, long-standing fears that Israel's Arab citizens are a "fifth column" are likely to become increasingly respectable in Israeli public discourse - unless political leaders and intellectuals from the center and moderate right wing join the left in opposing these tendencies.

What could it possibly mean for Israeli Arabs to be a "strategic threat" to the state? This strikes me as an extremely serious and dangerous accusation to level at a whole group of the country's citizens. Those who make such charges are unlikely to elaborate on them, precisely because they would collapse if they became subject to serious discussion. Iranian nuclear weapons, Hizbullah's katyushas, and Syrian tanks and missiles, to name just a few examples, are strategic threats to the country. What all of those have in common is that a) they have the ability to cause significant harm first to Israel's citizens, and, as a result, to the country's economy, and ultimately to the viability of the state in its current borders, and b) they require the state to project military and political power beyond its boundaries. The same applies to Palestinian qassams and suicide bombers. The force used to combat these strategic threats, while subject to the constraints of international law, is not limited by the restrictions that apply to the use of force inside a liberal democratic state. The only way in which Israel's (diverse) Arab population could meet these conditions would be if the country's Arab citizens would en masse assist in a Syrian invasion, Hizbullah rocket barrages, or Palestinian suicide bombings. Clearly, contemplating such a scenario today is insane.

Yes, one might imagine individual Israeli Arabs transporting suicide bombers or spotting for Hizbullah - the former has indeed happened. But Jewish Israelis have also been convicted of assisting Palestinian terrorists. More importantly, preventing or prosecuting such acts does not require the use of force beyond the limits allowed by liberal democracy. Rather, they require focused police work that deals specifically with individual perpetrators.

So what are those who invoke the "strategic threat" posed by Israeli Arabs talking about? More often than not, those on the far right who employ these terms are most concerned not about real damage to the state and its citizens but about some change to their ideals on which the state ought to be based. In particular, there are fears that Israeli Arabs will demand some change to the Jewish character of the state - i.e., its overwhelmingly Jewish symbols and institutions, as well as such basic tenets of contemporary Zionism as the Law of Return, which guarantees citizenship to all Jews and their descendants wishing to immigrate to Israel. Those on the right are not the only ones who are concerned about changes to the culture and underlying vision of the country; indeed, there is nothing wrong with such concerns per se. It is an altogether different matter, however, to label those who advocate - within the confines of the country's laws - binationalism, autonomy, consociationalism, or whatever else, a "strategic threat." As soon as we start calling someone a strategic threat, we remove that person's or group's right to the protections offered to all citizens of the state in a liberal democracy.

At the heart of Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism was his skepticism about parliamentary democracies' adherence to their many rules and procedures. In Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus ([The Intellectual Historical Situation of Contemporary Parliamentarianism], 1923), often misleadingly translated as The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, Schmitt argued that crucial decisions about such issues as the security of the state, even in liberal democracies, do not result from deliberations in parliament but from the work of small cabinets and committees or from a head of state's executive powers. The implication, for Schmitt, was that in moments of crisis, a dictator acting in the "general will" (à la Rousseau) not only had more legitimacy (i.e., was more democratic) than a parliamentary democracy, but also that parliaments were incapable of dealing with crises that touched on the existence of the state.

I'm not conceding anything to Schmitt at this point, but it should be obvious to all concerned that such issues as the symbols of the state, the desirability of a written constitution, and even the Law of Return for Jews from the diaspora, can actually be dealt with much more effectively by a liberal democracy than by any other measures. These kinds of challenges will inevitably involve compromise. They require the formulation of comprehensive solutions that can satisfy many different interested parties. My point: these are the kinds of things that democracies are very good at; let's give democracy a chance.

Sorry Guys, You're not Colonialists After All

This Israeli-born llama is also not a colonialist

The Follow-Up Committee for the Arabs in Israel has issued a correction to the Hebrew version of its "Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel" report that was first published in December 2006. A mistake in the translation from the Arabic original, members of the committee said, made the report appear "too extreme" (Ynet).

The mistake appears in a section on "The Palestinian Arabs in Israel and their Relation to the State of Israel." According to the committee's chairman, Shawqi Khatib, the Hebrew version uses the word "colonialist," where the authoritative Arabic-language report referred to "settlement." The mistake arose because an earlier draft of the report, written by Dr. As'ad Ghanem, had employed the former term, "ist'imaar" (colonialism استعمار). After opposition from the majority of the committee, that word was changed to "istitaan" (settlement- استيطان). However, someone forgot to revise the Hebrew translation to reflect this change [for the reference to "istitaan", see p. 9 of the in the Arabic version of the "Future Vision"].

The timing of this announcement is surely not accidental. It is possible that the error was only discovered recently, but the 'Azmi Bishara affair has surely alarmed some of the members of the committee further. For many Jewish Israelis, the description of Israel as a "colonialist" entity implies a belief that it ought to disappear - just like the French and British colonies in the Middle East did after WWII.

