The main square of the large Arab village of Taiba, in the heart of Israel, was empty. A few young people, unemployed, sat on stools outside the local cafes around the square, exchanging loud jokes. Some of them, absorbed in the headlines of the Hebrew dailies, loudly voiced their amazement at the way Rabbi Eliezer Schach is manipulating Israeli politics.
A marble monument here, situated at the side of the paved square, is a reminder of March 30, 1976, when a resident of a West Bank refugee camp, Nur es-Shams, was killed here by police, during violent riots, as Israel’s Arabs commemorated Land Day for the first time.
Land Day began in protest over the expropriation of Arab land in the Galilee for the benefit of Jewish development towns there. That day ended with six dead and a permanent scar on the sensitive relations between the Arab population of Israel proper, who are full Israeli citizens, and the authorities.
That day has been commemorated every year since then, becoming a sort of national day for Israel’s Arab population, a time to protest what they describe as their discrimination.
Fortunately, the bloodshed of that day 14 years ago has not been repeated. But every year, the last days of March arc characterized by renewed tension and fears of an escalation of violence.
On Friday, Taiba’s main square will again be filled with a mass rally of Arabs. Similar events will take place in the Galilee village of Arraba, and the Negev Bedouin town of Rahat.
What is notable is that this year, for the first time, the day will also be marked by a general strike, a mark of Israeli Arab unity with their Palestinian brethren in the territories.
EVIDENCE OF TENSION AND FRUSTRATION
As this week begins, Taiba’s square is quiet. But tension and frustration are evident.
“You don’t need to ask why we are unhappy,” said Kamal Jaber, 19, who worked as an auto mechanic until he was fired. “Just look at the entrance to the village, and compare it to the neighboring Jewish settlement of Kochav Yair, and you can tell the difference.”
The difference is not quite as dramatic as he implied. The first visible part of the Arab village is dominated by several rows of spacious houses, showing that affluence has not entirely bypassed the Arab population in Israel.
Nevertheless, the difference still exists. There is nothing to be seen of the kind of large roads that cross the Jewish settlement, nothing of the sophisticated urban planning evident in the Jewish settlement, no local industry. And there is a lot of unemployment.
The local population has been quick to absorb the recent spate of statements by Arab leaders, both in and out of the country, that the immigration of Soviet Jews will come at the expense of the Arab population.
“They have fired me, and they will employ a Soviet immigrant instead,” said Jaber, stating this as a matter of fact. “They will all take our places.”
On Monday, the mayors of 47 villages declared an “open strike,” protesting the government’s failure to live up to its promises to help them overcome their grave financial crisis.
The Arab municipalities have been promised a total loan of some $51 million, but so far only $1.5 million has been received, owing to what are described as “bureaucratic” difficulties.
The Interior Ministry spokesman expressed “surprise” that the Arab municipalities could not wait a few more days before they went on strike, “until their problems would be resolved.”
But Rafik Haj Yihya, Taiba’s mayor, could only remind that almost a month ago to the day, on Feb. 27, Arab mayors had called off a previous strike, assured “the money was on the way.”
Anger was intensified here this week, as the Cabinet approved, in one session, the transfer of roughly $70 million to Jewish religious institutions, undoubtedly a reflection of the intensive courting of the religious parties by both major parties.
“I want my residents to visit Netanya and Kfar Sava without feeling inferiority complexes,” said Haj Yihya.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
