Friday, April 30, 2010

Being a Zionist invalidates your opinion about the use of the hiyab, according to María Antonia Iglesias.

One of the most prolific journalists, opinion makers, polemicists and left-wingers in Spain is María Antonia Iglesias, who often appears in television debates. On Saturday, April 24, 2010, she appeared in La Noria, a TV programme broadcasted by Spanish channel Telecinco. The programme usually focuses on matters pertaining to the private and public lives of famous people, but it also has a space for political debates.

Recently, Najwa Malha, a muslim girl living in Spain, was banned from attending high school wearing a hiyab. Her case, along with French and Belgian propositions to ban the burka, has resurrected the debate on the Islamic veil in Spain, which has been responded by La Noria with its own debate on the matter.

Among the debaters were two well know left-wingers: Pilar Rahola and María Antonia Iglesias (the aforementioned one). Both of them showed two different views: Pilar Rahola criticized the use of the Islamic veil and María Antonia Iglesias defended it. During the debate, Iglesias said about Rahola's position on the matter (translation between quotation marks, as accurate as possible):

"It would be very believable (and excuse this personal allusion, but the public has to know certain things) if you were not a convinced Zionist, a pro-Jewish militant."

Rahola's reaction (which didn't consist on denying her stance as a Zionist, which is well known) encountered this response by Iglesias, which was repeated four times: "What do you mean, you're not?" Then, Iglesias stated: "Of course the worst, those who practice military terrorism against the Palestinian people."

Seconds later, and trying to interrupt Rahola's statements: "You defend Israel's positions, they're military terrorists." Later, about Rahola's stance as a pro-Israeli activist: "... a purely ideological interpretation..., which I respect, but the people must know what to take into account, and why are you defending that position."

This was part of Rahola's response: "You have no fucking idea, María Antonia, no fucking idea!" Surprisingly for me, Rahola's statement encountered an effusive response by the public, which was followed by Iglesias' questions regarding Rahola's position about Israel and the Middle East. Rahola's answer was: "I'm in favour of peace... but today is not the debate [about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]".

Then, she was replied by Iglesias with this statement (please pay attention): "Yes, of course, Jews' peace."

Should the debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be confused with that about the use of the Islamic veil? Why is not a Zionist perfectly able to judge about the Islamic veil? If Rahola had declared that a defender of the Palestinian cause is not able to debate about the issue, what would be Iglesias' response?

You can watch the video here (in Spanish).

14 comments:

  1. The spectacle these two so-called journalists gave on this trashy television channel was shameful, disrespectful, immature and intended for a disrespecful, immature and illiterate audience only interested in morbid spectacle. I really do not think they represent in any way the Spanish idiosincrasy or way of seeing things, or our way of expressing opinions.

    I cannot feel any sympathy for two persons who base their arguments on insults, personal accusations and mainly shouting. Maria Antonia Iglesias was definitely incorrect, quite disoriented, stupidly offensive to the Jews and Judaism and very inappropriate in her discourse. She completely lost the ability to argument against Rahola.

    However, Rahola's response did not show better manners at all or even less better arguments. Her opinion is always based on vague words and general terms filled with personal valorations always demonizing a certain group and defending another, i.e. she says she is "for peace", but a very personal (and realistically unattainable) peace that never ever condemns the settlements, wants an only Jewish Jerusalem (with the consequences this have for an already demographically divided city), supports the use of illegal weapons against terrorists, etc...

    As I said, they're not good representatives of the ongoing discussions about the conflict in Spain, and not good representatives of any of the parties in the Middle East conflict at all. Just cheap shitty television.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rahola's position about Israel is not the matter here. The matter is: why being a Zionist invalidates your opinion about the use of the hiyab or the burka? If Rahola had declared that a defender of the Palestinian cause is not able to debate about the issue, what would be Iglesias' response?

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, allow me to correct you. The matter here is the Spanish attitude in reference to Israel and the Jews, thus the title of your blog and its publishing in English (to an international audience). As I said, none of the two women of this post are representatives of our way of seeing things, or the ongoing discussion about the topic in Spain. To me, Iglesias's opinion is completely irrelevant, as for most Spanish serious Political thinkers and analysts. Why do you pay so much attention to her?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What María Antonia Iglesias said that night is thought by many people in this country. There are many people who think that being a Zionist is comparable with being a nazi and an Islamophobe.
    If Iglesias said what she said, was because she knew Spanish opinion about Israel and Zionism; and that's the matter. Why being a Zionist invalidates your opinion about the hiyab, an Islamic symbol?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok, let's see. Being a Zionist the way some people present Zionism is definitely racist and Islamophobic (I'm thinking about Kahanism, for example). However, there are many different sensibilities within Zionism. The thing is, if the only voice speaking in favour of Israel and in favour of Zionism is the voice of the Kahanists and their friends, uninformed general opinion will understand that Judaism, Israel and Zionism are equated to Kahanism. That is why insist on you to give voice to other voices from Israel that are part of it and also "support" Israel.

    On the other hand, please do not give more publicity to these two women, who are not even able to argument in front of an audience. Iglesias's response was immature, stupid and completely out of the blue (as you correctly state it had nothing to do with the topic in discussion). I thing there were many things that could have been said to P. Rahola about her usually hypocritical discourse about the topic(if you want we can go into that), but not the s**t Iglesias brought up, which turned the supposedly serious discussion into shouts between two impolite, hysterical and uneducated women to an audience of the same kind (which by the way showed support clapping to Rahola and her "you don't have a fucking idea", not to Iglesias and her antisemitic argument).

