Thursday, October 14, 2010
This was the website I was thinking of.
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/toc-pal-isr-primer.html
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sidhwa vs. Said
So far I like Said’s narrative. I like that this is THAT book — the book every writer must write before dying. Said immediately places “Out of Place” in the context of bouts of mortal sickness and painfully poisonous treatments. That says something about the importance of this work to the writer and leads readers to set their expectations high. It tells me that this text should have an integrity and authenticity that comes with laying oneself open, fully exposed and vulnerable in the face of one’s mortality.
As a journalist I appreciate this kind of a work, where one just lays it all out there fact-like, but it does have its drawbacks. It is harder for me to emotionally connect with Said’s words because I am distanced from them by Said’s retrospective judgments. However, if Said’s intent is as an intellectual exploration, a “here is my experience” or case study, then his presentation makes sense. If this is an intellectual exercise, an exploration of cause and effect, motivations and rationales, then the emotions should be stripped down and muted, present but distanced, subdued, grayed.
However, after a while, an intelligent reader gets tired of being spoon-fed prepackaged judgments. I like Said’s narrative voice and style, but I am getting tired of being “told” things. I want Said to show me, too, the way Sidhwa did in “Cracking India.” In felt like I saw India and its people in Sidhwa’s novel. I felt like I knew the characters, but Said holds readers at arm’s length so they cannot see the actual action and have to take his descriptions as gospel.
I also have to say that I think I prefer Sidhwa’s split adult/child narrator to Said’s first-person narrative voice. As readers we live thru Lenny’s experiences. In Said’s narrative he tells us what he experienced, distancing us from the action. Sidhwa’s novel had more emotional power for me. The only moment in Said’s so far that caused me to tear was the description of his mother’s final days and her “My poor little child” as she, dying of cancer, seemingly took “final leave of her son” (54). Otherwise the narrative has a scholarly, sort of journalistic feel, like a retrospective study or something, making it more clinical versus the visceral quality of Sidhwa’s novel.
However, I like the neat and tidy organization of Said’s narrative. The first chapter was a close up of Said, particularly of his name and lineage (What’s in a name after all?). I connected with how he sees himself as this dual character; sometimes he is Said and other times he is Edward. His “titles” come to mean certain things and those things color his existence.
I liked the way he sculpted the first chapter around this idea of feeling out of place in regards to everything from his name to nationality. His emphasis on labels and titles, categories and the like is certainly a theme of the book. It is a common theme in literature, common because how we see ourselves and how others see us is integral to the human experience. Identity and the shaping of it are central to a person’s development.
The second chapter was a survey of the geography of his youth. In the third chapter Said describes his scholastic life and in the fourth his familial relationships. However, at this point I am confused because in the introduction he said he found himself telling his story against the backdrop of “World War II, the loss of the Palestinian movement, the Lebanese Civil War, and the Oslo peace process,” but so far I have seen little of any of these events.
Reading Sidhwa’s novel I was immersed in the sights, sounds, and smells of the world of her childhood, the good and the bad. Thus, I was able to connect with her tale emotionally, but Said’s story leaves me feeling distanced. Held at bay, as I am to peak over Said’s shoulder at the life he his describing, I can’t help but feel out of place. Hmmm … there is method to this madness.
As a journalist I appreciate this kind of a work, where one just lays it all out there fact-like, but it does have its drawbacks. It is harder for me to emotionally connect with Said’s words because I am distanced from them by Said’s retrospective judgments. However, if Said’s intent is as an intellectual exploration, a “here is my experience” or case study, then his presentation makes sense. If this is an intellectual exercise, an exploration of cause and effect, motivations and rationales, then the emotions should be stripped down and muted, present but distanced, subdued, grayed.
However, after a while, an intelligent reader gets tired of being spoon-fed prepackaged judgments. I like Said’s narrative voice and style, but I am getting tired of being “told” things. I want Said to show me, too, the way Sidhwa did in “Cracking India.” In felt like I saw India and its people in Sidhwa’s novel. I felt like I knew the characters, but Said holds readers at arm’s length so they cannot see the actual action and have to take his descriptions as gospel.
