With varying success, I recommend to my Palestinian friends that the term “Zionist” ought to be retired from their arguments – specifically because it risks losing the inclusion of people who agree with those arguments at one level or another.

I have already provided a strong modern reference. If you want to educate yourself on the issue, reading the actual book is a good start.

I’ll follow Rabbi Brant’s example and stay engaged for one more post.

Here are some more references:

Oz, In the Land of Israel – a series of revealing interviews regarding internal tensions in Israeli society in the early 1980s
Carey & Shainin, The Other Israel (similar title, not the same book) – an introduction to current Jewish dissent in Israel, with many articles
Kovel, Overcoming Zionism – especially the chapter The Only Democracy in the Middle East
Abunimah, One Country – especially chapters 2 and 3
Honig-Parnass & Haddad, Between the Lines – a collection of articles from the recent journal of that name

One doesn’t have to agree with the various authors’ political aims in order to gain knowledge from their work. I chose them specifically because they are full of concrete information, and with one exception, present Jewish voices regarding the issues.

My goal in posting in this thread does not include wrangling with you about Israeli discrimination. Here’s my answer to your questions: Armed with knowledge from these or whatever references you seek, you can make your own decision about whether Israel as currently constructed and conducted is discriminatory. You can decide what’s evidence and what’s not, and what that evidence means. I’m not here to read the books for you.

Rabbi Brant, in the interest of this thread’s purpose, I’m going to focus on the topic you raised in the first post. Unfortunately, I think Lieberman’s repugnant views represent a predictable application of the historically in-practice concept of the Jewish state, rather than a deviation.

I suggest that the historically in-practice concept of the Jewish state is itself discriminatory in essence, as opposed to the usual phrase of “the XYZ state” for many current nations, where XYZ is a religion. It is indistinguishable from privilege over others, in the forms of disenfranchisement, economic hardship, expulsion, containment, and legal distortion. Again, I speak here of the non-Jewish Palestinian Israelis specifically, as opposed to those in Gaza and the West Bank. (I also think the ethnic issues among Jews in Israel are implicated as well, but that’s not the current topic.)

For Israel not to be discriminatory, the very meaning of “the Jewish state” would have to undergo serious revision. It would have to mean something like, “Judaic values are instrumental in the founding of this nation. They serve and benefit everyone who lives here.” Laws in practice would have to reflect that idea.

I know that has little if anything to do with Theodore Herzl or David Ben-Gurion. It does have a lot to do with, among others, Albert Einstein.

“The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrowmindedness and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad, I have always been against it.” (Testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, replying to a specific question regarding a Jewish State in Palestine, 1946)

“I should much rather see a reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.” (Out of My Later Years, 1950)

At this late date, since “Jewish state” as a term has gained international significance, and since U.S. policy and finances have become so deeply supportive of it, Einstein’s horse has left the barn. The question is whether it will generate yet more inner damage, especially in Israel itself, and especially since that inner damage (fear, hatred, bigotry) has such extensive consequences.

The real tragedy, I think, lies in the missed opportunity of 1992-1994, in which the new Basic Laws failed to address this issue.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm

For example, the ones called Human Dignity and Liberty, and Freedom of Occupation. Both use the phrase “Jewish and democratic state” without any reference there or anywhere about what that means.

A law may ignore Freedom of Occupation if approved by a majority vote in the Knesset.

In Human Dignity and Liberty, see #8: 8. “There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”

And what are those violation-permitting values? Again, the “Jewish and democratic” nature of the state. So if you’re not Jewish, violating your rights under this law (of Human Dignity and Liberty!) is arguably legal. That’s what Lieberman’s loyalty oath proposal is seeking to put into practice, laid out in plain language.

I really feel I’m getting in over my head here because I simply have no resources to back up my hypothesis.

But still, the quote you submitted from Susan Nathan’s book does not speak to a serious, long-term political agenda of Israel’s Palestinian citizens and how their 9-10 Knesset representatives have organized themselves to advance that agenda – or failed to do so. Education, social services, capital improvements, entitlements. What are the priorities? What are the proposals? When were they tabled in the Knesset? What deals were cut with which other parties to advance them?

There clearly is much to be learned here, and the possibility exists that the truth really is such a shanda that it’s been covered up.

Uncovering that cover-up requires much more substantive focus than is revealed in the Nathan quote you present, however.

In a recent trip in Israel to visit the “illegal” bedouin villages, we passed the home of a Palestinian Knesset member and the Bedouins with us spoke of him with great distain. As though he was a complete sellout. We didn’t pursue it because we were after other issues. But it obviously registered with me.

It just seems to me that there is so much pro-Palestinian and pro-peace sentiment among vocal elite Israeli groups that we’d be hearing more from them – from the inside – if there was substance to this claim of systematic suppression of political activity among Israeli Palestinians.

I’m familiar with the kind of arguments (exposes) made to AMerican Jewish and gentile liberals about the “truth” about the Israeli occupation. They all reminded me of the kind of arguments I heard back in the early 60′s at Columbia before opposition to the Vietnam War was widespread. I was naive. Hearing about all the “things” the American government was doing were literally “unbelievable”. As I learned the truth of them, it simply turned me against “the establishment” who had lied to me for so long.

Surely the classic rationale for supporting the State of Israel has been weakened by it’s clash with reality. And clearly many liberals hearing these stories were shocked into disbelieving everything about ISrael that was positive.

But rather than make me lose my faith in the Jewish Zionist enterprise, it’s made me simply approach the possibility for peace in the middle east with a huge dose of reality and willingness to compromise. I just don’t see any Palestinian leader with whom my Israeli cousins can reach a deal. Palestinians (ISraeli, West Bank & Gaza) seem enamored of a dream of “winning” the long term war with ISrael and, thanks to billions in oil dollars in the hands of radical Muslim leaders spent scapegoating Israel for the lack of modernization and progress in the region, support leaders who are subsidized to simply refuse to bargain.

And I can’t help but see the Nathan book and related efforts as just another front in the overall anti-ISrael campaign that looks so abnormally bloated, unbalanced and out of touch with reality.

People who care about the Palestinians need to focus the bulk of their efforts at convincing the Palestinians to care more about their own future development and prosperity than about endlessly playing their front line role in the hoped-for Arab victory over ISrael. Sort of tough love. For a people that has acted too long like out of control teenagers.

The plight of ISraeli Palestinians? Let’s hear their agenda for community, economic and cultural development. And their political strategy for implementing that agenda. That’s something positive and constructive we can discuss and get behind.

Chaver Steve

From “The Other Side of Israel” by Susan Nathan – (keep in mind this was written well BEFORE the last election):

“Israel has plenty of Jewish political parties in the Knesset, many of them small religious or extreme national parties which sit in government coalitions making outrageous demands, such as passing more powers to the rabbis or expelling Palestinians and the Arab minority from the country. Such language is considered entirely acceptable and nowadays is echoed even by senior members of the country’s biggest party, the Likud. By contrast, no Arab party has ever been allowed to sit in the government; instead, Arab Members of Knesset (MKs) are allowed only to shout from the sidelines of the parliamentary and public debate. The two small Arab parties, and the equally tiny Arab-Jewish Communist Party, are effectively outside the national consensus. Even the main platform of the Arab parties – that Israel should be transformed from a Jewish state into a state of all its citizens – contravenes basic legislation, which requires all candidates to the Knesset to swear allegiance to a “Jewish and democratic state.” In the 2003 general election, the three senior Arab MKs were disqualified by the Central Election Committee from standing on just such grounds, although the decision was overturned by the courts.

Televised parliamentary debates on controversial issues in which Arab MKs speak invariably make for dismal viewing. As soon as the MK stands up to speak, he finds himself being howled down by the Jewish Members around him. If he shouts back, as Arab MKs too often do, the Speaker ejects him from the chamber. Arab MKs are regularly punished by the Knesset’s ethics committee or investigated for incitement by the attorney-general after delivering speeches in the Knesset; Jewish MKs never seem to face these sanctions. The Israeli media express a widespread animosity for the Arab political parties, a hostility only too readily accepted by the public and security officials. A report by the Arab Association for Human Rights in Nazareth in 2002 revealed that during the parliament, eight of the nine Arab MKs had been assaulted by the police or army at demonstrations, several on more than one occasion. In most cases the officers were fully aware of whom they were attacking.”

Ron, Shalom

Well well. I would posit that my posts were, at heart, hypotheses, that now require proof. And I’m open to evidence that goes both ways.

Do you know of any evidence that supports choice by the ISraeli Palestinian community to “live apart” from much that we take for granted in ISraeli democratic political culture?

Do you have evidence of concerted efforts by the Israeli Palestinian community to engage with the ISraeli democratic political culture that was systematically rebuffed and undercut?

Evidence please.

Chaver Steve

For an example of a Zionism that did not seek to create a Jewish state, consider the Zionism of Rabbi Judah Magnes.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/980577.html

“Magnes considered himself to be a follower of Mahatma Gandhi and the prophet Jeremiah, and opposed all forms of nationalism that are based on military force. The Ihud (Unity) association he established with several others is seen as the flagship group of left-wing Zionists regarding all that pertains to Jewish-Arab relations. Its members were attacked by nearly all the political parties in the pre-state period, and were described as defeatists, ghetto-like and anti-patriotic.”

Another advocate of Ihud nonviolent Zionism was Henreitta Szold, the founder of Hadassah.

from the same article:

Magnes predicted that even if we win the war, there would then be another war, and another one. It would never end.

It uses a bank of reviews to judge a book’s content. It provides your personal guarantee for how millions of people neither of us knows, far away, will act. It judges a civil rights case with a flip wave of a hand. It judges the Palestinian Israeli citizens’ political participation by examining political divestment by Palestinians in the West Bank, whose situation is not comparable. It describes the Palestinians as too politically primitive to engage with democracy yet capable of an organized political boycott. It implies that participants in Israeli politics are threatened with “social pressure or worse” without basis. Its conclusion is based on appealing to what might be possible. It challenges me (“seriously”) in a playground fashion.

