Do you remember our Presidential election in 1968? We had 3 candidates: Hubert Humphrey, a moderate (liberal on social and economic issues but supported the Vietnam War); Richard Nixon, a conservative Republican, and the then Governor of Alabama, George Wallace.
Mr. Wallace (now deceased) was well known as the man who stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama to stop the school from integrating. He wanted, at least at this educational level, the "separation" of races.
Wallace came in third in the election. Got ten million votes and 5 states. This was an ugly time in American history. (Four years later, he was nearly assassinated, the hospital he was brought to is 5 miles from my home.)
Fortunately, our country changed. Wallace himself changed, realized his mistakes, and reformed.
I don't think a man like Wallace would get 10,000,000 votes today. And an African-American has become our President - Thank God.
As we all know, Israel just had an election. The Kadima and Likud parties split the votes, and the third place finisher, in an upset, was Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party. Like the USA in 1968, there is much turmoil in Israel today, and this can lead to increased Nationalism and scapegoating. (Barack Obama has a great essay about "Black" Nationalism in his Autobiography.)
Like all of us, Lieberman wants a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, like Mr. Wallace, Lieberman wants a "separation" of Jew and Arab from the land of Israel. At least, he doesn't want Arabs who, even though they might already be citizens, have not explicitly professed their "loyalty" towards Israel. This is like "Guilty until proven innocent"!
Lieberman published an Op-Ed in the American Jewish press recently, and I was obliged to respond. What we need to think about is what Zionism is, and what standards we hold ourselves to. Will we let the views of "Israel's George Wallace" prevail?
Here is my letter which got published in Washington Jewish Week.
Israeli Arabs -- loyal until proven otherwise
Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman has changed his tune a bit from his 2004 plan to accept only "loyal" Arabs in Israel ("The case for responsible citizenship in Israel," WJW, March 5). But in essence, I still have a profound disagreement with him on what is right for our Jewish state.
I feel we can follow the American model in this way: All immigrants, regardless of former nationality or religion, must be held to the same standard. In the U.S., all immigrants take an oath of citizenship in order to officially become Americans. For Israel, it can only be "all or nothing" -- either everyone or no one would take the oath.
Those who currently reside in Israel, regardless of religious beliefs, should be treated the same in one important respect -- they are "loyal citizens" until proven (by law) otherwise.
A deviation from this would, in my view, strengthen the Carter-Apartheid view of Israel, and that's the last thing we need.
Thanks for reading.
Update: 4/2/09 - Lieberman is now Foreign Minister of Israel, and has stated that the Annapolis process no longer applies. Meanwhile, a newly-elected Arab member of the Knesset declared that "the very concept of a Jewish state was "inherently racist," saying that Israel must be turned into a "state of all its citizens," which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature".
I see clouds on the horizon.
