iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ahmed Moor

Ahmed Moor

Posted: August 9, 2010 04:25 PM

Israel continues to lurch and stagger in the darkened bog of tribal chauvinism. The Jewish state's further descent into the bellicose murk is being felt by the country's minorities. Home destructions and deportations are portentous of a bleaker future for non-Jews in Israel.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have lived under an Israeli apartheid regime for decades now. Over the years, Israel has demolished homes, kidnapped thousands of political prisoners, transferred 500,000 settler-colonists onto the West Bank, conducted massive military operations in civilian areas, hoarded the vast majority of Palestinian water, and committed a host of other crimes under the apartheid banner.

Today, the Zionism which has destroyed so many occupied lives is turning inwards. Israel is being corroded by the ideology underpinning its existence. The Zionist state's latest victims are Palestinian-Israelis and migrant workers.

The Guardian's "Ethnic cleansing in the Israeli Negev," depicts a hulking mass of baklava-clad riot guards descending on Al-Araqib in the pre-dawn morning. The village's Bedouin residents were forcibly extracted from their homes while a bulldozer bulldozed their lives. Incredibly, the village was destroyed to make room for a national forest. It seems that against all morality, the desert will continue to bloom.

That the destruction of a Palestinian-Israeli village requires an audience is only slightly shocking. Groups of Jewish Israeli citizens were bused in to cheer the spectacle of the state-sanctioned "ethnic cleansing." What's very shocking is that the Jewish state enlisted the services of young Jews in wreaking destruction. Teenage volunteers with the police civilian guard emptied the Palestinian-Israeli houses and "smashed windows and mirrors in their homes and defaced family photographs with crude drawings."

Elsewhere in Israel, non-Jewish youths learned that they were unfit to remain in country of their birth. Four-hundred migrant children -- most of them born in Israel -- will be deported soon. Ironically, their expulsion has been spearheaded by parliamentarians from the rightwing Yisrael Beiteinu party, many of whom are Russian immigrants to Israel.

Weighing in on the topic, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, "this is a tangible threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel."

Many of Israel's staunchest supporters are baffled by what's happening in the small Mediterranean state. Regrettably, they fail to understand that Israel is following the natural evolution of a country founded on a race-exclusive basis.

Israeli pundits frequently insist that their state is both Jewish and democratic. They say that minorities in Israel have equal rights and representation in state apparatuses. That's not true, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that roughly 20% of Israelis are not Jewish. And those non-Jews are meeting one another, falling in love, and having children. To borrow Netanyahu's words, it is these children that are a "threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel."

Zionism -- the idea that Jewish people ought to have a Jewish state in mandate Palestine -- is anachronistic in the 21st century. The idea that non-Jews who have lived on the land for generations before the creation of the state of Israel should be relegated to second-class citizenship because they're not Jewish is illiberal. It's also racist.

These people, Palestinian-Israelis and other native non-Jews, have no way of entering the mainstream of political and cultural life in Israel. The only reason they can't is because they're not Jewish.

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to become the Prime Minister of Israel today? And what about Minister of Defense? What does it mean for the Jewish state if the 20% minority grows to 50%, then 70%? Is it still the Jewish state?

For too long Western liberals have engaged in willful denial about the true nature of Israel. Israel is the Jewish state -- of that I have no doubt. But can the Jewish state be squared with liberal and democratic values when one out of every five citizens isn't Jewish? I don't think so.

Israel is already an apartheid state. The separation of the people -- their enforced apartness -- arises not out of security considerations, but racial ones. In short, Israel cannot be both the Jewish and democratic state. That's because Zionism is fundamentally anti-democratic in a mixed-race society. The important questions now are how will Israel prevent the growth of its non-Jewish minorities? And how long will Western liberals continue to pretend that Zionism is compatible with liberalism?

 
 
 

Follow Ahmed Moor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ahmedmoor

 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,151
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Z. Chesnoff
10:36 AM on 09/09/2010
This is an unbelievable article when you consider that Israel is an open democracy where non-Jewish citizens enjoy full rights under law, vote, are members of parliament, serve in the Israeli government - and if they want to, in the Israeli army. There is not a single truly functioning democracy anywhere in the Islamic world.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:02 PM on 08/12/2010
"Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to become the Prime Minister of Israel today? And what about Minister of Defense? What does it mean for the Jewish state if the 20% minority grows to 50%, then 70%? Is it still the Jewish state?"

