A society often wittingly or unwittingly gets drawn into a sense of unreasonable self censorship by declaring certain topics as sacrosanct; a ‘no-go’ area in which it will brook no debate. This tendency for self-inhibition is particularly odd given that it often goes against the tradition and value system of the society. Such behaviour, pejoratively known as ‘Political Correctness’ {PC} happen when, often in a genuine attempt to right historical wrongs, the society ends up entrenching such farcical censorship that borders on the Orwellian. For example, I read few weeks ago in the London Metro that the Mayor of London banned {or was proposing to ban} the use of the words ‘black’ or ‘white’ coffee at the canteen of the Greater London Council on the ostensible basis that asking to be served ‘black’ or ‘white’ coffee is racist! By the same token, the furore that was generated by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s criticism of the state of Israel last week, which culminated in a walk out by most of the Western delegates to the UN conference on racism in Geneva was decidedly over the top and uncalled for.
What exactly did Ahmadinejad said that the Western delegates found offensive as to have warranted such undiplomatic behaviour? I quote the Iranian president:
‘Coercion and arrogance is the origin of oppression and wars. Although many proponents of racism condemn racial discrimination in their words and in their slogans, a number of powerful countries have been authorized to decide for other nations based on their own interests and at their own discretions. And they can easily ridicule and violate all laws and humanitarian values, as they have done so.
Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine… And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine...’
By this time the Western delegates had walked out whilst the remaining delegates applauded Ahmadinejad.
In my opinion, the action of the delegates who walked out is wrong for two reasons. First, if you situate the claim of Ahmadinejad within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, there is an arguable validity to the assertion that Israel is a racist country. Secondly, even if Ahmadinejad was wrong and Israel is indeed a country of multicultural equal opportunities, it is still wrong to stage a walk-out simply because they disagreed with him. It is tantamount to burning a book because you do not agree with its contents.
So is Israel not a racist country? Perhaps the starting point is to define what is racial discrimination? There are many definitions of racism and racial discrimination but perhaps it is prudent to adopt the UN definition of racial discrimination. It says:
‘The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '
After the end of the Six-Day war, Israel Took over East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, which together form the Occupied Territories with a population of 5.3 million people. The ill-treatments of the Palestinians by the Israeli authorities are well-documented and too multifarious to warrant reiteration here. What I propose to do is point out three sources of criticisms of Israeli policies in recent time that concurred with Ahmadinejad criticism of the state of Israel as a racist country.
In his book titled ‘Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’ published in 2007, the former US president, Jimmy Carter argues that:
‘Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East...and that apartheid is the exact description of what is happening in Palestine now’{emphasis mine}.
These are strong words indeed from a man known for his measured outlook to issues.
In March 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in a communiqué openly berated the Israeli government on its treatment of the Palestinians. The 18- member committee of independent experts accused Israel of racial discrimination in its dealings with the Palestinians. Amongst many observations, the committee voiced concerns:
‘..At an unequal distribution of water resources, a disproportionate targeting of Palestinians in house demolitions and denial of rights of many Palestinians to return to their homeland...Differing applications of criminal law between Jews and Arabs had caused harsher punishments for Palestinians for the same offence...
A high number of complaints by Arab Israelis against police officers are not properly investigated and many Arabs suffer discriminatory work practices and high unemployment...’
When the UN published this report in 2007, the response of the Israeli government to it was instructive. According to the Reuter News agency report 9 March 2007:
‘Israel argues that the UN committee's remit, to ensure compliance with a 1965 international treaty against racial discrimination which the Jewish state has ratified, does not apply to the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1967.’
The Israeli government was clearly not challenging the findings of the report. What the Israeli government was saying essentially is that Israel is not bound to comply with its treaty obligation in so far as the Palestinians are concerned. This appears to me as a very clear and unambiguous declaration by the Israeli government that it is racially discriminating against the Palestinians.
Finally, Amnesty International in a position paper titled: ‘Israel/OPT: Stop Discrimination against Palestinians’ published in September 2008, it states that:
‘The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin is a fundamental principle of human rights law enshrined both in the treaties that Israel has promised to uphold, and in international law. Despite this, racist discrimination is integral to many of Israel policies in the Occupied Territories...’
It then goes on to list such Israel government policies that it considers racist.
It is clear therefore that the United Nations, Amnesty Organisation and Jimmy Carter all consider Israelis policies towards the Palestinians racially discriminatory and borders on the apartheid. So why all the fuss when Ahmadinejad reiterated this fact?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
When it comes to the issue of criticism of Israel, it seems Western countries are willing to sacrifice long-held belief in order to mollify Israel. Take the issue of criminalisation of Genocide Denial. It remains a serious criminal offence to deny that the Genocide took place. Indeed on the 20 February 2006, the British historian, David Irvin was sent to three years imprisonment for denying the Holocaust in Austria, where, as in 10 other countries in Western Europe, it is a serious criminal offence: ‘To deny, grossly downplay, approves or try to excuse the Nationalist Socialist Genocide’ The maximum penalty for anyone convicted of this offence is ten years imprisonment.
Personally, this writer believes that the atrocities committed against the Jews by Hitler have been sufficiently well chronicled as to be beyond doubt. However should we send to prison people who for whatever reason hold a contrary view? If I said for example that no single Biafran soldier was killed in the Nigerian civil war, is that enough justification to send me to Kirikiri? Why do societies that hold freedom of speech in the highest of esteem send someone to prison for holding a view that is patently untrue and even daft? Why did the representatives of the Western countries walk out because of a fair comment on the Israeli government? In the opinion of this writer, a possible answer to these questions is that the Western countries, still coming to terms with the atrocities of the Nazis, suffers from collective sense of historical guilt and are ready to molly coddle the Israelis on every issue; they will see no wrong and hear no wrong as far as Israel is concerned. The danger of this policy, apart from engendering fatal hatred amongst generations of Israelis and Palestinians, is that it might also eat away at the reservoir of international goodwill that the Israelis used to take for granted.
Solicitor, London
[email protected]
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });