In his opinion column entitled, “In favouring Israel, Trump puts it at risk” Toronto Star foreign affairs columnist Tony Burman expresses some extreme and unsupportable opinions while also misstating critical facts. While columnists are entitled to their opinions, re-writing reality is a simply a betrayal.
Israeli ‘apartheid’
Burman flatly states:
The world didn’t allow an apartheid South Africa to survive in the final decades of the 20th century…nor will an apartheid Israel be allowed to endure in the 21st century.
Israel is not an apartheid state. Period.
Like any diverse, democratic nation (including Canada) Israel sometimes contends with issues of racial tension (in both directions). Yet (also like Canada) Israel demonstrates a great deal of peaceful and engaged co-existence as well.
However, with respect to the very definition of “apartheid” there is only one thing that matters: under Israeli law all citizens are equal.
This fundamental principle is reflected in Israel’s Declaration of Independence which states:
The State of Israel will . . . ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or gender. . .
And it shows: In reality, Arabs attend the same universities as every other ethnicity in Israel, and work in every conceivable field, including law, medicine, hi-tech companies, even sports and fashion modeling. Israel currently has two Arab Supreme Court Justices (actually an increase from time we made this video) and 17 Arab Members of Knesset, in addition to a numerous local officials.
Residents not citizens
Burman claims:
With a population of 860,000, 37 per cent [of Jerusalem’s residents] are Palestinians, but they are defined as “residents” not “citizens” by the Israeli government.
What Burman hides from the reader is that Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are indeed entitled to citizenship, yet in the past most Palestinians chose to forgo that right, because becoming a citizen would implicitly mean giving up the illusion of Israel as the “enemy.” Yet even that practice is already changing, with increasing numbers of Palestinians choosing to become citizens and fully enter Israeli society.
Occupied “East Jerusalem”
Burman states that:
Most of the world considers East Jerusalem as Israeli-occupied territory….Israel has built a dozen settlements in East Jerusalem, now home to about 200,000 Jews. They are considered illegal under international law.
That is untrue.
International academics hotly debate this topic, and there are indeed highly regarded scholars and judges who take the position that no part of Jerusalem is “occupied” under international law, and that settlements are not illegal. This essay gives a good overview.
Yet ultimately, such a judgment is made not by scholars nor by nations, nor “even” by journalists. Legality is determined by a court with appropriate jurisdiction over the matter. As no court has ever issued such a ruling, Burman’s claim that settlements are “illegal under international law” is quite simply incorrect.
As an aside, Burman neglects the context that east Jerusalem includes the Old City with its ancient Jewish Quarter, as well as the famous Western Wall and the holiest site in Judaism: the Temple Mount.
Though east Jerusalem has many Palestinian residents, it is hardly the exclusively Palestinian enclave that Burman would have his readers believe.
Veto power for violence
Should the United States, or any country for that matter, give veto power over its foreign policy to anyone in the world who threatens violence?
Burman seems to think so:
…[recognizing Jerusalem] foreshadows a dangerous new phase in the conflict that will encourage extremists on both sides to reach for the gun and engulf the region in violence.
So far, the violence, thankfully, has not been “engulfing” as Burman dramatically predicts. Yet even if a risk of violence exists, the United States, has never allowed those who threaten violence to dictate its foreign policy. (I discussed this topic in greater detail.)
Why does The Star tolerate this?
The Star’s Code of Ethics states:
Good faith with the reader is the foundation of ethical and excellent journalism. That good faith rests primarily on the reader’s confidence that what we print is true. Every effort must be made to ensure that everything published in the Star is accurate, presented in context, and that all sides are presented fairly.
Burman is entitled to his opinions. But if his views are so divorced from reality that he must change facts, then he has blatantly violated the Star’s ethical code, as well as the trust of The Star’s readers.
All of which raises the question: Why does The Star tolerate reality-bending articles like this?
Share your considered comments with The Toronto Star at [email protected]
