If I were writing about the United States instead of about Israel,
and I pointed out its continuing racism, despite the fact that we now have the
first African-American President, few would disagree.
If I pointed out that our laws are not evenly enforced regardless
of race, with far more African-Americans being arrested, for example, for marijuana
possession than Whites, despite the fact that violations occur at about the
same frequency, would they jump to defend the U.S.? I doubt it! But when anyone criticizes
Israel for far worse human rights abuses, they cry anti-Semitism; they cry it is
a smear and they point out some of the good things that can be found about Israel.
But why do they have a double standard?
I have been writing these articles about the sins committed
by the government of Israel that succeeded that of its founders, that came to
power over the dead body of Yitzhak Rabin and
has been taking Israel in a totally different direction ever since, both economically, where its policies resemble much more the agenda of the U.S. Tea Party, and in
foreign affairs where they resemble the ideas of the U.S. former Vice-President, Dick Cheney.
But how is my criticism rebutted?
These and many more came from Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.
But what do they prove? We certainly could not produce similar pictures for,
say Saudi Arabia, but neither I, nor anyone that I know equates Israel with
Saudi Arabia. But just because there are examples of some good things in
Israel, they hardly rebut, or even alleviate, the things I have been writing
about.
For example, above there is a picture of what appears
to be a Muslim women riding on a bus with an orthodox man. That may be true in
some places but it doesn’t change the fact described in Part XXI of my series:
Our task was to observe and record gender segregation on bus line 56. On this bus line and others both in Jerusalem and between Jerusalem and other cities Haredim insist that women sit in the back of the bus and when possible only enter through the back door.
Or the picture of the Arab Druse Colonel shown contrasted
against the description set forth in an article that recently was posted on
Bloomberg View entitled "Cana ‘Jewish State’ Be a Democracy" where the author points out:
Access to housing (for Arabs) is not always equal. Spending on infrastructure in Arab towns is much lower than in Jewish towns.
Some things never seem to change. I still have an exchange
that I had in November of 2010 with a very liberal woman in American politics,
in fact, the mother-in-law of a prominent African-American journalist.
She wrote:
I don't feel quite as negative about Israel as you do, especially since its Arab citizens are far better off in Israel than most Arabs in their own countries, to say nothing of how Jews fare in Arab lands.
My response
in part was:
You may or may not remember that during the Civil Rights battles of the '60s we oft heard the argument that American Blacks were much better off than most in Africa. Arabs in Israel are Israeli citizens and they are entitled to be as well off as Jews. Whether they are better off than Arabs in other lands is irrelevant. As for Jews in Arabs lands, I think that is as irrelevant as the argument about American Muslims being entitled to no more rights than Christians in Saudi Arabia. Palestinians are not responsible for the policies of other states nor should Israel imitate oppressive states.
But
the excuses for Israeli discriminatory policies go on and on, as can be seen
from the photos above. At best they are saying Israel is not all that bad.
Well, that may be, but it just isn’t good enough.
I
welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance
to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment