Comments about On antisemitism within the Palestine Solidarity Movement - David Hirsh :
Marko Attila Hoare posted on September 26, 2005 at 10:29:27 AM
I entirely agree with David Hirsh's assessment: all too often, an entirely legitimate support for Palestinian rights is conflated with a racist denial of Israel's right to exist. Yet what Israel's oppression of the Palestinians shows, is not that Israel is somehow unique or different, but that, on the contrary, Israel is entirely similar to most other European nation-states. Several of the latter have, in the twentieth century, been founded or re-founded upon the dispossession of hundreds of thousands or millions of members of other nationalities - including Greece, Turkey, Poland, the Czech Republic and others. So why single out Israel as being supposedly "illegitimate" ? This can only be anti-Semitism, and an absolute hindrance to a lasting settlement based on the freedom and independence of both Israel and Palestine.
I would add, however, that Israel is not alone in being subject to this kind of demonisation. Ever since the chauvinist diatribes that Marx and Engels directed against the Slavic peoples, leftists have been all too ready to slip from moral outrage into racism against supposedly ‘counter-revolutionary nations'. Hence, the denigration of the nationhood of Kuwaitis, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovo Albanians, Iraqi Kurds and others on the part of the same left-wing elements who denigrate Israel. Anti-Zionism is, unfortunately, just the tip of a much larger left-wing racist iceberg.
I would add, however, that Israel is not alone in being subject to this kind of demonisation. Ever since the chauvinist diatribes that Marx and Engels directed against the Slavic peoples, leftists have been all too ready to slip from moral outrage into racism against supposedly ‘counter-revolutionary nations'. Hence, the denigration of the nationhood of Kuwaitis, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovo Albanians, Iraqi Kurds and others on the part of the same left-wing elements who denigrate Israel. Anti-Zionism is, unfortunately, just the tip of a much larger left-wing racist iceberg.
Paul posted on September 26, 2005 at 10:32:40 AM
Congratulations on the new site! Looks great!
This paper by David is a superb and useful overview of the important issues raised by anti-Zionism on the Left.
Particularly useful is the list of arguments put forward by anti-Zionists to explain why they single out Israel. A welcome further addition to Engage\'s growing and valuable stock of writings on anti-Zionism would be a longer discussion of each of these arguments. In particular, this one needs more attention: \"The most common reason for singling out Israel is that, as a Jewish state, [it] is by definition racist.\" Significant here is, as David points out, that \"This is not a claim about what Israel does, but an existential claim about what Israel is.\" And it is not only a common reason for singling out Israel, but also a claim that is not simple (though also not impossible) to refute.
And it\'s certainly a minefield of an issue if there ever was one. Indeed, at Engage itself, I wrote a comment in which (or so I thought) I all but conceded that it was not obviously unreasonable to consider racist both the very idea of a \"Jewish state\" and the laws and policies that are designed make this idea a reality (such as the Law of Return and Israel\'s refusal to let Palestinian refugees return to their homes). To my surprise, this drew the response from one of Engage\'s editors that \"...you don’t realise that all your talk about \'demographics\' of a \'Jewish state\' is ... implicitly racist.\"
I\'m sure there is much that I don\'t realise. I think it could be helpful, probably not only to me but also to many others, to have a clear statement of Engage\'s position (if there is one, or a discussion, if not) concerning what \"Jewish state\" means, or what (if anything) it should mean, its validity at all as an idea or a reality, and some of the related issues. It is beginning to appear to me (and this is an observation, not at all a criticism) that there are some positions or views that are thought to be \"understood\" by all who read and write at Engage, but that not all are, in fact, aware of. (For example, why a mention of demographics is considered racist, or why the spelling of \"anti-Semitism\" suggested by the OED is considered incorrect.)
For now the only other remark I would make on this excellent overview is to point out the -- surely unintentional -- implication that Israel is an illegitimate state -- David writes \"Demonization of Israel singles it out as the only illegitimate state.\" This implies that Israel is one illegitimate state among others. Surely that is not the intent.
And lastly, once again -- nice new website!
This paper by David is a superb and useful overview of the important issues raised by anti-Zionism on the Left.
