Yes, racism does exist in Israel - directed against Arabs, and also among Jews. Amir Peretz, new leader of the Labour party, is said to be having problems with western-born Ashkenazi voters because he is Moroccan-born and Sephardic. An explanation offered for the police violence in clearing the Amona outpost last week was the antagonism between the protesting young people, who were mainly religious Ashkenazi, and the police, who were a mixture of Moroccan and Russian immigrant stock, Bedouin and Druze.He goes on.
I am also puzzled by the health ministry figures that McGreal has chosen to use about state spending on development of health facilities in Arab areas (the clear implication being that Arabs are starved of health care). Contrary to the picture painted, health is a visible indicator of the differences between apartheid South Africa and Israel. In South Africa, the infant mortality rate (IMR) in 1985 was 78 per 1,000 live births. Among colour groups: whites 12, Asians 20, coloureds 60, blacks 94 to 150. In Israel, in the 1950s, the IMR among Muslims was 60.6 and among Jews 38.8. Major improvements occurred in health care during the 1990s and by 2001 the IMR among Arabs was 7.6 (Muslims 8.2, Christians 2.6, Druze 4.7). Among Jews, 4.1. According to the health ministry, the higher Muslim figure was due mainly to genetic defects as a result of marriages between close relatives; poverty is also a factor. Other countries in 2000: Switzerland, 8.2, and 12.3 for Turks living there; United States, whites 8.5, blacks 21.3.
It is better to be an Israeli Arab than a black South African as far as infant mortality is concerned. Go read the whole article and the two part article that sparked it off.
2 comments:
Yes, but where is the fun in admiting that eretz yisrael is not an apartheid state? the left needs someone to blame, no?
As far as I'm concerned, the most amazing part of the series was that Chris McGreal interviewed exactly one Arab. I admire Hassan Jabareen and I'm glad his opinion was solicited, but given that the Arabs are the people allegedly living under apartheid, one would think that their opinions and experiences should be the most prominent part of the article. Instead, the series is mostly a dialogue between McGreal, a few non-representative Israeli Jews, and Ronnie Kasrils. That seems remarkably patronizing of McGreal, much like writing an article on South African apartheid without interviewing black people.
The article also suffers from factual errors and, fundamentally, a lack of context and intellectual honesty. As evidence of the last of these, nothing struck me quite so hard as this:
Shortly after arriving in Jerusalem, I was invited for dinner at the home of a liberal Israeli family. The guests included an American magazine publisher, a prominent historian and political activists. The conversation turned to the Palestinians and degenerated into a discussion of how they do not "deserve" a state. The intifada and suicide bombings were seen to justify 37 years of occupation and offset whatever crimes Israel may have committed against the Arabs under its rule. It was all very reminiscent of conversations in South Africa.
McGreal has been based in Jerusalem for four years, so the time "shortly after arriving" would be the spring of 2002. In other words, this conversation probably took place in the middle of the deadliest wave of suicide bombings in Israeli history, including the murder of more than 20 senior citizens at the Netanya seder. But does McGreal provide this context, or show any understanding of why "liberal Israelis" might have said things then that they wouldn't have said at other times? Evidently he doesn't consider it worth remarking upon.
That tells me all I need to know about where he's coming from.
Post a Comment