As an Israeli who believes in the right of Palestine to self-determination and the need to end Israeli occupation - what should I think about the way Palestinians are handling human rights and that's effect on the political struggle?
First, I want to put one thing aside - many people talk about human rights (especially and their implementation in the Muslim world) and actually mean Western concepts of human rights. Some of those who protest against the Muslim practice of women veiling themselves in public often fail to see that the Western concepts of women sexuality tend to be as objectifying and may be as oppressive towards those who suffer from them.
But even being aware of my (and everyone's) tendency of conflating what I know and what is proper, there's an inherit problem with supporting a national aspiration of a social-national group that does not believe in personal freedom.
Those who are familiar with political activism in Israel-Palestine have probably heard of Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem. I've written a little about the legal/political situation that is the source of the legal and political disputes of ownership in that part of Jerusalem (here) but did not mention the weekly demonstrations taking place in the neighborhood. These demonstrations are organized by a joint Israeli-Palestinian private initiative, that involves left-wing Israelis (who are mostly secular Jews) and the local residents of the neighborhood (who are mainly religious Muslims). Lately, the organizers of these demonstrations have issued a request addressed at the Jewish women-protesters to show-up at the demonstrations only in clothes that would respect the local traditional population - no short trousers, no tank-tops (here, in Hebrew). Apparently, the Palestinian women who took part in the demonstrations did not feel comfortable being associated with women who are immodest according to the rules of their own culture. What's more of a problem, as it turns out, is that Muslim young men see such 'immodest' clothes as an invitation to sexual harassment of the Israeli participants in the struggle (here, in Hebrew, is an opening to the many blog entries about the subject).
By giving this example I'm trying to avoid the problem of conflating Western concepts with human rights concepts. This is not about Muslim society controlling the dress code within its borders, but a clear declaration across the board that even the women who do not adhere to Muslim values must follow Muslim modesty codes - not only when they visit East Jerusalem as tourists but when they are there on a mission of joining in with local population of fighting for what is just.
Can a women, a gay person, or any liberal person fight for a just national cause at the expense of her/his personal freedom? On one hand, those sensitive to oppression should be the first to fight it when it burdens others. On the other hand, the oppressed can be just as oppressing towards other, weaker populations. Demanding those women who do not believe in the need to cover their arms to do so when they arrive at East Jerusalem is an oppressive act merely because it enforces cultural practices on those who are not members of the relevant cultural group. It is, in a sense, a cultural occupation of the neighborhood, perhaps in response to the actual Israeli occupation. I do not claim that one is as bad as the other although, if the claim that Israeli protesters are being sexually harassed in demonstrations is true - we're getting pretty close. I'm willing to assume that not every occupation is the same and that, as some say, it is wise to finish fighting one before fighting the other. But as a supporter of liberty in all forms - what can be my excuse of ignoring one kind of oppression while I'm fighting the other?
Showing posts with label Nationality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nationality. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Land, Ownership, and Luck
I think I never fully understood why land property was always dealt with differently from other kinds of property. Of course, buying houses and such is always more expensive than buying many other things, but still... to actually have a different set of laws to deal with those things?
I think that, in a way, the latest concerns about Arab and Jewish settlement and demolition plans in Jerusalem make me understand that difference a bit better.
East Jerusalem has been subject to four different legal regimes in the past century. First Ottoman, then British, later Jordanian (in 1948) and lastly Israeli (as a result of the 1967 war). In '48, the Jewish population of East Jerusalem fled to the western side of the city. In '67, the Arab population did the same, fleeing to other Arab cities in the West Bank and neighboring states. While those people could, generally speaking, take most of their belongings with them one thing always stayed behind - real estate. That's the one thing no one can carry with them. So, when everything you own usually goes with you and is subject to the same legal regime you are subject to - that's categorically not the case with the land that you own.
In the specific case of Jerusalem, both Jordan and Israel have laws that nationalize deserted land. When Jews left their land behind in 1948, Jordan nationalized them and gave them to Palestinian new residents. After the 1967 war, when Israel took over East Jerusalem it applied an exactly similar law on the property that was now deserted and, recently, gave back the property nationalized by Jordan to its original Jewish owners.
I'm sure this isn't how real estate law developed, or their historic justification. But this makes it clear to what extent owning land is different from owning other kinds of property. Ownership is a result of legal schemes. Look at the same house through the eyes of one legal system - it belongs to one person. Look at it through the eyes of another - it belongs to someone else. Unlike other movable property, the owner of land has so little control on what's happening to his or her property, cannot protect it, and cannot take it with them. Most of the time, we don't realize it. Most places are subject just to one legal regime - not only at one time but even through (at least recent) history. Only in certain cases, some unfortunate people see behind this veil of state-law connection. Some property has the bad luck of being in those place where one legal system chases another. In those cases remain the same, and so do the houses, but not the links tying them together.
