Ynet news reports, "Thousands of Palestinians apply for Israeli citizenship." Subtitle: "Intensive talks over division of Jerusalem has prompted its Palestinian residents to make a move once considered the ultimate treason."
Well, yeah. Well, yeah. I refer you to my post of the evening I spent with Mr. Bassem Eid, the only Palestinian documenting the human-rights abuses of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
In 2000, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to Yasser Arafat to hand over to the Palestinian Authority about three-quarters of Jerusalem - every historic quarter except, of course, the Jewish Quarter. The three quarters concerned were, and are, the Muslim Quarter, the Christian Quarter and the Armenian Quarter. Arafat simply said no.
During my visit to Israel last month, our study group spent an afternoon conferring with an Israeli-citizen Arab, whose safety was so precarious that he asked his photo not be taken, saying, "I don't want my picture to wind up on someone's blog so that certain people will know what I look like." (Hint: it was not Jews he was afriad of, nor Israeli Christians.) Though his name is well known, since he writes for the Jerusalem Post, I'll refer to him only by his first name, Khaled.
Khaled was very candid about the difference of the lives of Palestinians living under the PA (to say nothing of those living under Hamas in Gaza) and the lives of Israeli Arabs. He did point out that Arabs are a minority in Israel, and they know it. Israel is a Jewish state, and all its Arab citiziens, whether the 70 percent who are Muslim or the 30 percent who are Christian, are not merely ethnic minorities, but religious minorities.
But Khaled also pointed out that despite the mild oppression that Israeli Arabs generally feel, they know they are the freest Arabs anywhere in the Middle East. That's why the reverse of yNet's headline is never printed: Israeli Arabs are neither crazy nor stupid enought to migrate into the West Bank or Gaza, where they would live under the mere facsimile of democracy in the former and outright tyranny in the latter.
yNet explains:In the months leading up to the upcoming Annapolis peace conference talk of a future division of the city has prompted a staggering increase in nationalization requests by Palestinians seeking to escape life under the Palestinian Authority.But the blunt fact is that Israel is not about to receive these vast numbers of Palestinians. Several officials we spoke to, including very senior persons at Israel's Foreign Ministry, indicated clearly that they are well aware of the demographics between Jews and Arabs in and around Israel. Almost one-fourth of Israelis are Muslims. One official said clearly that because Israel is a democracy, it simply was unthinkable that its government would allow massive numbers of Palestinian Muslims to take up citizenship and ultimately vote the Jewish state out of existence.Some 250,000 Palestinians currently reside in Jerusalem. Only 12,000 of them have sought to obtain an Israeli citizenship since 1967, an average of about 300 new citizens a year.
But over the past four months the Interior Ministry has registered an unprecedented 3,000 applications, primarily residents of the Arab neighborhoods unlikely to remain under Israeli sovereignty according to the political initiative currently on the agenda.
Regardless, the fact is that people vote with their feet when there is no other effective recourse. As the Annapolis Conference, now scheduled for next month, draws nearer, expect increasing number of requests by Palestinians for Israeli citizenship, or at least asylum.
What does it say that Israeli Arabs see how they are better off in Israel yet every one presumes they will vote it out of existence as soon as possible? Why would people flock to place they would prefer didn't exist?
AOG,
That's a very good question, but the problem happens all the time (Californians in Colorado and Arizona, Mexicans in California, etc. etc.)
Incidentally, as a quibble, the percentage of Arabs who are Christians has almost surely dropped from the 30 percent quoted. I think it is now closer to 10.
Back when I lived there for a time ('98 to '99) I asked Omar, a merchant in Old Jerusalem whose family had been living in the old city since ... forever, which he prefered, Jordanian rule or the present one. His response, "Well, business is good now." I will NEVER forget that. He told me that his family could have gone to Amman in 1967 but they elected to stay. Let's just say he seemed quite prosperous. I still have the leather jacket he sold me. I call it my ME terrorist look, lots of pockets, soft goat skin, black leather! All the crew purchased jackets from him that winter. I may be going back to Israel soon and I am looking forward to it.
Who would not want to live in a country whose people express toasts to friends and family as l'chaim?
I have always been terribly impressed by all those Palestinians who, over the years---and especially since September 2000---have marched to the banner of "Israel does have the right to exist."
In spite of all the pressures arrayed against them.
Courageous people indeed.
(And if any of these huge demonstrations have never been reported by the media, I guess it just shows the immense power of the Israel Lobby.)
During my visit to Israel last month, our study group spent an afternoon conferring with an Israeli-citizen Arab, whose safety was so precarious that he asked his photo not be taken, saying, "I don't want my picture to wind up on someone's blog so that certain people will know what I look like." (Hint: it was not Jews he was afriad of, nor Israeli Christians.)
Though his name is well known, since he writes for the Jerusalem Post, I'll refer to him only by his first name, Khaled.
If the above is true, that the man has fear for his personal safety, then why would you identify him by giving his first name and his place of work.
If it is true and you have done that, then it is the height of irresponsibility. You are playing with peoples lives to no seeming end other than indulging some sort of bizarre journalistic fantasies
AJL;
I didn't claim the Israeli Arabs were "calling for pushing the Jews in to the sea". I was thinking more of their support for PLO and Hamas style governments, which would destroy Israel by turning it in to just another oppressive kleptocracy, i.e. vote in a government that would destroy everything that makes it better in Israel.
AOG, I think even the most radical Arab politicians in Israel have no interest in PLO-style kleptocracy.
Ah, but they do have a supreme interest in seeing the Zionist Entity disappear (though since they are all reasonable men, they would refer to it as "a one-state solution for all the peoples of the region").
AKA Justice.
In other words, PLO- (or any other-) style kleptocracy becomes the lesser of two evils.
Yes, life consists of making difficult choices!
TOC, he writes under his own name for the JPost - which never publishes his photo. His name is well known; it's his face that his potential enemies do not know. He told us he had no problem being quoted by name, since he has editorialized in the JPost much of what he told us in private (though not everything).
So I expect to read an apology posted here from you just as strident as your accusation. Otherwise, just shut up.
Rev. Sensing -
We are all waiting for AJL to become reasonable and apologize for his habitual wrongheadedness, BUT I ain't holding my breath............
l'chaim
Omar was not a one-off kind of guy. He said it was hard to speak freely because of his neighboring merchants (all Arabs) not the Israelis. He always recognized us when we walked by the shop and asked us in for tea or coffee. It gave him status even among his Arab peers to have American friends.
Robohobo, have you confused me with TOC?
"Though his name is well known, since he writes for the Jerusalem Post, I'll refer to him only by his first name, Khaled."
If the above is true, that the man has fear for his personal safety, then why would you identify him by giving his first name and his place of work.
I thought that at first. There probably aren't many Khaleds writing for the JP, etc.
But then I figured the man probably knows what he's doing. He might actually not be in any danger but he wants to ask for some little thing to make it look like he is.
He might find some photos embarrassing, as you might perhaps be embarrassed by a photo of Bill Clinton with his arm around you. Or Nixon. Or Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld probably got some grief over that old photo of him shaking Saddam's hand.
He could possibly even be a disinformation specialist who poses as various people and might be quite embarrassed by the wrong combination of photos. That wouldn't be my first guess, but things like that do happen sometimes.
It isn't irresponsible for Donald to give the guy as much security as he asks for.
AJL - You are perfectly correct. I often disagree with you but in this instance please accept my apologies for confusing you with TOC. Chalk it up to the late hour.