The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East

Sat 28 Jul 2007

40 Responses to “Help Defeat Legalized Discrimination In Israel”

1. Isidor Farash {A.K.A. Grand Rebbe Cornelius D. Trollstein} Says:
   July 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

   I think the Arabs laugh at us when they read such statements. Not the local Palestinian-Arabs, who are themselves emotionally connected to the controversy but Arabs in general.
   While certain Israeli practices overtly or covertly favor Jews, so frekkin what?
   To quote Nick Cage in “Moonstruck”:
   “I’m no monument to justice!!”
   And that is EXACTLY the point. Israel is expected (in fact demanded) to be a “monument to justice” when all its neighbors are far worse abusers then themselves.
   I probably disagree with the Israeli practice of creating different ranks of entitlements, keep in mind that such multiple standards even exist among fellow Jews. Consider for example a recent comment by Steve Klein:
   “Because you are little doubt a self-loathing Jew . . . You are a weak Jew Mr. Isador. . . .”

   Religious Israeli Jews are exempt from military service and after the 1947 war, Jews from Europe, who came in with pensions and reperations, were the favored class among Jews. Its not especially pretty but to be “condemned”?
   Jack Nickolson once said:
   “Whoopty-freekin-doo”.
   Expecting Jews to somehow be better or more perfect or mature or less flawed than other ethnic groups is itself a form of discrimonation.

2. John Baker Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am

   “Expecting Jews to somehow be better or more perfect or mature or less flawed than other ethnic groups is itself a form of discrimonation.”

   Outside of Israel I’m not sure how many people even know about the JNF issue. Isn’t this more a case of Jews holding themselves to a higher standard of morality in public policy, Isidor? Or is that what you are objecting to?

3. Isidor Farash {a.k.a. Prof. Cornelius D. Trollstein} Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

   “Isn’t this more a case of Jews holding themselves to a higher standard of morality in public policy, Isidor?”
   Yes. True enough. But not entirely dispositive of my point. Such unreasonable expectations can be found both inside and outside the Jewish community. In both instances, they are unfair and also constitute a particular form of discrimonation, generally (and historially) reserved for Jews. Prof. Chesler goes into detail on this in “The New Anti-Semitism”.
   Its not a bad thing that ethnic groups can police themselves. We are asking the Arab American community to police itself and protect us from violence by radical factions within their own community. Sometimes, that is what they do. However, we typically do not hear they type of agressive condemnations from other communitites about themselves, that we hear from the Jewish community about Israel and the “pro-Israel” lobby. I have heard and read more bad suff about Dershowitz by Jews then I have heard or read negative comments about Bin Laden, from Arabs or Muslims. Does that mean that Dershowitz is more evil then Bin Laden? For an Arab to answer yes would be one thing. For a Jew to answer yes would be another.

4. John Baker Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

   A number of years ago I think it was Charles Barkley who said he only signed up to play basketball; not to be a role model. When he talked further about it, it seemed he felt the implied expectation or obligation to “be a good role model” was a kind of manipulation by white folks, a way controlling him as a black man to make him acceptable to whites. Is this sort of what you are saying too, that Jews are being held to an unreasonable [not sure I agree with that] standard as a way of controlling them or making them more acceptable?

