+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

For Palestinian citizens, nothing but contempt and rejection for Liberman plan

‘Liberman’s proposals spoil the delicate fabric of relations between Arabs and Jews in Israel. They come from a man who paved his political path using right-wing statements, erecting barriers in the process of peace and leading us to fear and despair.’

By Riad Kabaha

I was born in the early 1950s as an Israeli citizen. I was raised and educated in Israel, where I acquired positive, beneficial things from Jewish society, such as: curriculum, language, clothing, sites around the country, academic studies, employment, Jewish friends, participation in Knessest  elections, the ability to struggle for equality and rights, working together with the Jewish people and cooperation with Jews who believe in my way.

Thus, we became part of a new culture: Israeli culture on the one hand, while continuing to be an integral part of the Palestinian people on the other. Although separated from other Palestinians until 1967, we were able to keep our tradition, language, and culture.

The occupation of 1967 did not change the fact that we maintain our characteristics both as Israelis and as part of the Palestinian nation at the same time. This makes us unique and different from both the Jews and the residents of the occupied territories.

That is why Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s recent statements about exchanging territories and forcing nearly 300,000 Palestinian Arabs Israeli in what is known as the Triangle area (which stretches from Kfar Qassem in central Israel to Megiddo in the North, and includes more than 20 Arab towns and cities) to a future Palestinian state were received with contempt and rejection by all of the Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel.

According to the 1948 ceasefire agreement signed between Israel and Jordan, the Triangle was to remain part of Jordan. However, the Rhodes Agreement signed in 1949 placed this the region under Israeli sovereignty.

As a minority, we believe in the righteousness of our way of fighting for equality, partnership, and against discrimination.

At the same time we struggle for peace through organizations, through our political parties in the Knesset, and through our belief in the two-state solution.

And we dream that in a situation of peace, most of our problems of discrimination and inequality will be solved. Our dream is to be like the American Jewish people in the United States who support Israel and live as American citizens.

Liberman’s proposals spoil the delicate fabric of relations between Arabs and Jews in Israel. They come from a man who paved his political path using right-wing statements, erecting barriers in the process of peace, leading us to fear and despair.

We are totally different from Liberman and the settlers of the West Bank. They live on occupied land (which they do not own) that was taken by force, in large part by people who were not even born in the country.

It is not acceptable to compare us, as land owners who were born here, to them, neither historically nor morally.    

In the contemporary era, there is no precedent in any country to give up its citizens in exchange for territory against their will. Any such move would be illegal and undemocratic.

We are aware that such plans would strengthen the Jewish majority in the Jewish state, yet there is still no accurate definition of who is considered a Jew. We are pleased that the Palestinian Authority has officially rejected Liberman’s statements, as they are contrary to the Palestinian vision which says that the Arabs who live in Israel are not a party to the conflict and cannot be transferred.

We were very pleased to hear that the Israeli president, government ministers and peace organizations have condemned Liberman’s plan. However, I am left wondering why I have yet to hear a condemnation from the White House

We are not afraid. We will continue to stand firm against racists, and we will keep fighting for equality and our rights, with the help of the Israelis working for peace and democracy.

We must show Avigdor Liberman that we will continue to learn, develop our communities, strengthen the status of women, believe in the two-state solution, and unite with those Israeli peace and democracy organizations that believe in the righteousness of our way. Our citizenship is not up for negotiation.

Riad Kabaha is the director of the Jewish Arab Center for Peace in Givat Haviva. He has been a peace educator for over 30 years, and is a resident of the village of West Barta’a.

Related:
Liberman: Citizenship annulment is a condition for peace

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Craig Vale

      I often wonder how the founding father of Zionism Theodor Herzl would feel today upon viewing the enclosed map of Palestine & Israel ? I have no qualms with the his vision of a Jewish State at all as events in Europe came to a head with the sordid prosecution~persecution of Captain Dreyfus in France in 1894. For many this action was seen as the final straw and the realization that the persecution of Jews had hit a new low. The idea of a sovereign nation state for Jews while bandied about as early as the late 1860s finally coalesced around Herzl’s proposals during this period of outrage at the treatment of Captain Dreyfus. Herzl saw several options for a new land. Argentina as well as Uganda were given more than a cursory look contemporaneously with the lands of Palestine.
      In looking back over history I do wonder to what extent Herzl would have viewed the displacement and uprooting of Palestinians in the decades that followed. While some have labeled him as a fervent militant on the issue, there certainly were others far to the right of him who were calling for all out expulsion of all the Palestinians in the area claiming Gods gift to the Jewish people was indeed the land in question and they had a biblical right to possess it. Herzl’s untimely death in 1905 kind of settled the question as his successors went all out for the land grab that was to follow his demise. When one views the map included in the link I’ve provided, how in good conscience can any Jew not see that the Palestinians have a just reason for feeling aggrieved ?Especialy in light of the fact that the Palestinians were not those giving grief to European Jews ?
      intoing.com/images/search?q=if+americans+knew+maps+of+pre+Israel&go=&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=if+americans+knew+maps+of+pre+israel&sc=0-18&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=1493052AEEC78A1C3D215A90C3CA100C8499F7A6&selectedIndex=12

