Survey: Israeli Arabs accept Jewish, not Zionist, nature of state

[newyorican]

The vast majority of Israeli Arabs accept the definition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, but reject the description of it as a Zionist state. These were the findings of a survey conducted by Prof. Sami Smooha and funded by the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa and the the Citizens' Accord Forum.

Around 70 percent of the Arabs who participated in the survey agreed with the statement that "Israel, within the Green Line, has the right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs coexist." However, according to the study, the vast majority of Israeli Arabs believe that Zionism equals racism, and reject all of the state's Zionist goals.

The survey also found that most of the Jewish population wants Arab citizens to accept Israel as a Zionist state, as it is accepted by the international community, even though these Zionist ideals are often at the expense of Arab citizens.

read more...

[brainshrub]

1. Over the past few years I've noticed that Americans are getting

Over the past few years I've noticed that Americans are getting better at seeing the difference between Jews and Zionists. I'm glad Arabs are to.

Just saying.

[Ken Burch]

2. Can you clarify exactly what it means to accept Israel as Jewish

but not Zionist?

Does this mean that those who favor binationalism are now prepared to accept that the Jewish population in the area could stay and not be harassed?

I mean, this sounds like a good thing, but its hard to works out exactly what they are saying when they say this.

(And will this help push the PA to take the Holocaust denial out of Palestinian schoolbooks?)

[Igel]

3. Such a strange distinction.

It's ok for the state to be democratic and Jewish, but they seem unwilling to allow a permanent right to immigration by Jews from elsewhere.

In other words, it seems to be saying that Jewish and democratic is fine, as long as no mechanism is in place to ensure that it stays Jewish.

"Israeli Arabs believe that a Jewish state is a state in which most of the citizens are Jewish, whereas a Zionist state is a state for the Jewish people from around the world."

"That is a Zionist goal, and includes settlement in the Jewish sense and the ingathering of exiles by means of the Law of Return. But the Arabs are not willing to accept this situation in perpetuity."

Do I read this correctly: they're saying they can be tolerant, as long as they have reasonable hopes of the territory reverting to an Arab-majority state.

[not systems]

5. "as long as no mechanism is in place to ensure that it stays Jewish"

That is the very reason Zionism is consider a supremacist ideology.

A democracy with a "mechanism" in place to ensure the domination of
of a group in perpetuity is not much of a democracy at all.

What "mechanism" can ensure such a thing.

1) "Ethnic cleansing" -- like Bosnia
2) Permanent disenfranchisement from the vote -- like Apartheid
3) Incoming colonialists -- like Tibet
4) Forced birth control or sterilization -- like some Eugenics polices of the past in the US

Not a very wholesome list for a democracy to choose from even if
a cherished ideology demands it.

[Colorado Blue]

13. But it ISN'T a supremacist ideology. For Jewish people to

want ONE STATE, one place in the entire world, where we don't have to live as a minority, isn't supremacist.

It's merely looking at the past 2,000 years of history, trying to survive in the shadow of powerful governments and powerful religions, and it has been a DISASTER.

That should be obvious.

Moreover, the purpose of Israel is to exist as a place of refuge from persecution - all too common in Jewish history. Therefore Israel will exist for Diaspora Jews in case they need a place to run.

How can that possibly be considered "supremacist"?

Indeed, if people are worried about Israel becoming overrun with Jews, they should worry about antisemitism at home, so we don't HAVE to make a run for it:)

Moreover, regardless of all the attempts to cast Zionism or the birth of Israel as originally desirous of injuring the Arabs, that was NEVER the idea. In fact Zionism has always been seen as a way to help the people of the region. It is warfare, continuous attack since 1920 and non-stop ever since, which has brought about the population transfers and the desire to maintain a majority Jewish state.

It should be remembered: the Jewish communities of the Middle East are almost wiped out now, forced to flee after 1948. It wasn't only the Arabs who were made refugees by this situation. There were 900,000 Jews living in ancient communities, now there are only about 8,000. So, simply blaming the Israelis for "Bosnia" isn't just biased, it's innaccurate.