I think that, in a way, the latest concerns about Arab and Jewish settlement and demolition plans in Jerusalem make me understand that difference a bit better.
East Jerusalem has been subject to four different legal regimes in the past century. First Ottoman, then British, later Jordanian (in 1948) and lastly Israeli (as a result of the 1967 war). In '48, the Jewish population of East Jerusalem fled to the western side of the city. In '67, the Arab population did the same, fleeing to other Arab cities in the West Bank and neighboring states. While those people could, generally speaking, take most of their belongings with them one thing always stayed behind - real estate. That's the one thing no one can carry with them. So, when everything you own usually goes with you and is subject to the same legal regime you are subject to - that's categorically not the case with the land that you own.
In the specific case of Jerusalem, both Jordan and Israel have laws that nationalize deserted land. When Jews left their land behind in 1948, Jordan nationalized them and gave them to Palestinian new residents. After the 1967 war, when Israel took over East Jerusalem it applied an exactly similar law on the property that was now deserted and, recently, gave back the property nationalized by Jordan to its original Jewish owners.
I'm sure this isn't how real estate law developed, or their historic justification. But this makes it clear to what extent owning land is different from owning other kinds of property. Ownership is a result of legal schemes. Look at the same house through the eyes of one legal system - it belongs to one person. Look at it through the eyes of another - it belongs to someone else. Unlike other movable property, the owner of land has so little control on what's happening to his or her property, cannot protect it, and cannot take it with them. Most of the time, we don't realize it. Most places are subject just to one legal regime - not only at one time but even through (at least recent) history. Only in certain cases, some unfortunate people see behind this veil of state-law connection. Some property has the bad luck of being in those place where one legal system chases another. In those cases remain the same, and so do the houses, but not the links tying them together.
Friday, December 11, 2009
On Nations and States: What does It Mean to be Russian?
In the past few days I had a few conversations with several people about those vague things called state, nation, and people. Some of it came up with regards to the Swiss referendum I talked about in my last post. A little bit more was in the contexts of those things that certain people tend to call 'un-American'. A friend is writing a paper about the way Russia refuses to treat people with HIV/AIDS because it is considered an evidence of moral turpitude, and therefore it is "not Russian"and undeserving of state funds. In all those cases, it seems as if the people, or maybe just some of the people, have this image of what it means to be part of a nation - something that is more than just being a citizen of the country.
Nations, in all those cases, hold certain values more important than others, and define themselves through them. "To be American means to be honest and hard working". "To be Russian means to be of moral character". "To be West-European is to be Christian, or at least to keep your religion a private matter." I can understand such sentences if they describe a reality. But then they should have started "some Americans are..." or "Most West Europeans are...". Otherwise, it is clear that they are not true statements. After all, not all Americans are honest, not all Russians are of good moral character, and so on.
I can also understand them as aspirations: "Americans/Russians/West Europeans should be...". But that's where things become dangerous. To what extent should countries educate their citizens to be one thing or the other? On one hand, I feel a liberal impulse to say that countries should be empty of any values - they should provide their citizens with fundamental services and that's it.
On the other hand, the Netherlands (or so I've heard) make immigrants sign a statement that they acknowledge the fact that in the Netherlands they are likely to see gay men show affection to each other and that they are ok with that. That sounds to me a lot like like the sentences we started with, something like "Dutch people are tolerant". This is more than just a descriptive statement - it is a demand of those who want to become Dutch. But the fact that it is a demand doesn't make it unacceptable. On the contrary, if one society has managed to create a safe haven for minorities, it makes sense for that state to protect itself from outsiders who would not be tolerant towards them. I see it as if the state weighs the well being and aspirations of gay citizens against those of intolerant immigrants (after all, the tolerant immigrants are naturalized) and rightly prefers those of its own citizens.
So it is clear that a state can educate to some values. I also think that education to good moral nature or honesty is just as valid an as targets as toleration. I even think that it's ok for a state to have a public religion. So where's the line? Why do the statements cited at the beginning of this post hurt the ear so much?
It seems to me that the answer is not in the permissive roles of the state, but in the state-nation relations. A state may attempt to educate its citizens. But pulling the population in one direction does not mean that whoever isn't pulled is not part of the nation. States may have values. Nations should not. So the United States may promote the values of honesty and hard work. But it must be recognized that you are part of the American nation even if you are lazy and deceitful, if only you are a citizen. (It's a little hard to use the Russian example since it's outrageous to think that HIV/AIDS says something of a person's morality, but let's assume for a minute that that was true -) Russia may encourage moral behaviour. But failure to follow doesn't make you not Russian. It only makes you an immoral Russian. If you hold citizenship, you deserve treatment. It's like saying that New York is a fun place, and that the municipality encourages the exciting and eventful image of the city. But if you live in New York, you're still a New Yorker even if you're boring.