So, you called for seriousness, and you shall receive it: I don’t engage intellectually with posts that demonstrate no intellectual rigor. I have tried hard not to direct this post toward you as a person. I’m talking strictly about the construction of the reasoning in your posts.

For others reading, Jeffay’s article (http://forward.com/articles/103177/) does not present Chaver Steve’s conclusion as its thesis. In fact, it describes several instances of the discrimination I talked about. Also, the documents in question were made public three whole weeks ago, hardly a period long enough to characterize a community’s reaction to it.

Best, Ron

True, this is an article that pertains to the West Bank, not those Palestinians living within the Green Line as ISraeli citizens, but…

It”s the Nathan Jeffay article about the classified government data on West Bank settlements made public by Haaretz in late January.

It shows how, even though these documents seem to show clearly how many Judaea and Samaria settlements were built on Palestinian-owned land rather than “public land”, Palestinians do not seem to be willing to act on the findings.

It shows how Palestinians, given a clear tool for pressing their claims in the Israeli courts are showing clear reluctance to do so because in doing so, they would be legitimizing Israel’s existence, the jurisprudence of Israeli courts, “the occupation” and all that goes with that.

In other words, this article begins to tell the hidden story of how Palestinians have a deep predisposition toward avoiding any actions which demonstrate an acceptance of Israeli authority or participation in the institutions of the state – even those that might benefit them personally. And it is my contention that this phenomenon extends beyond the Palestinians of Judaea and Samaria to the Palestinian citizens of ISrael itself.

It’s like a solidarity thing. Even if an individual Palestinian-Israeli family might want to take certain actions to assimilate into Israeli institutions, they experience tremendous social pressure or worse against such actions.

Written large, the overall impact of such strong social norms is to slow any Israeli-Palestinan assimilation into the larger Israeli society – with its legal protections, social safety nets, budgetary allocations for health, education, welafare and public works. No one is going to force them to play the game. No one need feel excessively sorry for their collective decision to rsist Israel’s existence.

But it is important to see this reality with clear eyes and give the Palestinians credit, at least, for making a communal decision and enforcing it.

Chaver Steve

As the one who “disgraced himself” by publishing Ron’s comment, I feel compelled to respond to your final statement.

As Ron pointed out, Jim Crow refers to institutional discrimination that undercuts formal rights “guaranteed” by a state. You are free to agree or disagree with his analysis, but you are crossing the line when you label his words (or my of publishing them) as “libel.” Moreover, your association of them with Nazism is profoundly offensive. This kind of incendiary rhetoric only contributes to the muzzling of honest debate that is so critical to this conflict.

In the meantime, you’ve conveniently dodged my central questions about the contradictions inherent in Israel’s ethnic nationalism. As I understand your argument, since Israel has raised the standard of living of its Arab citizens, they shouldn’t complain about their status as second class citizens. And the reason for the socio-economic disparity between Arab and Jew in Israel is because Israel’s founding forced the more middle class Palestinians from their homes? I’d say that begs even more troubling questions.

Finally, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the laws issued by Israel’s Supreme Court “govern its civil life.” As long as Israel has no Constitution upon which the Court can base its rulings, these laws exist in a legal vacuum – and there will never be a true foundation that guarantees equal rights for all its citizens.

Sorry I don’t have time to read Susan Nathan’s book. Thanks to you guys I will get to it. But I’ve looked at the reviews on Amazon and saw disturbing signs of bias on her part.

I’m a city planner and work in all facets of the public sector. What I hear in the few concrete examples that I’ve heard here and in the reviews of Nathan’s book is that the Arab minority in Israel lives apart from their Jewish neighbors and have not really made anything resembling a comprehensive effort to integrate themselves into the larger Israeli (Jewish) society.

An Israeli Arab who cannot get mail because their address isn’t “registered”? To me that sounds like a person who is either embroiled in a dispute with authorities over illegal building or a person who is just as happy living off the (address) grid as having easily accessible mail.

Israel’s Arabs are fully free to advocate their case for what amounts to a much more comprehensive integration into Israeli social, economic and political life, yet I hear no such voice. Seriously, do you?

Isn’t it possible that overall, Israel’s Arabs – of course because of the security situation and their empathy for “the Palestinian cause” – have chosen – have been extraordinarily unwilling – to organize themselves to radically change their living status in ISrael.

There have been many half truths spoken in these responses about the status of ISrael’s Arab citizens. X may be true, but the reasons are not those implied or expressed in the telling.

In any case, outside observers can paternalize the situation of Israel’s Arab citizens all they want, but it was not America’s whites who conducted the Civil rights movement and it was not those boycotting South Africa that won full citizenship rights for the black majority there. You can’t live your children’s lives and westerners can’t impose their values and political and social structures on non-western societies.

Israel’s Arab citizens live lives much closer to what existed prior to 1948 than Israeli Jews do. That’s just the way it is. When Israel’s Arab citizens want to stand up non-violently and really advocate for a more integrated place in Israeli society they will. (And it MUST be a communal effort, not an individual effort to assimilate individually into the larger Israeli society, which already happens) And as 20% of the electorate, I can guarantee that they will be heard.

Chaver Steve