A defense of ‘respectful separation’ from 1955 and today

Israel/Palestine
on 5 Comments

Consider this a sequel to the post “A defense of ‘Separate but Equal’ from 1950 and today.”

Mira Sucharov writing for Open Zion:

The agunah metaphor to which Jerry Haber likens the conflict—the Palestinians as a wife forever chained to a husband who refuses to grant her a Jewish divorce—is actually more apt for liberal Zionism than it is for BDS. It is leftist-Zionist Amos Oz who has long called the two-state solution a much-needed “divorce.” But in the world according to BDS, the husband is not only being asked to grant the divorce, he is also being asked to remarry the estranged wife—and change his sexual orientation.

In the Venn diagram of where the region sits today, it is not difficult to see where the overlap lies. It lies in respectful separation—not in an endless remarriage where core collective identities will be forever challenged. It lies in a two-state solution where the branches of each side’s subjectivity can grow and be nurtured—rather than be forever clipped by the Bonzai-sheers of existence under perpetual mutual siege.

From Emmett Till and the Mississippi Press (p. 110) on responses to the verdict which found Emmett Till’s killers innocent:

Across the state, a straight shot east from Natchez, editors at the Laurel Leader-Call also invoked segregation, but not as a comparative judicial calculus: “We hear a lot of talk about preserving our ‘way of life’ in the south. By this most of us mean a segregated society, for the ‘way of life’ that has been the southern pattern is a thing of the past, but a segregated society can and should be preserved.” Adopting the posture of white paternalism, the Leader-Call looked to the short term future: “We think that, as time passes and the colored people become more aware of what integrity of race means and pride in their tradition and in their people, they’ll want segregation too.” Brown [vs the Board of Education] would be rendered largely meaningless since both races would voluntarily choose to remain separate. But the Brown decision was not the impetus for the Leader-Call‘s editorial, not was it brought into a faulty comparison, as it was in the Natchez Democrat; rather both “the trial at Sumner” and the “incident” at Brookhaven suggested to the Leader-Call‘s editors that a peaceful future between the races required a respectful separation.

    Leave a Reply