Daily Archives: March 21, 2017

The question is whether Zionism can make room for a trulyinclusive equality.

Hundreds take part in a Womens March protest outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, January 21, 2017. (Tomer Neuberg/Flash90

In a recent New York Times op-edDoes Feminism have Room for Zionists?Emily Shire, who identifies as a feminist and a Zionist, argues that her belief in Israels right to exist as a Jewish state should not be at odds with her feminism.

According to Shire, women who seekto be included in the womens protests against the current U.S. administration should not have to face a critical of Israel litmus test. She takes issue with theStrikes platform, which specifically calls for the decolonization of Palestine, but which doesnt mention the myriad other injustices inflicted on women across the world.

But Shire herself brings up her own Zionism. She states her relationship to Israel shouldnt be a factor for the womens protest, while simultaneously demanding a space for it Zionism being a giant, pertinent caveat. In doing so, Shireis ironically subjecting women active in the movement to her own litmus test.

Shire is asking thewrong question. It is not whether feminism has room for Zionists, but whether Zionism has room for equal rights. Zionisms manifestation as a political system operating for almost 69 years now has thus far proven it does not have that room. The State of Israel was founded as a safe haven for Jews and is premised on privileging Jews over all others. It is not a country for all its citizens over 20 percent of whom are not Jewish at all but for all Jewish people (and increasingly, onlycertain kinds of Jewsto boot).

Shire gives the impression that she hasnt sat down to consider how Palestinian womens rights, in Israel and in the occupied territories, are systematically affected by Israels very raison dtre. (The fact that they are also trampled within Palestinian society does not absolve Israel of responsibility). Instead she insists on Israels right to exist as a Jewish state. But if onedoes not define what that should mean for Palestinians, oneis evading the core issue. So far, it has de facto meant Israel has had the right to exist as a system of supremacy of one group over another.

Palestinian students chant slogans during a rally to show solidarity with Palestinians clashing with the Israeli troops in the West Bank and Jerusalem, in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, October 14, 2015. (Abed Rahim Khatib /Flash90)

I also support the right of Jews to self-determination. But as a Jewish ethno-nationalist state, Israel cannot uphold equal rights. That is a fact. So the question then, is, can a Jewish state exist that doesnt systematically violate basic human rights?

Im not sure. With the right intentions, probably. Its a worthy and challenging question one that American and Israeli Jews were grappling with to an extent during the period surrounding Israels establishment. What should a Jewish state look like? How can it function as a democracy?

This is an important debate about nationalism and civic democracy, but it is primarily an intra-Jewish issue and has nothing to do with the current wave of feminism in the U.S. It is not the job of Palestinian-American feminist Linda Sarsourto make Zionist women feel more comfortable about the contradictions they are facing. If anything, considering Israels track record, it is up to Zionist women to take efforts to assure non-Zionist feminists of their commitment to equal rights.

All forms of violence and oppression against women should be opposed. The International Womens Strike platform could have mentioned all forms of oppression against women not just Israel; that only Israel was mentioned is part of the zeitgeist. It cannot be seen in isolation from the context in which Israel oversees the longest-standing military occupation in modern history, while simultaneously being thelargest beneficiary of U.S. foreign aid, acting with near total impunity and with no end in sight.

Linda Sarsour speaks at a panel on Islamophobia at the Festival of Faiths, Louisville, United States, May 19, 2016.

As an Israeli Jew who actively opposes Israels system of rule and supports Palestinian human rights, I may not agree with every tactic employed by the Palestinian resistance movement. But who am I to tell them how to resist their own oppression? As Linda Sarsour said in her interview inThe Nationresponding to Shires piece feminism is a movement and BDS is a tactic. If you dont support BDS, you can choose to not take part in it, but proactively opposing BDS because it is an alienating tactic for a Zionist is misguided.

In the age of Trump, in which the current feminist forces are operating, many liberal American Jews are finding themselves increasingly pushed into a corner, forced to choose between their liberalism and their support for Israel; between the motto never again to Jews and never again to anyone.

Jews, of course, have the right to equality, self-determination and dignity, like all other human beings. No one in the feminist movement has denied this. But as long as Israel, in its current construction, continues to be a fundamentally un-progressive entity that is incompatible with equality, Zionists in the feminist camp are going to continue to feel rightly uncomfortable.

A longer version of this article first appeared on March 19, 2017 in Haaretz.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

More here:

The question isn't whether feminism has room for Zionism - +972 Magazine

Its beingblamed in some quartersfor the slow pace of socio-economic transformation inAfricas biggest economy.

As respected commentator Barney Mthombothi provocativelyasked: Worlds best constitution, you say? Pity people cant eat it...

Not even 48 hours later, and with exquisite timing, the Constitutional Court provided at least one of the many available answers when itdemandedthat the Minister for Social Development, Bathabile Dlamini, and one of her most senior officials, file affidavits by 3pm that very afternoon. The court instructed them to explain why they had failed to respect deadlines it had set in a case concerning welfare grants toaround 17 millionof the countrys poorest people.

Later that day, at exactly 11 minutes past the appointed hour, attorneys representing the minister were seenrunning into the court. The powerful symbolism of representatives of the executive branch of government scurrying to respect the highest court of the land and, thereby, the rule of law should not be ignored. It provides ample evidence that judicial independence is a strong suit in an otherwise rapidly-depreciating hand.

The grant payments case

The details of the welfare payments concern the governance of the welfare state that South Africas ruling African National Congress (ANC) has built up over the past two decades. Its a remarkable achievement, and one that has helped secure the ANCs electoral prowess in winning five national elections in a row since 1994 never with less than 62% of the popular vote.

With an unemployment rate (under the wider definition)of 35%and sluggish economic growth, the social security safety net is vital for preserving social stability and protecting a large segment of the population from destitution.

Yet it has been thrown into jeopardy by the apparent pig-headedness of a minister who is politically protected because of her position aspresident of the ANC Womens League. The league is not only an ardent and loyal supporter of South Africas beleaguered president but an influential part of the electoral college that will decide who will succeed Jacob Zuma in December.

The government agency responsible for social security payments the South African Social Security (SASSA) is a part of Dlaminis department. Several years ago it contracted unlawfully said the Constitutional Court in 2013 the task of administering the welfare payments to a private company,Cash Paymaster Services (CPS). The ruling prompted inevitable and understandable suspicion that corruption lies behind the crisis.

The Constitutional Courthad orderedthat the contract should be re-tendered in line with public finance management law by 1 April 2017. For almost a year Dlamini dragged her feet, apparently determined to manufacture a crisis that would give the government and the court no choice but accept an extension of the CPS contract or risk millions of welfare beneficiaries not getting their social security payments on time.

This week the Constitutional Court has once again being asked to play a supervisory role, in ensuring that the government does what it is required to do in service of its people and in accordance with its constitutional obligations. Itruledthat the CPS contract be extended for 12 months, but with strict conditions.

The court also said Dlamini had until March 31 to show why she should not pay the costs of the application from her own pocket.

This is just one of a legion of cases in which the Court has stepped in to protect vulnerable people and to perform what former deputy chiefJustice Dikgang Mosenekecalls itstransformative role.

The Constitutional Court and social justice

In the early 2000s the courtendedthe Mbeki administrations irrational approach to HIV-AIDS treatment. The ruling is regarded as an extraordinary, path-breaking case study in how to advance socioeconomic justice through law by legal academics around the world.

In theGrootboomcase the court found that the governments lack of emergency shelter programme for homeless people caught in the face of a nasty Cape winter was also unreasonable. Since then every sphere of government has a Grootboom line item in its annual budget. Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people have been given safe haven as a result.

Through various cases the countrys legal order and its statute book has been rewritten over the past 20 years. It is unrecognisable from the dark days of apartheid.

Lawson Naidoo, the director of theCouncil for the Advancement of the South African Constitutionargues that South Africas constitution is at the heart of all this change because it sets the parameters and guides the path towards a better, more equal, as well as free and open society.

Why, then, is South Africas constitution, which turned 21 last month, coming under attack and who is it that is leading the charge?

What lies behind the attacks

The two parts of the question are important because they are interdependent.

Some members of the student protest movement have asserted that the constitution is a neo-colonial construct imposed on South Africa. Other nationalists, such as Mzwanele Jimmy Manyi, a prolific defender of Zuma and member of the leadership of the Black Business Council, haveattackedthe Constitution for being anti-transformation.

The Constitutional settlement of the mid-1990s is widely recognised as being the product of political struggle but also political compromise.

For some, the implication here is that the compromise has tied the hands of the democratic post-1994 government, constraining it from pursuing a more radical approach to transforming society and the economy.

The first difficulty with this contention is that the final constitution was written after the founding democratic election in 1994 by a democratically elected Constitutional Assembly in the following two years.

The second is that this constitution-writing process was accompanied by a remarkably extensive and expensive exercise inpublic participation. Because of this the legitimacy of the constitution itself was, until recently, not seriously questioned.

So the test for any critic of the constitution is surely this: how exactly has the constitution prevented the government from doing more? And precisely which provision has been a constraint and why?

Take land reform, an increasingly important as well as emotive part of the political landscape in South Africa. Constitutional critics regularly insist that section 25 of the constitution imposes a willing buyer, willing seller obligation.

In fact, it does no such thing. On the contrary, it provides a framework for government-led expropriation for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to compensation determined on a just and equitable basis.

Section 25 has also provided important protection for tenants and those living in informal settlements against harsh treatment or arbitrary eviction by landlords.

Victim of the zeitgeist

Its important to note that, in general, most of the attacks on the constitution come from the populist, nationalist rightwing faction of the ANC, not from progressive forces inside and outside the ruling party. For those who are intent on capturing the state as quickly as possible, the constitution simply gets in the way. For them it is an inconvenience that inhibits the prosecution of their own venal interests, not a strategic asset for the country.

In other words, the Constitution is an unavoidable victim of the political zeitgeist. Its therefore potentially collateral damage to vicious power struggles currently consuming both the ANC and the government.

However, this analysis is not to deny that the Constitution is, and should be, a site of authentic contestation. Did we talk enough about land? Moseneke asked law students at the University of Cape Town last week. No. But we reached a starting point compromise in section 25. We cant have millions of South Africans as unlawful occupiers of the land of their birth.

A constitution should have a dynamic quality; it is not a tablet of stone. So serious argument and debate about amendment is appropriate and necessary to sustain its legitimacy and ward off populist scapegoating.

Of course you cant eat a constitution. But, as time and again South Africas constitution has proved - not least this week with the SASSA judgment it can help ensure that the poorest citizens can eat. Moreover, and perhaps even more importantly, it can ensure that their government does not lose sight of their everyday needs and its responsibility to serve them.

Richard Calland: Associate Professor in Public Law, University of Cape Town

This article was first published in The Conversation

View post:

Why South Africa's Constitution is under attack - Times LIVE