Natalie Bernstien: Conclusion
One aspect that I did not think about enough before presenting my ideas to the class is how Kashua is perceived by different sectors of society within Israel and Palestine. While his show is popular, this does not necessarily mean he is well received, especially in a society that lacks unity especially in regards to politics. I did not fully consider how Palestinians would think about Kashua - a Palestinian who had tirelessly attempted to assimilate into Israeli society - and my classmates helped me to think more about this. If I were to speculate, I would assume that there are Palestinians who view him as a 'traitor' for such assimilation, but of course I recognize that one opinion does not represent all the Palestinians, and it is complicated to even simply say Palestinians when Kashua who himself is Palestinian. I would assume those who may view him as a 'traitor' are those who do not live in Israel proper, but rather the West Bank, Gaza, or in the diaspora.
Kashua’s complicated identity and relationship with the state of Israel serve as a microcosm for the complexity of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He represents a number of Palestinians who cannot handle the institutionalized discrimination within Israeli society, and hoped that his writing would illuminate these experiences. Once Kashua became fully disillusioned with the political situation, he removed himself and his family from the country. Now Kashua lives in a society where he is no longer viewed as a second class citizen for being Arab, but instead lives in a society where he is viewed as white on a census. While Kashua may never escape the social construction of race, he represents the complexity of the situation that cannot be conveyed through traditional political rhetoric.