Calling Israel an apartheid system just fuels our imagination

As college campuses across the country recognized Israeli Apartheid week this week, they sparked debates in the media on whether the term is used fairly to describe the situation in Israel. In a recent Washington Post article, Roger Cohen argues that Jimmy Carter label of Israel as an apartheid system was an exaggeration, especially given that the situation in the West Bank is not reflective of how the rest of the Israeli state functions.

Thankfully, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald had a fantastic comeback, in which he sites one of Cohen’s glaring omissions: that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have both attributed the term apartheid to Israel.

But does the racial segregation that shaped South Africa’s political system effectively explain how Palestinians and Israelis are living?

Not exactly.

As a system, apartheid does reflect what is taking place in Israel now: the forced segregation of Israelis and Palestinians, and systematic practices that separate a group of people and limit their civil and political rights.

What Greenwald and others overlook, though, is that the term “apartheid” has inherited a weighty historical context. Many, including Nelson Mandela, liken the Palestinians’ plight in Israel to apartheid in the South African context, claiming it is similar to – if not worse than – the systematic racial segregation in South Africa.

But the racial dynamics between the oppressors and victims that were real in South Africa are imagined in the context of Israel. Israelis do not consist of one racial group, and the majority of the Israelis – those who did not migrate to the state – have inherited the same racial features as Palestinians.

According to the 2009 Israeli Census, the country’s Jewish population by continent of origin is as follows:

Israel: 37.5%
Asia: 12.2%
Africa: 15.5%
Europe-America: 34.8%

Although the number of Europe-Americans Jews migrating to Israel is consistently increasing, they still make up a minority of all the Jews living in Israel – a white minority. And yet, they have come to symbolize the identity of the Israeli population in the minds of most Americans, and sometimes even shape how locals perceive the conflict.

In March 2009, Swiss artist Oliver Suter published an advertisement in Haaretz newspaper that called for lookalikes to the 8 people featured in the advertisement. The eight were Palestinians. Among the photos that Suter received, he matched up an Israeli girl to a Palestinian boy, surprising both families by their impressive similarity and prompting the girl’s father to say: “[David] Ben-Gurion was right when he said ‘The Palestinians are not our cousins, they’re our brothers. Turns out, they could be twins.’”

Incredibly, amid the tensions between Palestinians and Israelis, the racism that occurs among Israelis is often neglected in U.S. media. According to the Israeli Census, Mizrahi Jews (those of Arab origins) and Jews from Africa often fall behind Ashkanazi Jews in education and employment. This is in addition to the racist backlash against Ethiopian and Asian Jews [here I wish I could provide data or first-hand accounts, but I am deferring to stories of friends who have visited Israel].

But racism is not a taboo topic in Israel. Haaretz, among other publications, and Israelis have discussed the growing racial tensions within the country. However, when it comes to the U.S., Americans have imagined a different Israel altogether, one in which the Israelis do not look or act like the other – the Palestinians.

The term “apartheid” perpetuates this imagined identity, and I myself doubt if we can use such a loaded term without framing it according to the South African context from which it originated. Yet, the debate about the term poses a rather interesting question about not what Israel is, but how we perceive this conflict, and who Israel belongs to. Who really owns Israel?

Well, here's a different take

Republican Senator Gary Nodler from Missouri has his own reasons for why Don't Ask, Don't Tell should not be repealed. According to him, doing so "would offend the terrorists" and would also be a "cultuaral [sic] affront to the Muslim in who's [sic] country we are opening."

He tried to make sense of his argument later when a blogger told him that U.S. allies do not have similar policies. Nodler's responded by implying that the UK has a high casualty rate in Afghanistan and Iraq because gays serve openly in the British military.

I may have respected Nodler a bit more if he had just come out and said he disagreed with repealing DADT because he doesn't want gays serving openly. At least, I hope he has a better argument than "I don't want to offend the terrorists and Muslims," because I'm pretty sure what's offensive to them are the bombs dropped on them.

Personally, what I find an affront are Nodler's weak spelling skills.

Pakistan: Obama's War

http://boomgen.tv/2010/02/pakistan-obamas-war/

When reality fails to reach, use fantasy

Palestinian protestors who dressed up like the Na’vi from Avatar last week almost looked like they belonged at a costume party. In fact, it may have even been a moment of humor in an intense and emotionally charged conflict. But I found it rather sad.

I should start by saying that I did find the entire episode quite brilliant. Palestinians have been protesting against this particular separation barrier in the West Bank for the past years, even after an Israeli court found the wall unlawful, and the annual ritual has become somewhat humdrum. Cleverly, they incited interest (however small) by evoking images of something that was talked about, Avatar: a worldwide phenomenon. And I imagine it caught the eye of a younger generation for whom the Israel/Palestinian conflict is an ongoing saga consistently playing in the background of world politics. (At least that was my view when I was in high school).

