The Intra-Fada: Have Israeli Arabs Joined the War against Israel?

At the beginning of December, an Israeli-Arab was arrested before he was able to execute an attack modeled on the 2002 Park Hotel Passover massacre in Netanya. The 17-year-old resident of Nazareth allegedly planned to carry out a bombing that he hoped would blow up the packed lobby or dining room of Upper Nazareth’s Plaza Hotel. He told Israeli police he had chosen the location due to its popularity with Israeli Jews and its light security.

A traditionally Christian-Arab city, Nazareth, located in Northern Israel, in the Galilee, has a population of 70,000, 60 percent of whom today are Muslims. Neighboring Nazareth Illit (Upper Nazareth) has a population of 44,000 Israeli Jews.

According to press accounts, the Israeli-Arab teenager was acting on behalf of the Al Aqsa Brigades, a terrorist group associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction of the PLO.

It is unclear if the teenager intended o be a suicide bomber or if he planned to plant the explosives in the hotel and detonate it remotely.

In other words, they seem to have joined the battle against the Jewish state, following leaders such as Riad Saleh, head of the radical Israeli-Arab Islamic Movement, who routinely announces that Jerusalem will soon be the capital of an Islamic caliphate. Mr. Saleh often attempts to whip Israeli Arabs into a frenzy by warning of imaginary Jewish plots to destroy the Muslim holy places on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.

On December 2, Israeli Arabs destroyed a Talmud Torah in the northern city of Acre, painting Arabic graffiti and swastikas on the walls, destroying furniture, and scattering holy books.

A mixed Arab-and-Jewish city, located between Haifa and the Lebanese border on the Mediterranean coast, Acre had been notably quiet until recently. A few days before the attack on the synagogue, a band of Arab youths assaulted and beat a Jewish girl. Six months earlier, local Arabs burned trees at the entrance to the Talmud Torah, and during the recent Simchat Torah holiday, Arabs surrounded and threatened students from the local hesder yeshiva, where Torah study is combined with service in the IDF. The Arabs dispersed when a student fired a gun into the air.

The December attack on the Talmud Torah was discovered by a Jew who arrived early for Shabbat services, and promptly called the police.

According to Rabbi Avraham Shushan, who teaches at the school, the lights were on and the windows were broken. The walls were covered with swastikas and the words “Hamas” and “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great).

“It looked like Sodom and Gomorrah. The vandals went into the classrooms, dumped out the equipment, turned over the principal’s office, and threw the Torah books in all directions. They took expensive equipment worth thousands of shekels,” said Rabbi Shushan.

Rabbi Yosef Yashar, the chief rabbi of Acre, said it reminded him of “Nazi Germany.”

MKs from the National Religious Party-National Union, who visited Acre in November, said they consulted local police after becoming aware of the increasing anti-Jewish activity on the part of Israeli Arabs in the city. The police told them the violence and clashes were of a “criminal, not nationalistic nature.”

NRP-NU MK Uri Ariel disputed that characterization, pointing out that the episode in the Talmud Torah “proves the bitter reality that, in 2006, antisemitic pogroms take place in sovereign Israel.”

“The police in Acre must give an accounting as to why Arab rioters feel sufficiently free to carry out such a despicable act. We won’t allow the police to evade their responsibility,” said Mr. Ariel.

While many observers maintain that there has been growing evidence of Israeli-Arab radicalization, others say this past summer’s war with Lebanon was a turning point. When Hezbollah missiles fell on Haifa and other cities in the North, Israeli Arabs cheered and then accused the Jewish state of issuing a “disproportionate response” when it fought back.

After the war, many Israeli Arabs admitted to be furious with Israel for laying waste to Lebanon and bombing its civilians, with the US for giving Israel the green light and providing the Jewish state with weapons, and with Arab governments for essentially standing by and doing nothing to help Hezbollah.

But the Arabs also expressed hope because, many said, the war’s indecisive outcome indicated to them that Israel could be militarily defeated.