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Herzl would feel proud looking at any map that has a sovereign Jewish state on it.

        Jews can see that Palestinians are aggrieved without agreeing that the Palestinians are right. This is because most Jews believe that Jews have a historical claim to the land of Israel that is at least as strong as any other. Given that basic belief it is nearly impossible to argue that there is anything particularly wrong with Jews moving to Israel and buying and settling land there. At that point the opposition by Arabs to Jews living in Israel becomes the problem, not the underlying process of Jews living in Israel. As to the usual complaints that the Jews created a separate existence for themselves in Israel, again, why shouldn’t Jews revive their original language and build communal bodies? Jews have done this in nearly every place they have lived. This process was reinforced by the opposition displayed by the Arabs.

        So, now we are at 1947. There are Arabs and Jews in Israel that don’t get along. The Arabs wish to throw out or massacre the vast majority of the Jews. The Jews see no particular reason why they should not live in their Holy Land. What happens next? A brutal civil war which the Jews won and the Arabs lost. Israel rises while the Arabs continue to declare an aim of its destruction with a goal to expel the vast majority of the Jewish population.

        It is only recently that the Arabs have started to move towards the idea of making peace. And still they can’t quite get over the fact that the state of Israel is not going anywhere. All plans are foiled by the insistence by the Arabs that some issues be left open so that they can gather strength and then have a justification to continue their quest to eliminate Israel. They still can’t get over the existence of a state of Jews in the land of Israel.

        Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          You only left out the fact that every major Zionist leader – Herzl, DBG, Ruppin, Weizmann – and many others have remarked that settling Eretz Israel wouldn’t be possible without removing the fellahin. They did not want to live alongside and separate from the Arabs, they wanted to live in place of them. Removing the tenants following land deals was only a stopgap measure because they didn’t have the ability to invade Palestine as the British had India and Egypt. And it should go without saying, had their intentions been peaceful, they wouldn’t have needed the British to get anywhere.

          The Zionists wanted to find an easy way to transfer the Arabs (Like Ruppin’s early proposal that would essentially bribe evicted peasants to move to Homs and Aleppo). Just because the Arabs wouldn’t go easy doesn’t mean they’re entitled to the moral highground. Taking over the country was the plan and it was worth starting a conflict to them.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            As far as I recall the process of setting up Jewish settlements in Israel was already in full swing before the British took over the land of Israel from the Ottomans in 1917. That is, settlement was proceeding rapidly under Ottoman control.

            The intention was to settle the land and to achieve some element of autonomy. The move towards a goal of full Jewish sovereignty was the result of persistent and violent Arab opposition to Jewish return and land purchases and of the growing power of the Jewish community under British tutelage.

            Again, as far as I recall there were Arabs in Herzl vision of the Jewish State and Ruppin was a part of Brit Shalom and supported a binational state until the 1929 Arab massacres. Additionally, the global demographics before WW2 allowed for the creation of a Jewish State without moving a single Arab. So, the argument that all Zionist thinkers were thinking first and foremost about removing the Arabs is nonsense. Their primary concern was for Jews to leave the European hellholes and resettle the land of Israel.

            In any case, most of this is secondary to the overall point – Jews believe that they have a historic claim to the land of Israel. This is both historically true and a part of their religious beliefs. Arguing that Jews are in the wrong for living in Israel and defending that existence is not an argument that is going to gain much traction among Jews.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Ruppin’s support for a bi-national state was tactical, which I pointed out here. Clearly, though, his idea of selling land in modern-day Syria under “easy terms” to evicted fellahin shows he had the motive for removing the Arabs before WWI even started.
            http://972mag.com/book-review-the-year-palestine-became-a-zero-sum-game-1929/85448/

            Herzl’s fictional portrayals of “Der Judenstaadt” still had Arabs living there, yes. His diary had talk about removing the poor natives by procuring employment for them in the transit countries while denying them any work in his own.

