Let them vote
Israel must allow E. Jerusalem's Arabs vote in the PLC election, not only because it undertook to do so in the Oslo accords, but also because it is the only way for these Arabs to express their political rights.
Haaretz EditorialThe State of Israel must let East Jerusalem's Arabs vote in the Palestinian Authority's legislative council (parliament) elections. That is not only because it undertook to do so in the Oslo Accords, but also because it does not want them as citizens of the state, and because it is the only way for the city's 250,000 Arabs to exercise their right to political expression.
The issue of Jerusalem's Arabs' voting rights came to the fore more than 20 years ago, when discussions about holding general elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip first started. Jerusalem's Arabs indeed hold Israeli identity cards, but they are not citizens of the state. They were given the ID cards only as documentation attesting to their right to permanent residence in Israel. A permanent resident is eligible for most of the rights available to every Israeli citizen, aside from two very significant ones: He/she is not eligible for an Israeli passport; and he/she does not have the right to vote in Knesset elections.
Jerusalem's Arabs participated in elections for the Palestinian parliament in 1996 as well as last year's presidential elections (in which PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas was elected). To allow them to vote for Palestinian institutions required a technical compromise. This need arose because Israel feared that allowing elections to a foreign entity within Israeli territory would be interpreted as a violation of the country's sovereignty, and the matter is, of course, sensitive when it comes to Jerusalem.
The Palestinians demanded setting up polling stations throughout the eastern part of the city. Under the compromise, the polling stations were established at Israeli post office branches in the city's Arab neighborhoods. From Israel's point of view, Jerusalem's Arabs thus mailed their ballots to the West Bank; whereas from the Palestinians' point of view, the city's Arabs voted for the Palestinian Authority from within Jerusalem too.
A similar compromise also was used with regard to candidates who were Jerusalem residents: these candidates were required to provide an alternative West Bank address. And in this way, both sides were satisfied.
Israel's threat to deny Jerusalem's Arabs the right to vote evoked an immediate Palestinian response. A PA spokesman charged that this kind of punishment would lead to the elections' cancellation. "We won't have elections without Jerusalem," Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) said, for example. There have even been suspicions that the threat is a plot woven by the Fatah leadership and the Israeli government, both of which are concerned about a Hamas victory. The matter has reached as far as Hamas representatives, who announced that the elections should be held even without Jerusalem.
There is no reason to change election arrangements in East Jerusalem. Israel is concerned - and justifiably so - about Hamas' participation in the PA elections, but imposing a ban on East Jerusalem's Arabs is not an appropriate response, because they must be allowed to exercise their right to vote.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
That's right, and not a month ago, one arab leader went to Lebannon and protested against Israel. He wasn't the first to do such a thing and probably not be the last. Israel hasn't even prosecuted him. Israel's democracy is being strectched way more than it should be and it is in any other democractic country.
Palestinians in East Jerusalem have the right for self-determination as all humans do. If they cannot vote for Israeli elections, they must be allowed to vote in Palestinian elections. Some elected Members of the Kenesset routinely call for the transfer of Israeli Arabs outside of Israel, but Israel still allows them to be elected.
OK Axel, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Oslo is in force, however absurd this idea is. "Second, the reservations . . . do not authorize the Israelis to decide who is to be excluded or not." It is a basic rule of legal interpretation that a clause should not be construed so as to be rendered nugatory (i.e. ineffectual or inoperative). Now if Israel has no authority to decide who is to be excluded - if only "Palestinians" can decide this - it follows that this exclusion provision is ineffectual from the perspective of a signatory. Therefore, Israel does have such authority. "Third, if Hamas participates in Palestinian elections, what right has Israel to interfere with Palestinian polling in Jerusalem?" A "right" can be defined as an obligation that is defensible in court. If you want to use Oslo as the legal basis for this "right" to vote in Jerusalem, you need to attend to the terms of the agreement. Israel says Hamas is a terrorist organization, and I don't think this is in dispute. I mean, if Hamas were not intended to be covered by this provision, what organization *was* intended to be covered?! "Palestinians" therefore have no right to vote for Hamas in Jerusalem. "Fourth, if Palestinian residents in Jerusalem decide not to adopt Israeli citizenship, and therefore not cast their votes for the Knesset (of which you are probably sympathetic), it is Israel's obligation to let them cast their votes for their own parliament, without any interference." Where does this "obligation" come from? How does someone's refusal to adopt citizenship - itself an unfriendly act - obligate the refused country to do anything? "Fifth, my question is: what is your proposed solution for non-Israeli citizens of Jerusalem to participate in Palestinian elections? So far, your only proposal was to deny them their rights." A "non-Israeli citizen" is logically impossible, as a citizen must be a citizen of some sovereign state, and the only state in question is Israel. However, "Palestinian" residents can drive elsewhere if they want to vote, as I said in my previous response.
Your questions puzzle me. First, I am an American citizen living in America. Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens. So the analogy fails immediately. Second, just because Israel would give me a right to vote in Israeli elections, the US government would not be obligated to facilitate this right. But certainly as an American citizen who cherishes his country, as opposed to an Arab non-citizen who wants to destroy his host country, I would expect to be allowed to vote in the US. My vote also would have no symbolic suggestion that my hometown is part of Israel, which is exactly the symbolic gain that "Palestinians" are trying for in having polls open in Jerusalem. Third, driving a few miles from Jerusalem is much less burdensome than flying to Tel Aviv from the US.