As far as what the future will bring, it will have to evolve. We don't know what the future will present.

The ethical considerations are indeed daunting, agonizing. It would help if existing conditions in the Middle East weren't so bitter. If indeed it were possible for Jewish people to live unmolested, free and able to express their culture in Lebanon, Egypt or on the West Bank, it would relieve a great deal of the pressure on Israel. Conversely, if Muslims were to become a majority within Israel - how would they treat us? History doesn't argue for a happy outcome in that case.

We're talking about cultural differences here as well as religious. Even if the Arabs would tolerate the religion, the presence of Jews living among them AS EQUALS - which would go against history and against the Islamic view of Jews - would they tolerate the women? That's been a problem in the past, even the simple act of female soldiers driving cars was a big problem in Saudi Arabia.

[centristo]

16. well put Colorado Blue

However, I would add that IMHO any type of theocracy is morally inferior to a true democracy which has freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state.

I personally dream of a one-state solution and a secular Israel. What is currently Israel would be joined with the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem being used as a capital by both the Palestinians and Israelis. It is clear, however, that current events and prejudices make such a place nothing but fantasy.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Zionism means many things to many people

from a mystic "ingathering of the exiles as a prelude to the (second) coming of the Messiah" (in the Fundamentalist Christian Zionist sense) to a place of refuge for, e.g., "asylum seekers" and "refugees" who are subject to religious and/or political persecution in their country or origin<1>.

This is the emotional draw for a lot of "Zionists" - we recall the Steam Ship Saint Louis, we read what progressive liberal Democrats append on progressive liberal Democratic web sites (not conservative underground or free republic), e.g.,

1.
2.

and the reaction of , and even the forced conversion of the kidnapped child Edgardo Mortara by the Papal soldiers of Pius IX.


Bottom line: the principle of a place of absolute refuge - where asylum will be granted - must be preserved. Not wealthy retirees, not itinerant hippies and students, not religious pilgrims and zealots - but authentic asylum seekers.



Footnote 1

Legal Assistance for Political Asylum Seekers

The Difference Between Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Refugees and asylum seekers request save haven in the United States and other countries because they fear persecution in their homelands. A refugee applies for protection while outside the U.S. An asylum seeker first comes to the U.S. and, once here, applies for protection.
Who is eligible for political asylum in the US

Immigrants who are in the U.S. may request asylum if they have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The burden is on asylum seekers to prove they fit the definition of a political refugee. Barring extraordinary circumstances or changed conditions in their home countries, protection seekers must request asylum within one year of entering the U.S.

Those who have participated in the persecution of others or committed serious crimes are not eligible for asylum.

[not systems]

22. definition of "supremacist"

http://www.answers.com/supremacist

supremacist

One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme.


If Jews have more rights by law in the state of Israel as
a basic principle of Zionism then Zionism is by definition
is a supremacist ideology.

That says nothing about if it can be justified to the
people who benefit from the arrangement because obviously
lots of posters here support Jewish supremacy in Israel
that is guaranteed by law in perpetuity.

What is more questionable is if this can be sold to the
people who are on the downside of this deal.

From the article:

Over 72 percent believe that "Israel as a Zionist state, in which Jews and Arab live together, is racist."



If people are the best judges of their own situation then
this must be recognized as the results of life on the wrong
side of a supremacist ideology.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. That number

That is 72% of Arabs, not Jews and Arabs, believe that "Israel as a Zionist state, in which Jews and Arab live together, is racist." That is surprising, considering they have 22 nations which are Arab or Muslim. Why should they care if ONE nation is open to ALL Jews?

[not systems]

25. The people polled are citizens of Israel...

they live their lives there, why shouldn't they have equal rights.

Why should any state give unequal rights to one religious group?

Making an argument for affirmative action to address past wrongs
based on race or religion is reasonable but when the group given
the greater privilege is the dominant group in a society it turns
the idea of affirmative action on it's head.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Citizens of Israel

Never said they shouldn't have equal rights. I was unaware that Muslims were not allowed to apply for citizenship in Israel. When did that happen?

