The young Arabs who have chosen to be part of Israel

[shira]

I don’t envy Lucy Aharish. It isn't easy and isn't simple to be avant-garde. She is blasted both by the Jewish radical right and by the Palestinian radical right. The coalition of extremists has once again expressed a uniform stance. For the former she is too Palestinian, supporting the struggle for equality, reconciliation and peace. For the latter she is too Israeli, because she chose the road of integration.

Aharish is avant-garde because she refuses to play by the rules of the herd. The herd demands hatred and incitement. The herd is against giving the Palestinians rights or giving the Jews rights. The herd has a lot of power in the Arab sector, and it's also strong, we must admit, among part of Israel's Jewish elites, where Aharish has already been attacked too.

As far as they are concerned, Aharish is the "Arab darling." That's really not okay. Why should she be spewing poison against Israel. Only then, this fascism – which is sometimes disguised as "left-wing" – will grant her an authorization certificate.

The good news is that Aharish is not alone. We are witnessing the development of a generation of young Arabs who have decided to become an integral part of the State of Israel. They refuse to identify with Hamas. They refuse to be part of the hatred campaign. They have decided to do rather than incite.

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4651005,00.html

[shira]

1. Young Arabs Agree: Israel Isn’t Arab World’s Major Problem

One of the most positive strategic developments for Israel of the past few years has been its marked improvement in relations with significant parts of the Arab world. Three years ago, for instance, the most cockeyed optimist wouldn’t have predicted a letter like Israel received this week from a senior official of the Free Syrian Army, who congratulated it on its 67th anniversary and voiced hope that next year, Israel’s Independence Day would be celebrated at an Israeli embassy in Damascus.

Yet many analysts have cautioned that even if Arab leaders were quietly cooperating with Israel for reasons of realpolitik, anti-Israel hostility in the “Arab street” hadn’t abated. So a new poll showing that this, too, is changing came as a lovely Independence Day gift.

The ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller Arab Youth Survey, which has been conducted annually for the last seven years, polls 3,500 Arabs aged 18 to 24 from 16 Arab countries in face-to-face interviews. One of the standard questions is “What do you believe is the biggest obstacle facing the Middle East?”

This year, defying a long tradition of blaming all the Arab world’s problems on Israel, only 23 percent of respondents cited the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the region’s main obstacle. In fact, the conflict came in fourth, trailing ISIS (37 percent), terrorism (32 percent) and unemployment (29 percent). Given that respondents were evidently allowed to choose more than one of the 15 options (the total adds up to 235 percent rather than 100), it’s even more noteworthy that only 23 percent thought the conflict worth mentioning.

more...
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/24/young-arabs-agree-israel-isnt-arab-worlds-major-problem/

[Scootaloo]

8. Of course it's not the "Arab World's" major problem

Saudi Arabia alone is a far larger problem than Israel has ever been, to the "Arab World"

however, when you narrow it down to the Palestinian Arabs...

[oberliner]

13. "Saudi Arabia alone is a far larger problem than Israel has ever been, to the "Arab World"

And Saudi Arabia is a major US ally.

What responsibility do you feel Americans have to address this far larger problem?

[Scootaloo]

14. I feel we should divest ourselves of both the Shitty Little Client States

Egypt too, so long as it maintains junta rule.

it is my belief that America has an obligation to stand for the oppressed, not to buy nice boots for the oppressors.

[oberliner]

15. "America has an obligation to stand for the oppressed..."

Why do you think the US has that obligation?

Do you feel that the US has fulfilled this obligation at any point in history?

[Scootaloo]

16. It has, at times.

Do you have an argument with the sentiment?

[oberliner]

17. Do you have any particular examples?

I think it would be great if the US stood up for the oppressed, I just don't think that is something that has happened. Often in history, the US has been the oppressor of other folks, in fact. It seems that the US only stands for the oppressed when it serves other interests.