Citizenship can be defined as love of one's own.

"For sharia compliant Muslims, Islam is a nation that commands the loyalty of "love of one's own" and a state with its own constitution and legal system. Hence the conflict the observant Muslims feel between their faith and their citizenship.”

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100719_geopolitics_nationalism_and_dual_citizenship?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1007020&utm_content=readmore&elq=8f755c0fde414680a908db9ba23617b9
03:50 AM on 08/12/2010
Wonderful post Ahmed.

You should consider submitting it to the UK Guardian.

It is 'just up their street'.
12:16 AM on 08/12/2010
Did those "Bedouins" buy those trees they planted from a local nursery? Or did they transplant (steal) them from some other "vacant, unused and unclaimed" parched desert outcropping 5 miles down the sand path? Sorry...this is ISRAEL, not Saudi Arabia. Bedouin culture has no place in Israel.
Michael II
Neither the one, nor the only
03:04 AM on 08/12/2010
"Bedouin culture has no place in Israel." Don't go shouting that too loud. You're only confirming some people's worst assumptions about the country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
08:14 AM on 08/12/2010
Why would you say such a thing? It's unnecessary and untrue. The Bedouin culture is quite rich and I loved staying in a Bedouin camp while in Israel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeniseA
Most Americans support Israel.
03:19 PM on 08/11/2010
" Four-hundred migrant children -- most of them born in Israel -- will be deported soon."
Don't other wealthy democracies (US included) limit immigration? Why should it be any different for Israel?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Young
02:01 PM on 08/12/2010
''Why should it be any different for Israel? ''

israel is deporting migrant children born in israel.
it is not right.
israel is wrong.
deafening silence from israelis.

U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants demand the end of deportations.
many, many americans agree and make their voices heard.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeniseA
Most Americans support Israel.
04:23 PM on 08/12/2010
"...deafening silence from israelis."
Not true.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129129391&ft=1&f=1004
06:43 AM on 08/13/2010
Are U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants legal in the US? Are they entitled to be citizens?

So what IS the difference? That in spite the fact the law is the same, to your opinion many/some Americans protest it and none/not enough Israelis do? Since these are all subjective statements one cannot compare, but there is an outcry in Israel about it, including PM publishing calls to hide the children and their families from the police over the daily papers and human rights organizations trying to coordinate it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:06 PM on 08/16/2010
DeniseA,
Yes, many wealthy countries including the US limit immigration.
But the US would have to change its constitution [there have been calls for that to happen] before it could legally deport the US-born children of migrants.
Israel not only does not limit immigration for one sort of people it actually encourages it ie for Jews.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeniseA
Most Americans support Israel.
03:16 PM on 08/11/2010
From Haaretz (link below) - another side to the story.

"The ILA said the evacuation was conducted after many years of legal - and physical - battles against the Aturi tribe. The ILA said it demolished 46 illegal buildings, 11 made of cinderblock and 11 shacks. It also said it uprooted 850 trees that were transferred for replanting elsewhere.

The ILA said the Bedouin invaded the area, which is state land, in 1998 and in 2000 a court order was handed down banning them from entering the area. But the tribe moved in and planted trees. The ILA offered to rent them the land at a price of NIS 2 per dunam, but they refused to pay. The ILA received a court order to evacuate the residents in 2003 and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court."


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/police-destroy-dozens-of-buildings-in-unrecognized-bedouin-village-in-negev-1.304443
02:20 PM on 08/11/2010
Meanwhile, in Ramallah....

There is money here, plenty of it, and those who have it are not hesitant to flaunt it.

