![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe Toronto Star has it.
Like Canada, Australia, Argentina, or another states and/or regions, Israel is a country of mass immigration. How can't it be, when the whole point of Zionism was to bring millions of Jews to a territory thinly populated by tens of thousands who constituted only a small minority, and when only one Israel president has actually been born in Israel? Like these other countries of mass immigration, Israel has remnant native populations, survivors of state-building. Unlike all of these countries of mass immigration save South Africa, these natives not only retain a strong sense of their own identity but actually live by the millions in their homeland. This, of necessity, complicates Israeli life in much the same way as the African majority complicated apartheid-era South African life. (Much the same way. I'm not claiming an absolute identity, although the fact that both countries ban marriage across ethnoreligious groups says something.)
Israel's a state that actively pursues policies of ethnic discrimination on a vast scale. People who belong to the Jewish ethnic majority are privileged, not only relative to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territory, but relative to the Palestinians living within Israel who are themselves Israeli citizens. People who are Israelis are immensely privileged relative to Palestinians, who get to see their land and their resources appropriated while any number of Israelis hope that if they make life for Palestinians difficult they'll leave. This is a detestable policies, just as detestable as the Serbian discrimination against Bosniaks and Albanians in the 1990s, or East Timorese in the 1970s and 1980s, or Western Saharans now. So long as an Israeli consensus in favour of these discriminatory policies exists, why not place public pressure on Israel?
Yes, yes, I know that there are other societies where worse things happen, but so what? Yes, yes, I know that critics might come from societies with their own problems, but so what? So long as the critiques are valid, and so long as the critics aren't denying the charges own relevance to their own societies' issues, the standard act of dismissing critics--here in the case of Israel as elsewhere--can only be read as an intellectually lazy and morally contemptuous effort to shrug off legitimate dissent. Trying to drown out criticisms by demanding an infinity of footnotes is silly. Yes, yes, I know that the Palestinians have done bad things, but we're not talking about that. Arguably they wouldn't be if not for ongoing Israeli colonization.
Israel might well have achieved some sort of integration into the Middle East had it sincerely entered peace negotiations instead of having an electorate unwilling to make sacrifices for a fair settlement. (I'm not talking about Israel's neighbours because Israel's neighbours aren't the subjects here.) Instead, Israel seems to have opted for a future as a Western marcher state, Israeli leaders talking about the threats of Muslims and warning about Eurabia.
And this can't be criticized? I never liked Jason Kenney. I now have another reason to hold him in contempt.
he United Church of Canada and other Canadian churches are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain why one of his cabinet ministers accused them of being anti-Semitic.
The United, Catholic and Anglican churches are part of KAIROS, an aid group that was shocked to hear Immigration Minister Jason Kenney say its funding was lifted as part of the Conservatives' effort to cut off anti-Semitic organizations.
"It's a horrible charge to make, and to do it with so little thought cheapens the reality of anti-Semitism in the world and diminishes the very careful attention that it deserves," said United Church spokesperson Bruce Gregersen. "We're quite disappointed in the government on this.
"The policies of KAIROS have all been approved by the collective board of KAIROS, so in a sense what Mr. Kenney is doing is accusing Canadian churches of being anti-Semitic and I think that's really unfortunate," Gregersen said in an interview.
Sam Carrière, director of communications for the Anglican Church of Canada, said the church supports a statement released Friday by KAIROS, which condemned Kenney's remarks as false and warned the Harper government against letting politics dominate Ottawa's foreign aid priorities.
Besides the United and Anglican churches, Toronto-based KAIROS's members include the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Mennonite Central Committee – Canada.
Working with 21 partner organizations around the world, KAIROS sponsors projects promoting social and economic justice in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
Canada's development community appeared stunned after Kenney, in a speech in Jerusalem, cited Ottawa's decision to end 35 years of funding for KAIROS as an example of the Conservatives' push to cut funding for anti-Semitic groups.
KAIROS was "defunded," Kenney said, because it took a leadership role in "the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign" against Israel.
"Minister Kenney's charge against KAIROS is false," the group said in its public response.
KAIROS has raised questions about Israeli government policies but rejected the idea of a national boycott against Israel two years ago, its executives pointed out.
"To label KAIROS's criticism of Israeli government actions as `anti-Semitic' silences dissent and honours no one," the statement said. "KAIROS has a clear position of support for the legitimate right of the Israeli people to a safe and secure state."
Like Canada, Australia, Argentina, or another states and/or regions, Israel is a country of mass immigration. How can't it be, when the whole point of Zionism was to bring millions of Jews to a territory thinly populated by tens of thousands who constituted only a small minority, and when only one Israel president has actually been born in Israel? Like these other countries of mass immigration, Israel has remnant native populations, survivors of state-building. Unlike all of these countries of mass immigration save South Africa, these natives not only retain a strong sense of their own identity but actually live by the millions in their homeland. This, of necessity, complicates Israeli life in much the same way as the African majority complicated apartheid-era South African life. (Much the same way. I'm not claiming an absolute identity, although the fact that both countries ban marriage across ethnoreligious groups says something.)
Israel's a state that actively pursues policies of ethnic discrimination on a vast scale. People who belong to the Jewish ethnic majority are privileged, not only relative to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territory, but relative to the Palestinians living within Israel who are themselves Israeli citizens. People who are Israelis are immensely privileged relative to Palestinians, who get to see their land and their resources appropriated while any number of Israelis hope that if they make life for Palestinians difficult they'll leave. This is a detestable policies, just as detestable as the Serbian discrimination against Bosniaks and Albanians in the 1990s, or East Timorese in the 1970s and 1980s, or Western Saharans now. So long as an Israeli consensus in favour of these discriminatory policies exists, why not place public pressure on Israel?
Yes, yes, I know that there are other societies where worse things happen, but so what? Yes, yes, I know that critics might come from societies with their own problems, but so what? So long as the critiques are valid, and so long as the critics aren't denying the charges own relevance to their own societies' issues, the standard act of dismissing critics--here in the case of Israel as elsewhere--can only be read as an intellectually lazy and morally contemptuous effort to shrug off legitimate dissent. Trying to drown out criticisms by demanding an infinity of footnotes is silly. Yes, yes, I know that the Palestinians have done bad things, but we're not talking about that. Arguably they wouldn't be if not for ongoing Israeli colonization.
Israel might well have achieved some sort of integration into the Middle East had it sincerely entered peace negotiations instead of having an electorate unwilling to make sacrifices for a fair settlement. (I'm not talking about Israel's neighbours because Israel's neighbours aren't the subjects here.) Instead, Israel seems to have opted for a future as a Western marcher state, Israeli leaders talking about the threats of Muslims and warning about Eurabia.
And this can't be criticized? I never liked Jason Kenney. I now have another reason to hold him in contempt.