5. Isidor Farash {a.k.a. Prof. Cornelius D. Trollstein} Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

   Not entirely exactly, though similar. I’ll go your example one better. Let’s reflect on the Boxing Heavyweight champions of the 20th Century and also Jackie Robinson.
   Joe Jackson: Slept with white women. That was definately not permitted. He was severely punished, stripped of his title and wealth.
   Joe Lewis: Here is a guy who was a perfect “role model”. He gave up his H.W. title to join the U.S. Army in WW2 and gave everything he had to a widows and orphans fund. The IRS concluded that this fund was not tax exempt and demanded he repay like $80,000.00 in assessed taxes. He spent the rest of his life trying to pay the penalty and interest. Died a broken and demoralized man.
   Mohammed Ali:
   Refused to fight in Vietnam. Joined Islam. Became a pariah to the White establishment. (BTW: Most Jews supported him and Howard Kosell was the only sportscaster who referred to him by his new name.) For that, Kosell was well loved not only by the Black boxers but also by Blacks in all areas of professional sports. Until Kosell was abruptly terminated by ABC for affectionately referring to Running-back Alvin Garrett as “that little monkey”. Which is a perfect conclusion to my answer. As a Jew, Kosell was kept on a strangle-tight leash. Essentially, expected to somehow be perfect and when he said one thing that could be held against him, he was instantly sh*t-canned.
   Lastly, Jackie Robinson:
   It was no accident that he was the first Black man to enter White baseball. He had been hand selected and only had qualified for that role because he was the perfect “uncle tom”.
   Phyllis Chesler says:
   “Anti-Semites love to judge the Jews harshly for refusing to behave like dead Jews or good Christians, and while the Torah definitely has some hair-raising scenes in it, so does the world and so does every other sacred book. Although the Prince of Peace might have been nonviolent, his followers were decidedly less so. The doctrine of surrendering to one’s fate nonviolently and of forgiving one’s enemies may indeed be Christ-like, but this oriental fatalism and courage were not easily transplanted to Europe, and thus many of Christ’s followers subsequently launched the most aggressive military crusades against other Christians and against Arabs, Muslims, and Jews. Incidentally, most Catholics did not view the Church, the Crusades, or the Inquisition as anti-Christian because they practiced war, not peace. Today, modern anti-Semitism also partakes of a new unconscious psychological dynamic. Today, anti-Semites are enraged when their designated Christ-sacrifice fights back, refuses to turn the other cheek, and arms himself not only spiritually but with sky-commanding Phantom Jets and atomic weaponry. Enter the hatred of Israel as a new form of anti-Semitism. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that Jews are Christ-like, only that anti-Semites often expect this to be so. This is a horrendous expectation. May I suggest that, psychologically, this precise expectation is often at the root of disappointment with the Jewish people when we turn out NOT to be ready to die for the sins of others, and when we turn out to be no better than other peoples either. The very world that so readily demonizes Jews also unconsciously expects Jews to be better than everyone else, to he that “light unto the nations,” and when we are not, the heartbreak and rage are very great, which leads to the demonization and to the collective punishment of the Jews. Sometimes some Jews are better than barbarians; in many ways the state of Israel towers above its neighbors both morally, politically, and in terms of religious freedoms—but some say, sadly, only barely. David Ben-Gurion, that most admirable of secularists and Israel’s first prime minister, would be horrified by some of the fundamentalist excesses practiced by both his religious and anti-religious children and grandchildren. Sometimes Israelis behave in the same way that people of other nations do, and for this we are not forgiven. All the incredibly positive things that Israel also does are instantly forgotten because we are not supposed to make any mistakes, not to mention really terrible ones.”

6. John Baker Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

   “…to he that “light unto the nations,””

   This phrase of course comes from Isaiah. And that goes to this point. The high moral principles we are talking about are not really an unrealistic ethical standard imposed upon Jews or upon Israel from outside by non-Jews; they are actually the moral underpinnings of Western civilization which came from the Jews, from Israel itself if you will, in the first place, and of which through the centuries Jewry has been the keeper, the conscience of society. We learned what we know about how we should treat our fellow man, about philanthropy, about equality under law, about protecting the powerless in society, from the Jews. You can call it Judaeo-Christian, but really there is very little about it that is specificially or exclusively Christian.

   I do accept your point that these moral principles could form the basis for judgements of an anti-Semitic basis. As you say, it all depends on where it’s coming from. In the present case it seem to be an inner-Israeli discussion. I think it would make a difference if black leaders spoke to a super athlete about his responsibilities as a role model, as compared to a delegation of white businessmen.

7. John Baker Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

   Probably should add Barry Bonds to the list, Isidor, a guy who is being singled-out as the negative moral example by an “industry” which is itself corrupt as though he - this one black man - were “the problem” with MLB, a very convenient scapegoat for everyone to project their own darkness onto.