New cars, beautiful residences, fancy stores and restaurants will startle any outsider arriving here with his head filled by the mainstream media in the West about the misery of the West Bank occupation by Israelis.
09:48 PM on 08/12/2010
These are the spoils of complicity with the occupier provided to the quisling Fatah, while the economy of ordinary Palestinians has been suffocated, resulting in a mean household income of less than $1000 compared with the mean Israeli GDP of over $20,000.
11:53 PM on 08/12/2010
There are no occupiers in Israel proper, they are citizens, and a mix of them who live in a legitimate State called Israel, Live with it. There is also no Law that states Palestinians have a right of return, that is nothing more then fabrication, and UN General Assembly resolution 242 does NOT require Israel to return to pre 1967 borders. Inconvenient Truths for you, but Reality non the less.
01:34 PM on 08/11/2010
If direct negotiations go forward and they fail, where do the parties go from there. In the West at least there is a concensus what the peace treaty will look like. But what if the parties' respective bottom lines are different.
11:44 AM on 08/11/2010
To add some verisimilitude to the article headline it would be changed from
" Israel cannot be both Jewish and Democratic."
to
"Israel will cease to be Jewish or Democratic if it gets Arab majority.
11:39 AM on 08/11/2010
Bottom line: Palestinian state may come into existence by compromise, or not all.

And no amount of fairy tales and posturing will change that.

Palestinian leadership ( which includes its current version) who rejected 65% of the land to turn to violence is not ready for peaceful co existence.
Proof-- election of Hamas. Abbas incoherent posturing.
Arafat wasn't ready for peace in 2001.
Those who elected Hamas and covertly finance various Brotherhoods and Jihads aren't ready now.
And those who dance on Iranian and Syrian puppet strings we won't even talk about.
12:06 PM on 08/11/2010
I'm not sure what's the context of your statement, "Arafat was not ready for peace in 2001..."

When Clinton-Barak-Arafat concluded the TABA summit in 2001, there was a general agreement on the framework to resolve many of the biggest issues. (There were still disagreements, of course, between the two parties).
But the subsequent implementation of the TABA agreement was ultimately derailed, primarily by Israel: 1) there was an election coming up that Barak was preparing for in 2001; 2) Bush was just newly elected, which gave Israel a reason to revisit what was previously discussed; 3) Ariel Sharon became PM in Feb 2001 and he practically rejected most of what was agreed upon in Taba. Does this mean was Sharon was not ready for peace in 2001?
12:30 PM on 08/11/2010
Back to reality--
"Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions."
Bill.Clinton, Bill. “My Life.” Vintage (2005). p. 938.

""I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being. "
Bill Clinton, My Life: The Presidential Years (Chapter 25)

Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan:"If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime."
02:30 PM on 08/11/2010
I think you forgrtting about the launching of the Second Intifada and its impact. Even Abbas is reported to have said that the Second Intifada was the Palestinian's worst mistake.

BTW, Clinton-Barak-Arafat was Camp David. Clinton was not involved with Taba. Amd there was no agreement at Camp David unfortunately. When Clinton offered his bridge plan (bridge the gap), the Israelis accepted it with some reservations but Arafat effectively rejected it. That's what Clinton is referring to in the quotes in the post below.
11:35 AM on 08/11/2010
Thanks Ahmed, great article.

Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.

The double standards and hypocrisy between what Israel tries to present itself as, a bastion of democracy in a hostile world of terror (of its own making) and what it actually practices, the subjugation and terrorizing of the Palestinian people by the IDF and the government are not American values or morals and to try and align them with the US as Likud and AIPAC work so feverishly to do is will not work anymore in the 21st century.

American values don't include confiscating land from Palestinians, throwing thousands of Palestinians in jail without trial, carving up the occupied territories with separate roads, a wall, hundreds of check-points and ethnically cleansing millions of Palestinian Arabs from their ancestral homes.

America's values are "one person, one vote," - not the reality in Israel today and that is certainly not what Bibi has in mind.

Those shared values are increasing called into question and we shouldn’t be giving Israel several billion dollars each year in economic and military aid and provide it with consistent diplomatic protection, in the face of events like the Gaza War or the pummeling of Lebanon in 2006.
02:35 PM on 08/11/2010
One could argue that America's values include confiscating a continent from the Native Americans and Mexicans, putting thousands of Japanese in interment camps and foreigners in Gitmo without trial, the carpet bombing of Vienam and the droning of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Oh yes, remind me of the black participation in our political system before 1964 and the justice they received in our legal system before the 69s/70s.

Every country has lots of skeletons in its closet. It doesn't make the settlements and occupation right. But let's forego the hypocrisy of self-righteousness.
07:53 PM on 08/11/2010
Please, that was then, and this is now. The only sad thing is while we have learned from our mistakes, Israel hasn't and won't.