[Scootaloo]

20. I would have to pore over my bookshelves, but i'm sure there's something

I had a few "top of the head" things, but on reflection, those either ended up with, or resulted from us screwing the people in the first place (the Hmong in Vietnam and Kurds in Iraq, for instance. or East Timor) But there's bound to be something.

[oberliner]

21. So it's not a strongly felt obligation

Since apparently the US has not felt obligated to do so at any time in history that you can think of without pouring over your bookshelves.

[Scootaloo]

22. You asked my opinion, not history

[AuntPatsy]

2. Kick...

[Very Orange]

3. So where's the apartheid?

Inquiring minds wants to know....

[shira]

6. The Israel-Sucks brigade will just tell us these youngsters are naive....

...or brainwashed, or paid shills.

They'd say there should be only one narrative, the negative one in which Israel is always portrayed as being evil, and all Palestinians are like them and hate the Jewish state, finding nothing positive about it.

[Ken Burch]

4. Fine. Nobody is saying that there's nothing positive at all about Israel.

And it isn't a competition between Israel and the PA about which is the better place to live.

It's about the injustice of keeping the West Bank under military occupation and Gaza under siege, when nothing can be made better by doing that, and when doing that essentially makes positive change impossible in both jurisdictions.

Nothing can be gained by "waiting", because waiting to change the conditions freezes everything bad in place.

When you post threads like this, it just looks petty and embarrassing.

[shira]

5. There are plenty who find nothing positive about Israel

And it isn't a competition between Israel and the PA about which is the better place to live.

Where do you get that from the article?

It's about the injustice of keeping the West Bank under military occupation and Gaza under siege, when nothing can be made better by doing that, and when doing that essentially makes positive change impossible in both jurisdictions.

The question is whether the occupation ends, peace deal or no peace deal. I prefer the former, given Israel's genuine security concerns. If you prefer the latter, then the conflict just continues - and most likely will result in significantly more deaths. Are you willing to say that if a war breaks out, it'll be worth it because at least the occupation will end?

Nothing can be gained by "waiting", because waiting to change the conditions freezes everything bad in place.

I don't think it's too much to ask for the Palestinians to accept their own state (according to the Clinton Parameters) and be willing to live at peace alongside a Jewish state.

When you post threads like this, it just looks petty and embarrassing.

How am I to understand that? Does that mean NOTHING positive should ever be posted in I/P?

[leftynyc]

7. Don't listen to that crap, Shira

If it were up to the Israel sucks brigade, there would be nothing positive about Israel allowed to be posted here so I guess petty and embarrassing is in the eyes of the beholder. I love your posts.

[Ken Burch]

9. It's not possible for continued occupation and collective punishment of Palestinians

to achieve those goals.

And if it was enough for Egypt and Jordan to simple recognize Israel, there's no reason to make the Pals do anything more than that on the recognition front. Netanyahu's childish, petulant "they have to say it the way I want them to say it" demand is pointless and insulting. Recognizing the state is the same thing as recognizing the character and nature of the state.

and as to what is and is not "too much to ask" of anyone, it's not too much to ask for the Israeli side to recognize that many, if not most, of the Palestinians being repressed by the IDF have done nothing to deserve the suffering they have experienced, and that Palestinians have been at least equal, if not greater victims in the conflict-that the side you back(in the post-1948 situation) does not have primacy of pain.

If the Israelis want a more conciliatory attitude from Palestine, how about actuall treating ordinary Palestinians better? How about recognizing their humanity and their pain?

And if want a peace deal(as we all do, I think)then push Netanyahu and his mob to END the damn settlement project. The abstract argument that everybody should be able to "live wherever they want" is not more important than getting a peace deal, and getting a peace deal means that whoever signs off on such a deal for the Pals must be able to say that whatever he signs off on is neither defeat nor humiliation. A deal must involve mutual respect, assumption of mutual trusworthiness, recognition of mutual suffering AND parity of esteem. Preservation of the settlements makes it impossible for those four things can be achieved. It's the settlements...OR peace. Not possible to have both.

[shira]

10. But the PA doesn't want peace and they have made that perfectly clear....

They answered the Clinton Initiative with the Intifada and suicide bombings, rather than reasonably negotiate further.