            By the time WWII started, the Peel Commission plan had already been floated. Ben-Gurion wanted to accept it on the basis of its approval of transfer and that the British would carry it out.

            “Arguing that Jews are in the wrong for living in Israel and defending that existence”

            Oh hurk. The Zionists wanted to create a Jewish majority through mass immigration. If the anti-Balfour uprisings hadn’t “radicalized” them towards military operations of expulsion, the growing settler population would have done the job in any case.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            You pointed out what? That Ruppin was willing to consider the idea of a binational state? That he was interested in replacing land the fellahin lost elsewhere? It seems to me that you are basically pointing out that Ruppin very much was interested in finding arrangements with the Arabs that left them equally or better off than before the Jews arrived.

            Indeed, the transfer of some Arabs would have been useful to bolstering Jewish power in Israel while undermining the Arabs that opposed the existence of a Jewish collective, but it was not essential. Not only that, but as you point out, not a single Arab needed to have been moved to achieve a Jewish majority in Israel through immigration.

            So, really the Arab complaint was that they rejected Jews returning to the land of Israel, buying land and establishing communities. It would be hard to convince most Jews that these actions are in any way illegitimate. So, all you have left is to argue that these legitimate acts were done in pursuit of some sort of sinister motive and you use the events that followed the Arab rejection of these legitimate acts as justification. The problem with this argument is that it is based on some sort of historical determinism and essentialism. It suggests that all Zionists must have wanted to expel the Arabs (why? well, they are Zionists), and that the only reasonable Arab reaction was to repeatedly try to massacre the Jews (as opposed to say seeking a binational solution pursued by some Zionist Jews).

            The other problem with your argument is that the Zionists up until the late 1940s wouldn’t even have imagined the possibility that much of the Arab population could be removed. It wasn’t that they would have rejected such a possibility outright, it was just so remote that it couldn’t form a basis for policy. As such, to argue that Zionist ideology or policy, was based a priori on the eventual expulsion of Arabs, is unsustainable.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Ruppin very much was interested in finding arrangements with the Arabs that left them equally or better off than before the Jews arrived.

            We risk going around in a circle here, because I’ve been upfront with the notion of Ruppin seeking a method of transfer that would be so palatable to the peasants they would leave without opposition. Of course, Ruppin’s idea for those Arabs in his Jewish state was completely different – they wouldn’t be employed in any Jewish-owned agriculture. Now a pop quiz, how was the ghettoization of Russian Jews accomplished?

            a) they were paid to move into the Pale of Settlement under a mutual agreement. Hint: This isn’t the answer.

            b) they were forced to move through bureaucratic disenfranchisement and denial of employment, which kind of resembles the Labour Zionists’ plan for enacting Hebrew labor

            Not only that, but as you point out, not a single Arab needed to have been moved to achieve a Jewish majority in Israel through immigration.

            Sure, there’s just the little problem with competition over land resources. Another thing I pointed out in that talkback: Ruppin was aware that almost no unsettled arable land remained in Palestine by the mid-late 20’s.

            So, really the Arab complaint was that they rejected Jews returning to the land of Israel, buying land and establishing communities.

            Once again, the notion that the Zionists were just going to live alongside the Arabs is a dog that won’t hunt. The land deals made with the absentee landlords often resulted in the very least dispute over land that was to be cultivated by the existing Arab community and more frequently during the 2nd Aliyah period and British Mandate, eviction of the peasants. Even if the land transactions were legal under Ottoman law (Not always the case), there’s no pretending this practice would have such a neutral effect on the peasants they could afford to tolerate these “legitimate acts”.

            The problem with this argument is that it is based on some sort of historical determinism and essentialism.

            Sure, and the Holocaust was not a predetermined result of Social Darwinism and eugenics. However, any Zionist would be acutely aware of what segregation had done to the Jews in Europe, and in Palestine they wanted a variation of it with them receiving the spoils. It’s not entirely hindsight to call out their plan as something that might lead to expulsion when Arab nationalists like Najib Azuri and Khalil Sakakini also saw it at the time.

            As such, to argue that Zionist ideology or policy, was based a priori on the eventual expulsion of Arabs, is unsustainable.