Many observers have noted that since the war last summer, Israeli Arabs have become increasingly eager to forego any grudging acceptance of Israel as an unwanted reality, and to see themselves, rather, as part of the Arab world that will try to eliminate the Jewish state entirely.

Police in the Jezreel Valley seem to be learning just that in the case of Amir Engel, a resident of one of the farming communities who leased and registered land for the purpose of grazing his cows. The only Jewish cow-farmer in the area, which contains seven Israeli-Arab villages, Mr. Engel said he has been “constantly harassed by Arabs with violence, threats, damage to our property, and more. No one could control them.”

Eighteen months ago, Israeli Arabs came with tractors, tore down Mr. Engle’s posts, and uprooted his entire fence.

“We found ourselves in a real war,” he said, adding that the Arabs threatened to kill him if he did not pull up stakes and leave.

The police did little until this past October, when, while on a routine patrol around his cows, Mr. Engle was accosted by two local Arabs who tried to abduct him. When he fought back, one of the Arabs pulled out a gun and shot him in the leg and hand.

Seriously hurt, but alive, he was still limping on crutches in early December, while his wife, Rochelle, and sons continued to graze their cattle.

“This is not our personal problem. It’s a problem of the lands throughout the State of Israel. Someone had better open his eyes, because it’s a serious issue. These Arabs think that with violence, they will get our land,” said Mrs. Engle.

Mr. Engle said it was naïve to believe the conflict between Jews and Israeli Arabs ended in 1948.

“It’s always here—sometimes it’s more moderate and sometimes it explodes. The Arabs have not given up their goal of wiping out their defeat of 1948 and wiping Israel off the map. Ever since Oslo [the Oslo Accords of 1993], they see us as a weak foe, one that is willing to give up everything for two days of quiet—and since then—their brazenness and desire to take the land has grown tremendously,” he said.

After the October attack on Mr. Engle, the local police “are finally investigating seriously,” said his wife, explaining that some suspects from the Arab village of Tamra have been arrested.

“For years, I would submit complaints to the police here, and I got to know the clerk pretty well. I would always tell her that no one is taking this seriously, and it will end up in a bad way. Now she tells me how right I was,” said Mrs. Engle.

In early December, when the Israeli-Arab teenager was hatching his plot, the Arab rioters were desecrating the Acre Talmud Torah, and Mr. Engle was helping the police track down his would-be murderers, adult leaders of the Israeli-Arab community presented a series of demands which, if accepted, would accomplish the same goal: an end to Israel as a Jewish state.

At a conference in Nazareth, Mossawa—the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel, presented a position paper in which the group claimed, among other demands, the right to return to villages which Arabs had abandoned in 1948 and which now are inhabited by Jews.

The paper, entitled “The Future Vision of Palestinian Arabs in Israel,” was one of several similar studies that have been published by a variety of mainstream Israeli-Arab organizations. Like the others, “Future Vision” maintained that, in addition to equal rights, to which every Israeli citizen is entitled, the Arab minority demands “group-differentiated rights.”

Many observers pointed out that “Future Vision” is an effort to show that the leaders of the Arabs in Israel have no loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Their goal is to establish a bi-national Jewish-Arab state on the territory of Israel, or, preferably, a Palestinian state on all the territory that now encompasses the PA and Israel.

At most, “Future Vision” would grant the Jews half a state (the Jewish half of a bi-national Jewish-Arab state), while the Palestinians would gain one-and-a-half states (all of Palestine as well the Palestinian half of the bi-national state).

One of the conference participants, Dr. Raef Zreik, complained that the “Future Vision” position paper was too mild. He insisted Israeli Arabs would not recognize the right of Jews to a state of their own unless it was part of an overall peace agreement with the Palestinian people as a whole.

