Palestinian citizens of Israel must have been proud of the fact that their collective tenacity always proved stronger than any Israeli attempt at dislocating them from their rightful historical narrative. Now, they are being told to cease and desist from commemorating al-Nakba, the Catastrophe of 1948, which saw the brutal seizure and depopulation of most of Palestine in order to construct the Israeli ‘miracle’.
Currently estimated at a fifth of the population of today’s Israel, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have endured appalling treatment for decades. As Muslims and Christians, they have been regarded as an anomaly in what was meant to be a perfect Jewish utopia governed by the laws of democracy. This is the quandary that Israel has never mastered, as the non-Jewish citizens of Israel have represented a major obstacle to that vision.
The question of what to do with Palestinian citizens of Israel has long haunted Israeli politicians. Discriminatory laws, unlawful seizure of land, and even violence have all failed to deter Palestinians from demanding equality and exposing the moral inconsistency of Israel’s selective democracy and dubious history. More, all attempts at fragmenting Palestinian national identity – through different sets of laws for Palestinians in Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and millions in Diaspora – were hardly enough to disfigure the innate sense of solidarity and belonging that Palestinian communities felt towards one another. When Palestinian activists gather in Jerusalem, Algiers or London, one fails to trace borderlines, the details of identity cards, or any other desperate forms of classification used by Israel. When Palestinians meet, Israel’s divisive laws prove frivolous.
Israeli politicians have “lost sight of a basic concept in democracy,” claimed the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in a recent statement, as cited by the BBC. The statement was a response to the Israeli parliament’s approval of a bill that “allows courts to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted of spying, treason or aiding its enemies.” Like scores of other bills introduced to the Knesset, many of which have been approved, the most recent amendment of the Citizenship Law of 1952 targets the Palestinian population of Israel.
The bill, passed on March 28, was sponsored by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, the proud sponsor of nearly two dozen other discriminatory bills. Lieberman’s 2009 campaign was largely based on the slogan: “no loyalty, no citizenship.” The latest bill is another manifestation of this idea.
But it was hardly the only bill targeting Palestinian citizens of Israel. Another had been passed only a few days earlier. The “Nakba Bill” passed its final reading on March 22 and was sponsored by Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu). This bill can be understood as a war on the collective memory of Palestinians, as it targets those who mark and commemorate the Catastrophe of 1948.
“We are ready to go to jail,” was the response of MK Jamal Zahalka, of Balad party, who warned of “civil rebellion” against recent bills. “Nakba law won’t stop Arabs – we’ll just increase our protests.”
Haneen Zoabi, also of the Balad party, told The Electronic Intifada: “This is a kind of law to control our memory, to control our collective memory. It’s a very stupid law which punishes our feelings. It seems that the history of the victim is threatening the Zionist state.”
A stupid law maybe, but one rooted in Israel’s historical fear of Palestinian memory. Indeed, the war on memory has its own convincing, albeit cruel logic. From Vladimir Jabotinsky’s ‘Iron Wall’ of 1923 – aimed largely at sidelining the ‘native population’ from the ‘Zionist colonization’ of Palestine – to Uri Lubrani’s desire to “reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters”, attempts at forcefully removing or reducing the Palestinian population is the cornerstone of Zionist reasoning. The reasoning, which was essentially predicated on presenting Palestine as a “land without people”, is often challenged by the fact that the Palestinian people are too stubborn to terminate their historical, intellectual and very personal relationship to their land. Their persistence has made a mockery of Israel’s first Prime Minister Ben Gurion’s faulty prediction in 1948 that “the old will die and the young will forget.”
Palestinian steadfastness cannot bend natural phenomena. Yes, the old will continue to die. But the young are far from forgetting. So how do you now exact forgetfulness from Palestinians? Israel has always enjoyed a broad definition of ‘democracy’, which purported to reconcile ethnic and religious exclusivity on the one hand, and the inclusive parameters of true democracy on the other. Outside Israel, those who dared question this wisdom were labeled anti-Semites. Palestinians in Israel, who fought against the iniquitous and dehumanizing definitions, were often labeled a ‘fifth column’ and were designated ‘enemies’ of the state. It is they who now risk losing their citizenship or being fined for the supposedly sinful act of remembering the tragedies that have befallen their people.
