If someone who didn't know anything about Israel asked me for advice about coming here, I would tell them, "Don't try to escape politics. It will find you eventually."
I often have to analyze a piece of information two or three times before I can fully understand it, due to being a foreigner and also because politics here are so complicated. I also have to know who wrote whatever it is I'm reading, because the author's background (political, ethnic, academic, gender, etc.) undoubtedly influences the perspective of a text.
I can always feel the tension creeping up when talking about politics; it doesn't matter if I'm dealing with so-called "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" issues. It takes me a few minutes to overcome the fear of actually discussing anything because I naturally avoid confrontations.
However, I do like getting into the nitty gritty details of social and political life here, because it leads me to ask myself really interesting philosophical questions.
Here's what came up for me today:
(1) In a democracy, is it the job of the government to support (financially or otherwise) organizations whose views clash with those of the current administration, in order to promote a diversity of opinion (a healthy component of any democratic society)?
From my rose-colored glasses perspective, yes, if the government's goal is to have a healthy democratic society.
From a practical standpoint, no, since a democratic government is made up of representatives that the nation elects, and those representatives will inevitably have an agenda, which will hold sway on what kinds of organizations gets funded.
This question arose based on a Facebook discussion of a particular article (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/High-Court-rejects-petition-against-Nakba-Law) about the "Nakba Law" which "grants the finance minister the authority to impose harsh fines on government-funded organizations that budget expenses for (among other things) marking Independence Day as a day of mourning" (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/chilling-effect-of-the-nakba-law-on-israel-s-human-
rights-1.430942).
A friend pointed out that in the U.S., the government has had a history of cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood for providing legal abortions, to art exhibitions that show "pornographic" images, and to Communist groups, which I thought were good examples.
(2) Must a minority in society become cohesive before being able to implement democracy within itself? Is democracy even the point?
This question arose based on a press release I was translating about an Arab Greek Orthodox priest, Father Gabriel Nadaf, who brought a defamation lawsuit against a group of journalists who criticized him for saying that Christian Arabs should join the Israeli army. For more on Nadaf, see this link (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Father-Nadaf-317867) but note that it does not include information on the lawsuit.
For those who may not know, the issue of Arabs joining the Israeli army is a contentious one, since Arabs who choose to do so are essentially "fighting against their own" and representing the "oppressor." (I put these phrases in quotation marks because I think they can be interpreted multiple ways.)
The press release was condemning Nadaf's use of the Defamation Law to try to silence the journalists. The press release argued that the lawsuit in itself wasn't the problem, but using the Defamation Law to discourage freedom of speech.
My issue was with the fact that Nadaf has received death threats for voicing his opinion in the first place (not mentioned in the press release, but from information I looked up in news articles). I know that death threats also happen in America, but my question is (and this may imply prejudice/ignorance on my part as a privileged Westerner, Jew, and outsider):
If the Arab minority in Israel wants to have a democratic society, then why can't it welcome and promote opposing views?
A co-worker explained that from an emotional angle, Nadaf is dividing the Arab minority by saying that Christians should join the army.
I understand, but from a rational perspective, I don't see how a society can be democratic if contradictory views are not encouraged or are suppressed.
For example, as a Jew, I highly disagree with the racist philosophy of neo-Nazis, but I still believe they have a right to march and to express their opinions.
Then, I started thinking, am I asking the right question? Maybe I should be asking, is democracy what the Arab minority needs right now...which led me to ask:
Can a society have a democracy before it is cohesive? That is, can a community practice democracy if it is divided by opposing beliefs?
Oy vey...I could really go on for hours with this train of thought...
My hesitation is that I don't want to become a conduit simply for my ego. It is hard not to become impassioned. Yet I think that fiery passion also motivates us to express our opinions and continue a discussion.
The danger is when we stop being able to listen, which is all too easy to do and get carried away with the desire to be right, as opposed to continually criticizing our own views. I always want to keep myself in check, but I also don't want to bend to people right away. Too often when I'm with Palestinians, I find myself "agreeing" and when I'm with more "Zionist"-leaning Jews, I find myself "agreeing."
I'm tired of "agreeing." I want to not be afraid of conflict. It's part of life.
The only other problem for my brain now is, how to be a translator and not get wrapped up in politics. For example, today when I was translating the press release (that I mentioned earlier), I came across the phrase "right-wing Zionist powers." I asked my co-worker who wrote the press release, "Are all right-wing groups necessarily Zionist?" (In America, we have "right-wing" Democrats, and more "left-leaning" Republicans.)
And then what is the exact definition of "Zionist?"
I'll leave that one up to you, dear reader(s).
No comments:
Post a Comment