It is not a new position. From 1999-2001, 12 Israeli Jews, led by Hebrew University Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, and eight Israeli Arabs, led by Adel Manna, director of the Jerusalem-based Van Leer Institute Center for the Study of Arab Society in Israel, tried to draw up a Jewish-Arab covenant for the mutual benefit of both societies. Their efforts came to a halt when the Arab side refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Some left-wing Israeli Jews, such as Ha’aretz columnist Uzi Benziman, have blamed the Israeli government for the Israeli-Arabs’ rage, claiming that the Arabs’ refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist idea is “nourished by the foolish and evil policy of discrimination adopted by all Israeli governments.”

But many Israeli Arabs readily acknowledge that their argument has nothing to do with discrimination. They simply do not accept the legitimacy of the Zionist idea. Mr. Manna insisted that even if there were no discrimination, Israeli-Arabs would still demand full autonomy.

The call for autonomy is at the heart of “Future Vision”’s 10-point position paper, which emphasized the demand for increased use of Arabic in Israel; an end to the 1950 Law-of-Return that automatically grants Israeli citizenship to any Jew (or for the addition of a Law of Return for Arabs); and for a new flag (minus the Star of David) and a new national anthem that eschews Jewish sentiments. Hatikva expresses the Jewish yearning through the ages for a return to Zion.

“The state’s symbols, its flag, and its national anthem are emotionally charged, public resources. The state must give appropriate expression to the presence of Arab citizens in Israel and its historical relationship to the place,” said the paper.

Writing in Ha’aretz, Avraham Tal noted that the demand for a change in the Law of Return means “opening the country’s gates to hundreds of thousands of descendents of residents of 1948 Palestine, so that the country will have a Palestinian majority.”

“A return to abandoned villages means situating a quarter of a million Israeli Arabs (as one ‘Future Vision’ estimates) in hundreds of rebuilt villages, something that would alter Israel’s demography, create hundreds of new friction points, and foster ongoing internal intra-ethnic conflict even after the external conflict is resolved,” he said.

He pointed out that changing the flag and the national anthem to make them express “the national uniqueness of the Arab minority” would abolish—on the symbolic level anyway—Israel as the Jewish national state.

“The next stage would have to be changing the name of the state,” said Mr. Tal.

While Mossawa acknowledged that Arabic is already recognized as an official language of Israel, “Future Vision” demanded that it be granted equal status to Hebrew in every aspect of public life, just as English and French are recognized in Canada. The group argued that as a truly bilingual country, Israel must grant “appropriate expression to the Arab-Palestinian culture in the public sphere, including noting Arabic names of places and bestowing Arabic names to public buildings, streets, cities, and the like.”

“Future Vision” called for Israeli Arabs to enjoy full autonomy over their school system. Many observers understood this to mean the right to demonize Jews and Israel, just as is done in textbooks and classrooms in the Palestinian Authority.

Arutz Sheva maintained that, by articulating this demand, the Arabs want to demonstrate their birthright to self-determination on the land controlled by Israel.

“Future Vision” also demanded guaranteed representation in Israel’s national bodies, irrespective of the number of votes Arab politicians receive in elections; extra allotments of resources, such as budget allocations, land, and housing, to compensate for “past discrimination;” and ties with other Arab countries, despite those nations’ boycott of Israel.

“The Palestinian population in Israel must be enabled to freely maintain and develop special ties—family, cultural, economic, and the like—with other members of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation,” said the paper.

Perhaps most importantly, “Future Vision” demands “historic rights” for Israeli Arabs. “Corrective justice demands that Israel must apologize and recognize the Naqba—national Palestinian-Arab catastrophe—of 1948 when the Arabs were removed from their lands,” said the paper.

This, the paper said, encompasses the right of “uprooted Palestinians”—about 25 percent of the current Arab population of Israel—and guarantees their “return” to their original villages, most of them now Jewish towns. In addition, all assets of the Muslim religious authority, the Waqf, must be “returned” and administered by the Israeli-Arabs’ community.

Many of these former Arab villages engaged in hostile actions before and during the 1948 War of Independence.