8. Isidor Farash {A.K.A. Grand Rebbe Cornelius D. Trollstein} Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

   Lets talk angels. The concept of good (and bad) angels is found in several books of the O.T. Of course, I don’t believe in any of this and I don’t write to disparage but to expound. If one were to (step by step) track the evolution of the notion of angels, they start out as being merely God’s spirits. Later on and especially during the apocalyptic period of brutal oppression and occupation of Judea, these angels and especially Satan takes on a new meaning, as being both self determined and at times, rogue.
   The notion of “free-range” spirits was (IMHO) developed to explain why God’s own ‘chosen people’ the Jews were being subjected to (at times) intolerable abuse, which otherwise appeared to be a divine punishment. All of a sudden, the Jews had both a viable explanation and a mission. To hang-in and defeat the “powers of darkness” who themselves were defying God’s will.
   Each successive itineration of monotheism adopted this explanation, especially when things were not generally going as people hoped. However, in each case, the former religion(s) became associated with the ‘dark forces’ and the job of the newer religion(s) was to vanquish those forces, along with their minions. This may be one reason why the Jews are being held as either perfect or evil by the Christians and Muslims and the Muslims hold both former deities as such. The Jews, by their very nature are confined in a perpetual state of ‘probation’. The first wrong (or perceived as wrong) move and we are condemned as criminals, set on the conquest and/or destruction of the world.

9. John Baker Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

   Fascinating. I think that idea that angels could be messengers of dark powers or demonic did come in with apocalyptic literature probably under Persian influence, dualism, etc. Lucifer the “fallen angel” was an oral legend which shows up in the Apocrypha and also the Quran (and Milton). This angel was cast out of heaven because he refused to bow before Man. Note that along the lines you are arguing not only were such invisible creatures suspected of being behind illnesses but that also anyone who could control or exorcise them was also suspect. The Saducees suspected that the apostles Peter and John were curing people in the name of Satan. Jesus was so accused, of course. Dark angels or demons were the reason bad things happened to good people. Dualism is there in Job too, a post-exilic, i.e. Persian period, book. I see both Islam and Christianity as originally heterodox forms of Judaism btw. I don’t think demonization of the other is built-in to the religions but it happened, literally. Still does, of course, among all three. We are all more primitive people than we think.

10. Richard Silverstein Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 12:03 am

    I wanted to thank Mitchell for the instrumental help he provided in drafting the petition I put together with Jerry Haber & Dan Fleshler.

    And I’d like to encourage his readers once again to follow the link above to sign it. Can it be that there are only 170 Jews in the world (plus those who also signed a separate AMEINU petition on the same subject) who oppose this legislation? If you do, then take a moment to help.

11. Sol Salbe Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 1:02 am

    Mitchell,
    One minor correction. The 64-16-1 vote was not the first reading but a preliminary one.The normal three readings are yet to take place.

    Sol
    Melbourne Australia

12. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 7:35 am

    This legislation is largely symbolic since non-Jews are already discrimated against in Israel in multiple ways. At a fundamental level this discrimation is required if Israel is to retain a Jewish majority in perpetuity. So the question becomes how important is it to retain a jewish majority in Israel? In the aftermath of the Holocast virtually all jews thought it was, and the world, as represented by the UN, largely agreed. Now that we are faced with the consequence of this policy, namely, the abject misery of the Palestinians, the poisonous conflict, and the relentless decline moral standing/values/behaviour of Israel and its supporters, perhaps we should revisit this question. The astonishing success of Jewish communities in liberal democracies around the world shows that Jews are safe as minorities in such countries. Is it naive to think that Jews could also thrive as a minority in a liberal-democratic Israel?

13. Isidor Farash [formally Goldstein] Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am

    “Is it naive to think that Jews could also thrive as a minority in a liberal-democratic Israel?”
    Yes.
    Because in most places where Jews have advanced, they were not THE minority group but a fractional sub-minority. As THE minority group the Jews become the same as cattle.

14. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 11:57 am

    You’ve lost me there. You seem to be saying that if Jews they are the second largest ethnic group in the country they are endangered whereas they are safe if they are a smaller minority. Mmmmmm.