It's easy to forget that. So many times minority groups are treated as a superfluous addition to 'the real thing'. As if France is for Christians, and Muslim immigrants are factually there, but don't really belong. They could have been anywhere else just the same. As if Israel is for Jews, and the Arabs accidentally live in the same territory, they deserve rights and all, but do not count as part of the people we talk about when we refer to 'Israelies'.
Lately, the Cohen brothers' magnificent movie 'A Serious Man' was distributed in Israel under the name 'A Good Jew'. Even if disregarding for a moment the artistic vandalism - did the translators feel that Israeli Arabs would not be a potential crowd for this movie? I mean, they might not be good Jews, but I'm sure they can be serious people.
Nations, in all those cases, hold certain values more important than others, and define themselves through them. "To be American means to be honest and hard working". "To be Russian means to be of moral character". "To be West-European is to be Christian, or at least to keep your religion a private matter." I can understand such sentences if they describe a reality. But then they should have started "some Americans are..." or "Most West Europeans are...". Otherwise, it is clear that they are not true statements. After all, not all Americans are honest, not all Russians are of good moral character, and so on.
I can also understand them as aspirations: "Americans/Russians/West Europeans should be...". But that's where things become dangerous. To what extent should countries educate their citizens to be one thing or the other? On one hand, I feel a liberal impulse to say that countries should be empty of any values - they should provide their citizens with fundamental services and that's it.
On the other hand, the Netherlands (or so I've heard) make immigrants sign a statement that they acknowledge the fact that in the Netherlands they are likely to see gay men show affection to each other and that they are ok with that. That sounds to me a lot like like the sentences we started with, something like "Dutch people are tolerant". This is more than just a descriptive statement - it is a demand of those who want to become Dutch. But the fact that it is a demand doesn't make it unacceptable. On the contrary, if one society has managed to create a safe haven for minorities, it makes sense for that state to protect itself from outsiders who would not be tolerant towards them. I see it as if the state weighs the well being and aspirations of gay citizens against those of intolerant immigrants (after all, the tolerant immigrants are naturalized) and rightly prefers those of its own citizens.
So it is clear that a state can educate to some values. I also think that education to good moral nature or honesty is just as valid an as targets as toleration. I even think that it's ok for a state to have a public religion. So where's the line? Why do the statements cited at the beginning of this post hurt the ear so much?
It seems to me that the answer is not in the permissive roles of the state, but in the state-nation relations. A state may attempt to educate its citizens. But pulling the population in one direction does not mean that whoever isn't pulled is not part of the nation. States may have values. Nations should not. So the United States may promote the values of honesty and hard work. But it must be recognized that you are part of the American nation even if you are lazy and deceitful, if only you are a citizen. (It's a little hard to use the Russian example since it's outrageous to think that HIV/AIDS says something of a person's morality, but let's assume for a minute that that was true -) Russia may encourage moral behaviour. But failure to follow doesn't make you not Russian. It only makes you an immoral Russian. If you hold citizenship, you deserve treatment. It's like saying that New York is a fun place, and that the municipality encourages the exciting and eventful image of the city. But if you live in New York, you're still a New Yorker even if you're boring.
It's easy to forget that. So many times minority groups are treated as a superfluous addition to 'the real thing'. As if France is for Christians, and Muslim immigrants are factually there, but don't really belong. They could have been anywhere else just the same. As if Israel is for Jews, and the Arabs accidentally live in the same territory, they deserve rights and all, but do not count as part of the people we talk about when we refer to 'Israelies'.
Lately, the Cohen brothers' magnificent movie 'A Serious Man' was distributed in Israel under the name 'A Good Jew'. Even if disregarding for a moment the artistic vandalism - did the translators feel that Israeli Arabs would not be a potential crowd for this movie? I mean, they might not be good Jews, but I'm sure they can be serious people.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
On Facebook and Issues of Nationality
If you have a Facebook account (of course you do, who doesn't?) then you must know that in order to set up your account you must choose which social networks you are interested in joining. Now, the primary network anyone usually connects herself to is a regional network, and that is usually the city, the state, or the country one lives in. This has an effect on the profiles you gain access to, and those who gain access to your profile (usually, most profiles are set to allow viewing only by other people of the same network).
Interestingly, one can only be a member of one regional network at any given time. That means that I, as an Israeli student abroad, must affiliate myself either as in Israeli or as a New Yorker. For Facebook, I can't be both, but have to renounce one identity in order to adopt the other. You might say that I am an exception to the rule, and that most people live in one place, and have no need in access and affiliation with any social networks on the other side of the world. I'm sure that's less and less true with each year, but anyway, that's only half the point.
The other half is that some areas of the world simply don't follow the rule of such simple social/national connection. For example: Israel (surprise surprise). Lately, it appeared in the news that Facebook changed its regions database so that Israeli settlers in the West Bank would be able to list themselves as members of the Israeli social network, although they live outside the official borders of the state of Israel. In addition, Alquds Alarabi published a report today, stating that Syria will launch a campaign demanding a boycott of Facebook because it permits Israelis living on the Golan Heights to list themselves as Israelis (and here it is in English). And I can only guess that the same problems arise (in different magnitude, perhaps) in other areas of the world such as Tibet, Northern Ireland, or Quebec.
The thing is, that Facebook's networks are not about defining political borders and group nationalities. They are about an individual's social group - the individual who owns the account. When dealing with such an individual's nationality, applying geographical concepts starts to seem a little ridiculous. I mean, in the "real" world of facts of buildings and roads and electricity services, a city or a region can be a part of only one state, although sometimes which state that region is a part of is debatable. A person, however, can identify as belonging to more than one regional group. An ex-patriot would want to be a part of regional networks of both the the place he comes from and the place he is in now. Quite similarly, people living in places currently in political dispute would usually identify themselves one way or the other. It makes no sense to force the Golan Heights' Israeli citizens to belong to the Syrian social network, as they have nothing to look for there; their entire social connections lie within the state of Israel. At the same time, it seems important to allow the Druze population to identify as Syrian, according to their true identity, and following their actual lingual and cultural social connections.
So here's my point: in today's world social networking has less and less to do with geo-political borders. One might live on one side of the world and affiliate with a social group defined by its location on the other side. Two people living in the same region might have no social connections, identifying themselves as members of completely different (and sometimes conflicting) nationalities. This is why I find it funny that Facebook - a website that is (1) designated for social purposes and (2) has no existence outside the web - seems to cling so strongly to the "one person, one regional affiliation" conception. Seriously, don't the people in Facebook know that the internet knows no borders?
(For some more reading: the digital methods initiative)
Interestingly, one can only be a member of one regional network at any given time. That means that I, as an Israeli student abroad, must affiliate myself either as in Israeli or as a New Yorker. For Facebook, I can't be both, but have to renounce one identity in order to adopt the other. You might say that I am an exception to the rule, and that most people live in one place, and have no need in access and affiliation with any social networks on the other side of the world. I'm sure that's less and less true with each year, but anyway, that's only half the point.
The other half is that some areas of the world simply don't follow the rule of such simple social/national connection. For example: Israel (surprise surprise). Lately, it appeared in the news that Facebook changed its regions database so that Israeli settlers in the West Bank would be able to list themselves as members of the Israeli social network, although they live outside the official borders of the state of Israel. In addition, Alquds Alarabi published a report today, stating that Syria will launch a campaign demanding a boycott of Facebook because it permits Israelis living on the Golan Heights to list themselves as Israelis (and here it is in English). And I can only guess that the same problems arise (in different magnitude, perhaps) in other areas of the world such as Tibet, Northern Ireland, or Quebec.
The thing is, that Facebook's networks are not about defining political borders and group nationalities. They are about an individual's social group - the individual who owns the account. When dealing with such an individual's nationality, applying geographical concepts starts to seem a little ridiculous. I mean, in the "real" world of facts of buildings and roads and electricity services, a city or a region can be a part of only one state, although sometimes which state that region is a part of is debatable. A person, however, can identify as belonging to more than one regional group. An ex-patriot would want to be a part of regional networks of both the the place he comes from and the place he is in now. Quite similarly, people living in places currently in political dispute would usually identify themselves one way or the other. It makes no sense to force the Golan Heights' Israeli citizens to belong to the Syrian social network, as they have nothing to look for there; their entire social connections lie within the state of Israel. At the same time, it seems important to allow the Druze population to identify as Syrian, according to their true identity, and following their actual lingual and cultural social connections.
So here's my point: in today's world social networking has less and less to do with geo-political borders. One might live on one side of the world and affiliate with a social group defined by its location on the other side. Two people living in the same region might have no social connections, identifying themselves as members of completely different (and sometimes conflicting) nationalities. This is why I find it funny that Facebook - a website that is (1) designated for social purposes and (2) has no existence outside the web - seems to cling so strongly to the "one person, one regional affiliation" conception. Seriously, don't the people in Facebook know that the internet knows no borders?
(For some more reading: the digital methods initiative)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