            Actually, you’re onto something here. It may be why political Zionism was confined to a fanatical core during its first 30 or so years and didn’t receive more mainstream support until concretely successful. The backbone of all international support for Israel is a feigned ignorance of the dirty work while enjoying the result. I love Israel, but expelling the Arabs is a job for someone else, so why acknowledge it even has to be done?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            I will add that the borders of Zionism’s Eretz Israel are quite a bit larger than the current State of Israel. Zionism’s Eretz Israel includes Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, half of Iraq (to the Euphrates) and Sinai (to the River of Egypt). West Bank is just a warm-up. Lieberman is just a flunky.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “I will add that the borders of Zionism’s Eretz Israel are quite a bit larger than the current State of Israel. Zionism’s Eretz Israel includes Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, half of Iraq (to the Euphrates) and Sinai (to the River of Egypt). West Bank is just a warm-up. Lieberman is just a flunky.”

            Go fuck yourself, you two bit Joooooooo hating Nazi.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            I said Zionism’s. You said Jooo’s. Are you saying that Zionism’s goals are same as Jooo’s goals? Is there a difference between Zionist and Jooo? Hard to decipher, because the Joooish State was founded by Zionists. So do Jooos want to expand according to Zionism?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yes, most Jooooooos are Zionists or have Zionist sympathies.

            As for your moronic straw man claim regarding what Zionism’s aims are, for the record, Zionism’s aim is the survival of the Jewish nation state in our ancestral homeland.

            But since you lied about where we consider our homeland to be, I repeat my earlier comment:

            Average, go fuck yourself you two bit lying, hateful Joooooo hating Nazi.

            Reply to Comment
          • Puck

            Underlying Andrew r and other posters is the overarching question whether Jews have a legal, historical, religious, or archeological right to claim the Land of Israel as their homeland. If not, all other issues are irrelevant.

            For a definitive perspective on this issue of ancestral homeland, see this following First Nations indigenous take on the conflict, then make your comments:

            http://unitedwithisrael.org/israel-the-worlds-first-modern-indigenous-state/?inf_contact_key=ade9f99a90b9aaff974a80f64e226c33eec9938819065fc0e716055eeee14191Israel

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            This is not even getting off the ground. Every government that supported Zionism and now Israel has historically been contemptuous of indigenous peoples, Canada not the least of them. So basically it’s something to confuse and split apart indigenous rights movements.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Rehmat

      In 2012, Avigdor Lieberman, told an accountant’s convention: “Sometimes, even to best friends, you must say NO. Otherwise, no one will respect you“.

      Israel has also refused to apology for its terrorist activities in Turkey, India, the United States, Iran, Lebanon and many other countries.

      http://rehmat1.com/2012/06/07/lieberman-israel-cannot-apology-for-its-crimes/

      Reply to Comment
    3. I vaguely recall Lieberman made this proposal several years ago in a UN speech. Bibi then disavowed as not State policy. Then why was the Foreign Minister suggesting it when acting as a functionary? Bibi either has no control over his “right” or he is in fact one of them–I think the former has made him the latter.

      Citizenship in inviolate. To suggest the corporate stripping of citizenship is akin to the racial ontology of National Socialism in the 1930s. This is obvious, and it is past time for the right to say so to its fringe own–a fringe sitting as Foreign Minister.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Oh please! That “fringe” was put in government by the majority of the electorate in a democratic election and it does represent that majority. Citizenship is inviolable (I assume that “citizenship in inviolate” is a typo)? Who told you that? what is the legal basis for this ill-informed assertion? And please quit throwing Nazi-slurs around. Exchange of populations and territories geared toward resolving armed regional conflicts is an accepted practice in the International Community and as such an integral part of the body of International law. That law has not changed, and will not change.

        Reply to Comment
      • JohnW

        “To suggest the corporate stripping of citizenship is akin to the racial ontology of National Socialism in the 1930s”

        For the umpteenth time, Mr Pollock, how do you know that coercion would be involved in Liberman’s implementing Liberman’s proposal? After all, If Israel is Nazi like (as some people claim or imply) in it’s treatment of Arab Israelis, one would think they would be glad to shed their “hated Israeli citizenship.

        Don’t you think so Mr Pollock?

        Reply to Comment
      • JohnW

        “To suggest the corporate stripping of citizenship is akin to the racial ontology of National Socialism in the 1930s. This is obvious. And it is past time for the right to say so to its fringe own–a fringe sitting as Foreign Minister.”