Particularly useful is the list of arguments put forward by anti-Zionists to explain why they single out Israel. A welcome further addition to Engage\'s growing and valuable stock of writings on anti-Zionism would be a longer discussion of each of these arguments. In particular, this one needs more attention: \"The most common reason for singling out Israel is that, as a Jewish state, [it] is by definition racist.\" Significant here is, as David points out, that \"This is not a claim about what Israel does, but an existential claim about what Israel is.\" And it is not only a common reason for singling out Israel, but also a claim that is not simple (though also not impossible) to refute.
And it\'s certainly a minefield of an issue if there ever was one. Indeed, at Engage itself, I wrote a comment in which (or so I thought) I all but conceded that it was not obviously unreasonable to consider racist both the very idea of a \"Jewish state\" and the laws and policies that are designed make this idea a reality (such as the Law of Return and Israel\'s refusal to let Palestinian refugees return to their homes). To my surprise, this drew the response from one of Engage\'s editors that \"...you don’t realise that all your talk about \'demographics\' of a \'Jewish state\' is ... implicitly racist.\"
I\'m sure there is much that I don\'t realise. I think it could be helpful, probably not only to me but also to many others, to have a clear statement of Engage\'s position (if there is one, or a discussion, if not) concerning what \"Jewish state\" means, or what (if anything) it should mean, its validity at all as an idea or a reality, and some of the related issues. It is beginning to appear to me (and this is an observation, not at all a criticism) that there are some positions or views that are thought to be \"understood\" by all who read and write at Engage, but that not all are, in fact, aware of. (For example, why a mention of demographics is considered racist, or why the spelling of \"anti-Semitism\" suggested by the OED is considered incorrect.)
For now the only other remark I would make on this excellent overview is to point out the -- surely unintentional -- implication that Israel is an illegitimate state -- David writes \"Demonization of Israel singles it out as the only illegitimate state.\" This implies that Israel is one illegitimate state among others. Surely that is not the intent.
And lastly, once again -- nice new website!
Michael N. Ezra posted on September 28, 2005 at 01:12:29 AM
Congratulations on this site and an excellent article.
Well done, good luck and keep up the good work.
Well done, good luck and keep up the good work.
Marc G posted on September 28, 2005 at 09:03:49 AM
Michel a case can be made that there are traces of anti-Semitism in the denial of the right of the Jews to (self)-determine themselves as a nation because this explicitly means that Jews do not have the same rights as other "collectives" (a new word my vocabulary), and a by extension this implies the stereotypical idea that Jews as a group stand out as not equal, not part of Humanity.
To contest on the other hand that (1) the State of Israel is the realization of this "legitimate right of self determination" (read Zionism) and (2) that since and before its creation this state acted in all but legitimate ways, are political positions that may be right or wrong (or somewhere in between), but to label them as anti-Semitic would not be appropriate, and frankly counter-productive in a rigorous and honest debate.
As far as the debate on demographics is concerned, I too am at a loss to understand what is racist in se, in this desire to protect the Jewish character of the State of Israel. I can imagine that the some action plans in view of the realization of this objective could be construed as racist of course.
To contest on the other hand that (1) the State of Israel is the realization of this "legitimate right of self determination" (read Zionism) and (2) that since and before its creation this state acted in all but legitimate ways, are political positions that may be right or wrong (or somewhere in between), but to label them as anti-Semitic would not be appropriate, and frankly counter-productive in a rigorous and honest debate.
As far as the debate on demographics is concerned, I too am at a loss to understand what is racist in se, in this desire to protect the Jewish character of the State of Israel. I can imagine that the some action plans in view of the realization of this objective could be construed as racist of course.
Paul posted on September 28, 2005 at 04:16:06 PM
Marc,
You make some interesting points here.
With regard to your first paragraph, I largely agree with what you say. There is more to that discussion, and indeed there was a whole thread on it somewhere at the old Engage site, but I couldn\'t find it looking just now.
In your second paragraph, if I understand you correctly, you recognise the legitimacy of Jewish national aspirations, but raise the question of whether the State of Israel as it exists in reality today should be considered the desirable or valid or legitimate realisation of those (in themselves legitimate) aspirations. There is much that could be said in reply to that, both in support of the legitimacy of your question and in answering it with a case for why the State of Israel IS a desirable and valid and legitimate realisation of Jewish national aspirations (not necessarily with all of its current attributes, and certainly not with the occupied territories, but otherwise in its main form), but for now let me just reply with a counter-question: why WOULDN\'T the currently existing Israel be the legitimate realisation of those aspirations? Indeed, the mere fact of Israel\'s real existence is part (but only part) of the argument as to why it should continue to exist (this, too, was discussed in that other thread I now can\'t find).
