A Very Wrong "Raday Right"

Did you read this?

Although Finance Committee Chairman Moshe Gafni (United Torah Judaism ) expressed support for the legislation [35% tax credits for donations up to 2 million NIS for "settling the land" enterprises], he acknowledged that he recently received a legal opinion from Hebrew University legal scholar Frances Raday, who urged that it not be put to a vote as long as the bill did not exclude the West Bank from the tax credits, saying that providing the tax credits in support of West Bank settlement activity would be contrary to international law.  Gafni said, however, that the concerns were not relevant, and donations for all settlement were entitled to tax breaks.

Source


As for Professor Raday, she has much feminist legal experience.  She's even on the outstanding human rights body, the UN Human Rights Council.  And is a Member, International Council, New Israel Fund and has spoken out in defense of Israel's democracy.

But it's a critical defense, one that feeds Beinartism:

The recognition of a Palestinian state is as important to Israel as to the Palestinians. For Israel to continue to function as a democratic and Jewish state, it must bring about a symmetrical right of self-determination for the Palestinians.

She has written another article that presents the

"structuring a basic analytical framework, incorporating both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, and will try to show the symmetries and asymmetries between them. This involves discussion of the rights of two peoples to self-determination and the means by which such parallel rights can be implemented. It also involves discussing differences in the means of implementation of the right to self-determination for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and minority rights for Palestinian-Israelis living in Israel within the 1948 Armistice Lines."

And she goes further:

Israel's character as a state for self-determination of the Jewish people was only expressed in the General Assembly partition plan, whose intention was to create a Jewish state alongside an Arab state.

And by the way, she uses the "disease" metaphor, a big no-no in liberal circles:

"There is an abundance of tools in jurisprudence to oppose discrimination of women; the problem is that people are dealing with symptoms, and not the disease," said Raday

But to return: that proposition "only expressed" - only - is anti-Zionist, seeks to freeze Israel as a 1948 creation - one that makes Israel dependent on UN recognition (rather than the other way around: the UN acknowledged the historic, legal, cultural, religious and natural right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish national home in the area the nations of the world termed "Palestine", a right awarded by international law bodies from Balfour to Versailles, from San Remo to the League of Nations) and attempts to Siamese-twin Israel to "Palestine" in the Beinartism-model.

There is no symmetry.

Note that Jews will have no minority rights in "Palestine" which means she seems to support the proposed apartheid Arab regime that exliudes Jews from achieveing residency rights therein.  Could there be Jewish-Palestinians?  I mean not theoretically but practically.

She writes there:

...the only way to create a meaningful human rights regime of self-determination for Israeli-Jews and Palestinians is by peaceful separation into two States - one for Israeli-Jews and Israeli-Palestinians, and the other for Palestinians - and by preferably ensuring cooperation between them.

In other words, what is fair - and legal - is Arabs get to live in three states there were once "Palestine", that is, Jordan, "Palestine" and Israel.  But Jews?  Only Israel.

Does that sound like a "right" to you?

It's a "Raday right", I guess.

Well, it's immoral, incorrect and just plain wrong.

^