Boycotting Shimon Peres' funeral was a serious political mistake
Photo: Reuters
Arab MKs breaking the rules of the game
Op-ed: Participating in Shimon Peres’s funeral is not a show of support for the private person, but for his official position; it is no different from Knesset members pledging allegiance to the State of Israel and its laws.
Is criticizing “the other” necessarily a patronizing and arrogant attempt to impose on him a world view that oppresses him? There is no doubt that criticizing groups which have been pushed to the margins of society often appears as an attempt by powerful people to turn their way into the highway, not just politically (the majority rules) but also morally (the majority is right and rational).
This issue sparked a public debate in recent days after MKs from the Joint List decided to boycott former President Shimon Peres’ funeral. Peres, the decision’s defenders said, is not the Palestinians’ hero. Respect the decision. Your criticism stems from the belief that you know better than they do how to be “good Palestinians.”
Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh. In the eyes of many, the party's purism is not perceived as a rejection of Shimon Peres the person but as a rejection of the collective (Photo: Gil Yohanan)
Before addressing the Joint List members’ decision, let’s consider this line of defense for a minute. It doesn’t mean respecting “the other,” but seeing “the other” as an alien. Whoever is not part of the group is incapable, according to this perception, of understanding members of other groups. He must accept all the actions committed by the oppressed in the name of his many (and often justified) pains.
I believe this way leads to social disintegration rather than solidarity. In its radical form, it prevents a social debate. I believe that a secular person, for example, is allowed to criticize the ultra-Orthodox even though he will never “understand” the Haredi world as a person living within it does. It’s possible that an ultra-Orthodox person views discrimination against women as a natural (or supernatural) thing. It’s possible that an ultra-Orthodox person senses ridicule and insensitivity towards him and his way. It’s possible. Nonetheless, one cannot argue that a secular person is not entitled to criticize the exclusion of women because he is motivated, by virtue of the definition, by arrogance.
The public domain is the place where the shared rules of the game and the shared values are discussed. These values are always relative and context-related. Moreover, the public debate is not aimed at telling people what to think: It is aimed at determining a legitimate way of action. No one has the right to tell me which god I should believe in, but it is a society’s right and duty to define what constitutes legitimate conduct (in its own eyes).
Clearly, those belonging to the majority group should ask themselves whether their criticism is not motivated by an interest. It is easy to confuse one’s subjective truth with the objective truth. But if we do not believe that criticism can be legitimate, we will each shut ourselves in our ghettos and refuse to accept responsibility. Because the dark side of silencing criticism of “the other” in the name of the misunderstanding principle (we will never be able to truly understand him) is that the strong group will argue there is no point in persuasion, as a person who is not like us is incapable of understanding anyway. When there is a total misunderstanding, there are no arguments. Power decides.
To the case in question, no one thinks that the response to Peres and his life’s work should be homogenous. I, for one, was not among his fans, not necessarily for the reasons presented by Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh, but for reasons that have not even been raised in the public debate. My main problem with Peres was not that he was right-wing or left-wing (he was, like many other people, both) or his practicality or his tendency to fantasize (he had both), but his political conduct.
Peres made a great contribution to the Labor Party’s destruction and largely helped turn the political game in Israel into cynical musical chairs. But Peres was not a private person. He was Israel’s prime minister and president. His funeral is an official event, and participating in it is not a show of support for the person but for the position.
If I were an MK, I would attend the funeral regardless of my opinions. Such participation is essentially no different from MKs pledging allegiance to the State of Israel and its laws, even if not all laws are good. MKs pledge because they are expressing their allegiance to the state as a principle, not to each and every aspect of it. They draw their power from the state.
In the eyes of many, the Joint List members’ purism is not perceived as a rejection of Shimon Peres the person but as a rejection of the collective. This is a serious political mistake. There, I said it.
