What banning Arab lists in Israel means.

Israel_votingI’ve argued in the past that you can’t really call the situation on the ground in Israel/Palestine “apartheid.”

My reasoning is that: a) what Israel is doing there already has a name, and that name is “military occupation,” and military occupation is plenty bad enough without having to resort to potentially a-historical comparisons; and b) within its internationally recognized borders, Israel is actually a functioning democracy (well, kind of a dysfunctional and threatened democracy, but still a democracy); and c) when you say things like “apartheid,” you grant official Israel and its supporters a Fast Pass to Discourse Derailment, and I’m not sure that fighting over the applicability of a certain word is always helpful to the cause of Palestinian rights.

And yet, having said all of that, I don’t actually argue very much when people say otherwise, because you know what? The occupation and settlement project look like apartheid, and the documented opinions of most Israeli Jews sound like apartheid, and if nothing changes, pretty soon Israel will have annexed the West Bank and it’ll actually be apartheid. Under the circumstances, I can certainly see why people choose to describe the situation on the ground in Israel/Palestine as “apartheid.”

But you know what would really seal the deal? This:

Right-wing lawmakers have asked the Central Elections Committee to bar United Arab List-Ta’al and Arab party Balad from the January 22 vote—citing support for the 2010 Gaza flotilla and the denial of Israel as a Jewish state.

Now, before I go any further, I should stress that no one is asking to bar the Arab (really Palestinian-Israeli) lists from the election by virtue of their being Arab (Palestinian-Israeli). If some of Israel’s Palestinian citizens some day form a political party that, say, happily endorses their constituents’ subservient position in their own country and refuses to get involved with the struggles of fellow Palestinians living anywhere from 10 miles to a few hundred yards away, I have no doubt that such a party will be spared attacks by Israel’s Jewish politicians.

But what this amounts to—and what it has always amounted to, every single time that someone has suggested barring this or that Palestinian-Israeli list or politician from the electoral process—is asking that Palestinian people who happen to have Israeli citizenship stop defining themselves as Palestinian. Stop being who they are. Stop being so non-Jewish. Stop being so Arab.

It’s really as simple as my favorite party trick: let’s flip the nouns around. What if Gentiles were telling Jews that, if we want to vote, we have to stop caring about Israel? What if someone wanted to make American Jews’ voting rights contingent on an endorsement of permanent second-class citizenship? I dare say we’d cry foul.

Israel’s citizens of Palestinian descent—who, by the way, make up about 20 percent of the population—already face a broad array of discriminatory practices and attitudes based entirely on their ethnic heritage, not least that no one in power really cares how they vote. Moreover, there is always someone, somewhere trying to bar this or that “Arab list” from participating in Israeli democracy. So this isn’t really news, per se.

But it bears noting that much as the word “apartheid” might be off-the-mark for now—it’s only just barely off the mark.

And the increasing ease and frequency with which Israeli leaders toy with making it a reality even within Israel’s internationally-recognized borders should be of real concern to those of us who care about Israel (no matter where we live)—especially given that the parties represented by these particular leaders are likely to help form the next government.

Crossposted from The Daily Beast/Open Zion.


All Israel, no Palestinians.

The foreign policy debate has come and gone, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Israel was mentioned time and again—more than thirty times, in fact.

The American public was assured that the U.S. consults with Israel on issues such as the crisis in Syria and Iran’s nuclear program; both candidates repeated the standard and by-now expected lines about Israel being America’s greatest friend and ally in the region. Romney chided Obama for not visiting Israel as President; Obama countered with tales of his trip as a candidate.

Mentioned exactly once? Israel’s single biggest issue, on fronts foreign, domestic, and economic: the conflict with the Palestinians. It would have been foolish of me to expect anything else, and yet there is something bracing to seeing this willed blindness played out at the highest level.

For forty-five years now, more than two-thirds of its existence as a nation, Israel has maintained military rule over millions of Palestinians; it repeatedly engages in bloody hostilities with armed Palestinian forces; it regularly flouts international consensus and American policy by building on Palestinian land. Even while mouthing words of peace, Israel’s government consistently and constantly maintains policies that make peace ever-more impossible—such as announcing an additional 800 housing unitsin occupied East Jerusalem just the other day, even while likening an artificially bloated and violently held “eternal capital” to London or Washington, D.C.

I have no love for the government in Tehran, and I wish the people over whom that government rules with such heartless violence nothing but good. I do not wish to see that government armed with nuclear weapons, and can surely understand why the Israeli government views that possibility with real alarm.

But I’m Israeli, and I’m a Jew, and I know what is destroying my country right now, even as I type, even as President Obama and Governor Romney return to the campaign trail, confident that they did their best to convince American voters that they really—but really—love Israel.

What is destroying Israel is the occupation. What is threatening Israel’s future is the occupation. What will bring an end to the Zionist dream of a democratic, Jewish nation is the occupation.

The state of Israel has already conceded, however unofficially, that there are now more Palestinians under its rule than there are Jews—and the vast majority of the Palestinians have no vote, and precious little control over their destiny, because Israel won’t give it to them.

The choice, whether or not Israel actively makes it, could not be clearer or more stark: either admit the truth, claim Israel’s share of the responsibility for the terrible state of affairs in which we find ourselves, and find a path to a durable two-state peace—or become the apartheid state that we keep saying we’re not.

If the next U.S. president genuinely wants what’s best for Israel—is truly Israel’s friend—he will bear all this in mind, and bring the not inconsiderable power of this nation to bear on Palestinians and Israelis alike to take the difficult steps and make the painful compromises necessary to genuinely resolve decades of violence and hatred.

But I’m not holding my breath. In American politics, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinians are invisible (and, according to Romney, don’t want peace anyway), and Israel is a talking point with which to win votes and donations.

And all those people? Those actual, flesh-and-blood people? I suppose they can, in the words of Gov. Romney “sort of live with it, and… kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”

And weep and bleed and mourn, when that doesn’t work.

Crossposted from Open Zion/The Daily Beast.