During the Six Day War of June 1967, Israeli forces conquered Gaza and the West Bank, extending the State of Israel’s control over Palestine to the Dead Sea and further displacing hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians. Ten years later, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin absorbed 66 Vietnamese refugees—a number that would grow to 369 by 1979. Under Israel’s selfdefinition as a Jewish democracy, wherein citizenship is equated with Jewish identity, both Palestinians and Vietnamese Israelis are marginalized, albeit differentially. Since the violent founding of the Zionist state in 1948, a “catastrophe” commemorated by Palestinians as al-Nakba, Palestinians have been denied rights to their land, homes, mobility, and self-determination. Vietnamese Israelis, meanwhile, may have de jure citizenship rights; however, most remain trapped in a low socioeconomic position and are often mistaken for foreign guest workers ineligible for naturalization. Such misattributions characterize Vietnamese Israelis as a latent threat to Israel’s demographic Jewish majority. Given their respective marginalization, the following question emerges: is there potential for solidarity between Palestinians and Vietnamese Israelis to jointly critique Israel’s exclusionary state policies and imagine more pluralized modes of belonging? Admittedly, the structure of settler colonialism in Israel-Palestine precludes easy answers. After decades of careful planning, private property accumulation, and insurrectionist acts against both British colonists and native Palestinians, Zionist forces established the State of Israel as a homeland for exiled Jews (Wolfe, “Purchase by Other Means” 203–238). In contrast to the Zionist assertion that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land,” Israel’s establishment in 1948 was predicated on the violent dispossession of the native Palestinian population, which Palestinian American scholar Edward Said identifies as the painful irony of having been “turned into exiles by the proverbial people of exile, the Jews” (George 88; Said, “Reflections on Exile” 141). If the Zionist state’s settler colonial logic necessitates the “elimination” of the native Palestinian—via displacement,

中文翻译：

---

烦恼的团结：越南以色列人和巴勒斯坦问题

在1967年6月的六日战争中，以色列军队占领了加沙和西岸，将以色列对巴勒斯坦的控制权扩大到了死海，并进一步驱散了成千上万的巴勒斯坦人。十年后，以色列总理梅纳赫姆开始吸收66名越南难民，到1979年这一数字将增加到369名。在以色列自封为犹太民主国家的制度下，公民身份与犹太身份等同，巴勒斯坦人和越南裔以色列人都被边缘化，尽管有所不同。自1948年犹太复国主义国家暴力成立以来，即巴勒斯坦人以al-Nakba名义纪念的“灾难”，巴勒斯坦人被剥夺了对其土地，房屋，迁徙和自决的权利。同时，越南以色列人可能享有法律上的公民权；然而，大多数人被困在社会经济地位低下的地方，常常被误认为没有资格入籍的外国来宾工人。这种错误归因将越南以色列人描述为对以色列人口中犹太人多数的潜在威胁。鉴于他们各自的边缘化，出现了以下问题：巴勒斯坦人和越南以色列人之间是否有团结的力量，共同批评以色列的排他性国家政策，并设想更多的归属模式？诚然，以色列-巴勒斯坦定居者殖民主义的结构排除了简单的答案。经过数十年的精心计划，私有财产积累和针对英国殖民者和巴勒斯坦巴勒斯坦人的叛乱行动，犹太复国主义势力将以色列国建立为流亡犹太人的故乡（沃尔夫，“通过其他方式购买” 203–238）。与犹太复国主义主张巴勒斯坦是“无人之地，无人之地”的以色列形成鲜明对比的是，以色列于1948年成立是基于对巴勒斯坦原住民的暴力剥夺，巴勒斯坦裔美国学者爱德华·赛义德（Edward Said）认为这是痛苦的讽刺被“流亡的犹太人流放”（乔治88；赛义德，“流亡的反思” 141）。如果犹太复国主义国家的定居者殖民逻辑要求通过流离失所“消灭”巴勒斯坦原住民，巴勒斯坦美国学者爱德华·赛义德（Edward Said）将其讽刺为“被流亡的犹太人流放到流放者”所带来的痛苦讽刺（乔治88；赛义德，“流亡的反思” 141）。如果犹太复国主义国家的定居者殖民逻辑要求通过流离失所“消灭”巴勒斯坦原住民，巴勒斯坦美国学者爱德华·赛义德（Edward Said）将其讽刺为“被流亡的犹太人流放到流放者”所带来的痛苦讽刺（乔治88；赛义德，“流亡的反思” 141）。如果犹太复国主义国家的定居者殖民逻辑要求通过流离失所“消灭”巴勒斯坦原住民，