    I submit that Jews are more secure in countries such as USA/UK/Australia/Canada/France etc where minority rights are properly protected and racists not tolerated than in Israel, where their security is dependent the military/diplomatic/and economic support of the USA, something which is likely to fade if and when it eventually begins to dawn on American voters that Israel is a racist state that gained and retains is Jewish majority through what are, in effect, racist policies.

15. John Baker Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    “Israel is a racist state that gained and retains is Jewish majority through what are, in effect, racist policies.”

    By “racist” do you mean ethno-centric or mono-ethnic or something like that? If so, that’s a far cry from what most American think of as racist. Israel is not the only mono-ethnic country, for one thing, even in the religious sense. Pakistan and a number of predominately Muslim countries are avowedly “Islamic states” or “Islamic republics.” I certainly don’t think most Israelis advocate anything approaching a theory of Jewish racial superiority. Religious Jews subscribe to a range of beliefs in the divine election of the people Israel. But that seems to be more a manifestation of ethnocentricity in theological terms reflecting the unmerited and undeserved choice of the peoply by God than a belief in superiority of the people to other peoples. If you are referring to the superior attitudes of many of the original Zionists to the indigenous Arabs, I would agree that those attitudes fell along racial-ethnic lines, but would describe them as typical colonialist attitudes rather than primarily racially-inspired. The other thing that must be taken into consideration that non-Jews so often ignore is the long history of European racism, bloody persecution, and oppression practiced against Jews which led to the Zionist movement in the first place. Israel not a racist country but a defense against racism. The racism of our ancestors made Israel necessary. The necessity for a Jewish homeland and refuge was underscored by the horrific event which attended its very birth, namely the Nazi Holocaust. We all of us live in racist societies and in them we move and have our being. It seeps in our souls. There is unconscious racism on a personal level everywhere, of course, including Israel. But those of us of who are non-Jews of European ancestry are the last people on earth who should IMHO take it upon themselves to label Israel “a racist state.” I think we can legitimately criticize policies and push for their change or elimination, but to throw around the word “racist” implies that one is speaking from a position of moral superiority, which we should not presume to do.

16. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Those are excuses, not arguments. If you support Israel and its policies designed to maintain a Jewish majority you are supporting racism. Granted it has developed in response to a form of racism that was far, far worse, but does that justify it? I grant also that it is a form of racism which is mild compared with the racism/discrimination/persecution practised elsewhere. But it undoubtedly causes a great deal of misery for its victims, the Palestinians. And in the long term it is not sustainable as it will need to become increasingly ruthless. The second intafada, separation wall, and the calls by Knesset politicians for expulsion on non-Jews from Israel are a sign of what the future has in store.

    Finally I am Jewish myself. Until recently I would flinch at someone calling Israel a racist state. But then I was unaware of how pervasive the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel is, and how it is actually getting worse.

17. John Baker Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Discrimination, inequality, unfairness, even persecution, those are apt terms. “Racism” is a particularly stigmatizing and loaded term with connotations that don’t fit and, as you say, cause people to flinch, though coming from a Jew perhaps not so much. That the victims are miserable I accept. I would like something done to stop that as soon as possible.

18. Isidor Farash {A.K.A. Grand Rebbe Cornelius D. Trollstein} Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 5:10 am