Arafat later regretted that he rejected that plan. Obviously, it was good enough for him, so what's wrong with it now?

Think about that. Arafat thought it was good enough but you don't. He was more willing than you to compromise for peace, and looking back now there could have been a state of Palestine for the past 15 years. No occupation, no settlements....

Isn't that what this is all about? Arafat blew it, didn't he?

[Ken Burch]

11. Not exclusively.

Part of it was that the Israeli side repeatedly sabotaged Arafat by building more and more of what it KNEW to be illegal and unjustified settlements.

You know the settlement expansion was provocative and wrong. You know the insistence on putting Arafat under siege in Ramallah was wrong, and you know nothing good from it. And you know that the assumption that resolving the dispute hinges exclusively on making the Palestinian side change is simply ludicrous(since both sides' leaders are equally culpable for the perpetuation of the untenable and intrinsically unjust status quo).

And the Israeli side also undermined Arafat by encouraging the early growth of Hamas-even though they KNEW that there was never going to be anyone better for them to negotiate with than the PLO.

Nobody else in any other conflict on the planet ever tried to dictate who they would and would not accept as the leadership on the OTHER side. And there was never, ever, at any point, a better, more amenable alternative Palestinian leadership out there that would have brought with it sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if ONLY the Israelis had kept refusing to recognize the PLO.

You're still more fixated with discrediting Oslo(even though no good alternative to Oslo was going to emerge if only the Israeli hard liners were to hang tough).

I'm no worshipper of Arafat. He made numerous mistakes. But all the Netanyahu campaign to isolate and discredit the guy ever achieved was to give Hamas its big break in show business. If the PLO made errors, wouldn't you have to concede that the leaders on your side were equally to blame?

and before you bring up Olmert's so-called "offer"-he made that "offer" on what everyone knew was his last day in office-when he KNEW he could never implement it. So what Olmert offered was insultingly meaningless.

And why do you cling to the belief that continually immiserating and repressing all Palestinians for the crimes of the few could ever, ever make ANYTHING better?

[shira]

12. That was pretty non-responsive. The Palestinians could've had their state for...

...well over a decade. They rejected it. An Intifada and several wars later, more lives lost on both sides. The occupation and settlements would be just a memory these days. Was that rejection in 1999-2000 worth it?

I'd like an answer to that one. Yes or No?

The PA just recently rejected Kerry's Plan of 2014 too. Israel accepted it (that's Bibi's govt BTW). Olmert's offer was made months in advance of his exit. Abbas never responded to it. The people behind the dovish Geneva Initiative thought so highly of Olmert's offer, that they rolled out the red carpet for him, praising him for making an offer very similar to that of the Geneva Initiative, a plan endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, EDIT: SARI NUSSEIBEH, and almost all of Israel's Left (not the extreme fringe).

I acknowledge Israel has made mistakes too. That's bound to happen with any rightwing gov't. But it's difficult for me to feel sympathy for a Palestinian administration that says it wants their own state, but demonstrates by their rejection each and every time that they don't. I don't want to hear any excuses, that Israel didn't offer enough. As I see it, you're missing the big picture. A detail here, a detail there - whatever. The bottom line is that the Palestinians could've had their own state already, on what amounts to 100% of the W.Bank (with land swaps), no occupation, no settlements. Why should I feel sorry when they reject every credible offer, and follow that up with more violence, more extremism and hatred? And then whine that they have it so bad? They could've had their state so many times already.

[Ken Burch]

18. My sympathy is with the Palestinian people-not the Palestinian leadership.

I simply pointed out that it was always stupid and arrogant of the Israeli leadership to attempt to remove and replace the PLO and Arafat from the leadership...and that there was never a chance of that attempt ever to produce a better leadership. In negotiations(and we both know this can only be ended with a negotiated compromise that ends up with both sides having equal prestige and dignity and no one being made to play the role of the vanquished) you HAVE to accept that it's solely up to the other side who their leaders and negotiators are. Everyone else, worldwide, accepts that.