I also have to say that I think I prefer Sidhwa’s split adult/child narrator to Said’s first-person narrative voice. As readers we live thru Lenny’s experiences. In Said’s narrative he tells us what he experienced, distancing us from the action. Sidhwa’s novel had more emotional power for me. The only moment in Said’s so far that caused me to tear was the description of his mother’s final days and her “My poor little child” as she, dying of cancer, seemingly took “final leave of her son” (54). Otherwise the narrative has a scholarly, sort of journalistic feel, like a retrospective study or something, making it more clinical versus the visceral quality of Sidhwa’s novel.
However, I like the neat and tidy organization of Said’s narrative. The first chapter was a close up of Said, particularly of his name and lineage (What’s in a name after all?). I connected with how he sees himself as this dual character; sometimes he is Said and other times he is Edward. His “titles” come to mean certain things and those things color his existence.
I liked the way he sculpted the first chapter around this idea of feeling out of place in regards to everything from his name to nationality. His emphasis on labels and titles, categories and the like is certainly a theme of the book. It is a common theme in literature, common because how we see ourselves and how others see us is integral to the human experience. Identity and the shaping of it are central to a person’s development.
The second chapter was a survey of the geography of his youth. In the third chapter Said describes his scholastic life and in the fourth his familial relationships. However, at this point I am confused because in the introduction he said he found himself telling his story against the backdrop of “World War II, the loss of the Palestinian movement, the Lebanese Civil War, and the Oslo peace process,” but so far I have seen little of any of these events.
Reading Sidhwa’s novel I was immersed in the sights, sounds, and smells of the world of her childhood, the good and the bad. Thus, I was able to connect with her tale emotionally, but Said’s story leaves me feeling distanced. Held at bay, as I am to peak over Said’s shoulder at the life he his describing, I can’t help but feel out of place. Hmmm … there is method to this madness.
Unwomaning
The India that Cracking India, a novel by Bapsi Sidhwa, first introduces is an India full of women. When Lenny is operated on for polio, the “small and entire Parsee community of Lahore, in clucking clusters, descends on the Sethi household.” (17). When Lenny later describes this community as “visiting ladies” (17) she clarifies that the Parsee community is a community of women. This does not mean that there are no male Parsees; of course these women have husbands, but the significant people in the community are women.
Lenny’s early life is surrounded not only by “visiting ladies” in general, but also by Ayah, Mother, Godmother, Slavesister, and Electric Aunt. The individuality of these women is deemphasized by the fact that Lenny always refers to them not by their names but by their titles. These women are nevertheless round characters, with likes and dislikes, virtues and faults. Thus, Lenny’s world is populated with a group of women who represent all women in that they are referred to by title not by name. Yet, the women aren’t dehumanized by being used as stereotypes. Instead, the uniqueness of their characters brings life and individuality to the stereotypes that they represent.
The composition of the group of women that surround Lenny is forever changed when Lenny’s young, nubile, Hindu Aya is abducted by a mob of men. Ayah is pulled from her home by a mob in front of the entire household. As she is carted away, Lenny is left seeing her “wide-open and terrified eyes.” (195). Ayah, the woman who has been closest to Lenny throughout the entire novel, is reduced to a set of eyes. Her personhood is stripped of her when she is taken by the men. She becomes only a set of eyes, a woman who can see and observe but does not have any agency of her own.
After Ayah is taken, Hamida, a “fallen woman” (227) is hired to be Lenny’s ayah. This woman is an individual, never a stereotype; it is not that Lenny’s community of women is being restored but that Lenny needs to have an ayah. Hamida has obviously seen too much pain; she is always over-protective and self-conscious, unsure of what to do with her hands. Hamida brings Lenny to the park for the last time. The park has chillingly been “unwomaned” (249) by the removal of the Queen Elizabeth statue.
When Ayah is later found by Lenny and Godmother, it is her eyes that reveal her inner anguish. “She looks achingly lovely. . . But the illusion is dispelled the moment she opens her eyes. . . frenziedly, starkly.” (272). Ayah’s body looks the same as before, but her eyes are tormented. Ayah still does not have any agency. She cannot do anything with her body to alleviate her pain or change her situation. Only her eyes reveal what she has seen. Ultimately, it is Godmother and Mother who rescue Ayah, not Ayah herself.