    Jews are a “race” as viewed from the outside (namely by non-Jews) but from inside, they are a religion, not a “race”. I know this is hard to accept for those who are convinced of the Jewish Nation’s eternal guilt, who would have it exactly opposite. In Israel, Jews come from all over the world. There are blond-blue-eyed Jews from Scandinavia and Black African Jews from the Sudan and Ethiopia. There are Semitic Jews from Egypt and Yemen and Russian Jews. In fact, so many Jews in Israel are physically indistinguishable from Arabs that the notion of Israeli “racism” is itself racist.
    Israel is merely reacting in favor of self preservation and in view of all the highly restrictive policies of it many Islamic neighbors.
    Moreover, try building a Catholic Church, Buddhist Temple or any other (non-Islamic) house-of-worship in Mecca (or any part of Saudi Arabia) and see how fast the religious police cut your hands off. Try the same move in the Nation of Vatican City, (Jewish, Buddhist or Islamic temple). Good luck.
    “You seem to be saying that if Jews they are the second largest ethnic group in the country they are endangered whereas they are safe if they are a smaller minority.”
    Yes. Exactly. And not specific to only Jews. Its just that Jews are both a tiny minority everywhere (but Israel). As a tiny minority they generally get lost in the crowd. That is not always protection either because even as a 2% minority in the USA, they (we) are accused of plotting and scheming to take over the government, same as they (we) were in turn-of-20th-century Russia.
    The major friction (and therefore conflict) in any given population is generally between two (or maybe three) major minority groups as they all compete for dominance.

19. John Baker Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 6:42 am

    “Israel is merely reacting in favor of self preservation and in view of all the highly restrictive policies of it many Islamic neighbors.”

    The decision confronting Israel in this issue of the JNF is whether it is going to act in keeping with its own Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty, and ultimately toward the principles expressed in its own Declaration of Independence, or whether it is going to become an overtly, explicitly discriminatory* state.

    *As I said, I do not call it racist. It is “ethnicist” if you will, but discriminatory is perhaps the best word (see Mitchell’s usage also).

20. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 6:56 am

    So you believe that religious discrimination is legitimate under certain circumstances (e.g. in Israel because it is a Jewish state)?

    Unless you are a hypocrite then you have concede that anti-Jewish discrimination (anti-semitism) could also be legitimate in similar circumstances - i.e. if a country declares itself to be christian or muslim.

    That line of argument places Jews in the diaspora in grave danger….

21. John Baker Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 8:43 am

    Not religious, first of all. Secondly, the rights of minorities must be protected. The specific meaning of “a Jewish state” is controversial. Insofar as that relates to “the right of return” it is a whole can of worms. I don’t know how that would be worked out, perhaps by limiting the Arab mix in new immigration and balancing it with a proportionately larger Jewish mix in new immigration so that the current 20% Arab demographic is maintained. I don’t know the answer to that except that the actual returns will have to be at a symbolic level and the rest compensated for. For the current situation, minority rights must be preserved.

22. Isidor Farash [formally Goldstein] Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    “So you believe that religious discrimination is legitimate under certain circumstances (e.g. in Israel because it is a Jewish state)?”
    I refer back to the same principle again. That Israel should not be expected to be more mature, more giving, more tolerant, more forgiving or more anything then its neighbors. As it turns out, it is, sometimes only marginally and often profoundly. That’s my point. I do not agree with everything they do. However, they intend to remain the JEWISH NATIONAL HOMELAND. That is their right, especially so because Israel was founded as a refuge for the preservation of an endangered population. The Arabs control 98% of the M.E.. Stop with the whining. Racial and/or religious minorities in that 98% get their arses kicked. No one whines for those people — and the arse-kicking they get is far worse and more frequent. Try flying a kite in Saudi Arabia. See how fast before the religious police are beating you about the head and ears. Jesus Henry Christ, has everyone gone mad?
    Its not “discrimination”. Its “preservation”. Not the same.
    Protecting whales is NOT ‘discrimonating’ against Norwegians and/or Japanese. Even if I do not agree with it, it is not the crime you craft it to be.

23. John Baker Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    When you annex territory “captured” in war, you take in the inhabitants. And therein lies the demographic problem. It’s one thing to control your ethnic mix through immigration law, but then there’s this problem of “outsiders” taken in by conquest. For example, how many Israelis would vote for annexing E. Jerusalem? OK. Now what do they do with the two million Arabs currently living there? And again how are you guided by the Israeli Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty and the Israeli Declaration of Independence in answering that question? Do Israelis themselves really want to live in a society where minority rights are not protected? I am a white boy who grew up under segregation and jim crow laws in the South, and I can tell you it hurt us too in our own way.

