By MICHAEL COREN
I will defend all of my beliefs, but one of the ideas I most proud of is Zionism. No apologies, no hiding, no doubts.
Fair enough.
Zionism is arguably the most successful example of the restoration of an indigenous people to their rightful homeland in human history. It is a liberation struggle, a story of the creation of a light on a hill, that light being the Jewish state in the Middle East.
'Arguably'is right. I'm in two minds on this one. On the one hand, I admire the decision in 1844 of the Ottoman Empire to allow foreign Jews to move to the Holy Land. This allowed foreign Jews to join the domestic Jews in establishing a new community there. I do not, however, admire the way Zionists then politicized the Jews' return to Palestine to their own ends, essentially displacing non-Jewish Palestinians in a planned and methodical manner, to the chagrin of even other Jews who wanted to maintain peaceful relations with their non-Jewish neighbours.
Though I disagree with the eventual establishment of the State of Israel, I also recognize that now that it's established, to dismantle it would cause more harm than good. For that reason, I defend the right of the state of Israel to exist within its borders as defined in international law, and so do not defend its occupation of territories beyond those boundaries.
I also admire Israel's success in reviving Hebrew as a national and not just a language of liturgy and having established a vibrant culture there. So yes, 'arguably' is right seeing that there are both pros and cons to it.
I write this now in particular because it is Israel Apartheid Week. Which is an attempt to bully and silence supporters of Israel and close down any civilized debate on university campuses concerning Israel and Palestine. It singles out for particular contempt one small country that, while far from perfect, has a human rights record eminently superior to that of any around it.
I do agree that the very term as applied to Israel is intent not on legitimate criticism, but rather on sparking emotional response, and so that alone legitimation 'Israeli Apartheid Week' in my mind. After all, Apartheid is an Afrikaans word, nothing to do with Israel.
It attempts to equate the Jewish state — where all citizens irrespective of religion, race, gender or sexuality enjoy equality — to the hideously immoral racist society that was apartheid South Africa. It’s
As for the attempt of the 'Week', I agree with the author. However, I take issue with the idea that all citizens are equal in Israel. Israel does have various laws that discriminate on the basis of Faith. To take a few examples:
1. The Right of Return applies to Jews only. In other words, it's easier to immigrate to Israel if you're a Jew than if you aren't. Add to that that there has also been controversy over the definition of 'Jew', whereby some have argued that only Orthodox Jewish synagogues abroad ought to be allowed to vouch for a person's 'Jewishness', risking rejection for Liberal and Conservative Jews.
2. Interfaith marriage in Israel is prohibited, meaning that people of different Faiths have to marry abroad.
3. Conversion is regulated by the state, whereby there is actually an office that keeps track of it and who has converted.
4. Non-Jewish proselytism is restricted in Israel.
Equality for all Faith groups? I think not.
So I was delighted to accept the offer to speak to four different universities during this death-dark celebration of doublespeak and anti-intellectual posing.
No comment.
A few brief comments: Kurdistan is occupied by four different Islamic nations. Morocco forcibly prevents hundreds of thousands of people who have the right to live in the country from entering. Most Arab countries reject black immigration and embrace passive, if not aggressive racism. In the Gulf States, and Pakistan in particular, slavery exists in the guise of “servants” who are treated as virtual animals.
Interesting that he never brought up our treaties with the First Nations or our separate school system. As for Kurdistan, sure I agree, at least in principle, but what does that have to do with Zionism. I thought he was talking about Israel and Zionism, not whatever other country in the world.
In Lebanon, Palestinians are denied dozens of different occupations simply because of who they are.
Ridiculous argument. Palestinians are denied occupations here in Canada too simply because of who they are. That's what immigration, passports and visas are for. By the way, they're denied the same occupations in Israel too, as are Canadians. That is the nature of a world comprised of sovereign states.
In Iran, homosexuals are publicly hanged and innocent women stoned to death. The secret police suppress freedoms in Syria and even relatively free Jordan. We have seen what Egypt and Libya are like, with other Arab countries little better and sometimes worse.
Again, what does this have to do with Isreal? Create a thread on Arab and Iranian attrocities, and I'll gladly participate. In fact, I remember such a thread already a few weeks or months ago. But the argument that 'he's worse so I'm Ok' doesn't cut it for a democratic state like Israel. It might be a fine argument for a dictatorship, but not a parliamentary democracy like Israel.
Gay Palestinians are forced to flee to Haifa and Tel Aviv to live openly and safely as homosexuals, gender apartheid exists in massive chunks of the Arab and greater Islamic world, yet Israel is supremely open and progressive. And so on and so on.
Links please. I'm not denying the possibility of the latter, but seeing how strict Israel is with regards to non-Jewish immigration, I can't imagine it being easy for homosexual Palestinians to flee to Israel without first converting to Judaism, and to likely have to be approved by an Orthodox Rabbi who's not likely to condone homosexuality. So while Israel might grant homosexuals freedom within the state, I have a hard time imagining, based on its religion-oriented immigration policy, that it would allow gay foreigners to settle there.
For a Palestinian to travel to Israel on a visit, maybe. To reside, highly doubtful.