The Palestinians should have made a counter-offer in negotiations, and the Israelis should have done the decent thing and offered both a magnanimous compromise on RoR(rather than trying to force the Pals to totally surrender on that issue)and acceptance of the necessity of the Palestinian capital being in East Jerusalem. But it's not as simple as saying the Pals were TOTALLY in the wrong in 1999-2000.

Olmert KNEW he'd never be able to implement his "offer"-and that's why we shouldn't take it seriously.

BTW, as to mistakes...would YOU agree that Netanyahu should be prosecuted for inciting the assassination of Yitzhak Rabn? Clearly, Netanyahu caused that act by leading mass rallies(of an essentially fascist character)in which thousands of anti-peace, anti-hope and anti-life maniacs held up giant posters showing Rabin in a Nazi uniform. Those rallies led directly to Rabin's killing. Yet Netanyahu was never prosecuted despite his clear culpability, and rode the hatewave he started with those rallies into an electoral comeback he otherwise would never have achieved. Would you agree that Netanyahu should finally be prosecuted for the assassination he provoked?

[shira]

19. I'd like to believe that but I can't, not when they're abused so much by their leadership...

...and there's not a peep from you or anyone else about that.

And if your sympathy is NOT with Palestinian leadership, you have a funny way of showing it. You defend them on pretty much everything, as though they speak for the Palestinian people (when you know damned well they don't).

Olmert KNEW he'd never be able to implement his "offer"-and that's why we shouldn't take it seriously.

See what I mean? You're taking Abbas completely out of the equation. He and Erekat admitted Olmert was serious, but they refused to even propose a counter-offer.

===================

Once again, I ask was it worth it? Arafat later said he regretted turning down the Clinton Initiatives, and that he should have accepted them all and should have agreed to a 2-state solution. Have the last 15 years been worth it? Settlements and occupation would be a thing of the past. Palestinians would have their own state. It appears that to you it definitely has been worth it. Arafat was "wise" to turn that offer down.

BTW, as to mistakes...would YOU agree that Netanyahu should be prosecuted for inciting the assassination of Yitzhak Rabn? Clearly, Netanyahu caused that act by leading mass rallies(of an essentially fascist character)in which thousands of anti-peace, anti-hope and anti-life maniacs held up giant posters showing Rabin in a Nazi uniform. Those rallies led directly to Rabin's killing. Yet Netanyahu was never prosecuted despite his clear culpability, and rode the hatewave he started with those rallies into an electoral comeback he otherwise would never have achieved. Would you agree that Netanyahu should finally be prosecuted for the assassination he provoked?

I'm no fan of Bibi either, but I'm not sure he incited anything. I could be wrong, but I don't enough about it. Yes, the Rabin = Nazi rants were vile. Rabin was 100x the person Bibi is. But Bibi calls lots of people Nazis & doesn't give the impression he wants them dead.

The BDS movement constantly equates Israel with Nazis, as if they're getting paid $$$ each time they do so. Do you think that's incitement to hate Jews and open the doors towards a genocide?

[Ken Burch]

23. My point is that the Palestinian leadership, bad as it is, is NOT the issue

And that the Palestinan people are not responsible for the bad choices of their leadership, and should not themselves have to suffer for their leadership's failings.

Of course the Palestinian leadership has made mistakes. But you want to pretend that it's virtually ALL their fault. It's never that one-sided. Nothing in life is.

And there's no reason to think that, even if Erekat and Abbas had taken the deal, the Israeli leadership would have lived up to its side of it. You think we should trust the Israeli leadership more simply because it's the side you back-as if backing a side is still a worthwhile thing to do in this conflict, given that "victory" for either side(were it even possible, which we both know it isn't) would be equally ugly and vindictive. We can assume that the settler, given permanent hegemony over the West Bank, would be just as brutal as Hamas. Their belief that God wants THEM to "redeem the land&quot the old "God's on OUR side" canard that since the dawn of time has never done anything but soak the planet in blood, would guarantee it.