That said, here is why I found it sad: by posing as movie characters, these Palestinian protestors had to create a distance for the spectator from their actual conflict. Because the reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict is so emotionally charged, it required fantasy to provide some perspective, to be recognized as an “oppressed” group. No one is going to argue that the Na’vi in Avatar were treated unjustly, but when considering Palestinians, the concept of justice and victimization is blurry and questionable.

I doubt these Palestinians are looking for a “savior” – that ideology is both regressive and demeaning, because it assumes Palestinians cannot help themselves. But perhaps what these Palestinian protestors are calling for is a sense of perspective from the international community; different ways of understanding a conflict that is hardly straightforward.

For the record, few American publications reprinted pictures of the Palestinian protestors, which at some level indicates how taboo a topic the Palestinian viewpoint of the conflict is in this country. But this conflict is not localized to a strip of land in the Middle East; the United States is very much invested in the outcome of any peace process, which is exactly why actual discussion representing both sides needs to take place in this country. And I don’t mean news events that splash cable networks every now and then, but a dialogue that challenges our old perceptions of the situation.

Regardless of your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is hard to argue that Americans have ignored the struggles of Palestinians. If drawing parallels between fantasy and reality is going to help people recognize this, then perhaps Palestinians have found a new tactic to employ. I, however, am glad they decided against posing as the aliens from District 9.

SOTU

President Obama may have vowed not to quit when it comes to battling the politics of the Hill in his State of the Union address last night, but his talk of foreign policy sounded more fatigued.

Outlining the ways in which he plans to protect and advance the country in the context of foreign policy, Obama seemed to have changed his tone towards the Muslim world from one of dialogue to one of control:

That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad. [emphasis added]

Compare that tidbit about the need to enlighten Muslim societies to his famous Cairo speech given last summer to the Muslim world in which he acknowledges the innovation Muslim communities have already provided and pushes for more dialogue:

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

What the Cairo speech had done so well was recognize the complexities of the Muslim world that could help lead to prosperity. Obama essentially acknowledged that while some communities may foster fanaticism, others are pushing the limits of science, philosophy and politics. But after last night, it seemed as if Obama had reduced foreign policy towards the Middle East to one-sided action rather than two-sided engagement: Iran got an ultimatum, the discussion of Iraq mainly focused on getting the troops out, Afghanistan was spoken of in the context of terrorists rather than state-building, democracy and civil society.

It’s clear that Obama is desperately trying to regain control and leadership as his poll numbers plunge and the situation in Af-Pak grows increasingly dire. I can’t blame him. With a tough year of failures at home and abroad, Obama needs to remind others he is a leader. But like he said, leaders must do what is difficult, not what is easy. It’s difficult to engage in dialogue that test our assumptions and challenge our limits, but all I’m saying is, don’t quit.

Pakistan news by Juan Cole

Thanks to R. for sending the most comprehensive and analytical piece on Pakistan I've read in a while, written by Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/gates-strikes-out-in-pakistan.html

Is it just me or has coverage on Pakistan been slipping almost parallel to the White House's failing policies in Af-Pak?

One year later, the same story

Glenn Greenwald’s wrote a perceptive piece in today’s Salon about what the Supreme Court did right in the Citizens United case. Although I’m still mulling over whether or not I completely agree with his arguments, I’m concerned here with a sentence tucked away in his article:

“And one can't help but note the vile irony that Muslim "War on Terror" detainees have been essentially declared by some courts not to be "persons" under the Constitution, whereas corporations are.”

One year after Obama declared that he would close down Guantanamo, detainees are still being held without trial – indefinitely. Here’s the real kicker: Obama has decided to continue detention without due process for these detainees.

Almost sounds like one of the many failed policies employed by our last president. In his defense (if one can be made), when President Bush opened Guantanamo, he was faced with a terrified and vulnerable nation, and an uncertain global political environment. In short, given US’s history and actions towards Italians, Jews, and Japanese (among others), racism and racial profiling against Muslims was inevitable.

But it has been nine years. And I am, once again, left to question how, after countless debates over war and foreign policy, after actually fighting two wars, we can still ignore racial politics and blatant injustice? The least that needs to happen here is an actual trial for each of the detainees.

As a side note, a few people on Facebook did not deem today’s story about Gitmo detainees held without trial worthy, since there are so many other issues to worry about (unemployed, health care, bad economy). I hate to say it, but civil liberties is still a right reserved for only some groups in the U.S.