        So sayeth the preacher from the USA.

        Now let’s see what happened in the USA in the 1960s:

        Even though Politician George Wallace was advocating segregation and openly racist policies, he was allowed to run as a candidate for presidency. Did that make the USA a Nationalist Socialist State in the 1960s?

        Yes or No, Mr Pollock?

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          How is your response related to the subject of stripping citizenship? Huh, Mr. John W? Are you attempting the standard Israeli tactic of deflect distract and delay? Yes or No, Mr. John W?

          Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            It is related Mr Non Average American.

            My message to you guys is not to preach to us, unless you are prepared to live up to the standards that you preach. Kapish? Yes or no, Mr non Average?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            What citizenship did we strip? When did USA establish a standard of stripping citizenship?

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            Sigh …

            Suffering from comprehension problems eh, Mr Average? Ok, let me educate you just this once. But after this, if you have further inane questions, you will have to do chores for me before I respond.

            Your friend, Mr Pollock was complaining that Netanyahu did not pull Liberman into line or sideline him for proposing his plan which he considers to be akin to national socialism.

            I then brought up George Wallace who was the governor of Alabama and was nominated as a presidential candidate, several times under the democratic ticket despite his race based segregationist proposals.

            So I questioned why he was not sidelined in your country? And I suggested that before preaching to us, maybe he could answer that question. Kapish Mr not Average? Yes or No?

            Reply to Comment
    4. Danny

      Avigdor (Vladimir) Liberman is to Israel what Le Pen is to France and what Jorg Haider was to Austria. How world diplomats still agree to shake this man’s hand is beyond me.

      Reply to Comment
      • Vadim

        “Reminding” that Avigdor is also Vladimir to make a point is similar to stressing the Hussein in Barack Hussein Obama. Both are disgusting.

        Reply to Comment
        • Rehmat

          “I think when it is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president,” – Abner Mikvaner, former Chicago’s Zionist Congressman, a Federal Judge and White House counsel to former president Bill Clinton.

          http://rehmat1.com/2008/12/13/obama-the-first-jewish-president/

          Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Ohhh. So you are a proud Israeli now. I can’t wait to see you marching on Israel’s independence day with an Israeli flag. What’s that? You can’t do that because you don’t like the flag and don’t like the country. What’s that? You would like to see the country change its name, its flag, its population and its holidays? Well, what kind of a strange proud Israeli are you?

          Oh, you are a “Palestinian Israeli”? The kind that marches to mourn the birth of the State of Israel with the same flag often seen in videos made by people before they blow up Israeli women and children on buses? The kind that continues to elect members of parliament for whom the most important issue is to attack the state at every opportunity? Well, that is fascinating. So, which part of you is Israeli? The passport that you carry, right? That’s about it.

          And which part of you is Palestinian? The rest? Then why wouldn’t you want to live in a Palestinian State and all without having to move a millimeter from your house? Just exchange that piece of paper which quite obviously holds nothing but material value to you for a piece of paper that actually represents you. Bituach Leumi you say? So, the only thing maintaining your desire to be a citizen in this country that you hate is a couple of shekels? Definitely a proud Israel if there ever was one.

          There is nothing illegal or undemocratic about a country’s democratically elected government changing its border as a result of a mutually agreed deal with another state. That is even further enforced by the fact that the villages in question would be moving to a state with which they share a language, culture, religions, symbols, holidays and almost certainly a loyalty, none of which you can honestly say about the state of Israel.

          My god. You live in West Barthaa. Half of your neighbors are married to people from the other side of the Green Line. If the State of Palestine existed half of the children running around your neighborhood would hold Palestinian citizenship already. The argument that transferring a village like West Barthaa to Palestinian control is some kind of terrible evil undemocratic state is frankly stupid. If it wasn’t for the fact that you are benefiting materially from being in Israel you wouldn’t even bother making this argument. You would be marching with a Palestinian flag in the streets of West Barthaa demanding to be made part of the state of Palestine. As for the rest of the things that you claim as your Israeli patrimony, you can do all those things in your new state. I am sure you will be a valuable addition to the struggle with Jews in the State of Palestine for equality and rights. Oh wait, what? There will not be a single Jew in the State of Palestine? How bizarre.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            972mag appears to have a bug.. This was meant as a general comment, not a reply to Vadim..