In “Future Vision,” the Israeli Arabs make the claim that hundreds of destroyed villages, in various parts of the country, are theirs. According to the Israeli Arabs, Jews will have to vacate pre-1967 Israeli towns such as Ashkelon and Be’er Sheva.

Other examples are the Meggido Prison, which was built on top of the abandoned Arab village of Al-Lajun, and the north Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Aviv, which was once called Sheikh Munis.

According to Arutz Sheva, the Israeli Arabs know their demand to “return” to these places is unrealistic, but raising the issue is intended to help the nationalist Arab cause.

Among the many jurists participating in the Israeli-Arab conference was Supreme Court Justice Salim Jubran who said the existing Israeli Basic Right of Citizenship law must be amended to complete the constitutional protection of minority groups. He objected to the law’s restriction on the rights of Israeli Arabs to marry Palestinians, a bill which Israeli Jews say is important because of its security ramifications. Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians can reside in the PA, but the couple may not live together in Israel proper because Palestinians do not have that automatic right.

Until recently, most Israeli-Arab judges tended to maintain low profiles, were reticent when it came to politics, and often handed down stiffer sentences in criminal trials than did Jewish judges. That, however, has changed.

“Over the past year or so, Jubran has ‘come out of the closet’ as a radical Arab anti-Israel nationalist. He now publicly promotes ‘secession’ plans formulated by Arabs and anti-Zionist leftist Jews according to which ‘Palestinian Israelis’ will set up their own parliament and own state-within-the-state, will have separate UN representation and veto power over Israeli government decisions. And eventually, no doubt, their own army,” said an observer who asked for anonymity.

Mr. Jubran’s “open sedition,” he said, has prompted other Arab judges to follow his lead. “In large part, all this has been made possible by the ‘judicial activism’ imposed on Israel by past Chief Justice Aharon Barak. According to their version of ‘judicial activism,’ judges are supposed to introduce their personal political agendas and biases into their rulings and expound their political ideology from the bench, because they represent ‘enlightened opinion,’” said the observer.

Perhaps most frightening for many Israeli Jews was the knowledge that those participating in the formulation of “Future Vision” were not thugs who are likely to blow themselves up on buses. The participants were moderates, but their arguments were identical to those articulated by the radicals and terrorists.

The paper was presented as part of the week-long Second Annual Days of Mossawa Festival and Nazareth Film Festival.

“The Arab citizens understand the trend, and it encourages them to go out and paint swastikas on yeshivot,” he said, pointing out that, in other Israeli cities with large Arab populations, such as Ramle, Jaffa, and Lod, Israeli Arabs are independently making these demands.

Middle East expert Dr. Daniel Pipes said these episodes are evidence that Israel’s “third and final enemy” has joined the battle.

Israel’s enemy number one, he said, are foreign states who sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state since 1948.

“Today, the greatest threat comes from weapons of mass destruction in Iran and Syria. Egypt increasingly presents a conventional arms danger,” said Dr. Pipes.

The Jewish state’s second enemy, he said, are Palestinians outside Israel. “Eclipsed for two decades after 1948, they moved to center stage with Yasir Arafat and the PLO. The 1982 Lebanon War and the 1993 Oslo Accords confirmed their centrality. External Palestinians remain active and menacing today, what with terrorism, missiles landing in Sderot, and a global public relations campaign of rejectionism,” he said.

He identified Israel’s third enemy as the state’s Muslim citizens. He said he refers to them as Muslims rather than Arabs because Arabic-speaking Christians and Druze “are generally less hostile.”

In 1949, Israel’s 111,000 Arab citizens made up nine percent of the state’s population. By 2005, they had increased ten-fold to 1,141,000,  16 percent of the population. Israeli Arabs can be found in all sectors of Israeli society. They are physicians, attorneys, Members of Knesset, academics, businessmen, judges (including a Supreme Court Justice), and an ambassador.