Although racist and discriminatory laws have defined the Israeli parliament for years, the unmistakably bigoted nature of these laws and the frequency at which they are being passed reflect the level of fear in the Zionist project. The major obstacle to this project remains a people who refuse to be defeated or to be relegated as “woodcutters or waiters.” Israel seems to be resolving its quandary of being a Jewish and democratic state, and it has decidedly chosen to be the former. There is nothing democratic about the most recent bills that have passed in the parliament. Israel is now officially an Apartheid state, and all the Hasbara in the world cannot resolve the moral crisis that is now at the core of Israeli politics.
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on March 2 that veteran diplomat Ilan Baruch had quit his post as he was no longer able to defend Israeli policy. It seems Mr. Baruch made his decision in the nick of time, as it would be a truly arduous task now to try and justify Israel’s war on Palestinian memory.
Just one more article on this site that misses the mark on most of the points raised.
While many Arabs call what happened in 1948 a catastrophe, which is their right I guess, let’s look at the bigger picture.
• The Jewish people were legally given rights to the land we call Israel in 1920 at San Remo, Italy. These legal rights came into being by the League of Nations and are still valid today.
• Part of the rules by which Jews were to be given title to the land ensured those other than Jews were to be given full religious and civil rights, but not political rights. I’d say Israel has lived up to these terms for the most part.
• Quoting Israeli far left and anti Israel publications or people is meaningless. It’s good for you as it tends to lend credence to what you write, but it’s nonsense to those of us who recognize these people for what they are.
* Arabs were killing Jews in the area long before 1948, one of the memorable examples occurred in 1929.
• To say that Arabs living in Israel have endured appalling conditions for decades seems to omit the fact the most Arabs who live there categorically favor living in Israel as opposed to a neighboring country. You might wish to check what’s going on in neighboring countries to see that living there has not been, and continues to be, less than ideal.
• Using the term Palestinians to refer to the Arabs who lived in that area is just false – they were never called that, in fact the Jews were, and the term Palestinians only came into being around 1967. Most of the inhabitants came from surrounding areas, Syria for example.
• Many of the Arabs who lost their land fled on the advice of Arab leaders during 1948. Not all of course, but many. And there were horrible slaughters on both sides during that conflict.
• Which could have been avoided if the Arabs had agreed to the terms of the UN which would have given them their own country, oh, 63 years ago.
• The Arab narrative you talk about is just not accurate. Like much of the talk that comes out of all Arab Mideast countries, there is selective memory and many inaccuracies. Too many to mention. Truth has never been most of these countries better attributes, but a self righteous phony sense of truth has. It is my feeling that what you write about falls into that spectrum.
• I know of no country in the world that would put up with its inhabitants plotting to not only undermine, but to plan attacks against the government or its citizens. Liebermans suggested law was tame compared to what mot countries would do when confronted with such realities. The US makes its citizens pledge allegiance to the country, and I don’t see much wrong with that.
I respect your right to have your own thoughts and you write them down well – kudos to you. Like most of the writers on this site there is a fair bit of intelligence and talent displayed in their writing, notwithstanding that in almost every case, the authors skirt around the truth and once again arrive at the convenient but historically incorrect conclusion.
It’s really quite boring to read the same sort of stuff over and over because how can your people ever move forward unless they confront the realities of the time and todays realities.
• Calling Israel apartheid is foolish and inaccurate, though a good job has been done to convince the world otherwise. Building separate Arab road to prevent Jewish families from being ambushes is apartheid? Same with the fence.
No, this claim is just not true and never has been.
The bottom line is that Israel has never had to contemplate what to do with Palestinian because there never has been a people of that name. It does however, concern itself what to do with it’s hostile Arab people and overall, handles the situation pretty darn well – meaning that Arabs have much protection under Israeli law. Far more protection than if the roles were reversed.
Barry,
The fact that you question that the ethnic cleansing of more than 700,000 people from their homes and from their land counts as a catastrophe exposes your deep-seeded racism, which is the premise for every remark that follows.
It doesn’t help that you can’t get your facts straight. We’ve had this discussion before; you know that you claims about “The Jewish people” being “legally given rights to the land” is a lie. Jews legally owned only 7% of the land by 1948.
The inhabitants of Palestine, be they Jews or Arabs, were always called “Palestinians”. The claim this word was invented around 1967 is nonsense.
The claim that Arabs fled on advice from Arab leaders is false. They fled out of fear of more massacres such as the one that occurred at Deir Yassin, or because Zionists forced them from their homes. Incidentally, the first terrorist organizations in Palestine were Jewish groups.
Jeremy,
Let’s stop pretending. When you talk about false narratives and racism, you’re doing what psychologists call “projection.”