            Reply to Comment
        • Danny

          My point is that the man who was born Evet Lvovich Liberman in Soviet Moldova, and who came to Israel in 1978 as a 20-year old immigrant has less right to be in the country than those Israeli-Arab citizens whose families have been there for many generations before Liberman’s Moldovan ancestors even heard of Israel.

          If he wants to relocate people from Israel, the first one he should relocate is none other than himself – back to his homeland of Moldova.

          Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            nsttnocontentcomment

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Right on Danny.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “If he wants to relocate people from Israel, the first one he should relocate is none other than himself – back to his homeland of Moldova.”

            Relocate Arab Israelis together with the land that they live on NOW, their assets and properties to the shiny New Democratic Palestinian state? How is that relocation?

            How is that the same as relocating Liberman to Moldova?

            No wonder this brain dead Nazi who describes himself as “Average” admires you so much, Danny.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Kolumn9

      Ohhh. So you are a proud Israeli now. I can’t wait to see you marching on Israel’s independence day with an Israeli flag. What’s that? You can’t do that because you don’t like the flag and don’t like the country. What’s that? You would like to see the country change its name, its flag, its population and its holidays? Well, what kind of a strange proud Israeli are you?

      Oh, you are a “Palestinian Israeli”? The kind that marches to mourn the birth of the State of Israel with the same flag often seen in videos made by people before they blow up Israeli women and children on buses? The kind that continues to elect members of parliament for whom the most important issue is to attack the state at every opportunity? Well, that is fascinating. So, which part of you is Israeli? The passport that you carry, right? That’s about it.

      And which part of you is Palestinian? The rest? Then why wouldn’t you want to live in a Palestinian State and all without having to move a millimeter from your house? Just exchange that piece of paper which quite obviously holds nothing but material value to you for a piece of paper that actually represents you. Bituach Leumi you say? So, the only thing maintaining your desire to be a citizen in this country that you hate is a couple of shekels? Definitely a proud Israel if there ever was one.

      There is nothing illegal or undemocratic about a country’s democratically elected government changing its border as a result of a mutually agreed deal with another state. That is even further enforced by the fact that the villages in question would be moving to a state with which they share a language, culture, religions, symbols, holidays and almost certainly a loyalty, none of which you can honestly say about the state of Israel.

      My god. You live in West Barthaa. Half of your neighbors are married to people from the other side of the Green Line. If the State of Palestine existed half of the children running around your neighborhood would hold Palestinian citizenship already. The argument that transferring a village like West Barthaa to Palestinian control is some kind of terrible evil undemocratic state is frankly stupid. If it wasn’t for the fact that you are benefiting materially from being in Israel you wouldn’t even bother making this argument. You would be marching with a Palestinian flag in the streets of West Barthaa demanding to be made part of the state of Palestine. As for the rest of the things that you claim as your Israeli patrimony, you can do all those things in your new state. I am sure you will be a valuable addition to the struggle with Jews in the State of Palestine for equality and rights. Oh wait, what? There will not be a single Jew in the State of Palestine? How bizarre.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ginger Eis

      Riad Kabaha, the ‘population- and territory exchange’ proposed by Lieberman is geared towards resolving armed/violent regional conflict between the Jewish State and Arab- and Muslim nations surrounding it. This method of International Conflict Resolution has been- and TODAY is still generally accepted within the International Community and as such forms part of well established, well settled ‘International Customary Law’. But as usual, the Arabs would want a different legal standard applied – at the sound of the word “Israel” and/or “Jews”. You do not even have any kind of legal background and are thus in a very bad position to talk law.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Ginger Eis

      Riad Kabah, I am sure a team of legal experts in the State Attorney’s office/Justice Ministry are already examining the legal implications of the Lieberman-plan. The Lieberman-plan can only become reality in a peace Treaty. A Treaty is that part of International Law that binds the Signatories thereof. In hierarchical order, the Treaty is SUPERIOUR achieving superior to- and takes PRECEDENT over national laws. Any section of the national law that conflicts with the provisions of a Treaty are either set aside/not applicable or null and void. This is well settled Public law-/Constitutional & Administrative law legal doctrine in ALL Western legal systems (both the Civil- and the Common Law systems). IF and WHEN the Lieberman-plan makes it to a Treaty, becomes LAW and is presented to the Israeli Court for adjudication, the Court would have to determine if the Treaty was signed by the competent authority and ratified by the Knesset. If the answers are affirmative, the Court will explore the legitimate National Security Interest pursued by the Treaty, i.e. existential threat to the State Of Israel arising from Armed Regional Conflict with Arab nations. The Court will further examine the aims and goals of the Treaty, i.e. resolution of said conflict, preservation of the Jewish State and regional- and world peace. Lastly the Court will consider if the population-exchange/loss of Israeli citizenship by some Palestinians is proportionate to resolution of a regional armed conflict that has lasted for many decades, led to tens of thousands of deaths, brought untold heart wrenching misery to millions of peoples (Jews and Arabs), and continues to dangerously destabilize national, regional and world Security. The Court would have to carefully weigh what outweighs the other. This would be an arduous balancing act to make. And the Israeli government’s position will prevail.