“This ascent, along with other factors—enemies number one and two at war with Israel, increased ties to the West Bank, the surge of radical Islam, the Lebanon War in mid-2006—emboldened Muslims to reject the Israeli identity and turn against the state. Their blatantly celebrating Israel’s worst enemies evidences this, as does growing Muslim-on-Jewish violence within Israel,” said Dr. Pipes.  

Dr. Pipes saw “Future Vision” as a call to terminate the Zionist achievement of a sovereign Jewish state, and he was not surprised that Jewish Israelis reacted negatively.

In Ma’ariv, Dan Margalit, capturing the widespread Jewish frustration with the new Israeli-Arab thinking, dismissed Israeli Arabs as “impossible.”

“It’s very sad and a great pity. We were wrong to harbor illusions. They are impossible,” he wrote.

Mr. Tal reminded Israelis that, in 1947-1948, the Arabs were given the opportunity to establish an independent state on part of the territory of Palestine. Their leaders refused and instead tried to destroy the fledgling Jewish state.

“The leaders of the descendants of the 1948 refugees who are scattered in the Arab states and elsewhere, are trying to repeat in a different way the failed attempt of the 1948 generation, with terror from outside and by nurturing a separatist Palestinian narrative from within,” said Mr. Tal.

The result of papers such as “Future Vision,” he said, will be “a deepening of the rift and a heightening of the hostility between Jews and Arabs in Israel.”

Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of the mostly Russian Yisrael Beiteinu Party, believes one solution is to insist that all Israelis—Jews and Arabs—be required to pledge allegiance to the Jewish state.

“Israel has the right to demand full allegiance from all its citizens. He who is not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state cannot be a citizen of the country. This applies to extremists of the Neturei Karta as well as to the extremist factions of the Islamist Movement,” Mr. Lieberman told a group at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which is associated with the Brookings Institute.

Those who refuse to sign, he said, may remain in Israel as permanent residents, with all the benefits of Israeli residence, including the right to work and earn a living, as well as voting and running for office in local elections. They would, however, be excluded from voting in national elections or being elected to national offices.

He has demanded official punishment for Arab MKs, such as Azmi Bishara, who, soon after the Lebanon War last summer, illegally led a delegation to Syria and Lebanon to express solidarity for the Arab side in the war. Mr. Lieberman called Mr. Bishara and his colleagues “enemy collaborators.”

Mr. Lieberman maintained that Arab MKs who “declare Israel’s Independence Day as Naqba Day and raise black flags,” are in violation of Israel’s directive on terrorism. “According to that bill, those who collaborate with terrorism must face the law,” he said.

He noted that the US government would not allow anti-American activities to be carried out by its government leaders. “It is unacceptable that a senator or congressman assist Afghanistan during the war or meet with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda leaders, express his support for their war against the US—and then be allowed to return to serve in Congress,” he said.

While, thus far, most Israeli politicians show no inclination to follow Mr. Lieberman’s suggestions, the State did see fit to strip four Hamas lawmakers of their Israeli citizenship. The four, including Hamas Minister for Jerusalem Affairs Mahmoud Tota, were all residents of eastern Jerusalem.

When Israel’s Interior Ministry took away their Israeli citizenship, the four men petitioned the Israeli High Court to have it reinstated.

Israel’s state representatives Gilad Shirman and Yochi Gnessin argued that as leaders of a party sworn to destroy Israel, the Hamas members “seek to hold their Israeli identity cards in one hand while holding a gun aimed at Israel in the other.”

Upsetting politicians on all sides of the spectrum, Mr. Lieberman has recommended that Jews and Arabs in Israel be separated, based on the Turkish-Greek Cypriot model. According to Mr. Lieberman, it is the only way to achieve peace in the region.

This call for “transfer,” while anathematic to left-wing Israelis, resonates for many on the right who do not see any other hope for Jewish security, especially in light of the new Israeli-Arab denial of the right of Jews to a state of their own.

“Israel has to do something. We are at war, and we’re going to lose the Galilee, just like we’ve already lost Acre, Nazareth, and Jaffa,” said right-wing singer Ariel Zilber.