However, having a place where Jews worldwide can call a home does not a racist state make. I am also in favor of addressing inequalities based on past inequities, but that works both ways.

[not systems]

28. They may or may not be Muslims but 72% say Israel is racist in ...

this poll.

Are Arab Israeli's able to bring family and spouses into
Israel and have them gain citizenship?

Has the law in this article been repealed?

I hope so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3152651.stm

UN blasts Israeli marriage law

Supporters of the bill fear the loss of Israel's Jewish character
A United Nations panel has urged Israel to repeal a new law forcing Palestinians who marry Israelis to live separate lives.

The Geneva-based Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination unanimously approved a resolution saying the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty.

...

On 31 July the Israeli parliament approved a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship or residency.

...

Since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have obtained Israeli permits in this way and some Israelis see this as a security threat.

..

[eyl]

29. If the standard is equal treatment under the law

then are Israeli Jews allowed to bring Palestinian spouses into Israel? The law doesn't allow them to do so either.

Much more importantly, the law only forbids Palestinian spouses entry to Israel; it doesn't bar, say, Lebenese spouses.

I'm not aware of any Israeli law that specifically applies to Jews and not Arabs, or vice versa (the most common example, the Law of Return, doesn't apply to any Israeli citizens by definition, and laws of that kind are not unique to Israel, even among first world countries).

[not systems]

30. What are the numbers?

If 99% of the people with Palestinian spouses are Israeli
Arabs and 1% Jews then "equal treatment under the law" with
this law is a stretch of the concept.

If it is 50/50 then I will change my opinion of the law from
it being a racist law to it being a simple discriminatory one.

[eyl]

31. Which is why

I specified the second point - that it does not bar non-Palestinian foreign spouses - to be much more important.

[not systems]

32. good point. n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Some rather interesting definitions and examples of supremacy.

If Zionism is to provide a place of refuge for asylum seekers - does that mean that Zionism necessarily means the beneficiaries of these rights to asylum are by definition "supreme" ?

Let's rephrase the question. Under the court decisions implementing Brown v. Board of Education and implementing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - are racial minority beneficiaries "supreme" - or are females "supreme" ?

How about beneficiaries of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act? Or the Service Members Civil Relief Act ? Or the Family Emergency Medical Leave Act?

At one time every one of these laws has been attacked as creating an "unreasonable classification" by those on the losing side.

I would go a step further.

And, as the case of the asylum seeking refugees on the SS St. Louis and the Haitian refugees illustrate - taken with the post-1959 demographics of South Florida ... we are arbitrary and capricious and discriminatory as hell in our own asylum and refugee policies.

Unless, of course, one approves of both the SS St Louis exclusion and the Haitian exclusion -- and of the open door for Cubans.

Goodyear Aerospace even questioned the Service Members Civil Relief Act because Goodyear argued, it created a "protected class" ("supreme class") of returning veterans who had been conscripted out of Goodyear.


I would say that, given the SS St Louis case, and the open arms of the majority groups around the world during the 1930's (except for Japan :) - see Tokayer's "Fugu Plan"), the asylum provisions inherent in Zionism are rational and fair.

[not systems]

26. I favor affirmative action within societies...

but when the affirmative action benefits the privileged
group within a society it is not affirmative action it is
a policy of preserving privilege.

I think the anti-Haitian policies are racist and the pro-Cuban
immigration policy are just a political pay off to right wingers
in Florida.

I can't begin to defend US immigration policy.

[Coastie for Truth]

33. One must distinguish between "immigration" and "asylum"

and between "refuge" and "citizenship."

"Immigration" is a status action under international law, governed by one body of law. "Asylum" to "refugees" comes under "international humanitarian law" and does not per se either imply or require a grant of citizenship. See, e,g, Marvin Tokayer, The Fugu Plan, where the Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust were granted "asylum" in Japan - but not "citizenship." I would ask DUers to "compare and contrast" Japan's action with the actions of the US and Cuba in the case of the refugees on the SS St. Louis.