The issue isn't either side's "leadership"-and we already know that collectively making life worse for either side in the conflict has never produced better leadership on either side...rather, it has produced nothing but the endless Hamas/Likud death match...so what I object to is the notion that the Palestinian people deserve what's being done to them by the Israeli side because they could supposedly change things for the better "if they really wanted to".

The leaders on BOTH sides should be deported...to Anctartica, if possible.

[shira]

25. Really? Was the PA rejection of 2 states in 1999-2000 worth it?

I've asked you this many times already?

So yes or no?

[Ken Burch]

26. It's not that simple.

They should have made a counter-proposal, I'll agree.
They should not have used armed tactics(as, equally, the Israeli government should not have humiliated them by expanding settlements and eating away land).

Rejecting the specific proposal wasn't wrong in itself.

And, in itself, it wasn't the cause of all that followed. And it itself, it doesn't justify all the Israeli intransigence and brutality that followed.

We can also ask if that leadership might have acted differently had not the Israeli government, starting in the Eighties, had NOT devoted itself to encouraging the growth of Hamas in the name of undermining the PLO at all costs.

You want to reduce this to a simple "yes" or "no", when "yes" or "no" is rarely the answer to any question in this crisis.

I could equally ask, was the Israeli government fixation with delegitimizing the PLO worth it? Did ANYTHING good come from with Shamir, Netanyahu, Sharon and at times even Rabin and Peres' determination to do that....knowing, as you do, that no BETTER alternative leadership with any credibility or authority on the Palestinian side could ever have emerged as a result of the PLO being legitimized?

Don't get me wrong, i don't like Hamas or Fatah...but I want there to be a leadership on the Palestinian side that has the ability to both sign an agreement and have the credibility and prestige among all on that side to be able to make sure that violence actually could be certain to come to an end(btw, I'm not totally sure any possible Israeli government has the credibility to be able to close down the West Bank settlements and get the illegal settlers to go back on the Israeli side of the Green Line...so you may have to prepare yourself for the settlers becoming an openly terrorist group. That's what encouraging irresponsible actions in the name of short-term political expediency often leads to.

[shira]

24. Arab youth use social media to send message of peace to Israel

It all began as a personal project by a young Israeli Arab who lives in northern Israel. He wanted to use social networking to convince other Israeli Arabs that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are not some “army of evil” and that its soldiers are not as bloodthirsty as they tend to be portrayed in Arab propaganda films. He soon learned, however, that in the digital age, there is no end to surprises. Instead of messages and responses from the Israeli Arab audience he was targeting, he began receiving messages of peace and love from young Arab men and women from across the Arab world....

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/israel-arab-youth-facebook-peace-messages-idf.html#ixzz3Ypc789oW

[Ken Burch]

27. Good. That doesn't mean those youth are saying the Israeli side is right

And the Palestinian side is totally in the wrong, though, as you'd like it to mean. Those kids want peace...they don't want their own community to accept defeat and subservience.

[oberliner]

28. "I made a page called ‘TZaHaL bistahal’ ('The IDF is worth it')"

“We love, love, love Israel and its army.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/israel-arab-youth-facebook-peace-messages-idf.html#ixzz3Yq9H5FFe

[shira]

29. No, but they're also not agreeing with the Israel-Sucks brigade & their portrayal...

....of Israel being all evil, all the time, 24-7-365.

[Little Tich]

30. I would feel much better if Aharish was awarded full citizenship.

She obviously sees herself as fully Israeli, but by law she’s not. I think it stinks that in all real democracies like the US, Denmark or Canada, all citizens have the exact same citizenship, and their rights are exactly the same, while in Israel there is a full citizenship for Jews (by the Law of Return) and a partial one for the rest that simply doesn’t provide the same rights.

[oberliner]

31. Nothing you've written here is accurate

She does have full citizenship.

"while in Israel there is a full citizenship for Jews (by the Law of Return) and a partial one for the rest that simply doesn’t provide the same rights."

This is not true.

If you want to talk about a country where one group doesn't have the same rights as another, take a look at the US.