24. Isidor Farash {A.K.A. Grand Rebbe Cornelius D. Trollstein} Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    If one’s wife is raped and impregnated by the intruder, one may have to raise the child but one is not compelled by law or moral code to love it like one’s own.

25. John Baker Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    I believe both the Bible and the Quran sanction the adoption of children born to the householder’s female slaves (as well as marriage to the mothers). This was the usual practice in ancient times. Such children became part of the household and were never sold except in unusual circumstances. The principle underlying the religious laws was freedom (al-’asl huwa ‘al-hurriya), i.e., that when all superficialities were removed both master and slave were human beings and in principle free and therefore equal. I suggest this is the better analogy.

26. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 am

    In response to ‘Isidor’:

    You are justifying discrimination in Israel (whether you call it ethnic/racial/religious) by the fact that other states do it as well.

    It is an argument that cannot be won by peaceful means and so can never lead to peace.

    You have argued eloquently for the benefits of this discrimantion.

    But do these really outway the disadvantages?

    1. It condemns Palestians to permanent injustice and misery.

    2. It condemns Israel to perpetual violence and increasing isolation from the increasing majority of states worldwide that cannot accept discrimination.

    3. It condemns the Jewish diaspora to increasing anti-semitism and undermines their ability to fight it.

    4. Finally (and less importantly) it does makes it much more difficult to combat the emerging threat of Islamic-inspired terrorism.

27. Isidor Farash {a.k.a. P.M. Cornelius DeBusse Trollstein} Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 am

    “1. It condemns Palestians to permanent injustice and misery.”
    Most Palestinian-Arabs would just as soon not mix socially or intermarry with Jews. This is not a one-way street. Only a small part of the Jewish population of Israel (perhaps a larger percentage then the Arab side) wish to have intermixed social and matital status. Perhaps in time a place can be carved out for these love-nicks to flourish. Not while pizza parlors are being blown to bits. Other then this specific complaint, what we are talking about in reality is the status of neighborhoods. It does not have to be “permanent injustice and misery” as you say. There are certain neighborhoods in the USA that I would not dare move into. I can show you neighborhoods in rural Maine where (as a Jew) I would be the ‘blackest’ person in town. As ‘city-boy’, I would be even ‘blacker’. Facts of human life. Not particular to Jews or to Israel. Try being an East Indian living in Hong Kong. Same thing. Nothing personal against East Indians. They simply are NOT Cantonese and do not enjoy equal rights as a practical matter. We don’t see them blowing-up noodle-houses.
    “2. It condemns Israel to perpetual violence and increasing isolation from the increasing majority of states worldwide that cannot accept discrimination.”
    Of course, this fully depends on one’s perception of point #1. If I am being fair in point #1, then the world is being unfair in point #2.
    “3. It condemns the Jewish diaspora to increasing anti-semitism and undermines their ability to fight it.”
    Please see point # 2 (above).
    “4. Finally (and less importantly) it does makes it much more difficult to combat the emerging threat of Islamic-inspired terrorism.”
    Or, one could look the other direction and say that this entire mess is (at least partly) the result of radical Islamic elements in Arab culture, who’s (modern) political influence date back to the turn of the 20th century.

28. John Baker Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 am

    Isidor, as to your point #1. What they want is to buy property or be authorized to build on state-owned land. When you describe it as the desire to mix socially or to intermarry, that trivializes it, don’t you think? These Israeli Arabs are good citizens and proud of being Israelis and want to stay. Why should they be black-balled on the basis of their ethnicity?

29. John Baker Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Black-balled with respect to buying land or getting building permits, I mean.

30. Isidor Farash {a.k.a. P.M. Cornelius DeBusse Trollstein} Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    “Isidor, as to your point #1. What they want is to buy property or be authorized to build on state-owned land. When you describe it as the desire to mix socially or to intermarry, that trivializes it, don’t you think? These Israeli Arabs are good citizens and proud of being Israelis and want to stay. Why should they be black-balled on the basis of their ethnicity?”
    As I have said, I do not defend everything Israel does or that is collectively “Jewish”. Perhaps it is neither just or appropriate to bifurcate land on the basis of religion. Suppose I agree in principle. Please see my post #1 above:
    “. . . I probably disagree with the Israeli practice of creating different ranks of entitlements . . .”
    My point is therefore (in this instance) not to defend the practice but merely to place it in a fairer perspective, as not being as diabolical as the critics are suggesting. Misdemeanor offence. Not worthy of a mass political movement or the condemnation being proffered.