I couldn\'t agree more with your position that it is not in itself anti-Semitic to say that Israel has acted in illegitimate ways. I\'m not sure why you make that point, but if it\'s because you happened to read someone else telling me that I was closing my eyes to Israeli wrongdoing, let me assure you that that was a grave misunderstanding of what I had said -- I raised a specific (and rather technical) question about a certain charge levelled against Israel, and unfortunately this was interpreted to mean that I refuse to admit Israel ever does anything wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I don\'t quite as loudly as others join the European chorus denouncing Israel for its sins, that may partly be because I think the chorus is already loud enough (and its motivations often suspect), not because I think all its claims are factually incorrect.
I also of course agree entirely with your third paragraph, which makes, in different words, a point I myself have made several times recently. I can only repeat that I think this is worthy of further discussion and hope that that is taken up -- I, for one, would hope to learn more about this particular area. For example, John Strawson wrote, coherently enough: \"The case of immigration/migration is of course the clearest issue where under the Law of Return 1950 Jews are able to migrate to Israel and to gain citizenship on arrival, whereas Palestinians who fled in 1948 and 1967 - or who were merely outside the country - cannot not return to what were their own homes. That does seem to me to be racist!\" I responded, in that thread and in another one here on the new site, that this position is not unreasonable on the face of it, and not easy to refute, but that, at the same time, certain actual realities, in terms of what as far as I know is called demographics, do need to obtain if Israel is to remain both Jewish and democratic. I will again clearly declare that that statement of mine is far from unproblematic and might, yes, seem (but only seem) to leave me open to the charge of racism. But I ask yet again: what then is your position, John (or anyone else), regarding the desirability of something called a Jewish state? If you support it, then what do you propose to do about the real live practical problems, such as the Palestinian refugees, that actually face the continuation of the real existing Jewish state the ground? If you believe that the Law of Return and the policy on Palestinian refugees are racist, does it not follow that you are willing accept, as the price for putting an end to that perceived racism, the end also of the democratic Jewish state? And if not, then what is your imagined scenario for how a democratic Jewish state can continue to exist for more than a couple generations thereafter, when Jews will be a minority in the population (assuming they\'ve even survived the transition from majority to minority and the loss of political power that will go with that)? I will underline that these are real questions. (And David S, hey, if you want to call me racist, I\'ll listen -- but then at least explain why you\'re saying that!).
Hoping to hear from some of you,
Michel
You make some interesting points here.
With regard to your first paragraph, I largely agree with what you say. There is more to that discussion, and indeed there was a whole thread on it somewhere at the old Engage site, but I couldn\'t find it looking just now.
In your second paragraph, if I understand you correctly, you recognise the legitimacy of Jewish national aspirations, but raise the question of whether the State of Israel as it exists in reality today should be considered the desirable or valid or legitimate realisation of those (in themselves legitimate) aspirations. There is much that could be said in reply to that, both in support of the legitimacy of your question and in answering it with a case for why the State of Israel IS a desirable and valid and legitimate realisation of Jewish national aspirations (not necessarily with all of its current attributes, and certainly not with the occupied territories, but otherwise in its main form), but for now let me just reply with a counter-question: why WOULDN\'T the currently existing Israel be the legitimate realisation of those aspirations? Indeed, the mere fact of Israel\'s real existence is part (but only part) of the argument as to why it should continue to exist (this, too, was discussed in that other thread I now can\'t find).
I couldn\'t agree more with your position that it is not in itself anti-Semitic to say that Israel has acted in illegitimate ways. I\'m not sure why you make that point, but if it\'s because you happened to read someone else telling me that I was closing my eyes to Israeli wrongdoing, let me assure you that that was a grave misunderstanding of what I had said -- I raised a specific (and rather technical) question about a certain charge levelled against Israel, and unfortunately this was interpreted to mean that I refuse to admit Israel ever does anything wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I don\'t quite as loudly as others join the European chorus denouncing Israel for its sins, that may partly be because I think the chorus is already loud enough (and its motivations often suspect), not because I think all its claims are factually incorrect.
