Monday, February 09, 2009

Not That Simple

I found this quotation in the NYTimes' coverage of Avigdor Lieberman:

“I am afraid of this guy, and I dislike him,” said Shmuel Sandler, dean of social sciences at Bar Ilan University, an institution that emphasizes Jewish identity and values. “He appeals to simple-minded voters. Average Israelis feel that we have given up territory, and at the same time the Arabs don’t want to accept the Jewish nature of the state.”


Simple-minded? Simple? Or perhaps the average Israeli is pretty well a sophisticated voter?

Well, here's another not very complicated observation in that same article:

“The biggest boost his campaign had were pictures of Israeli Arabs waving Hamas flags during the Gaza war and shouting ‘Death to the Jews,’ ” noted Abe Selig, a reporter for The Jerusalem Post who has been covering Mr. Lieberman.


and this too:

There are about 1.3 million Arab citizens of Israel, or a little less than 20 percent of the population. Their loyalties are divided, but never before have they protested so vigorously.


But this bit is not that simple:

Unlike many on the far right, he favors a two-state solution with the Palestinians.


How's that? Maybe that's convoluted or perhaps it's not so simple to grasp what Lieberman is placing on the body politic's agenda.

and what about this:

Uzi Landau, the party’s No. 2, said recently, “In the United States, whoever wants to be a citizen has to pledge allegiance to the country and its Constitution, know the anthem, be familiar with the flag and its history.”


But, despite all this, which to any independent observer would mean that a) things are not that simple and b) there is a serious problem of loyalty which needs a creative solution, one based on democratic fundamentals but assuring that politicide, the stripping off of Israel's character, will not occur, Bronner fails as a reporter when he writes further on:

Taken together, Mr. Lieberman’s proposals aim toward an ethnically purer Jewish state


Ethnically purer would mean he wants all Arabs out or restricted when all he wants is a simple, yes, simple plain old committment of basic loyalty. No screaming "Death to the Jews!", no ieentification/justification of Hamas and other terror groups like Hezbollah.

When the balcks campaigned for civili rights, they won because they did not try to destroy American but rather to demand constitutional liberties.

Arabs deserve more in Israel but that comes with a concommitant element of loyalty.

I won't be voting for him because I, too, am uncomfortable with him and his message although I know it has to be discussed and dealt with. I don't trust him to keep Eretz-Yisrael on the one hand, and I know he won't go anywhere fast with his "loyalty" program, which he has been championing for the past three elections and done nada.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the United States, there is no phraseology/symbology in the flag or the constitution affirming the nation as being of any specific ethnic or religious character. The blacks did not have to destroy the U.S. because they had a place in U.S. society to fight for. If the constitution had "whites only" wording or the flag had a burning cross, there would have had to be fundamental changes in the national identity in order to give blacks the rights they deserve.

Milhouse said...

What rights do Arabs deserve, that pledging allegiance to a Jewish nation would prevent them from having? The land belongs to the Jewish nation; that is not subject to dispute or discussion. If a non-Jew can acknowledge that, then he can participate in the nation's life and even politics as a naturalised citizen; but if he doesn't acknowledge it, if he claims that the land belongs to him, then what right does he have to citizenship, or even to live there at all?