The politics of tolerance - Israel and Palestine

Palestinians, a minority, are not tolerated. The Israeli West Bank barrier is a testimony to this. Also known as an "anti-sniper wall", it separates Palestinians in such a way that many have drawn parallels with the apartheid in South Africa. But Professor Makdisi suggests that this apartheid is much more sinister. "The Israeli apartheid is about the irrelevance, the removal and the erasure of the Palestinians."

If Palestinians in the West Bank want to visit the museum, once construction is complete, they would have to pass through numerous check points and obtain permits to enter Israel. Even then, it would be a formidable venture at best.

The museum's claim that it is a centre of human dignity is undermined by this process which involves a compromise of self-esteem and self-respect. Although it is safe to assume that visiting the tolerance museum would not be high on Palestinians’ bucket list.

Antony Loewenstein, a Sydney-based journalist and author of My Israeli Question, said that the issue of tolerance and understanding was central to resolution of the Israel and Palestine conflict, but it isn't enough. “There are two fundamentally unequal sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, and one, the Palestinians, are under occupation” and “there can be little real change on the ground, where it matters, until Israel ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Maybe then, tolerance (or more ideally, acceptance) could lead to reconciliation”.

Loewenstein said tolerance was not the ideal outcome and that acceptance was a more sincere approach to reconciliation.

To tolerate someone is to grant them freedom to do what you disapprove of. In more general terms, tolerance is used to describe an onerous task of having to put up with something or someone.

Therefore, toleration is not a step closer to reconciliation. Nor does it promote understanding of diversity and, or, acceptance.

Singing from the same song sheet as Loewenstein, Laurie Ferguson, Australian Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, agrees that “acceptance” is the way to go.

"Acceptance is a better outcome to pursue than tolerance. Acceptance implies mutual respect and recognition between people and their causes. It affords the generosity needed to understand and draw on the strengths of different interests and perspectives" said Laurie Ferguson, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services.

Recent questions about racism in Australia seem all too miniscule in the face of what is happening globally. Ferguson suggests that "tolerance is subject to interpretation and can be seen as enduring or suffering through difference". Endurance and suffering is a prevalent feature in the diverse Australian narrative. Typically, fear of the unknown is a common theme of these narratives.

Although the residual effects of the Howard government reveals a different story, Australia is, to a viable extent, a politically tolerant country. And we don't have to compare ourselves to the Israel and Palestine conflict to know this.

The term tolerance is pernicious meme because it insinuates that tolerance is an achievement rather than a bare minimum requirement in a global society. Ferguson offers hope in his view that "Australia’s diversity is a significant asset to be embraced and celebrated, not simply tolerated".

Often, tolerance requires a certain amount of sacrifice and change with the will to achieve it. The Jewish narrative in Israel leaves no room for competing narratives.

The Palestinian narrative is being eclipsed by its lack of power and resources. Thus diminishing their capacity to express their narrative.

In this situation, like in many, tolerance gets in the way of personal interest. And this is predominantly why acceptance of others is such a difficult task.