Here is the full paragraph from the Hebrew version of the report:

ישראל היא תולדה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית אותה יזמו האליטות היהודיות-ציוניות באירופה ובמערב. היא הוקמה בסיוע מדינות קולוניאליסטיות, והתחזקה בצל התעצמות ההגירה היהודית לפלסטין לאור תוצאות מלחמת העולם השנייה והשואה. לאחר תקומתה בשנת 1948 המשיכה ישראל בהנהגת מדיניות הנגזרת מראייתה את עצמה כנציגות המערב במזרח התיכון, והמשיכה להתעמת עם סביבתה באופן מתמיד וברמות שונות. כן המשיכה ליישם מדיניות קולוניאליסטית פנימית נגד אזרחיה הערבים הפלסטינים.

[Israel is the product of colonialist activity initiated by the Jewish-Zionist elites in Europe and in the West. It was established with the aid of colonialist states and was strengthened by the increase in Jewish immigration to Palestine as a result of the outcome of the Second World War and the Sho'ah. After its establishment in 1948, Israel continued to lead a policy derived from a view of itself as a representative of the West in the Middle East, and continued to clash with its environment in a constant manner and at different levels. Moreover, [Israel] continued to implement a colonialist policy domestically against its Arab Palestinian citizens.]

Here is the official English translation. Note how it diverges from the Hebrew text above:

Israel is the outcome of a settlement process initiated by the Zionist–Jewish elite in Europe and the west and realized by Colonial countries contributing to it and by promoting Jewish immigration to Palestine, in light of the results the Second World War and the Holocaust. After the creation of the States in 1948, Israel continued to use policies derived from its vision as an extension of the west in the Middle East and continued conflicting with its neighbors. Israel also continued executing internal colonial policies against its Palestinian Arab citizens [emphasis added].

John adds:

The following is a list of source documents:
1) The Arabic version of the Future Vision Report
2) The English Revised version
3) The original English version - I don't know how long this will be up, but apparently, the webmasters at the Musaawa center forgot to prohibit access to their Reports Directory
4) The Hebrew version of the Future Vision report

Three Times Chased Away

MK Zehava Gal-On (Photo: Knesset)

The Haifa Cinematheque recently featured an excellent documentary, שלוש פעמים מגורשת, or Three Times Chased Away. The film followed Hitaam, a young woman originally from Gaza, in her quest to reunite with her children. Her abusive husband, an Israeli from the largest Bedouin town of Rahat, had divorced her behind her back in a shaaria court and chased her out of their home.

The screening of the gripping film was followed by a question-and-answer session with the director, Ebtisam Maraanah. The director told of her difficulties in getting the police to take seriously the death threats she herself had received. The police, Ebtisam relayed to the audience, simply told her to leave Tel Aviv and return to her village, where she would be safer. The police also refused to give Hitaam, the subject of the documentary, adequate protection. At this point, Ebtisam phoned Knesset member Zehava Gal-On from the Meretz party. With Gal-On's intervention, the police finally stepped in and put the ex-husband in jail - after he had beaten and stabbed Hitaam, and sworn to kill the director of the documentary. It's a good thing some politicians answer the phone in the middle of the night, Ebtisam commented.

Israeli citizens have grown increasingly weary of the endless scandals involving politicians and public officials. Rape, bribery, corruption, and incompetence is all Israelis hear about their politicians these days. Therefore, it is refreshing to hear about a politician like Zehava Gal-On who takes her role seriously: to serve the public and try to make the country a better place for all its inhabitants. Perhaps her engagement will shake Israeli society out of the resignation and disgust with which it has come to regard politics.

More "Israeli Racism"

I could not help posting up this article published in Haaretz today. Would an "inherently racist apartheid state" grant special subsidies to a minority group?

"Gov't to encourage Bedouin women, ultra-Orthodox men, to work"

The cabinet is expected to approve during its meeting Sunday a string of benefits and incentives aimed at encouraging Bedouin women and ultra-Orthodox men, two groups that tend to abstain from working, to join the workforce.

The incentives include subsidized transportation between Bedouin villages and residents' work places, at a sum of up to NIS 3,000 per person. The government will allot NIS 15 million to the implementation of this program.

Studies conducted by government bodies concluded that Bedouin women refrain from seeking employment due to transportation and accessibility problems. Central Bureau of Statistics data shows that the percentage of Arab women within the workforce is 8 percent, as opposed to 67 percent of Jewish women.

The government's program will also subsidize 20 percent of the salaries of Bedouin women, as well as ultra-Orthodox men, and thus will make them more attractive to employers. According to the proposal, the government will subsidize parts of the salaries of these workers at work places where at least four Bedouin women, or ultra-Orthodox men are employed, as opposed to the subsidy currently given to places where at least 15 are employed.

Until now, these benefits have been offered only to potential employers in the production industry. The new proposal adds employers in the tourism and services industries to those eligible for benefits in exchange for hiring members of the groups in question.

The proposal was initiated by Minister for the Development of the Negev and Galilee Shimon Peres and Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Eli Yishai under the "Strategic Plan for the Development of the Negev."

I have my doubts about whether droves of Bedouin women from the Negev will really go out and join the labour force - it's not easy taking care of 7+ kids and living in a deeply conservative society - but I believe that this is a step in the right direction.