The park is “unwomaned” right before Lenny sees Ayah heavily made up in a taxi. Throughout the partition of India, women were used for men to assert their primacy. Men abducted women from the opposing religion and raped them. Oftentimes, these women would not be allowed to rejoin their families, instead being labeled “fallen.” This is the unwomaning that occurs when the British empire, as represented by the Queen Elizabeth statue, partitions India. Women are no longer safe; they are a prize to be fought for and raped. This is what happens to Ayah. She is taken from her home, raped, and then pimped out. The woman in India are devalued and dehumanized by men during the partition.
Lenny’s early life is surrounded not only by “visiting ladies” in general, but also by Ayah, Mother, Godmother, Slavesister, and Electric Aunt. The individuality of these women is deemphasized by the fact that Lenny always refers to them not by their names but by their titles. These women are nevertheless round characters, with likes and dislikes, virtues and faults. Thus, Lenny’s world is populated with a group of women who represent all women in that they are referred to by title not by name. Yet, the women aren’t dehumanized by being used as stereotypes. Instead, the uniqueness of their characters brings life and individuality to the stereotypes that they represent.
The composition of the group of women that surround Lenny is forever changed when Lenny’s young, nubile, Hindu Aya is abducted by a mob of men. Ayah is pulled from her home by a mob in front of the entire household. As she is carted away, Lenny is left seeing her “wide-open and terrified eyes.” (195). Ayah, the woman who has been closest to Lenny throughout the entire novel, is reduced to a set of eyes. Her personhood is stripped of her when she is taken by the men. She becomes only a set of eyes, a woman who can see and observe but does not have any agency of her own.
After Ayah is taken, Hamida, a “fallen woman” (227) is hired to be Lenny’s ayah. This woman is an individual, never a stereotype; it is not that Lenny’s community of women is being restored but that Lenny needs to have an ayah. Hamida has obviously seen too much pain; she is always over-protective and self-conscious, unsure of what to do with her hands. Hamida brings Lenny to the park for the last time. The park has chillingly been “unwomaned” (249) by the removal of the Queen Elizabeth statue.
When Ayah is later found by Lenny and Godmother, it is her eyes that reveal her inner anguish. “She looks achingly lovely. . . But the illusion is dispelled the moment she opens her eyes. . . frenziedly, starkly.” (272). Ayah’s body looks the same as before, but her eyes are tormented. Ayah still does not have any agency. She cannot do anything with her body to alleviate her pain or change her situation. Only her eyes reveal what she has seen. Ultimately, it is Godmother and Mother who rescue Ayah, not Ayah herself.
The park is “unwomaned” right before Lenny sees Ayah heavily made up in a taxi. Throughout the partition of India, women were used for men to assert their primacy. Men abducted women from the opposing religion and raped them. Oftentimes, these women would not be allowed to rejoin their families, instead being labeled “fallen.” This is the unwomaning that occurs when the British empire, as represented by the Queen Elizabeth statue, partitions India. Women are no longer safe; they are a prize to be fought for and raped. This is what happens to Ayah. She is taken from her home, raped, and then pimped out. The woman in India are devalued and dehumanized by men during the partition.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Transcripts on '73 War...
Here's another article from The New York Times:
October 10, 2010
Transcripts on ’73 War, Now Public, Grip Israel
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — For many Israelis, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war was their single most terrifying moment, when a woefully unprepared nation, deluded into believing that its neighbors regarded it as impregnable, suffered a devastating attack and struggled back to victory at enormous cost with last-minute American help.
Last week, the confidential discussions of Israel’s top leaders in the first days of that war, known here as the Yom Kippur War because the attack began on that Jewish holy day, were declassified and gripped the public.
For days, newspapers and talk shows examined the anguish of such mythic figures as Moshe Dayan, asking whether, with equally significant choices now on the table, the right lessons had been learned.
“Good morning, Messrs. Prime Minister, Defense Minister and future chief of military staff,” Yaron Dekel, a host on state radio, began his popular morning current affairs show earlier in the week. “Have you read the protocols of the Yom Kippur War?”
If not, he said, do so quickly and ask yourselves: “Have things changed in these 37 years? Have the arrogance, euphoria and supreme confidence that we know the enemy so well and that we have the best army in the world — have those disappeared?”
The transcripts of the meetings show Mr. Dayan, the unflappable eye-patch-wearing defense minister, at the edge of desperation. As Syrian tanks rolled toward the Galilee unimpeded, he understood that he had misread the signals.
“I underestimated the enemy’s strength, I overestimated our own forces,” he is quoted as saying in an early meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir and others. “The Arabs are much better soldiers than they used to be.” Then: “Many people will be killed.”
Seeking a means of salvation, he urged recruiting older men and Jews from abroad.
Ms. Meir considered a clandestine trip to Washington to persuade President Nixon to help.
A colleague asked what she hoped to get.
“Let him give whatever he has,” she replied. “Does he have tanks in Europe? Let him give them. You want Phantoms? Let him give. Let him see this as his front and not let our guts spill until he gives us one missile.”
In the end, Ms. Meir did not go. But after appealing to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, she did get Mr. Nixon to send an airlift of matériel that made all the difference in Israel’s favor in the 20-day war. Although Israel won, it was the surprise attack and near victory that Egypt and Syria have focused on, and that led Egypt to make peace with Israel five years later in exchange for a return of the Sinai.
Much of last week’s debate in Israel centered on the belief expressed by the chief of military staff at the time, David Elazar, that a war was coming. He urged a troop call-up and pre-emptive strikes on Egyptian and Syrian forces massing on the borders. Both were rejected by Mr. Dayan and Ms. Meir, not only because they did not believe their neighbors would risk war, but also because of fear that the West would accuse Israel of aggression.
Meanwhile, there was no hurry to achieve a diplomatic solution to the problem of the lands conquered by Israel in the 1967 war: the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan.
Different lessons were drawn by different commentators.
In an editorial titled “Old Wounds, New Lessons,” the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper said that the leaders in 1973 “failed to see the limitations of Israel’s use of force and the possible forms its enemies’ operations would take.”
It continued, “Israel was resting on the laurels of its military achievements and conquests six years earlier in the Six-Day War, and failed to make an audacious, genuine effort to trade territories in exchange for peace and security.”
Not surprisingly, the military chief of staff now, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, weighed in Friday with somewhat different observations in the newspaper Maariv.
“I believe that the intelligence failure and the sense of existential uncertainty that the war brought served as important lessons for the military enterprise, the understanding of the importance of its mission, and the great responsibility that rests on our shoulders,” he wrote. “This is the explanation for the Sisyphean efforts to increase the strength and capabilities of the army. This is why after 62 years of independence we continue to enlist every boy and girl. This is why we place the reservist soldiers at the core of the army. And this is also why they come.”
Yehezkel Dror, one of Israel’s most distinguished political scientists, retired from the Hebrew University, spoke on Israel Radio about what he found most noteworthy from the newly released material. He said that when the 1973 war began, Israel’s leadership saw potential destruction at the hands of its enemies. It did not see the war’s true goal, which he said was to pressure Israel to return the captured territory.
“They did not understand that the Egyptians realized they didn’t stand a chance of destroying Israel,” he said. “They used the war for a political goal. Why didn’t we understand this? Because we didn’t think politically. He who thinks only militarily does not understand that the other side sees the army as a political tool, not to conquer but to reach a better deal on the Sinai.”
Mr. Dror added that when a Turkish flotilla last May tried to breach Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza, the government’s use of military force led to deadly consequences. He said that what is needed in leadership is both subtlety and clarity. Israel’s approach to the peace process with the Palestinians was an example, he added — “the main question of what Israel wants is unclear.”
October 10, 2010
Transcripts on ’73 War, Now Public, Grip Israel
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — For many Israelis, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war was their single most terrifying moment, when a woefully unprepared nation, deluded into believing that its neighbors regarded it as impregnable, suffered a devastating attack and struggled back to victory at enormous cost with last-minute American help.
Last week, the confidential discussions of Israel’s top leaders in the first days of that war, known here as the Yom Kippur War because the attack began on that Jewish holy day, were declassified and gripped the public.
For days, newspapers and talk shows examined the anguish of such mythic figures as Moshe Dayan, asking whether, with equally significant choices now on the table, the right lessons had been learned.
“Good morning, Messrs. Prime Minister, Defense Minister and future chief of military staff,” Yaron Dekel, a host on state radio, began his popular morning current affairs show earlier in the week. “Have you read the protocols of the Yom Kippur War?”
If not, he said, do so quickly and ask yourselves: “Have things changed in these 37 years? Have the arrogance, euphoria and supreme confidence that we know the enemy so well and that we have the best army in the world — have those disappeared?”
The transcripts of the meetings show Mr. Dayan, the unflappable eye-patch-wearing defense minister, at the edge of desperation. As Syrian tanks rolled toward the Galilee unimpeded, he understood that he had misread the signals.
“I underestimated the enemy’s strength, I overestimated our own forces,” he is quoted as saying in an early meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir and others. “The Arabs are much better soldiers than they used to be.” Then: “Many people will be killed.”
Seeking a means of salvation, he urged recruiting older men and Jews from abroad.
Ms. Meir considered a clandestine trip to Washington to persuade President Nixon to help.
A colleague asked what she hoped to get.
“Let him give whatever he has,” she replied. “Does he have tanks in Europe? Let him give them. You want Phantoms? Let him give. Let him see this as his front and not let our guts spill until he gives us one missile.”
In the end, Ms. Meir did not go. But after appealing to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, she did get Mr. Nixon to send an airlift of matériel that made all the difference in Israel’s favor in the 20-day war. Although Israel won, it was the surprise attack and near victory that Egypt and Syria have focused on, and that led Egypt to make peace with Israel five years later in exchange for a return of the Sinai.
Much of last week’s debate in Israel centered on the belief expressed by the chief of military staff at the time, David Elazar, that a war was coming. He urged a troop call-up and pre-emptive strikes on Egyptian and Syrian forces massing on the borders. Both were rejected by Mr. Dayan and Ms. Meir, not only because they did not believe their neighbors would risk war, but also because of fear that the West would accuse Israel of aggression.
Meanwhile, there was no hurry to achieve a diplomatic solution to the problem of the lands conquered by Israel in the 1967 war: the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan.
Different lessons were drawn by different commentators.
In an editorial titled “Old Wounds, New Lessons,” the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper said that the leaders in 1973 “failed to see the limitations of Israel’s use of force and the possible forms its enemies’ operations would take.”
It continued, “Israel was resting on the laurels of its military achievements and conquests six years earlier in the Six-Day War, and failed to make an audacious, genuine effort to trade territories in exchange for peace and security.”
Not surprisingly, the military chief of staff now, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, weighed in Friday with somewhat different observations in the newspaper Maariv.
“I believe that the intelligence failure and the sense of existential uncertainty that the war brought served as important lessons for the military enterprise, the understanding of the importance of its mission, and the great responsibility that rests on our shoulders,” he wrote. “This is the explanation for the Sisyphean efforts to increase the strength and capabilities of the army. This is why after 62 years of independence we continue to enlist every boy and girl. This is why we place the reservist soldiers at the core of the army. And this is also why they come.”
Yehezkel Dror, one of Israel’s most distinguished political scientists, retired from the Hebrew University, spoke on Israel Radio about what he found most noteworthy from the newly released material. He said that when the 1973 war began, Israel’s leadership saw potential destruction at the hands of its enemies. It did not see the war’s true goal, which he said was to pressure Israel to return the captured territory.
“They did not understand that the Egyptians realized they didn’t stand a chance of destroying Israel,” he said. “They used the war for a political goal. Why didn’t we understand this? Because we didn’t think politically. He who thinks only militarily does not understand that the other side sees the army as a political tool, not to conquer but to reach a better deal on the Sinai.”
Mr. Dror added that when a Turkish flotilla last May tried to breach Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza, the government’s use of military force led to deadly consequences. He said that what is needed in leadership is both subtlety and clarity. Israel’s approach to the peace process with the Palestinians was an example, he added — “the main question of what Israel wants is unclear.”
Israeli Cabinet Approves Citizenship Amendment
This is from The New York Times today:
Israeli Cabinet Approves Citizenship Amendment
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: October 10, 2010
JERUSALEM — The Israeli cabinet on Sunday approved a contentious draft amendment to the country’s citizenship law that calls for non-Jews seeking to become citizens to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state.
