[BRIEF NOTE] Very Bad Analogies
Sep. 29th, 2005 02:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldAlthough the Jerusalem Post in the persons of Caroline Glick and assorted guest-writers can come up with some astounding conclusions on the future situation in Israel-Palestine, as always I must recognize the supremacy of Arutz Sheva.
If I was to accept the first argument advanced above, I would believe that, no, there is no difference between the territories recognized by Canada as belonging to Israel before the Six Day War of 1967 and the territories that Israel occupied afterwards. If I was to accept the second argument, I would believe that that, yes, Israel is in fact an innately and inescapably racist state which must discriminate against non-Jews. In fact, if I was to agree wholeheartedly with Arutz Sheva, I would have to decide that Israel was an apartheid state no less heinous than the South African prototype and argue that Canada and other democratic states to deploy sanctions against Israel until such time as a binational republic of Israel-Palestine was created.
As it happens, I don't believe the first argument, I don't question Israel's existence within its pre-1967 frontiers. Similarly, I don't believe that the nation-state in general and the Israeli state in particular are racist, or at least that they're necessarily racist: The Law of Return is not necessarily racist, comparable as it is to similar citizenship laws in such democracies as Ireland, Germany, and Japan, and after a half-century long lag the Israeli judiciary and polity has shown itself able to reform. Israel was created as a settler state without regards to the wishes of the natives, yes, but then other Western settler states claim the same dubious lineage. The only difference between Israel and (say) Uruguay is that Uruguay has a longer history and rather fewer surviving natives.
It's very bad form, I think, and stupid besides, to strive to make such a direct connection between Israel's existence and crushing systems of ethnic discrimination. Israel deserves better representation. It certainly doesn't need its own citizens to unwittingly (half-wittedly?) argue that their country must be destroyed!
Is Israel willing to maintain its Jewish majority as well as "democratic" character by "disengaging" from the Galilee, Negev and Eastern Jerusalem, areas with significant Israeli Arab populations within the Green Line?
Is Israel, in order to remain a Jewish State, willing to limit the scope of its "democratic" character and principles towards non-Jews in Israel, in order to ensure not only a Jewish majority in Israel but also a Jewish character that would be reflected in policies and culture?
If I was to accept the first argument advanced above, I would believe that, no, there is no difference between the territories recognized by Canada as belonging to Israel before the Six Day War of 1967 and the territories that Israel occupied afterwards. If I was to accept the second argument, I would believe that that, yes, Israel is in fact an innately and inescapably racist state which must discriminate against non-Jews. In fact, if I was to agree wholeheartedly with Arutz Sheva, I would have to decide that Israel was an apartheid state no less heinous than the South African prototype and argue that Canada and other democratic states to deploy sanctions against Israel until such time as a binational republic of Israel-Palestine was created.
As it happens, I don't believe the first argument, I don't question Israel's existence within its pre-1967 frontiers. Similarly, I don't believe that the nation-state in general and the Israeli state in particular are racist, or at least that they're necessarily racist: The Law of Return is not necessarily racist, comparable as it is to similar citizenship laws in such democracies as Ireland, Germany, and Japan, and after a half-century long lag the Israeli judiciary and polity has shown itself able to reform. Israel was created as a settler state without regards to the wishes of the natives, yes, but then other Western settler states claim the same dubious lineage. The only difference between Israel and (say) Uruguay is that Uruguay has a longer history and rather fewer surviving natives.
It's very bad form, I think, and stupid besides, to strive to make such a direct connection between Israel's existence and crushing systems of ethnic discrimination. Israel deserves better representation. It certainly doesn't need its own citizens to unwittingly (half-wittedly?) argue that their country must be destroyed!