As far as peace and the treatment of the Palestinians? Israel has had 60 years to resolve its differences, and the group with the self-proclaimed highest IQs in the world can't figure it out? The Vietnamese did better than this.
10:04 AM on 08/11/2010
You may call this propaganda but:

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations," and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location" - such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords," Netanyahu affirmed.

However, this is consistent with Rabin's October 1995 statement to the Knesset on the ratification of the interim Oslo agreement: "B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Remarks_from_Benjamin_Netanyahu
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheLonelyGod
The oncoming storm
12:00 PM on 08/11/2010
And what does this have to do with the article again?
12:26 PM on 08/11/2010
Nothing actually. I just put it there.
12:53 PM on 08/11/2010
It seems that Netanyahu doesn't want peace. Which is the problem.
10:02 AM on 08/11/2010
Do you agree that if you had the power, we should abide by the Oslo Treaty?
01:26 PM on 08/11/2010
Yes.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
01:38 PM on 08/12/2010
The Palestinians BROKE the Oslo accords in 2000, well before Sharon of Bibi came to power.
09:56 AM on 08/11/2010
Who made the first hit?

Palestine OR Isreal?

Evidence.
01:31 PM on 08/11/2010
Back when Israel was Palestine:
1937–1939 Irgun conducted a campaign of violence against Palestinian Arab civilians resulting in the deaths of at least 250.

November 6, 1944 Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo.

July 26, 1946 The bombing of British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel, killing 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others.

October 31, 1946 The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome.

July 25, 1947 The Sergeants affair: Irgun kidnapped two British sergeants, the hostages were murdered. Afterwards, their bodies were taken to an orange grove and left hanging by the neck from trees. An Improvised Explosive Device was set. This went off when one of the bodies was cut down, seriously wounding a British officer.

I can go on, but you get the point...
02:05 PM on 08/11/2010
Yes
02:25 PM on 08/11/2010
Wow. Four examples of Israeli self defense trumpeted as unprovoked attacks. Fill in the spaces in between those dates with reality - endless attacks by Muslims trying to prevent an Israeli Sate from becoming established.

Why don't you guys just admit you don't want Israel to exist. We all know it. You are wasting everyone's time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:24 AM on 08/11/2010
The questions raised in the article are obvious and valid. I've been following events over there since the 2006 Israeli foray into Lebanon. If anyone can objectively give me the short on how it was Israel became establist as a nation in 1948 that would be appreciated. My current position is that "actions speak louder than words." I don't like what I see and question the US governments blind eye regarding support for Israel. I suspect that our support is actually unconstitutional under our own laws. The Government in the US is not supposed to have a bias toward religion domesticly or on foreign soil as I understand the Constitution. Please keep it short without bias or rhetoric. Thanks in advance for any information.
10:10 AM on 08/11/2010
The area between Saudia Arabia and the Mediterranian Sea was part of the Ottomon empire until the end of WWI when it became part of the British mandate. Jews , mostly from Russia and Poland, had begun immigrating to Palestine in the 1890s pursuant to the new movement of Zionism. These Jews received permission from the Ottomans to enter, and purchased land on which they established collective farming communities -- kibbutzim. The national aspirations of the Jews for a Jewish state and the Arabs for Arab states drove the Arabs to launch pogroms against the Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933 or 1935. Jewish defense forces, the Hagannah and the Irgun were developed, the latter the more aggressive and controversial of the two. The British created Jordan -- a consolation prize th the Abdullah family who lost the struggle for Saudi rule.

After WWII, as the degree of the Holocaust atrocity became manifest, the Jews increasingly had violent conflicts with the British as the Jews tried to bring as many Holocaust survivors to (Israel) as possible, without regard to very strict immigration limits the British had imposed in 1935. Both the Jews and the Arabs demanded sovereign states. The place had become a chaotic violent tinderbox. The Brits brought the matter to the Un, which in 1947 adopted a resolution dividing the area into 2 states -- Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians and Arabs rejected thre partition, and war broke out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:34 AM on 08/11/2010
Thanks for the response. My next question would be why did the Palistinians and Arabs reject the "partition" as you referred to it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:12 PM on 08/11/2010
I wonder if the Palistinians rejected the "partition" becuase of the way it was drawn up? Would the Jews have accepted the "partition" if they had recieved the Palistinians portion and vise versa?