    ReplyDelete
  6. I never gave voice to Kahanists, Judah. I always considered Kach and Kachane Chai terrorist organizations, as the Israeli authorities do.

    I repeat that my intention here was to denounce those Iglesias' statements which I reproduced in the article. As I wrote before:
    "Should the debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be confused with that about the use of the Islamic veil? Why is not a Zionist perfectly able to judge about the Islamic veil? If Rahola had declared that a defender of the Palestinian cause is not able to debate about the issue, what would be Iglesias' response?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I never gave voice to Kahanists, Judah. I always considered Kach and Kachane Chai terrorist organizations, as the Israeli authorities do."

    I never said you gave voice to Kahanists, I said Kahanism is also part of Zionism and it IS racist and nazi-like in its ideology and its methods. Furthermore, it is currently present in the Israeli government through Yisrael Beitenu and its ignominious leader. You seem to have forgotten this when you say Zionism can never be racist.

    I repeat that my intention here was to denounce those Iglesias' statements which I reproduced in the article. As I wrote before:
    "Should the debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be confused with that about the use of the Islamic veil? Why is not a Zionist perfectly able to judge about the Islamic veil? If Rahola had declared that a defender of the Palestinian cause is not able to debate about the issue, what would be Iglesias' response?"

    Yeah, I understand your point. My point was, however, that their opinion is irrelevant to any sane and serious person that cares about the subject, and this includes you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the other hand, you only focused on the eccentricities of one of the participants. How about Rahola's declarations against the Hijab. Could this exaggeration and demonization of the Islamic veil, and the support to its prohibition in schools be considered as Islamophobe? Not even by regular muslims who see their religious faith criminalized and reduced to a generalization of bad stereotypes like women's brutalization, sympathy for terrorism or even homophobia? Would you consider a similar discourse valid for the kippá?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kahanism is not present in the Israeli Government through Yisra'el Beiteinu. Kahanism is a religious ideology, while Yisra'el Beiteinu supports easing conversions and secular marriage.
    And I never said Zionism never can be racist, I said that not necessarily it's a racist ideology, but those who criticize Israel always portray it as necessarily racist.

    I don't care about what they think about the hiyab and why, and I didn't want to debate about its use here. What upsets me is Iglesias' statements.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, you know of course that Lieberman had a past as a sympathiser of Kach. I cannot even understand why you try to defend such a political party when everyone in Israel knows they are the modern version of Kach. You also know of the racist and extreme right-wing ideology of Yisrael Beitenu that even wanted to ban Arab political parties from the Knesset (with the support of Likud and Kadima, by the way). The fact that they support secular marriage is not more than a mere anecdote in their political agenda. Because, as I told you before, extreme conservatism is not so much linked to religion any more, and most right-wing Zionists are agnostics or even atheists.

    Therefore, Zionism, understood as the ideology that supports Israel as a Jewish state and completely forgets (and even wants to wipe off) the fact that Palestinian Arabs lived there before Jews is definitely racist. Unfortunately, this is not the Zionism most Israelis and Jews support, but the one shared by most Knesset members.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not trying to defend Yisra'el Beiteinu. I'm not trying to contradict the fact that Yisra'el Beiteinu is a right-wing party. I'm just trying to tell that being a right-winger doesn't necessarily mean being favourable to theocracy.
    And Zionism doesn't forget the fact that Arabs were present in Palestine, and isn't intended to wipe those Arabs off the map. Please remember that Zionism has allowed Arabs to take part in the Jewish State, and even has tried to achieve a two-State solution before.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, Israeli Government's intention of wiping Arabs off the Knesset was published in Spain. What wasn't told is that Israel's Supreme Court sentenced against that decision... and that one of Avigdor Lieberman's bodyguards is an Arab.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please read correctly what I stated: "Zionism, understood as the ideology that supports Israel as a Jewish state and completely forgets (and even wants to wipe off) the fact that Palestinian Arabs lived there before Jews is definitely racist. Unfortunately, this is not the Zionism most Israelis and Jews support, but the one shared by most Knesset members."

    I am saying this certain conception of Zionism (which understands what I stated) is definitely racist even though it is not the only conception of Zionism. I think I told you before about this but you don't seem to get my point at all.

    What do you mean it was published in Spain? Does that take out any reality of it?

    I read it in Haaretz, by the way: http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-bans-arab-parties-from-running-in-upcoming-elections-1.267987.

    The fact that the Israeli Court ruled against that does not contradict what I state: There is right-wing Zionism which is racist and ressembles nazism in its ways and ideology and it is currently represented in the Israeli government.

    Lieberman's Arab bodyguard's story is a mere anecdote. Some few Jews worked with the SS during the Nazi period, and that does not dispute the fact that the SS were the most anti-semitic body that has ever been created.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What I tried to tell you is what I wrote: Spanish media published Olmert's intention of banning the Arab political parties, but Supreme Court's ruling against Olmert's decision was not published in the same extent.

    Nazism promoted extermination. I didn't see any Israeli politician (I mean, in the current cabinet) talking about exterminating Palestinians and taking steps to implement such a policy.

    ReplyDelete