Unfortunately, in the United States (and in many countries, unfortunately) there is an incorrect and improper tendency to conflate and confuse "immigration" with "asylum" for "refugees." They are not "identically equal."

And the duty of the receiving state is defined in the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees

Article 33, "Prohibition of Expulsion or Return ('Refoulement')"
a. No contracting state shall expel or return ("Refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

I would also refer DUers to the special issue of Litanus devoted to a tragic incident where Coast Admiral William Ellis directed the return or "refouler" of an asylum seeking Lithuanian seaman, Simas Kudrika.

I am at a loss to see how the granting of "asylum" is an act of "affirmative action."

And, I am at a loss as to how granting "asylum" is suddenly turned into "affirmative action" and the recipients of such "asylum" are "privileged." "Privileged" to be alive - but not "privileged" in the sense that Jesse Helms used in his political campaigns.

"Privileged" and "affirmative action" are politically and emotionally charged words in 20th-21st Century America. And, after the the racist treatment afforded the legitimate "refugees" legitimately fleeing the Holocaust, and legitimately entitled to "asylum" status under International Law - I find there use to be questionable in this context.

[not systems]

34. explanation

My first line in the previous post addressed your post up
to line "I would go a step further."

The next two lines addressed the rest of the post.

No point in continuing as what I said is a million miles from "Jesse Helms"
and I never conflated "asylum" and "affirmative action.".

[Igel]

18. But 1, 2, and 4 aren't on the table,

or at least it has to be stipulated they weren't included in the survey.

And, unlike the Chinese, it's not like there's effectively an infinite number, a number of potential immigrants so great as to effectively swamp the local population.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Some appenders would like to put them on

the table as strawmen-

No serious, legitimate, non-psychotic (I have taken Kahane and Goldstein out of the debate) has suggested ethnic cleansing or permanent and perpetual disenfranchisement or forced abortions and sterilization.

But these same appenders will search far and wide for a sarcastic comment by a thoroughly discredited racist - or by a unknown Jabotinskyite - just to attack the statement "No serious, legitimate, non-psychotic has suggested ethnic cleansing or permanent and perpetual disenfranchisement or forced abortions and sterilization."

But these appenders don't see any room need or room for meaningful asylum for refugees from the very ethnic cleansing, permanent and perpetual disenfranchisement, or forced abortions and sterilization that they imagine in every Israeli.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Your take/my take

Do I read this correctly: they're saying they can be tolerant, as long as they have reasonable hopes of the territory reverting to an Arab-majority state.

I read it the same way. They have no problem with a Jewish majority, as long as that, at some point, can change. And, honestly, I think that is how Israel will eventually be conquered.

[newyorican]

4. I find interesting the Israeli-Jew take on dual loyalties...

since the topic has resulted in much heated debate with respect to those with dual citizenship in the US.

Some 80 percent of the Jewish respondents, however, said that an Israel Arab who defines himself as "a Palestinian Arab in Israel cannot be loyal to the state and its laws."

That's an eye-opener.

[pelsar]

7. and why is that?

Some 80 percent of the Jewish respondents, however, said that an Israel Arab who defines himself as "a Palestinian Arab in Israel cannot be loyal to the state and its laws."

so?...given that there is now a low level war going on with the palesteniains, given that israeli arabs who have identified with them have aided and abbetted...where is the surprise?

and a footnote: how many israeli arabs identify themselves as palestenian arabs and not israelis (not the ones i know.....)

eye opener?.....hardly, just human nature

[Johnywolf]