31. John Baker Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    not being as diabolical as the critics are suggesting.

    Yes, that’s what I call demonizing btw. That’s why I would say discriminatory rather than racist. Still, while not diabolical land use is extremely important. Pretty basic stuff. The laws affecting land distribution are major determinants of quality of life.

32. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    August 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am

    Your arguments in 1 correspond exactly with the architects of Apartheid in South Africa.

    When the state systematically treats people differently on the basis of their race/religion and, as a result, one group is at a permanent disadvantage. Since they cannot easily change the group that they belong to, and should not be required to do so, they suffer permanent injustice.

    The key test for whether a policy represents unfair discrimination is whether you would be happy to be at the recieving end of the same policies. Would you be happy to live in a state where you had been formerly in the majority and as a result of a combination of ethnic cleansing of Jews and massive and continuing immigration of Where immigration of Jews, even members of the same family, are severely restricted. Where government funding for services such as education is much lower for jews than for muslims. Where villages that you and your family used to live in have been demolished and the land confiscated and where you are forbidden access to this land and have not rights to claim compensation. And I have not even started on the occupied terrorities.

    Do you think Jews would tolerate such treatment? In our own country? Of course not. We would kick up a huge fuss. We would fight furiously in any way we could. Some of us would resort to violence, and if we were desperate some of us would resort to terrorism.

33. Steve Klein Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am

    We cannot compare Israel to the United States. Israel is a Jewish state.

    Israel was created as a refuge and a homeland for the Jewish people. Not just anyone can immigrate to Israel. We have the Law of Return which enables Diaspora Jews to return to their homeland.

    JNF was established to purchase land specifically for the Jewish people. This is not about racism or bigotry. This is about Jewish land, purchased by and for the Jews.

    I fear the Jimmy Carter’s, and other Jew-haters around the world who accuse Israel of being an Apartheid state, have the Anti-Defamation League and other left-leaning groups on the defensive; running for cover.

    I am a proud Jew. I am not ashamed of our state or our heritage. Why should we let the Jew-haters dictate what we do with our land?

34. Steve Klein Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 10:19 am

    Anton van der Merwe Says: If you support Israel and its policies designed to maintain a Jewish majority you are supporting racism.

    No. Racism is “the belief that a particular race is superior to others.”

    Nazism is racism. We are not the racists. Israel’s surrounding enemies believe they are superior to us. They call Jews the sons of apes and pigs. Why do you write this? Our enemies want their mosques higher or above our synagogues because their faith is superior to our. This is racism. Why do you think they want the Dome of the Rock overlooking the inferior Jews praying at a wall down below.

    So they can throw rocks and refuge down at the despised Jew.

35. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am

    No racist or bigot ever admits to being a racist/bigot.

36. Steve Klein Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Anton, you wrote: “No racist or bigot ever admits to being a racist/bigot.

    Perhaps, but with due respect sir, How do I know you are not a Jewish bigot? That is bigoted against your own fellow Jew?

    You wrote that you are Jewish. “Until recently I would flinch at someone calling Israel a racist state. But then I was unaware of how pervasive the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel is, and how it is actually getting worse.”

    I bought a copy of Jimmy Carter’s book at member John Baker’s prodding. I’ve listened to it at least twice now on audio. Mr. Carter accuses Israel of being a racist state, at least by inference. The title of his book is pregnant with meaning. Do Jews fear their Arab neighbors? Yes and for good reason.

    I don’t appreciate a (Southern Baptist) Christian from Georgia who admits his family farm is on Southern Creek Indian lands who were brutally expelled in the Trail of Tears by Carter’s fathers lecturing Israel about racism.