Anyone with eyes to see knows the Palestinians don’t want peace and never have. They get offered a state twice and go to war twice without making a counter-offer.
The supporters of the Palestinians, and I was one for my entire youthful life and most of my adult life, are either lying or confused.
I was confused until after I set out the learn how to make a good case for the Palestinians only to discover that Jew hatred and Rejectionism inform the heart of their outlook.
False accusations of racism are the first telltale sign of a bankrupt argument.
I’ve seen this tactic for 30 years now.
It doesn’t work anymore.
Ethnic cleansing please!
With 5 numerically-superior invading armies breathing down your neck, you have the luxury to ethnically cleanse??
That Jews ethnically cleansed anyone is one more blood libel against them.
So Cal Mike,
Anyone with eyes to see can see Israel doesn’t want peace and never has.
The Palestinian people and the international community have perpetually offered Israel a two-state solution, which Israel has perpetually rejected.
Jews ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1948-49.
You’ve gotta be kidding Jeremy. Israel has been offered a two state solution? Exactly under what terms are you referencing?
Jeremy, your brilliant mind is so muddled that I fear for your mid term sanity. How can you make these statements with a straight face? Oh, I get it, you don’t need a straight face on the internet.
I believe the UN offered a two state solution in 1947 that was rejected by one of the parties. And if Jews ethically cleansed Palestine in 48-49, how come there are well more than a million Arabs living in Israel, many of who came from families that had lived in the area prior to 1947?
Barry, surely you cannot possibly be unaware of the international consensus on a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As for what happened prior to the unilateral Zionist declaration of the existence of Israel, I’ve written about it in “The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel” (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/) and “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination”, which you can purchase in print or download from Lulu.com or Amazon.com, or become a member of my website and download it for free (www.jeremyrhammond.com).
There is no “if”, Barry. Jews ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1948-49. You cannot surely be truly ignorant of that fact, any more than it can be that you are unaware of the international consensus on a two-state solution.
Jeremy, it seems that there is a voice of reason below, So Cal Mike, who calls it the way it is.
For an otherwise intelligent man, which no doubt you are, you get so much of the narrative wrong one has to be suspect at what lies at the base of your reasoning.
Every account of 1948 states that part, not all, but part of the Arab exodus was due to their leaders encouraging them to leave and then return once the Jews had been killed. What are you smoking that you can deny this?
You still don’t accept San Remo and the legal rights given to the Jewish people. Wish this could one day come up in court and we’ll see who has the better claim. Hint: not you
It is also widely known that the term Palestinian came into vogue after 1967 when your buddy Arafat used the term for propaganda.
Yes, you can nit pick on this and that, but it’s insulting that you can’t get your basic facts correct nor are you willing to concede there is another narrative than the one you live by.
I won’t go as far as to call you evil, but the word “thick” is coming to mind.
I still respect your scholarship in many areas but in this one, I defer to So Cal Mike and the truth.
No, Barry, that is a lie. It is as I said previously.
You are correct, I don’t accept asinine, colonialist, racist nonsense. The fact that you accept the premise that European countries could legitimately “give” European Jews “rights” in a region under foreign European military occupation shows both your ignorance of rights and law and yet again reveals your own deep racism.
More asinine nonsense. Before Israel even existed, there were Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians.
That’s some striking hypocrisy, Bare.
Jeremy,
“No, Barry, that is a lie. It is as I said previously.”
Obviously you and I have read different source material. I don’t presume you were there in person to have come to this conclusion.
“You are correct, I don’t accept asinine, colonialist, racist nonsense. The fact that you accept the premise that European countries could legitimately “give” European Jews “rights” in a region under foreign European military occupation shows both your ignorance of rights and law and yet again reveals your own deep racism.”
And yet I’ve never heard you say a word about the legitimacy of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, all of which came out of the same conference.
The fact is, you may not like what came out of San Remo but let’s distinguish that from what is legal and what is not. The law states that there is a home for the Jewish people in the area we now call Israel. This has been established and cannot now be changed under International Law because people like yourself want it to. It’s a done deal that no one can argue with on a legal basis.
And by the way, the reason that part of the world was chosen is that it is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, has been for three thousand years. It is the others who were living there for centuries who were the occupiers, but then, you already know that.
“More asinine nonsense. Before Israel even existed, there were Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians.”
The term Palestinian referred to the Jewish people who lived in that area. The Palestinian Symphony Orchestra and the local newspaper were not Arab owned, rather, now were they.
