Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Oren Ben-Dor: No Left in Israel

Expand Messages
  • World View
    There Has Never Been a True Left in Israel Israeli Apartheid is the Core of the Crisis By OREN BEN-DOR http://www.counterpunch.com/bendor06232007.html It is
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      There Has Never Been a True Left in Israel
      Israeli Apartheid is the Core of the Crisis

      It is unethical to blame Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank,
      Gaza and East Jerusalem for events in Gaza. At the heart of the
      factional violence in Gaza and the political crisis in the Palestinian
      leadership lies the constant marginalization of a voice which poses an
      ethical challenge to an uncritically accepted presumption. Sadly, but
      hardly surprisingly, initial reactions to the situation have used it
      to further marginalize this voice.

      The presumption challenged is that it is morally acceptable to have a
      state whose legal structures assign preferential stake to all those
      who pass some test of Jewishness. It is not surprising that the
      Israeli right wing rejects this challenge. But why is the message also
      rejected by those Israelis, and their Western supporters, who claim to
      be concerned about human rights?

      It is true that some Israeli left wingers refer to the post-1967
      occupation as an apartheid regime. There are good reasons for such
      comparison with the old South African system. In the Occupied
      Territories, Palestinians are subject to arbitrary military
      regulations, while Israeli settlers are governed by Israeli law. It is
      no accident that the barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank is
      called by Israelis the "gader hafrada". Like the Afrikaans word
      "apartheid", the Hebrew word "hafrada" means "separation". The Israeli
      barrier separates Jewish settlements from Palestinian villages,
      usually also separating those villages from their farmland.

      But the apartheid label should not be restricted to the post-1967
      occupation. There is a more fundamental form of apartheid, of which
      the occupation is but a manifestation.

      Apartheid in historic Palestine originated, and has persisted, in the
      ideology of creating a state in which Jews would be separated from
      non-Jews in terms of their stake in the political community. It was an
      apartheid mentality that nourished the desire of establishing and
      maintaining a state with a Jewish demographic majority and character.
      The well-planned ethnic cleansing, in 1948, of 750000 indigenous
      people was apartheid practice par excellence. It is apartheid which
      prevents the expelled and their descendants from returning: this
      apartheid denies residence to expellees from my former home district,
      the Galilee, but grants it, not just to Israeli-born Jews like me, but
      to Jews all over the world. It is apartheid law that creates a wall of
      discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens of the Israeli state.
      It is an Apartheid mentality that prompts some Israeli Jews to view
      their Arab fellow-citizens as a "demographic threat".

      When "Israel's right to exist" is used as a litmus test for moderation
      and pragmatism, the subtext is that it is reasonable for apartheid
      practices which are at the core of the state as currently constituted
      to be allowed to continue. Thus, those who mouth this mantra, and
      those who try to limit the apartheid label to "the occupation", are
      complicit with the apartheid inside pre-1967 Israel.

      Tough questions need asking. Does not moral condemnation directed
      against the post-1967 occupation and its apartheid practices both
      conceal, and thus entrench, the apartheid mentality that lies at the
      core of the Israeli state? Is the argument merely about the boundaries
      of the area in which apartheid can have free play, or should criticism
      be directed at such practices wherever they exist?

      If Israel demolished the concrete wall and withdrew to its exact
      pre-1967 limits, would the self-described Israeli left-wingers agitate
      against the continuance of apartheid inside those borders? If not,
      what makes apartheid inside the pre-1967 borders acceptable? If the
      notion of Jewish statehood necessitates apartheid, why is this not
      subject to the same challenge as South African apartheid? These are
      questions that ought to be canvassed among the Israeli "left".

      The truth is that there has virtually never been any real "left" in
      Israel. So-called left-wing Israelis share their right-wing
      compatriots' support for the state ideology.

      Any moral condemnation which restricts its ambit to the post-1967
      occupation is at best simplistic, at worst misleading. By focusing on
      "the occupation", it serves to entrench the apartheid ideology which
      is central to the essence of the Israeli state.

      The economic and diplomatic boycott imposed on the elected Hamas
      government, which has resulted in the recent violence in Gaza, was
      intended to force it to accept Israeli apartheid. Only when the world
      is ready to call by its true name the premise upon which Israeli
      statehood is based, will it not take violence to advance a morally
      coherent and credible criticism of Israel.

      The denial of this core apartheid, of which the Gaza violence is a
      symptom, must stop. We should say it loud and clear. The apartheid
      system which lies at the core of Israeli statehood should be
      dismantled. It is unethical to rationalize the apartheid notion of a
      Jewish state. It is not consistent to be a friend of Israel, thereby
      endorsing its apartheid-based statehood, while criticising its
      apartheid practices in the Occupied Territories. Apartheid should have
      no sanctuary in any future vision of two states for historic Palestine.

      Only when this realization sinks in will it be possible to envision a
      stable political solution--a single state over all historic
      Palestine-- in which redress can be made for past injustices and equal
      citizenship provided for all, Arabs and Jews.

      Oren Ben-Dor teaches legal and political philosophy at the School of
      Law, University of Southampton, UK.
      He can be reached at: okbendor @ yahoo.com



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.