Isn't there, then and again, a discussion of giving diaspora Jews the right to vote in Knesset elections? And who ist to bestow this right: Israel or the Homeland of the diaspora Jew? And if this right was created, how would you feel about the USA to prevent you from voting, or to tell you to travel to Israel to vote? But probably in your view, rights for Jews are taken for granted, rights for Palestinians are an undeserved privilege, always at the mercy of the Jews.
Leftists only bring up Oslo obligations when they want to benefit the interests of Arabs and harm the interests of Jews. Forget Oslo. Why do non-citizens ("Palestinians") have a right to vote in the foreign country (Israel) where they choose to reside? Where exactly did such a "right" come from? It is no right, it is a courtesy that may or may not be extended by the host government. Why exactly should this courtesy be extended to a hostile minority that participates in the struggle to destroy the host country? If "Palestinians" want to vote, they can drive from Jerusalem to neighboring disputed territories and vote there. Save us from Leftists inventing rights.
I can not beleive we are in 2005. You are still debating allowing the original Palestinian residents to vote and you claim that Israel is a democracy.
Let them vote, otherwise, globalization will make us accept them whether we like or not. Let us be the civilized side.
Re: As some of you might know, there are no actually Hamas candidates for Jerusalem district, so why not to alow Palestinians to vote? -- 1. The Palestinian elections, like those in Israel, are for party lists, not district representatives. 2. The objection to permitting the Hamas party on ballots in Jerusalem is justified, as Shlomo says, by the Oslo Accords provisions governing elections. 3. Are you willing to see Hamas candidates campaigning in Jerusalem? Would they receive exemption from arrest by Israel while they promote building an army to destroy Israel?
First, I apologize for calling you a liar. Second, the reservations set out for participation in Palestinian elections do not authorize the Israelis to decide who is to be excluded or not. Third, if Hamas participates in Palestinian elections, what right has Israel to interfere with Palestinian polling in Jerusalem? Fourth, if Palestinian residents in Jerusalem decide not to adopt Israeli citizenship, and therefore not cast their votes for the Knesset (of which you are probably sympathetic), it is Israel's obligation to let them cast their votes for their own parliament, without any interference. Fifth, my question is: what is your proposed solution for non-Israeli citizens of Jerusalem to participate in Palestinian elections? So far, your only proposal was to deny them their rights.
As some of you might know, there are no actually Hamas candidates for Jerusalem district, so why not to alow Palestinians to vote?
Look, Axel, you just called me a liar. It's a strong word, you know. If one calls another a liar, it means, that one of these two must apologise, don't you agree? And when I proved, that you were wrong, that there is indeed an article in Oslo agreements, which makes participtaion of Hamas in elections absolutely illegal, you, instead of apology, wrote such meaningless post: "The Palestinians should have conferred with Shlomo from Tel-Aviv". As if an international agreement is a piece of paper. C'mmon, if you were a gentleman, you would have apologised. And if you were a gentleman, you would not have had such attitude to agreements and obligations. By the way, you exposed not only you your lack of decency, but also your bias.
Aren't there racists participating in Israeli elections? US elections? European elections? What prohibits THEM from participating and, more importantly, what gives them the right to regulate participation in the PLC elections while neglecting to stop the "racist" elements in their own supposedly civilized electorates?
Aren't there racists participating in Israeli elections? US elections? European elections? What prohibits THEM from participating and, more importantly, what gives them the right to regulate participation in the PLC elections while neglecting to stop the "racist" elements in their own supposedly civilized electorates?
What convoluted reasoning. There isn't a country in the world that would facillitate an election that is likely to result in more power to terrorism.By the way Oslo is dead.There isn't one provision that the P.A honored.The argument of their right to vote defies logic.Israeli law would not allow a vote for a terrorist organazation that calls for the destruction for the palestenians
And for good reason, the authority to refuse a candidate or party was not conferred on the Israeli government or on Shlomo from Tel Aviv. Like it or not, you have no right to tamper with elections in Palestine, nor with their electorate.
Hamas's participation might be the only way to moderate the movement and move it more in the direction of pragmatism and negotiations. Excluding it will only make it more popular and more radical and that is bad for both Israelis and Palestinians alike, especially at the long run. Banning the Arabs of Jerusalem from voting only shows the hypocracy of the U.S. and Israeli democracies that would like democracy only when it produce their choices. This is sound similar to the 1992 Algerian election,
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP Annex II Protocol Concerning Elections ARTICLE III Qualification and Nomination of Candidates 2. Nominations The nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions will be refused, and such nomination or registration once made will be canceled, if such candidates, parties or coalitions: (1) commit or advocate racism; or (2) pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or nondemocratic means.
"Also, it must be noticed, that participation of Hamas in Palestinian elections is another violation of Oslo agreements, which prohibit participation of terrorist organizations in elections." This is a blunt lie. There is no such provision in the Oslo Accords. But there IS a paragraph reading: "Palestinians of Jerusalem who live there will have the right to participate in the election process"
Jerusalem, at least for now, is part of Israel and it is most probable, that it will remain part of Israel in foreseen future. Racist incitement is not allowed in Israel, therefore, Israel cannot allow racist private army, guilty for crimes against humanity, to conduct electoral propaganda in Israel's capital. By the way, there is one mistake in the editorial: it is not mentioned here at all, that all Jerusalemites have right for Israeli citizenship and those, who hold the IDs, but do not have Israeli citizenship, do so out of choise. Also, it must be noticed, that participation of Hamas in Palestinian elections is another violation of Oslo agreements, which prohibit participation of terrorist organizations in elections. The PA violated every single agreement it signed. It is specially sad, that so respectable paper, as Haaretz, in its editorial, is so tolerant toward blunt violations of agreement, toward obvious illegality of these elections and of the very existence of Hamas, and fails to mention these facts I mentioned above.