      Reply to Comment
      • Philos

        Strange reading of treaty law there… so long as state’s do not implement their treaty obligations within their national legal frames then they’re really not worth the paper they are written on. And there is nothing to stop a state from abrogating a treaty. Furthermore, nothing bad will happen (unless it’s a treaty the USA cares about, which so long as it isn’t a trade or intellectual property rights treaty, aren’t that many).

        Reply to Comment
    8. Ginger Eis

      Dear Riad Kabaha & C0., for you the birth of Israel is the great Nakba, a great catastrophe; the Israeli Independence Day is for you a black day; when Israelis sing the Hatikva, your heart is filled with rage and hatred; when Isrealis wave the Star Of David, you wave Palestinian-, Hamas- and Hezbollah’s flag and the pictures of Nasrallah! When Israel is in a military conflict with her enemy, you side with the enemy and wishes the military defeat of the State Of Israel; when you hear calls for economic boycott of Israel to collapse her economy, you cheer and lend you support to it, etc. Lieberman offers you a golden opportunity to be a citizen of a State where you be a FIRST CLASS CITIZEN and NEVER be treated as a second class citizen (as you and your ilk claim), where you will NEVER have to fight for equal right; a State that is as Palestinian as you yourself are; a State where you could become the Head Of State; a State where you will sing the Palestinian national anthem and proudly wave the Palestinian national flag, observe Palestinian holidays and Islamic holidays; a State that is Judenrein where you would not have to wave the Israeli flag or sing- or even hear others sing the Hatikva. You can take your land and ALL your property and money with you when you go. Heck, Israel is even willing to pay you huge chunk of money and allow you retain your Israeli citizenship which will terminate at the moment of your death but is not transferable to your children. What then is the matter, Riad Kabaha? Why are you sooooo scared of YOUR OWN people and suddenly in love with Zion?

      Reply to Comment
      • Egbaria S.

        Dear Ginger Eis, you seem to be living in illusions. Your words are not new, and even boring, that remind me as well as many over here of those malicious and radical ones such as Liberman. Your words inspire me that you yourself live in a state of uncertainty and inner conflict. I doubt many points of what you have said. You actually want to hear what you like to hear, but you are not willing to hear the truth. All what you have said and all what you have been trying to convey is dishonest and devious. I have no problem with the transfer to the PA, but first give me back my land that has been confiscated at the area of Megido, from which we were deported. Your plan, in fact, aims at confiscating as much land as possible with removing as many people as possible. This is a real persecution and oppression, my friend. If not so, how would you call it then?! One more important thing, we are not an object for swapping whenever you wish. If this happens to you in Europe, you would surely mention the word “anti-Semitism”. You cannot play with the fate of others whenever you wish, because it is the worst inhumane and disgusting thing a man can do. My advice to you is: before you prejudge people and grade them, you should first look at yourself in the mirror. Don’t transfer your suffering to others but figure out and learn to resolve problems and lessen the agony of those around you. They say” words are cheap but….”

        Reply to Comment
    9. JohnW

      This is what Ahmed Tibi, an Arab MK who is the deputy speaker in the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament), said about Israel:

      http://www.jpost.com/Video-Articles/20-Questions/Tibi-Status-quo-will-deepen-apartheid-in-Israel

      “Tibi asserts that other than voting rights, there is not a single area in which total equality between Jews and Arabs is exercised. Tibi holds that in matters pertaining to land allocation, infrastructure, and public service, the scales are weighed massively in favor of Israel’s Jewish citizens.”

      If that would be true, then how come he wants to remain an Israeli citizen? Is he a masochist? Is he stupid? Or has he got another agenda?

      Reply to Comment
    10. Click here to load previous comments