Why there's no comparison with Israel
Apartheid was a unique system. Those who lived under apartheid rule were governed by its rules and conventions every minute of every day. In Israel and the territories, there are tensions and divisions over citizenship, ownership of land and human rights – basic elements which one recognizes in the apartheid model. But to turn such recognition into affirmation that Israel practices apartheid defies logic and poses a basic question: Why, out of all the countries in the world in which national, religious or ethnic minorities claim discrimination, is Israel selected for the apartheid label?
There are two components to the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state: historical and legal. The Palestinian version of the 1948 war provides the historical justification for apartheid analogy. According to this narrative, Jewish settlers with a grand colonial purpose grabbed the territory of the indigenous Arab population, expelling the majority and marginalizing the minority which remained. Since that time, the State of Israel is accused of having practiced systematic discrimination against its Arab citizens and of ruling mercilessly over those Arabs living in the territories captured during the 1967 war.
In legal terms, the argument continues, Israel bears a striking resemblance to apartheid South Africa. Therefore, the argument concludes, Israel is a paradox: it claims to be both a Jewish state and a democratic state, but does not accept that one precludes the other. By entrenching and reinforcing its Jewish majority through a combination of legal, political and military measures, Israel is said to have imposed an apartheid system upon its non-Jewish population.
The argument is a dramatic one. To many people in the human rights community, it is seductive as well. It is also wholly false. I will explain why tomorrow in part three of this series I appear to be doing.
There are two components to the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state: historical and legal. The Palestinian version of the 1948 war provides the historical justification for apartheid analogy. According to this narrative, Jewish settlers with a grand colonial purpose grabbed the territory of the indigenous Arab population, expelling the majority and marginalizing the minority which remained. Since that time, the State of Israel is accused of having practiced systematic discrimination against its Arab citizens and of ruling mercilessly over those Arabs living in the territories captured during the 1967 war.
In legal terms, the argument continues, Israel bears a striking resemblance to apartheid South Africa. Therefore, the argument concludes, Israel is a paradox: it claims to be both a Jewish state and a democratic state, but does not accept that one precludes the other. By entrenching and reinforcing its Jewish majority through a combination of legal, political and military measures, Israel is said to have imposed an apartheid system upon its non-Jewish population.
The argument is a dramatic one. To many people in the human rights community, it is seductive as well. It is also wholly false. I will explain why tomorrow in part three of this series I appear to be doing.
posted by Jordan | 8:34 PM
3 Comments:
pretty hard to define a self-declared "jewish state" a liberal democracy. at the very least, there are major contradictions between the two ideals.
there is always a comparison. the question is whether you can make a good one or not. some find comparing any country to nazi germany taboo or impolite. i think we limit debate at our own peril.
Of course, by such logic we have would have to equate both Canada (in their funding of the public school system) and the UK (in being officially Anglican) as not being liberal democracies as well. Moreover, as I understand you are saying that a Jewish State cannot be a liberal democracy by definition. I would hate to assume the you are saying Judaism cannot encourage democracy.
To your final point, you seem to be making an indirect attempt to compare modern day Israel to Nazi Germany. But than I wouldn't want to make such an assumption either.
as for canada funding public schools and israel...come on, lol. there is always a comparison, as i said, but that was pretty weak...or, more accurately: reductio ad absurdum.
good, we all know that when you assume you make an ass out of u & me ;-).
what i am saying is that there is great tension between religion and democracy...duh. that it is difficult in a a jewish state, christian state, muslim state etc; to uphold the basic tenets of liberal democracy is, well...duh. namely: pluralism, equality, tolerance, differing social/political views etc. indeed, the rights of palestianian refugees are certainly less equal than any jewish person growing up anywhere in the world under the law of return. tzipi livni's response to this question in press conference with pete mckay made me vomit a little in my mouth. it wasn't very liberal of her ;-).
as for assumption deux, i will repeat: some people find comparing any modern practices to nazi practices taboo (as in: "boy g dubya bush sure would make goebbels proud with his use of propaganda techniques) or impolite; i think we limit debate at our own peril. indeed, my reference had Zero to do with israel and everything to do with censorship. i certainly didn't make a comparison to israel, directly or indirectly...though i could. such as expansionist policies...need more lebenstraum to relax in etc.
anyhoo, looking forward to your next post on the subject as i thought this one to be quite good.
Post a Comment
<< Home