Some say the right-wing call for transfer of Arabs is no different than the left-wing call for transfer of Jews from Judea and Samaria.

But not all Israelis agree, and some, especially on the left, have tried to acquiesce whenever possible. For example, according to Israel Airports Authority (IAA) Director-General Gabi Ophir, Muslims will soon be given a mosque at Ben Gurion Airport.

As part of its passenger service improvement program, a 215-square-foot room for Muslim religious services will be built in the main terminal at the airport. Facilities for washing hands and feet prior to entering the small mosque will be provided outside the room.

The mosque will face the direction of Mecca, and it will be carpeted and contain copies of the Quran for use by worshippers.

Other Arabic-language passenger services recently initiated by the IAA include a new informational website as well as a special team to provide Arab-language customer support.

“The initiative to set up the prayer room is an additional element in the efforts IAA is making in order to strengthen ties with the Arab sector,” said Mr. Ophir, explaining that the new addition is being built in response to passenger requests.

Mr. Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu colleague, MK Esterina Tratman, expressed dismay at the IAA project, calling it “self-destructive.” She maintained that it “damages the symbols of Israel as a Jewish state.”

Ms. Tratman characterized the plan as part of a policy “to prove that we are part of the family of liberals, but at a heavy price.”

“We honor every religion, but do the US, France, and Spain also have mosques in their airports?” she said, not bothering to mention the situation in Muslim countries towards synagogues and churches.

If history is a guide, even efforts such as Mr. Ophir’s are not likely to elicit the intended warm feelings toward Israel from Muslims determined to obliterate the Jewish state.

An example of that intransigence is a current problem at the University of Haifa in which efforts to appease Arab students have are now in direct confrontation with the natural Israeli tendency to honor those who serve in the IDF. The university, whose student population is about 20 percent Arab, has about 1,117 dormitory spots. Half of the spots are automatically allocated to overseas students, outstanding students, and a few from other special categories, leaving 517 spots open to the student body at large.

In 2005, the university published its criteria for allotting student housing: Military service could provide a student with 20 points, approximately one-third of the minimum needed to receive university housing. Since Israeli Arabs do not serve in the IDF, they were at a disadvantage, but, the school pointed out, a substantial share of the other criteria were likely to give Arab students a distinct advantage: those who live north of Kiryat Shmona or south of Ashdod receive up to 28 points (most Arab students come from the Galilee). In addition, financial distress could give a student an additional 25 points, a category which also favored Arab students.

Arab students decided dormitory rooms were a symbol of discrimination against them. In late 2005, Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, filed suit in the Haifa District Court against the large weight given by the university to military service, arguing that it discriminated against Arab students.

The university argued that this criterion was not discriminatory and that its sole intention was to compensate students financially for the three years they lost in military service.

Last August, Judge Ron Sokol accepted Adalah’s position and instructed the university to remove military service from its consideration for university housing.

The university is appealing to the Supreme Court. At stake is nothing less than whether an Israeli university can consider the military or national service of students seeking to enroll. The university’s argument is that those who serve in the IDF face a disadvantage compared to those who do not serve because soldiers lose out on three years during which they could be earning a living.

“Removing this criterion would punish students who served in the army,” says the university’s appeal.

Judge Sokol rejected that argument, stating that economic status should be determined on an individual basis since some students who serve in the IDF are in a better financial position than others who do not serve.

The university disagrees. “Even if a discharged soldier is in a slightly better economic situation that his colleague who did not serve, in financial terms, he could have been in a much better situation,” said Prof Ariel Bendor, the university’s dean of students. “In any case, how can the University of Haifa be accused of discrimination when 30 percent of those who receive student housing are Arabs, even though they comprise only 20 percent of the student body?”

University of Haifa Law Professor Dr. Doron Menashe put it succinctly: “Clearly those who serve must be compensated. Adalah argued that the Arab sector’s human rights were harmed, but I ask myself, why are they ignoring the harm to the soldiers’ rights? Military service substantially limits basic human rights of the soldiers. It sizably restricts their freedom of expression and individual autonomy.”