    I believe the Southern Baptist Convention passed a Resolution to expend resources and energy to Convert Jews, July 1, 1996. Isn’t this a form of bigotry?

37. Steve Klein Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 11:47 am

    http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/22685/A_Racist_Jewish_State%3F.html

    A Racist Jewish State?
    By: Editorial Board
    Wednesday, August 1, 2007

    …..Predictably, the Reform movement, which historically rejected the specialness of Israel as the Promised Land, weighed in with this comment from the president of the Union of Reform Judaism:

    It’s very hard to imagine any circumstance where a Jewish minority in any Diaspora country would accept with equanimity a bill that would forbid Jews from purchasing land. Therefore it is essential that when the Jewish majority in Israel exercises power, it extend to others then rights it always demanded of itself when we were in the minority.

    And there was much more from others along the same lines.

    They all seem to forget that the Holocaust changed everything, including the definition of discrimination. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Jews died because no one would take them in. Throughout recorded history Jews were singled out, as no other group, for attack and annihilation in lands in which they were a minority. The ineluctable lesson of history is that Jews require – indeed, are entitled to – a place they can call their own and where they will be welcomed, no questions asked.

    History has taught that the Jew cannot count on the goodwill and humanity of others. Can affirmative measures designed to counter this historical phenomenon fairly be treated as “discriminatory?”

    With that in mind, what exactly is wrong with measures designed to ensure an enduring place for the Jew? Providing for a Jewish political majority through “unequal” land inducements is not all that invidious. Nor are special incentives to attract Jews to the Jewish state. Perhaps more than anything else, history has taught that the security of a Jewish state must be premised on objectively defensible borders, not on hoped-for niceness from a world that long ago proved unwilling to provide it.

    As the first President Bush so eloquently phrased it in an address to the UN in 1991: “To equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history.”

38. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    August 7th, 2007 at 4:02 am

    ‘…what exactly is wrong with measures designed to ensure an enduring place for the Jew?’

    1. It has been acheived by inflicting a huge injustice on the Palestinian people, who played no part in the Holocast. An injustice which is historical and ongoing.

    2. It has manifestly failed to increase the security of Jews. Jews within Israel are manifestly under threat, which is certain to get worse. Jews outside Israel have the impossible task of defending the indefensible.

    We are left with two arguments in support of Israel’s policies:

    a. the holocast justifies inflicting this injustice on the Palestinians and
    b. other countries are worse

    Those who find these arguments unconvincing are accused of being anti-semitic or self-hating jews.

39. Anton van der Merwe Says:
    August 7th, 2007 at 4:30 am

    Please excuse my terrible spelling. I am very embarrassed to have mispelt Holocaust.

    I do believe that Jews deserved special consideration after the Holocaust. But why should the Palestinian bear the brunt of this? It should be those responsible and those complicit. The best testament to the Holocaust and honor to the victims thereof would be that it make anti-semitism and any other form of racial/ethnic discrimination completely unacceptable and that it results in the cast-iron protection of minority rights.

    The argument that the Holocaust should entitle Jews to inflict an injustice on and discriminate against Palestinians is fatally flawed. Those promoting this argument are undermining what should be the enduring legacy of the Holocaust and inadvertently betraying its victims.

40. More Palestinian Mythology Says:
    September 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    More Palestinian Mythology! The Arabs of pre-state Israel were as complicit in the Holocaust as they could manage to be. Their leader, the Grand Mufti al-Husseni, plotted out with Hitler where the extermination camps would go in pre-state Israel after the Nazi victory. He then went on to form a Muslim SS unit while broadcating Nazzi propganda from Berlin.

    The other myth that really needs addressing isthe oft spouted myth that Jews were always well treated in the Moslem world. Thats sheer nonsense. Of course there has never been anything comparable to the Holocaust but there was a history complete with religious persecution,legal discrimnation, anti-Jewish riots, forced conversion and expulsion. Remember that Rambam left Moslem Spain? It was due to Moslem mistreatment of Jews, even in a palce later famous for a brief “Golden Age.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.