It is a rare nation in the world that has the same number
(equal proportions) of each ethnic constituents represented in the general population. Once you understand this, you can by logical extension, the absurdity of her argument. Of course their is going to be a majority aspect to a portion of the population. And, that means there will be a "minority." She is complaining that she is of a minority heritage. Well, somebody has to be the minority if that are not equal in numbers.
She points out that as a "Palestinian" she is subjected to extra security scrutiny at the Ben-Gurion Airport. As if that is a bad thing. The risk assessment suggests that given and Israeli and a Palestinian, the Palestinian is more likely to be a security threat to the aircraft and passengers that the Israeli. With the exception of Jewish Israeli named --- Israel Rabinowits --- how many Jewish suicide bombers have you heard of --- certainly none in the last 30 years
(1983 was the last time). I can't find an example of a Jewish hijacker. But in scanning the
List of Aircraft Hijackings, there are many many examples of Palestinians engaged in hijacking aircraft. People who identify with "Palestinians and the Palestinian Cause" are more likely to be a security threat than other ethnic groups.
She argue and by implication suggests that Israel being a "Jewish" State is somehow wrong. The San Remo Convention, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Resolution of November 1947 [A/RES/181(II)] all suggest otherwise; either in terms of the "Jewish National Home" or the "Jewish State." Whatever the State of Israel wants to call themselves is up to them. It is a domestic issue. Neither a crackpot attorney from the US --- nor the UN can challenge and change the internal decision.
Article 2(7) - Chapter I - UN Charter said:
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
Ms Arraf spent a lot of time on the topic of discrimination. Again, a domestic issues pertaining to laws enacted through the Knesset. But she also argues that laws and investigative responsibilities to pursue those people that provides material support or resources and functionally conceals or disguises the nature of the support to a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And by innuendo, suggests that this is malfeasant. The US knows quite well the consequences and impact of not pursuing those engaged in direct or indirect support to terrorist operations. By extension she is advocating that a Palestinian and a Jewish Citizen should be handled and considered to be the projecting the same level of threat --- thus given the same freedoms from scrutiny and access. If a Palestinian fits the profile and there is reasonable cause to suspect a terrorist connection, then of course they should be considered for investigation. In America, we call this "Probable Cause." And no matter a finely she wraps the argument around it, the persons suspected of illicit activity along those lines should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted. This is not a bad thing. This is how it is suppose to work.
Most Respectfully,
R