6. You make no sense!

It's like saying Puerto Ricans should hate Puerto Rico and say Puerto Rico es muy mal . Zionism is the movement for the development and for the protection of the state of Israel. Those who believe that Zionism equals racism should check the dictionary to make sure they know what it means.zionism equals racism is a myth created by anti semites. They based their "assumption" on the fact that Jews consider themselves chosen people. Yes,we do, aren't every religion considers itself special? While the Jews are being accused of that.
Also do you even know what Palestinian means? It is a Greek word given to Greek settlers in the coast of Israel few thousand years ago, I do not remember exact date, but I know that even Greeks settled after Jews. There is a historical evidence of Jewish kingdoms excising there long time before there even were Arabs. There is archaeological evidence of that. First know what zionism means, you don't have to agree with it, just for god's sake learn the definition before posting such outrageous stuff. Am I a Zionist? Well, I do believe Israel should have it's own homeland and the right to protect it, though I am not part of the "movement", so I can't consider myself a zionist, I consider myself an American. These days it seems the word Zionist became a new slur antisemites call the Jews and uneducated Jews become actually ashamed of that. They don't even know the meaning of the word.

[newyorican]

8. I make perfect sense...

First and foremost because I don't confuse an article published in a leading Israeli newspaper my something written as a personal opinion.

So you see, I'm not saying anything. I have made no comment.

However, you have said plenty. I would recommend some reading before dispensing anymore "History" lessons: EARLY HISTORY PALESTINE ORIGIN
You can find many sources of information, some biased, some not so much. This site, I have found, appears rather straightforward with little or no intent to misrepresent. Others may disagree as is the nature of this topic.

On Edit: Another take on the Orgin of Palestine Source
One land, Many stories.

Please direct your ire at Ha'aretz for publishing this "outrageous stuff".

[Johnywolf]

9. You still make no sense!

You see, I do not have to agree with every Jewish newpaper and media, I know the real facts.I I am a history major at college and I did take ancient history cource, though my field is not palestenian region. Let's see if I remmember...Early Hebrew communities in Israel "northern palestine" began around 1900 B.C.E. Then in 1550 B.C.E most migrated into Egypt. Around 1300 B.C.E was the exodus. The they divided into two kingdoms. Northern kingdom was destroyed by Assyria in about 700 B.C.E and southern kingdom was captured by Chaldeans in 568 B.C.E. Philistines (greeks) settled around the coast of Israel in 1175 B.C.E. First Israeli king Saul expelled Phillistes from Israel around 1200-1000 B.C.E. There were no arabs back then! Of cause by the late 1800's the movement of Zionism began to occur to reclaim the historical land. I could type more, but I will have to consult the book, which I do not want to do at this time! By posting this article you probably agreed with it, I mean you will not post some faux news article that says Bush has a highest rating ever. I am not accusing you of anything, just saying pure historical facts, which as a Jewish-American person and a future historian I felt I had to do! Peace! :-D
:patriot: B-)

[newyorican]

10. I see...

You believe the article should be censored. To each his/her own.

I cannot honestly say whether I agree or disagree with the sentiments of the article, whatever they are. I do not live in Israel or Palestine. I thought it an interesting article and posted it. I do not agree with every post I make, bad assumption.

I can honestly say that anyone claiming exclusive possession of the "real facts" about this history are not to be taken seriously.

Sayonara.

[pelsar]

11. johny....

it really doesnt matter the any real facts concerning the palestenians history......true there was no "palestenian people" as a cultural identity until israel came around and with the help of the neighboring arab countries helped develop it.....and as a culture i dont give it very high marks (movies made, books authored, etc)..but it is now in the 21st century an identity that many people have-hence we in israel have to accept that reality.

and that is really whats its all about...denying the arabs living in refuguee camps or those in Gaza City, tulkarem etc their own identity, wont get us very far. Furthermore, it is not us that can decide what their identity is, it is up to them....I've read enough about people claiming that the jews of today have no relation to the "hebrews" of past, etc etc etc....well I dont give a shit what they think..its my culture.....so too with the palestenians....you just have to "suck it up"

since the palestenians have a very short history there going to have to do a lot of manipulation (as arafat liked to do) of history to creat a culture.....now whatever they do, whatever they add/modify will be their choices...whether its true or imaginary will remain irrelevant.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Then, there is always this....

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5

more http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#b">here

Also a very interesting take on the history.

[Colorado Blue]

14. Hi, the link doesn't work? nt

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Oops on the link!

Here is is for real....link

[Colorado Blue]

17. Thanks. nt