3 ms·
The report linked by my parent talks about 53% being a great turnout for Arab voters, as it was up from only 44.6% a year earlier. However this number has been
by runarberg 3y ago
The report linked by my parent talks about 53% being a great turnout for Arab voters, as it was up from only 44.6% a year earlier. However this number has been going down all this century. If compared to Israel as a whole, it is very worrying to a point where I would call it a democratic flaw, as the general population has election participation around 70%.
Talking about the colonization of Jaffa was in response to the peace deal, where DiogenesKynikos said:
> This is a massive concession, because the Palestinians have given up their claim to places like Haifa and Jaffa, which used to be almost 100% Palestinian cities, and which they were unjustly driven out of. So far, no Israeli government has reciprocated and acknowledged a Palestinian "right to exist."
Jaffa was colonized in 1948 by displacing almost all of their residents, most are still to this day refugees in Gaza or Lebanon, two-three generations later. Jaffa still exists as a placename, but the city does not, it has been completely annexed into Tel Aviv, which used to be a suburb of Jewish settlers (according to the Wikipedia article I just read). I don’t see a comparison with Saint Paul (which is still an independent city) or San Antonio.
The concession of relinquishing claims to Jaffa is nothing short of the concessions which the Irish nationalists did when they relinquished claims to Belfast. In return Ireland actually got statehood and eventual independence. Years later Catholics living in Belfast got equal rights, political representation and a political avenue for decolonization.
If the British would have behaved like Israel, they would have driven almost every Catholic out of what would become Northern Ireland before 1921 (they had already renamed all their placenames centuries prior) made sure those that remained had no affiliations with Catholics in the Free state, denied them the right to return, moved British Protestants into the vacant areas (they had also done that centuries prior), and never actually given the Irish free state political recognition. Even after the nationalists gave up any claims to Belfast.
- tptacek 3y agoJaffa isn't Belfast. Its history is nothing like that of Belfast's. It's status is closer to that of San Antonio (except with the complexity of the exchange of displaced populations). I still don't understand what the point of trying to call out its "colonial" status is. It's not going anywhere.
- runarberg 3y agoEvery case is unique, and yes Jaffa is nothing like Belfast. I simply brought it up because Belfast was also a settler colonial city claimed by the colonized peoples before the colonized relinquished their claim of it in a deal. However unlike Jaffa, when the nationalists relinquished their claim of the city, the colonizers reciprocated and gave them recognition of their state in return.
- tptacek 3y agoSo, if I understand the argument, it's that calling out the "colonization" of places like Jaffa is moral leverage in an argument for recognizing Palestinian statehood in Gaza and the West Bank? (I don't think you need more leverage for that argument; I think it's self-evident. But ok!)