Enlarge This Image
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel defended an amendment to the citizen law on Sunday.
Related
Decried by opponents as unnecessary, provocative and racist, the amendment, which is subject to approval by Parliament, encountered a storm of criticism and drove open divisions within the ruling coalition.
The vote was 22 to 8, with the five ministers belonging to the Labor Party, the only center-left element of a mostly right-leaning coalition, joining in opposition with three ministers from the conservative Likud Party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The timing of the cabinet vote led to widespread speculation by political observers in Israel that it was intended to appease the right wing of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition in advance of a possible concession to the Palestinians.
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are stalled over the issue of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, and observers here say that Mr. Netanyahu, under American pressure to extend a moratorium on building in the settlements, may be laying the political ground for such a move by trying to defuse right-wing opposition.
Some saw Sunday’s vote as a typical expression of Mr. Netanyahu’s style of leadership: trying to hold both ends of the stick — balancing the demands of his party and his coalition’s right-wing elements with those of the American-sponsored peace process.
Before the vote, Mr. Netanyahu defended the amendment, telling the cabinet, “There is broad agreement in Israel on the Jewish identity and the democracy of the state of Israel; this is the foundation of our existence here.”
“Anyone who would like to join us,” he said, “needs to recognize this.”
Candidates for naturalization currently swear an oath of allegiance to the state, without elaboration.
Many Israelis, both Arabs and Jews, said they felt the amendment was discriminatory not least because as currently written, it would apply only to non-Jews who want to become naturalized citizens. Those are mainly Arabs from abroad who marry Arab citizens of Israel, and who are likely to reject the definition of Israel as a Jewish state.
The amendment would not apply to Jews or those of Jewish descent, who immigrate to Israel under the country’s Law of Return. This would allow the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jewish immigrants, many of whom are non-Zionist and would oppose pledging allegiance to a Jewish state.
The minister of welfare and social services, Isaac Herzog, a Labor member of the cabinet, said the amendment was one of a series of steps in recent years that “borders on fascism.”
“Israel is on a slippery slope,” Mr. Herzog told Israel Radio on Sunday.
The Likud ministers who voted against the amendment, Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, are strong supporters of equal rights. The Hebrew Web site Ynet quoted Mr. Meridor as saying after the vote, “The law is harmful and causes damage.”
The Parliament’s speaker, Reuven Rivlin, a Likud member but not a cabinet member, told Israel’s Army Radio on Sunday that the amendment could be “provocative and serve as a weapon for the enemies of Zionism.”
Apparently stung by all the criticism, Israel’s justice minister, Yaakov Neeman, who drafted the amendment, proposed on Sunday that it should also apply to Jewish immigrants granted automatic citizenship under the Law of Return.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, of the Labor Party, said he would support the amendment if the words “in the spirit of the principles of the Declaration of Independence” were added to the loyalty oath. The principle of equal rights for all of Israel’s inhabitants was enshrined in the declaration that established the state in 1948.
Mr. Barak’s proposal is to be submitted to the Ministerial Committee on Legislation for discussion, and Mr. Neeman’s will be discussed by the cabinet so it is likely the amendment could be subject to revisions before it goes to Parliament for a vote.
But even if the final amendment applies to Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants, many critics say that it will add to the sense of alienation from the state felt by many Arab citizens, who make up 20 percent of Israel’s population.
A retired Supreme Court justice, Abdel Rahman Zuabi, the first Arab to have served on Israel’s highest court, told Israel Radio last week that if the amendment passes “then there will be two countries in the world that in my opinion are racist: Iran, which is an Islamic state, and Israel, which is the Jewish state.”
The amendment is meant to fulfill a promise made by Mr. Netanyahu in his coalition agreement with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu Party. Mr. Lieberman’s last election campaign included the slogans “No citizenship without loyalty,” and “Only Lieberman understands Arabic.”
Mr. Lieberman and other rightist members of the coalition, like Eli Yishai, leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, have called the amendment a first step in loyalty legislation they plan to seek.
A version of this article appeared in print on October 11, 2010, on page A4 of the New York edition.