You can talk in Semantics but much of the world agrees with what I have written and only a few diehards like yourself persist otherwise.
As for Edwards reply below, he may know more about Scotland than I but he is pretty ignorant about the Mideast.
Calling Judaism “a bigoted alien religious persuasion” smacks of the same kind of BS that you tend to serve up.
Edward, for your information, the land was given to the Jewish people worldwide, some of whom lived there already, and others who were descendants of those who had been forced to leave. By and large, all Jews originated from that area.
The reason the conflict will not be settled anytime soon has less to do with the muddled point you made and more to do with the violent and political fanaticism of those who cannot stand the ideas of Jews owning any land in what they consider to be their area. And of course, most of the land those people occupy was gained through violent means, so who’s kidding whom.
Read the comment above by So Cal Mike for a clearer understanding, and by the way, I have no idea who he is, we are not collaborating on this.
I don’t doubt that you and I read different material, Barry. You need to stop relying on hasbara sources.
Nonsense.
Nonsense. Barry, let me keep you occupied for a while with a simple request: produce this “law” for us. Good luck with that.
In 1611 (400 years ago exactly) the English government evicted the native people of Ulster, Ireland and gave the land to mainly Scottish Presbyterian settlers. A foreign power evicting the natives of Palestine and giving the land to foreigners of a bigoted alien religious persuasion would seem to be a carbon copy. So if anyone thinks the conflict in Palestine will be settled anytime soon are in for a big surprise.
Good one Jeremy, “law” in the context that we understand the word may or may not be the correct one. Nonetheless, it is pretty clear that the “Mandate for Palestine”, which was later ratified by the League of Nations, and which remains valid and binding to this day says the following, and I quote.
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
That took me all of three minutes, so you didn’t ruin my day with your request.
As to your repetition about “international consensus”, I would agree with you that the world is a sick place today and that country after country have shown a lack of moral clarity and spine. Let’s see, 57 or so Muslim countries and one Jewish country, oil versus no oil, non Jews versus Jews, get the picture? There will always be international consensus against Israel or Jews because of bigoted and blind people such as yourself. Those who have no moral backbone and who ingest lies rather than digest the truth. This is what humanity has always been made of in parts, and you continue that fine tradition. Bravo.
Translation: I can’t cite the law, Jeremy, because it doesn’t exist.
Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate gave any “rights” to Jews. In fact, the idea that rights are given from one group to the next is just as asinine as everything else you’ve argued. Rights are inherent, and the rights that are being denied are the rights of the Palestinians.
You are a sick person and lack moral clarity and spine, with your persistent bigotry and lack of humanity.
And you Mr. Hammond, continue to display the onset of early dementia.
I gave you the exact words that form International Law. If you wish to ignore that, then please have the guts to ignore International Law on a consistent basis, not just when you disagree with it.
And by the way, rights were not given from one group to another in that there was no “group” that had been legally defined in that area for the longest time, and certainly none after the Ottoman Empire. Rights were created by the countries that had the power of disposition, by law.
Going back to your earlier quote “Barry, surely you cannot possibly be unaware of the international consensus on a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Below is a link to what your two state solution will look like. That astute international consensus is just about as naive, or perhaps dumb, as you are.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10149
Have a good day Jeremy
I have by no means ignored international law in anything I’ve stated.
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the very definition of what a right is, yet again suggesting rights can be “given” from one party to another. This perhaps stems from your ignorance of law.
Please explain why you are opposed to the two-state settlement, in favor of which there is an international consensus.
I suspect your rejection of the right to self-determination of the Palestinians stems from your blatant racism, but perhaps you have another explanation as well?
Just read the link I sent you, that pretty well explains it.
Here it is again.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10149
And for the record Jeremy Hammond, I don’t consider myself a racist at all, it’s rather funny being called one from someone who has never met me. If there’s a natural born racist amongst us, I’m pretty darn sure it’s you.
The article repeats much of the same nonsense you constantly spew, Barry, such as, “Had the Muslim world really wanted a Palestinian state, they could have created one by accepting the UN partition plan” — nonsense I’ve already addressed repeatedly. Again, see both “The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel” and “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination”. They both explain it pretty well.
Barry, you question whether the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 Arabs from their homes and from their land counts as a “catastrophe”. Yet you don’t think you are a racist.
You accept the premise that a foreign European colonialist power could legitimately take land from Arabs and legally give it to other Europeans. Yet you don’t think you are a racist.
Hypocrite!