I also of course agree entirely with your third paragraph, which makes, in different words, a point I myself have made several times recently. I can only repeat that I think this is worthy of further discussion and hope that that is taken up -- I, for one, would hope to learn more about this particular area. For example, John Strawson wrote, coherently enough: \"The case of immigration/migration is of course the clearest issue where under the Law of Return 1950 Jews are able to migrate to Israel and to gain citizenship on arrival, whereas Palestinians who fled in 1948 and 1967 - or who were merely outside the country - cannot not return to what were their own homes. That does seem to me to be racist!\" I responded, in that thread and in another one here on the new site, that this position is not unreasonable on the face of it, and not easy to refute, but that, at the same time, certain actual realities, in terms of what as far as I know is called demographics, do need to obtain if Israel is to remain both Jewish and democratic. I will again clearly declare that that statement of mine is far from unproblematic and might, yes, seem (but only seem) to leave me open to the charge of racism. But I ask yet again: what then is your position, John (or anyone else), regarding the desirability of something called a Jewish state? If you support it, then what do you propose to do about the real live practical problems, such as the Palestinian refugees, that actually face the continuation of the real existing Jewish state the ground? If you believe that the Law of Return and the policy on Palestinian refugees are racist, does it not follow that you are willing accept, as the price for putting an end to that perceived racism, the end also of the democratic Jewish state? And if not, then what is your imagined scenario for how a democratic Jewish state can continue to exist for more than a couple generations thereafter, when Jews will be a minority in the population (assuming they\'ve even survived the transition from majority to minority and the loss of political power that will go with that)? I will underline that these are real questions. (And David S, hey, if you want to call me racist, I\'ll listen -- but then at least explain why you\'re saying that!).
Hoping to hear from some of you,
Michel
Marc G posted on September 28, 2005 at 07:16:07 PM
Michel, I did not "raise the question of whether the State of Israel as it exists in reality today should be considered the desirable or valid or legitimate realization of those (in themselves legitimate) aspirations.', I merely meant to say that anybody who would raise the question, should not be labeled automatically anti-Semitic.
You also ask the question:
“why WOULDN'T the currently existing Israel be the legitimate realization of those aspirations?”
“Facts, as you know, are stronger than the lord mayor of London”. The State of Israel is the realization (mind you I’m not adding the legitimate word here) of the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people. Anybody who will deny this, is not necessarily anti-Semitic but he is denying a fact. Anybody who wants to dismantle the State of Israel must come up with a plan. How they are going to go about and dismantle the State of Israel and not be racists, is going to be tougher than to keep the Jewish character of Israel and not be racists. There you go.
You also ask the question:
“why WOULDN'T the currently existing Israel be the legitimate realization of those aspirations?”
“Facts, as you know, are stronger than the lord mayor of London”. The State of Israel is the realization (mind you I’m not adding the legitimate word here) of the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people. Anybody who will deny this, is not necessarily anti-Semitic but he is denying a fact. Anybody who wants to dismantle the State of Israel must come up with a plan. How they are going to go about and dismantle the State of Israel and not be racists, is going to be tougher than to keep the Jewish character of Israel and not be racists. There you go.
Brian Goldfarb posted on September 28, 2005 at 09:13:14 PM
I'd like to reiterate a comment I made on Adam Keller's last contribution to the site: with reference to Palestinian refugees and any question of their right of return (or not), can we start with the historical facts, please. Rightly or wrongly, Israel was created as a result of a UN resolution. The partitioned Israel this created was accepted, however reluctantly, by the Jews/Israelis then resident in what was then Mandate Palestine.
However, the surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon & Iraq) refused to accept this and fought. They lost the resulting war and the outcome, as we all know, was Green Line Israel. It is reasonable to wonder (yes, I know it's an alternative history scenario, but please bear with me) what would have happened had the Arab states accepted the partition plan. Not least, would there have been a Palestinian refugee problem/question? Would Yeir Dassin, etc, have happened?
In other words, without wishing to deny that successive Israeli governments have been at best disingenuous in their actions, and at worst, positively wrong-headed and, of course, wrong, let us not give unnecessary ground to those we are debating against.
If you want to claim that I'm saying that the Arab states created the Palestinian refugee problem, you can do so; providing you bear in mind that I'm not absolving the Israelis of any culpability for what happened during the 1948 war or subsequently. I'm just saying that the Israelis didn't start that particular fight.
