A Comment Censored at the AAUP
I understand the passion expressed by Stephen Schwartz and Paul Burstein in their postings. As an American Jew, I also feel passionately about these issues.
Although South African apartheid was based on “race,” apartheid as a concept could be based on any classification of second-class citizenship. And the term is often used almost metaphorically to evoke images of official segregation and stratification.
As experts on this list can authenticate if it is necessary, “race” is a socially constructed set of categories, not biological ones. Thus, it is completely valid to refer to Palestinians as a “race,” altho I would probably use different terminology myself. And, as we should know from the US census, “race” is a self-defined categorization. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Arab citizens of Israel would be comfortable with applying the term “Palestinian” to themselves; and, of course, all the residents of Gaza and the West Bank who are not settlers are “Palestinian.”
However, given the undeniable discriminatory actions against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories (see Our Harsh Logic: Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies from the Occupied Territories, 2000-2010, available at the Seattle Public Library), as well as the well-documented discriminations-in-fact against Israeli citizens who are not Jewish (inferior schools, reduced access to water, and so on in their villages), the use of the “apartheid” label seems to me to be quite appropriate.
Finally, the recent insistent assertion that Israel must be recognized as a “Jewish state” is not only reminiscent of the behavior of the behavior of a spoiled child but is almost unique in modern statecraft. Contrary to Paul’s listing of countries with established churches, the UK does NOT insist that countries refer to it as the “Anglican Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,” and Denmark (where I have spend sabbaticals) is assuredly not “the Lutheran Kingdom of the Danes.” Israel’s new catch-phase is inherently discriminatory and demeaning to the 20% (and rising) of its citizens who are not Jewish. Why Israel is so insistent on being in a category shared almost alone with the “Islamic Republic of Iran” is quite beyond my comprehension and surely incompatible with any true notions of a State’s respect for its citizens.
And yes, the BDS movement, like the anti-apartheid movement is designed to be a part of an effort to overthrow illegitimate governance–here, the continuing governance in the Occupied Territories, which every nation in the world save Israel recognizes as illegitimate. (and, as a Jew, I find shameful). And just as those of us who were active in work against So Africa apartheid were often vilified, we understand the barbs sent our way now. However, if I can legitimately contest the policies of my own government (which I do with unfortunate frequency), I can surely oppose the actions of a foreign nation, as Americans do all the time. And, BTW, this neither makes me “self-hating” nor anti-Semitic.
This seems to me to be an exercise in semantics that excuses the misuse of words as agitprop.
It is true that words are plastic and misused to make points. East Germany was the German DEMOCRATIC Republic, anti-Semites from Hitler to today’s Iranians refer to Jews as that damned RACE, accusation of FASCISM by China against Japan are effective.
As for the authors’ paean about the term “race” he need to attend a session with the KKK or Louis Farrakhan. It was Albert Einstein who wrote his thanks to Hitler for Hitler’s explaining Einstein’s race. If the author needs a lesson in modern genetic and how it deals with the misuse of the term race he or she is welcome to come to my home for Shabbat and I can explain better over wine and challah.
A good example here is the author’s conflati0n of the terms apartheid not only to mean the rules regulating the West Bank but the lives of Israeli Arabs. Admitting that Israel is less than perfect (Shakespeare’s merchant said this well) ought not to permit the image that Israeli Arab citizen live in Bantustans.
Finally, Israel’s being called a Jewish State has NOTHING to do with religion and more than the Federal Republic of Germany is claiming to be a Lutheran state. Until emigration and decimation of indigenous Americans creates such new states as America and Canada, most nations were base on the concept of peoples. Japan is the nation state of the Japanese just as Ethiopia is the national state of the EthioFriends–
I understand the passion expressed by Steven Schwartz and Paul Burstein in their postings. As an American Jew, I also feel passionately about these issues.
Although South African apartheid was based on “race,” apartheid as a concept could be based on any classification of second-class citizenship. And the term is often used almost metaphorically to evoke images of official segregation and stratification.
As experts on this list can authenticate if it is necessary, “race” is a socially constructed set of categories, not biological ones. Thus, it is completely valid to refer to Palestinians as a “race,” altho I would probably use different terminology myself. And, as we should know from the US census, “race” is a self-defined categorization. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Arab citizens of Israel would be comfortable with applying the term “Palestinian” to themselves; and, of course, all the residents of Gaza and the West Bank who are not settlers are “Palestinian.”
However, given the undeniable discriminatory actions against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories (see Our Harsh Logic: Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies from the Occupied Territories, 2000-2010, available at the Seattle Public Library), as well as the well-documented discriminations-in-fact against Israeli citizens who are not Jewish (inferior schools, reduced access to water, and so on in their villages), the use of the “apartheid” label seems to me to be quite appropriate.
Finally, the recent insistent assertion that Israel must be recognized as a “Jewish state” is not only reminiscent of the behavior of the behavior of a spoiled child but is almost unique in modern statecraft. Contrary to Paul’s listing of countries with established churches, the UK does NOT insist that countries refer to it as the “Anglican Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,” and Denmark (where I have spend sabbaticals) is assuredly not “the Lutheran Kingdom of the Danes.” Israel’s new catch-phase is inherently discriminatory and demeaning to the 20% (and rising) of its citizens who are not Jewish. Why Israel is so insistent on being in a category shared almost alone with the “Islamic Republic of Iran” is quite beyond my comprehension and surely incompatible with any true notions of a State’s respect for its citizens.
And yes, the BDS movement, like the anti-apartheid movement is designed to be a part of an effort to overthrow illegitimate governance–here, the continuing governance in the Occupied Territories, which every nation in the world save Israel recognizes as illegitimate. (and, as a Jew, I find shameful). And just as those of us who were active in work against So Africa apartheid were often vilified, we understand the barbs sent our way now. However, if I can legitimately contest the policies of my own government (which I do with unfortunate frequency), I can surely oppose the actions of a foreign nation, as Americans do all the time. And, BTW, this neither makes me “self-hating” nor anti-Semitic.
Why does the writer think Jews should not have a nation state?