Israeli Cabinet Approves Citizenship Amendment
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: October 10, 2010
JERUSALEM — The Israeli cabinet on Sunday approved a contentious draft amendment to the country’s citizenship law that calls for non-Jews seeking to become citizens to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state.
Enlarge This Image
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel defended an amendment to the citizen law on Sunday.
Related
Decried by opponents as unnecessary, provocative and racist, the amendment, which is subject to approval by Parliament, encountered a storm of criticism and drove open divisions within the ruling coalition.
The vote was 22 to 8, with the five ministers belonging to the Labor Party, the only center-left element of a mostly right-leaning coalition, joining in opposition with three ministers from the conservative Likud Party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The timing of the cabinet vote led to widespread speculation by political observers in Israel that it was intended to appease the right wing of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition in advance of a possible concession to the Palestinians.
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are stalled over the issue of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, and observers here say that Mr. Netanyahu, under American pressure to extend a moratorium on building in the settlements, may be laying the political ground for such a move by trying to defuse right-wing opposition.
Some saw Sunday’s vote as a typical expression of Mr. Netanyahu’s style of leadership: trying to hold both ends of the stick — balancing the demands of his party and his coalition’s right-wing elements with those of the American-sponsored peace process.
Before the vote, Mr. Netanyahu defended the amendment, telling the cabinet, “There is broad agreement in Israel on the Jewish identity and the democracy of the state of Israel; this is the foundation of our existence here.”
“Anyone who would like to join us,” he said, “needs to recognize this.”
Candidates for naturalization currently swear an oath of allegiance to the state, without elaboration.
Many Israelis, both Arabs and Jews, said they felt the amendment was discriminatory not least because as currently written, it would apply only to non-Jews who want to become naturalized citizens. Those are mainly Arabs from abroad who marry Arab citizens of Israel, and who are likely to reject the definition of Israel as a Jewish state.
The amendment would not apply to Jews or those of Jewish descent, who immigrate to Israel under the country’s Law of Return. This would allow the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jewish immigrants, many of whom are non-Zionist and would oppose pledging allegiance to a Jewish state.
The minister of welfare and social services, Isaac Herzog, a Labor member of the cabinet, said the amendment was one of a series of steps in recent years that “borders on fascism.”
“Israel is on a slippery slope,” Mr. Herzog told Israel Radio on Sunday.
The Likud ministers who voted against the amendment, Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, are strong supporters of equal rights. The Hebrew Web site Ynet quoted Mr. Meridor as saying after the vote, “The law is harmful and causes damage.”
The Parliament’s speaker, Reuven Rivlin, a Likud member but not a cabinet member, told Israel’s Army Radio on Sunday that the amendment could be “provocative and serve as a weapon for the enemies of Zionism.”
Apparently stung by all the criticism, Israel’s justice minister, Yaakov Neeman, who drafted the amendment, proposed on Sunday that it should also apply to Jewish immigrants granted automatic citizenship under the Law of Return.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, of the Labor Party, said he would support the amendment if the words “in the spirit of the principles of the Declaration of Independence” were added to the loyalty oath. The principle of equal rights for all of Israel’s inhabitants was enshrined in the declaration that established the state in 1948.
Mr. Barak’s proposal is to be submitted to the Ministerial Committee on Legislation for discussion, and Mr. Neeman’s will be discussed by the cabinet so it is likely the amendment could be subject to revisions before it goes to Parliament for a vote.
But even if the final amendment applies to Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants, many critics say that it will add to the sense of alienation from the state felt by many Arab citizens, who make up 20 percent of Israel’s population.
A retired Supreme Court justice, Abdel Rahman Zuabi, the first Arab to have served on Israel’s highest court, told Israel Radio last week that if the amendment passes “then there will be two countries in the world that in my opinion are racist: Iran, which is an Islamic state, and Israel, which is the Jewish state.”
The amendment is meant to fulfill a promise made by Mr. Netanyahu in his coalition agreement with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu Party. Mr. Lieberman’s last election campaign included the slogans “No citizenship without loyalty,” and “Only Lieberman understands Arabic.”
Mr. Lieberman and other rightist members of the coalition, like Eli Yishai, leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, have called the amendment a first step in loyalty legislation they plan to seek.
A version of this article appeared in print on October 11, 2010, on page A4 of the New York edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)