However, the surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon & Iraq) refused to accept this and fought. They lost the resulting war and the outcome, as we all know, was Green Line Israel. It is reasonable to wonder (yes, I know it's an alternative history scenario, but please bear with me) what would have happened had the Arab states accepted the partition plan. Not least, would there have been a Palestinian refugee problem/question? Would Yeir Dassin, etc, have happened?
In other words, without wishing to deny that successive Israeli governments have been at best disingenuous in their actions, and at worst, positively wrong-headed and, of course, wrong, let us not give unnecessary ground to those we are debating against.
If you want to claim that I'm saying that the Arab states created the Palestinian refugee problem, you can do so; providing you bear in mind that I'm not absolving the Israelis of any culpability for what happened during the 1948 war or subsequently. I'm just saying that the Israelis didn't start that particular fight.
posted on September 28, 2005 at 09:32:07 PM
I'm not sure what Marc means by "there you go" but I'm hoping for responses from a number of people, and in particular David Seymour and John Strawson, on the following questions:
1. Why is a discussion of demographics and a Jewish state implicitly racist?
2. Do you think Israel should be a Jewish state? (This is not a rhetorical question. It does seem to me that some here, like David, may indeed hold the view that it is not important for Israel to be a Jewish state. While I may disagree with that, it would at least help to explain some other things that have been said.)
3. If the answer to (2) is yes, then should it remain a Jewish state always (or as long as possible)?
4. If so, how could this be possible, in practice, once Jews are no longer a majority of the population?
1. Why is a discussion of demographics and a Jewish state implicitly racist?
2. Do you think Israel should be a Jewish state? (This is not a rhetorical question. It does seem to me that some here, like David, may indeed hold the view that it is not important for Israel to be a Jewish state. While I may disagree with that, it would at least help to explain some other things that have been said.)
3. If the answer to (2) is yes, then should it remain a Jewish state always (or as long as possible)?
4. If so, how could this be possible, in practice, once Jews are no longer a majority of the population?
Marc G posted on September 29, 2005 at 05:26:36 AM
Michel, I did not mean anything in particular with "there you go".
As far as the law of return of the Palestinians is concerned (which is the crux of your 4 questions, is it not?) is that not what the Two State solution is supposed to solve: the resolution of the conflict of two "legitimate" but conflicting rights via mutual consent and compromise?
As far as the law of return of the Palestinians is concerned (which is the crux of your 4 questions, is it not?) is that not what the Two State solution is supposed to solve: the resolution of the conflict of two "legitimate" but conflicting rights via mutual consent and compromise?
Richard posted on September 29, 2005 at 08:12:22 AM
Much has been written in Engage about the disposession of the Palestinians in 1948 and how Israel was formed out of this disposession. But little is said about Israel's right to defend its right to exist which it had to do in 1948. It is realy very simple - if there had been an acceptance of a 2 state solution in 1948 by the Palestinians and the Arab states then there would have been no refugee problem. Even after the war , if the Arab states had recognised Israel there could have been a re-drawing of boundaries to solve the refugee problem. The Palestinians were abandoned by their leaders such as the Mufti of Jerusalem and i am afraid that the all or nothing approach of the Arab states was a massive gamble which did not pay off. Denial of the responsibility ,in part ,of the Arab states to accept their responisibility for the refugee problem (and their cynical use of the Palestinian refugees) is wrong. Little is also said about the attacks on Jews in the West bank such as in Gush Etzion. Engage needs to stress that the Arab states and the Palestinian leaders were the aggressors and that there actions as well as being unjust, were also disastrous for the Palestinains.
Paul posted on September 29, 2005 at 08:25:55 AM
Marc, yes, the Right of Return (that\'s how the Palestinians\' right is usually referred to as there is no law enshrining and implementing it; the Jews\' right is enshrined and implemented in what it usually just called the Law of Return) is at the crux of my questions 2-4 (I have no idea what is at the crux of my first question -- only David S can answer that).
Yes, many (including myself) think that within a two-state solution a way to address all these problems must be found. The Taba proposal was an attempt at that, for example. The proposed \"Geneva Accord\" is another. There is no lack of practical ideas and proposals.