But not everyone at the University of Haifa is on the soldiers’ side. Dr. Menashe’s law school colleague, lecturer Dr. Ilan Saban, called the charge of “hurting soldiers” a “convenient ‘hanger’ for a variety of practices that favor Jews over Arabs.”

Dr. Saban pointed out that Israeli Arabs do not “choose” whether or not to serve in the IDF. He argued that there is an “unwritten agreement” between Arab citizens and the state whereby the Arabs “will not act against the state even though it stole their lands, and the state will not require them to enlist in its army.”

“It is convenient for everyone to adhere to this agreement, and, therefore, matters cannot be settled through discriminating in student housing allocation,” he said.

However the matter is adjudicated, it is not likely to benefit the cause of mutual understanding. In that regard, however, Jews and Arabs do not even agree on whether their relationship is good or bad.

According to a poll conducted in mid-December by the Angus Reid Global Monitor Polls and Research Group, Israeli Jews and Arabs agree that the relationship of trust between the two sectors is bad, but Jews think it is much worse than the Arabs do.

The majority of Israeli Arabs felt the relationship between them and Israeli Jews was “good” (47 percent) or “very good” (5 percent). Only 14 percent of Israeli Jews, however, thought Arab-Jewish relations were “good,” and a mere 1 percent thought they were “very good.”

A majority of Jewish respondents said relations between Jews and Arabs were poor, but they were pretty evenly split on how bad the situation was. Almost 44 percent said the relationship of trust with Israeli Arabs was “bad” and 39 percent said relations were “very bad.”

In contrast, only 28 percent of Israeli Arabs said the relationship between the two groups was “bad” and even less, 10 percent, said it was “very bad.”

Almost 10 percent of Israeli Arabs refused even to respond to the survey questions, as opposed to just 1 percent of Jews.

While Mr. Lieberman’s proposals and those of “Future Vision” call for a split in the Jewish and Arab populations, Mr. Lieberman sees the Jews continuing their Zionist state, while “Future Vision” sees that state obliterated.

Mr. Lieberman has rejected the very premises on which “Future Vision” is based. “What is the logic?” he asked the New York Sun, of creating one-and-a-half countries for Palestinians and “a half country for the Jewish people.”

“The diametrically opposed proposals of ‘Future Vision’ and Mr. Lieberman are opening bids in a long negotiating process that usefully focus attention on a topic too long sidelined. Three brutally simple choices face Israelis: either Jewish Israelis give up Zionism; or Muslim Israelis accept Zionism; or Muslim Israelis don't remain Israeli for long. The sooner Israelis resolve this matter, the better,” said Dr. Pipes.

The Jewish Voice and Opinion is a politically conservative Jewish publication which present news and feature articles not generally available elsewhere in the Jewish or secular media. Articles may be reprinted in their entirety with attribution.

His behavior may be emblematic of a new wave of terror about to engulf the Jewish state. While dozens of Israeli Arabs have been connected to acts of Palestinian terrorism, they had not usually been involved in actually carrying out the attacks.
This is not new. The only difference today is that the "Israeli palestinians" feel emboldened enough to openly verbalize it.

That, however, may be changing. There is strong evidence that, after 60 years more or less on the sidelines, the Israeli-Arab community no longer sees itself as a minority trying to improve its status in an economically viable, democratic Western country. These days, an increasing number of Israeli Arabs see themselves as Palestinians who happen to be living in Israel but who owe their allegiance and efforts to the Palestinian national and religious war against the Jewish state.
Again, not a new phenomenon. The muslims have always had as their first goal the simple expedient of using democracy as the easiest tool to destroy the Jews. The Jews generally embraced political Correctness and pretended it wasn't there: ultimately outvote the Jews into shari'a law and yellow stars as fashion statements.

Too few, anywhere in the world, remember why Pakistan and Bangladesh exist. Not a perfect solution, but, long term, a more manageable one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.