What seems to be the trouble here? The bill in question is not that controversial, it basically says that the Arizona Congress agrees with Israel's decision to defend itself from attack. This apparently bothers Mr. Schivone and he goes after "liberals" and American Jews:
"The majority of Jewish-American groups, especially in Arizona, for example, passionately supportmigrant rights and immigration reform, defend outlawed Mexican-American Studies programs, and rail at the thousands of migrant deaths in the US/Mexico desert borderlands resulting from the 20-year US militarization of its southern border."And why is this a bad thing?
"So for whom is this bill written? Who are the authors fooling? If anything, the bill is a political liability for a prominent array of Israel's American supporters whose unshakable support for Israeli policies--in light of the AZ-Israel bill--now appears irreconcilably rightwing to their cherished Latino allies, particularly in Arizona."First of all, I'm not sure at which point these "Latino allies" started caring about what Israel did or did not do to deal with Palestinian terrorists. I'm sure Mr. Schivone feels comfortable speaking for them, but considering his aforementioned membership in SJP, I think this is more likely classic Palestinian supporter narcissism. Regardless, I still am not seeing exactly what the issue is with the bill for us normal Americans who don't have a problem with Israel defending itself from attack. Fortunately, Mr. Schivone is ready to explain:
"In other words, this bill forces one of the most powerful US-based Israel constituencies to have a lot of explaining to do. They'll likely have to exert significant time and energy trying to convince Latino allies that Israeli anti-immigrant and border militarization policies are justified against migrants and Palestinians by Israel because those migrant and border issues are indescribably different than those in Arizona."What? Um, it's not hard to explain at all. America and Israel are two different countries. America has more than 30 times the population of Israel and actively seeks immigration. Israel cannot absorb the immigrants that America can, as other countries Israel's size are finding out right now to their detriment. Mexicans and Palestinians are two different populations as well. Mexicans enter America in search of a better life and more money. Palestinians enter Israel maybe for those reasons as well, but more likely so they can kill Jews living there.
Perhaps if Mexicans had declared eternal war (violent and demographic) against America Mr. Schivone could make this comparison, but as it stands it simply sounds like he just doesn't know what he's talking about. In fact this seems to be reinforced by his next paragraph:
"The argument is a Catch-22 loss. Because whichever way one may try to spin it, the AZ-Israel bill runs contrary to migrant and Palestinian rights."To coin a phrase, human rights language is the last refuge of a scoundrel. What does "migrant rights" mean? I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Schivone believes that every Mexican who wants to has a "right" to enter America legally or otherwise. And for that matter, I'd love to know what he means by "Palestinian rights." Do Palestinians have the "right" to blow up Israeli buses and stab Israeli children now? Maybe an SJPer is the wrong person to ask about that, but I can't see any other interpretations to his comment. How is Israel stopping unauthorized entry into their sovereign country a violation of "Palestinian rights?"
"American liberals now face uneasy questions. The challenge now will be to apply standards equally across the board--across borders and states where situations may be different in the details but fundamental human rights issues remain stubborn and constant."That basically says it all. "Sure these situations are nothing apart, but I'm going to conflate them because they satisfy both of my agendas." America and Mexico are fundamentally different (and likely always will be) than Israel and the Palestinians. Notably, they haven't been fighting for 90 years. And of course, a Palestinian supporter lecturing about human rights is as ironic as ever.
There's no Catch-22 at all, only a student activist who has no idea what he is saying. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but this article is so light on simple logic I don't know what else to include.