Again, I ask those questions because of something John said; I quoted it above but here it is again: \"The case of immigration/migration is of course the clearest issue where under the Law of Return 1950 Jews are able to migrate to Israel and to gain citizenship on arrival, whereas Palestinians who fled in 1948 and 1967 - or who were merely outside the country - cannot not return to what were their own homes. That does seem to me to be racist!\"
John\'s statement would seem to rule out the types of solution proposed at Taba or in the Geneva initiative. That is why I ask those questions above.
I realise of course that you can\'t explain to me what someone else meant, which is why I hope to hear from John.
Yes, many (including myself) think that within a two-state solution a way to address all these problems must be found. The Taba proposal was an attempt at that, for example. The proposed \"Geneva Accord\" is another. There is no lack of practical ideas and proposals.
Again, I ask those questions because of something John said; I quoted it above but here it is again: \"The case of immigration/migration is of course the clearest issue where under the Law of Return 1950 Jews are able to migrate to Israel and to gain citizenship on arrival, whereas Palestinians who fled in 1948 and 1967 - or who were merely outside the country - cannot not return to what were their own homes. That does seem to me to be racist!\"
John\'s statement would seem to rule out the types of solution proposed at Taba or in the Geneva initiative. That is why I ask those questions above.
I realise of course that you can\'t explain to me what someone else meant, which is why I hope to hear from John.
Paul posted on September 30, 2005 at 06:31:32 AM
Marc, yes, the Right of Return (that\'s how the Palestinians\' right is usually referred to as there is no law enshrining and implementing it; the Jews\' right is enshrined and implemented in what it usually called the Law of Return) is at the crux of my questions 2-4 (I have no idea what is at the crux of my first question -- only David S can answer that).
Yes, many (including me) think that within a two-state solution a way to address all these problems must be found. The Taba proposal was an attempt at that, for example. The proposed \"Geneva Accord\" is another. There is no lack of practical ideas and proposals.
Again, I ask those questions because of something John said; I quoted it above but here it is again: \"The case of immigration/migration is of course the clearest issue where under the Law of Return 1950 Jews are able to migrate to Israel and to gain citizenship on arrival, whereas Palestinians who fled in 1948 and 1967 - or who were merely outside the country - cannot not return to what were their own homes. That does seem to me to be racist!\"
John\'s statement would seem to rule out the types of solution proposed at Taba or in the Geneva initiative. That is why I ask those questions above. I realise of course that you can\'t explain to me what someone else meant, which is why I hope to hear from John.
Yes, many (including me) think that within a two-state solution a way to address all these problems must be found. The Taba proposal was an attempt at that, for example. The proposed \"Geneva Accord\" is another. There is no lack of practical ideas and proposals.
Again, I ask those questions because of something John said; I quoted it above but here it is again: \"The case of immigration/migration is of course the clearest issue where under the Law of Return 1950 Jews are able to migrate to Israel and to gain citizenship on arrival, whereas Palestinians who fled in 1948 and 1967 - or who were merely outside the country - cannot not return to what were their own homes. That does seem to me to be racist!\"
John\'s statement would seem to rule out the types of solution proposed at Taba or in the Geneva initiative. That is why I ask those questions above. I realise of course that you can\'t explain to me what someone else meant, which is why I hope to hear from John.
Brian Goldfarb posted on September 30, 2005 at 05:39:22 PM
Firstly, with reference to the "should Israel be a Jewish state" question, as long as there are Islamic states, organised along the basis of religion, then why not? Why shouldn't Jews have their own state, when Moslems have a number of "their" own states, as do Christians. Of course, if anyone out there knows how to guarantee that an individual's religion will in future be a matter only for that individual, as long as they let other people and their religion alone (a variant on the definition of freedom as being my right to wave my fist around ending where your nose begins), then the argument begins to change.
Secondly, thank you Richard, this needs to be something that is at the base of every discussion we have about Israel and the Palestinians. How the problem is solved is another matter...
Secondly, thank you Richard, this needs to be something that is at the base of every discussion we have about Israel and the Palestinians. How the problem is solved is another matter...
Inna posted on October 04, 2005 at 05:45:50 AM
RE: Citizenship laws. I am attaching a link to a (very non-flashy) directory of citizenship laws for all states. (Or at least I have not found an excluded state):http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/ . Israel is in the country4 folder.
But my point is this: looking through these laws, I have not yet come across a single set of citizenship laws that are not in some way exclusive and excluding and therefore (I suppose) racist in some way.
Now, I am not trying to say that Israel's laws are right "because everyone else does it"; I am however curious about why the focus on Israel.
