lk
|
|
response 54 of 203:
| 
Apr 22 07:07 UTC 2002 |
07:08 Vandals damage more than 100 graves at Jewish cemetery in
Kosice, Slovakia
Elie Wiesel theorizes about the rise of anti-Semitism:
I think the real reason is that we left the memories of the
Holocaust. The first years, or even the first decades, following that
-- which was the greatest tragedy, to me, in our -- people were embar-
rassed by anti-Semitism. It wasn't nice. It wasn't decent to be openly
anti-Semitic. You hardly could hear anyone say that he hates Jews.
Because we forget so fast, ... people now say it openly. I get many
hate letters... In the beginning, they were all anonymous. Now they
are signed. People don't hesitate to sign their names, their address,
and say, `We hate you, and this is why we hate you.' That is, I think,
the real reason why today anti-Semitism is on the rise.
|
lk
|
|
response 66 of 203:
|
Apr 23 14:56 UTC 2002 |
Better guns than what, AK47 and M16 rifles? Scott is just continuing
his smear campaign against me by falsely claiming that I previously
said that Arab sources are "always" biased. Not that I ever said any
such thing (I only refuted, point-by-point, his cut-and-paste propaganda
from electricintifada.com -- see Winter Agora item #20, especially
starting with response 344), but Scott obviously doesn't agree with
that so why is he so dismissive of what was written in Al Ahram?
Anyhow, that's in item #37. Maybe we should keep it there.
> Anti-Semitism is not the same as being anti-Israel.
True, but I think it follows that most anti-Semites today are anti-Israel.
100 years ago anti-Semites were pleased that Jews would have their own
distant country -- if it would remove them from their neighborhoods.
Today that's no longer good enough, which begs the question of what they
see as the final solution; afterall, they don't want them "here" nor "there".
Said article continues with:
That does not mean there is no such thing as real hateful Arab anti-Semitism.
There is and it's the perennial kind of Jew-hating that blames the world's
problems on Jews, that wants to destroy Jews and destroy the small Jewish
state.
The anti-Semitism that rightly causes profound worry in the West is ignored
when it happens in the Arab world. It is assumed. It is expected and taken
for granted. It is essentially excused. "Oh well, the Arabs hate the Jews."
Its the same anti-Semitism that was manifest a decade ago in the West Bank
demonstrations during the Gulf War calling on Saddam to drop his chemical and
germ bombs on Tel Aviv. Or that makes the sick conspiracy theory that Zionist
Jews plotted 9/11 a commonplace in the Arab world today. Or that inspires TV
telethons to raise money for suicide/homicide bombers in several Arab
countries.
Hideously anti-Semitic newspaper and magazine articles in mainstream Arab
publications are routine. (See for yourself: check the Arab press through
World Press Review or ABYZ News Links.)
It took me five minutes to find an example this morning. It came from the
pro-government, English language Arab News in Saudi Arabia. A university
lecturer wrote a column declaring, "Don't you see the resemblance between
Sharon, Hitler and Milosevic? Don't you see the parallel between Nazism and
Zionism?" Comparing the Nazis and the Israelis (or the Jews, or the Zionists)
is absolutely routine in the media of many Arab countries. So are the denials
of that the Holocaust ever happened.
Arab anti-Semitism is, of course, a more immediate danger than Western
anti-Semitism. Israel, where a big percentage of the world's Jews live, is
surrounded by it. It is part of the twisted world of terrorists who fly planes
into skyscrapers.
The links referenced in the article above are:
http://www.abyznewslinks.com/
http://www.worldpress.org/
|
oval
|
|
response 68 of 203:
|
Apr 24 00:33 UTC 2002 |
zionism is racism.
"The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior
quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to certain
other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to its members.
The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these claims are
translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of citizenship by
descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense,
but it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the
term 'racism'."
"Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on
behalf of 'the Jewish people', an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed
that individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did
not apply to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the
early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the
establishment of the Sate of Israel in 1948 - but none of them believed that
non-Jews had a right to the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute a
superior quality to Jews, namely the exclusive right to the Jewish national
territory. The State of Israel, by definition, claims Israeli territory for
Israeli's. It attributes a superior quality to Israeli's, although
paradoxically that includes the Arab minority with Israeli citizenship.
However, the State of Israel is not 'Israelist' - in the sense of consistently
presenting these claims for both its Jewish and Arab citizens. In official
pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the Durban anti-racism
conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy as the national
homeland for the 'Jewish people'. It is therefore not correct to say, that
in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been succeeded by Israeli
nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is still largely Zionism,
and not 'Israelism'.
Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish
ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in the
Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State of
Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born outside
Israel, unless they have specific links to Israel, to the Jewish people, or
to Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The only
exception to the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the State
of Israel extends citizenship to the historically resident Arab minority -
although some Israeli political groups dispute even their right to residence.
The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists, is
the status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor Herzl
never imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and therefore
the de facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In addition, about
three million people belong to the clearly identifiable 'Palestinian-refugee'
minorities, in other Arab countries, although most were born in their present
country of residence. The State of Israel clearly attributes an inferior
status to this population: namely that they do not possess the right to
Israeli citizenship. This population is generally equivalent to the
'Palestinian people' in the occupied territories, although it includes small
non-Jewish, non-Arab minorities. The members of this population, (primarily
Palestinian), can not vote, for instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli
elections, it would mean the end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that
all nation states operate this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship
to everyone, certainly not to hostile populations. That does not make such
policies any less racist, since the exclusions are by definition on ethnic
or national grounds.
That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all immigrants:
but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic of Zionism.
Israel has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but immigration
policy has always been restrictive. Although Israel grants citizenship to the
resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former
residents of its territory. Only those who stayed in their villages in 1948
got Israeli citizenship: those who crossed the front line to the Arab side
can not get back - not as a citizen, and probably not as a visitor. Other
Arabs, who have no connection with Palestine, can not simply migrate to
Israel, nor can most of the world's population. Israeli immigration is
essentially for Jews only, and this is the most obviously racist policy of
present Zionism. In this case, the State of Israel has a formal and explicit
policy of Jewish immigration, which is clearly Zionist. It is the logical
consequence of the original Zionist demand for a Jewish state formed by
migration, meaning migration of Jews.
In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration policies:
citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A person who
converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law of Return,
if the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities in Israel.
The convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally refused), and can
claim Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this is quoted by
Israel's supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory, all the
inhabitants of the Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to Judaism
tomorrow, and on acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. - where they
will all presumably live as good and prosperous Israeli citizens. In practice
this is absurdly unlikely. And the question is: why should they have to
convert to Judaism, when native-born atheist or Buddhist Israelis can still
be part of the Jewish people?
This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state
policies of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for
the early Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its
future citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predictable even at the time
Herzl wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation
states (and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an
Israeli citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli citizen.
(I am not sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs, born in the
occupied territories). The child has to do nothing for this privilege: no
application under the Law of Return, no conversion to Judaism, no other
qualification for citizenship. The child simply acquires the rights (and
duties) of an Israeli citizen through unconscious biological process. The
child without this biological advantage (birth, or parentage, or genetic
material) does not automatically acquire citizenship. Although living in
Israel is not always pleasant, and many western Jews hesitate to emigrate
there, within the Israel-Palestine context, the Israeli born child has the
advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in central Hebron will
statistically live longer, be better educated, and have a higher standard of
living, then the Palestinian child born in an adjoining house. This advantage
is part of the general advantage of being born in a rich country, which about
one-fifth of the world's population share.
In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not
inevitably, but because nation states are structured that way. There is no
inherent moral reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or
citizenship, simply on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of any
moral justification for it. It is clearly racist in the general sense of the
word, and its derivation from the ideology of nationalism shows the racist
basis of that ideology. The nationalism underlying the nation state Israel,
which is accurately called Zionism, is no different in this respect. Here too,
Zionism is racist."
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/zionism.html
this guy has a pretty cool site about nationalism "Nation Planet".
|