[azurnoir]

32. so like an Israeli Jew who might have relatives in say Milwaukee who want to immigrate

and can becoming almost instant Israeli citizens, provided they are Jews, Ms Aharish's relatives or any other Palestinian Israeli who has relatives living in say Ramallah or Gaza City can also immigrate to Israel, becoming almost instant citizens too , right?

[Little Tich]

33. I'm surprised you don't know that only Jews have full citizenship.

This disparity is discriminatory and the only reason Israel isn't considered a “real” democracy like the US, Canada, Germany and all the other real democracies.

Israel is the only democracy that has a constitution that awards different sets of legal rights due to ethnicity.

[King_David]

34. As usual your post is full of inaccuracies

Can you link to Israel's constitution?

This should be interesting.

Go on.....

[King_David]

35. There's a reason that Israel is the Jewish State and why there's a law of return

Throughout history Jews have been expelled from most countries and most countries have refused refuge for Jews too.

The minute the Jewish state ceases existence ,and there's no law of return ,this will start again.

Now while I do not believe the USA or some other countries will expell their Jews from such countries, it's also true that the German Jews never believed they would be either in the 1930''s.

If you think the Jews will gamble on some peoples wont I think you'll be sadly mistaken.

[Little Tich]

36. The law or Return isn't primarily used for deciding who gets to immigrate to Israel.

It's primary use is to provide different legal status to Israelis who are Jewish and those who are not. If you're an Israeli citizen who is eligible to citizenship due to the Law of Return, there are many laws that apply to you, giving you enhanced rights to housing, education, draft into the IDF, administrative preferences, the right to live on the stolen lands of the JNF, as well as constitutional recognition that these rights are to be reserved for Jews, and not squandered on non-Jews.

For those poor Israelis that lack these rights, there are still laws that provide them with a bare minimum of civil rights, like the right to vote, basic but separate schooling (janitors don't need a high-school degree), basic but separate housing (No state lands, no JNF land), no draft (only full citizens are obliged to defend their country), no new communities (not a single new Arab community since 1948), no access to subsidized housing in the settlements (all settlements in Judea and Samaria are for Jews only), no constitutional protection as a group (no protection against loyalty laws and no rights to protect against losing Israeli citizenship if Lieberman gets his Arab triangle swap going), etc.

The list can be made longer, but I hope you get the point. While I'm opposed to these discriminatory practices, they still give Israeli Arabs just enough rights to make the system stay above Apartheid. As there are places where people have less than these basic rights, I'm opposed to this system on a lower level, even though I strongly believe that democratic rights should be equal for everyone, regardless of ethnic background.

Israel has no actual constitution, but it has laws that provide a de facto constitution: The Law of Return, the Basic Laws, the World Zionist Organization - Jewish Agency Law, and maybe also the Declaration of Independence. These constitutional laws provide the framework for the situation described above.

[King_David]

37. The law of return is in response to history

The definition of a Jew is the same as Hitler's definition, for that very reason, one grandparent.

As usual your post is inaccurate nonsense.

[Little Tich]

38. I don’t care much about who gets to be Jewish or not.

My concern here is the constitutional discrimination due to ethnicity in Israel.

[King_David]

39. The minute there's no law of return is the minute the world resumes the expulsion of Jews

With no place allowing refuge.

Happened before.

And we won't take that chance again.

You may not care , noted for what that's worth...

We do...

[Little Tich]

40. I really shouldn’t respond, but here goes anyway...

For me, the persecution of people of Jewish descent is a horrible thing. The mere thought of a person of Jewish descent feeling there is a reason to have a packed suitcase under the bed, just in case, sickens me.

Unlike you, however, I see Jews as full members of the countries they live in; they are never just living in a host country. For example, a Swedish Jew is 100% Swedish, a Scottish Jew is 100% Scottish a French Jew is 100% French, and so on. Nobody has a right to tell them they should leave their homeland.

[King_David]

41. Unlike me ?

I'm just reporting history.

Don't presume to think for me or to talk for me either.