RE: whether Israel should be a Jewish state (and what does that mean anyway). Allow me to answer that with a question: should the UK remain a British state and what does THAT mean anyway--especially given that England, United Kingdom, and Britain (Great and otherwise) is the only country I know of that cannot even decide on its own name.
Regards,
Inna
But my point is this: looking through these laws, I have not yet come across a single set of citizenship laws that are not in some way exclusive and excluding and therefore (I suppose) racist in some way.
Now, I am not trying to say that Israel's laws are right "because everyone else does it"; I am however curious about why the focus on Israel.
RE: whether Israel should be a Jewish state (and what does that mean anyway). Allow me to answer that with a question: should the UK remain a British state and what does THAT mean anyway--especially given that England, United Kingdom, and Britain (Great and otherwise) is the only country I know of that cannot even decide on its own name.
Regards,
Inna
Alexandra posted on October 04, 2005 at 07:37:24 AM
Inna, I think your analogy doesn't work. Mainly because the term British cover a multitude of different realities in terms of religion, ethnicity, culture, etc. It's the equivalent of "Israeli" as opposed to "Jewish" (because "Israeli" also covers lots of different realities).
Also, I cannot resist pointing out that England, UK and Great Britain are *very* different things. England is only a part of Great Britain, and Great Britain is only a part of the UK. They are not interchangeable terms.
Also, I cannot resist pointing out that England, UK and Great Britain are *very* different things. England is only a part of Great Britain, and Great Britain is only a part of the UK. They are not interchangeable terms.
Inna posted on October 04, 2005 at 09:25:55 AM
Alexandra writes: "I think your analogy doesn't work. Mainly because the term British cover a multitude of different realities in terms of religion, ethnicity, culture, etc. It's the equivalent of "Israeli" as opposed to "Jewish" (because "Israeli" also covers lots of different realities)."
Alexandra, you have a point in that the analogy is weak but since anyone who (like myself to save on rent in college lived in a bayit) "Jewish" also covers lots of different realities. This will become evident the minute you observe European, Middle Eastern, Ethiopian, and Indian (two kinds) of Jews celebrate say Sabbath. Or, better yet, Passover.
You are also of course correct in that GB, UK, and England are not interchangeable terms. However, you must admit that they are often used as though they are. Enough so that I have heard one American opine that the "real" reason the Brits have not done away with the Royal Family is that they could not agree on what to call the navy. (Yes, he was military).
Regards,
Inna
Alexandra, you have a point in that the analogy is weak but since anyone who (like myself to save on rent in college lived in a bayit) "Jewish" also covers lots of different realities. This will become evident the minute you observe European, Middle Eastern, Ethiopian, and Indian (two kinds) of Jews celebrate say Sabbath. Or, better yet, Passover.
You are also of course correct in that GB, UK, and England are not interchangeable terms. However, you must admit that they are often used as though they are. Enough so that I have heard one American opine that the "real" reason the Brits have not done away with the Royal Family is that they could not agree on what to call the navy. (Yes, he was military).
Regards,
Inna
Alexandra posted on October 04, 2005 at 11:00:31 AM
Inna, yes I agree that Jews come in all shapes and colours, but I was just making a parallel between the terms British and Israeli, and, for example "English" and Jewish (in this case I mean Israeli Jewish, if you know what I mean). British and Israeli are inclusive terms.
Now, yes, people use the terms GB, UK and England interchangeably, because they do not know any better, but this is quite different from what you said originally: "especially given that England, United Kingdom, and Britain (Great and otherwise) is the only country I know of that cannot even decide on its own name."
Now, yes, people use the terms GB, UK and England interchangeably, because they do not know any better, but this is quite different from what you said originally: "especially given that England, United Kingdom, and Britain (Great and otherwise) is the only country I know of that cannot even decide on its own name."
Inna posted on October 05, 2005 at 04:50:50 AM
Alexandra: "Now, yes, people use the terms GB, UK and England interchangeably, because they do not know any better, but this is quite different from what you said originally: 'especially given that England, United Kingdom, and Britain (Great and otherwise) is the only country I know of that cannot even decide on its own name.' "
You're right.
I was trying to be clever--and tried a bit too hard.
Regards,
Inna
Close this windowYou're right.
I was trying to be clever--and tried a bit too hard.
Regards,
Inna