The Apartheid Debate Continues
“Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing.”
— Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust
New York Times, 01/30/05 (c/o Shtreimel)
Ok… I’ve summarized and paraphrased the majority of the statements made by the various commentors on my “apartheid” post. I’m glad so many of you were able to find consensus on the following points:
- Arab states discriminate against Jews. Ergo, it’s okay for Jews to discriminate against Arabs. And if you think otherwise, you’re holding Israel to a higher standard, and thus in effect, acting in an antisemitic manner.
- Jews calling attention to our own misdoings, even for the sake of rectifying and “righting” matters, will bring about tragedy.
- South African apartheid was worse, and thus, what’s going on in Israel is acceptable.
- Having a Jewish state necessitates policy reminiscent of South African apartheid, and therefore it’s okay. Ergo, if you don’t support Israel’s apartheid-like policies, you’re an anti-Zionist and a supporter of terrorism.
- A Jew who, once again, doesn’t support Israel’s apartheid-like policies, hates himself.
- If you are a Jew who finds himself on the side of justice, and you believe that Israel is not conducting itself in the most righteous manner of which it is capable, you are a race traitor.
- If you criticize the discriminatory policies of the Israeli government, you are “aiding and abetting the killing of 6 million Jews.”
- If you find some claims of Palestinians to be valid and use language similar to theirs to describe Israel’s discriminatory policies, you “reflect the position of Palestinian murderers” and/or the Egyptian/Iranian press.
From these remarks I can draw one of two conclusions:
- A fair number of Jewish people are deluded, racist, and ethnocentric, and will justify even the most reprehensible actions of their own people, going so far as to brand those Jews who disagree with them traitors.
- People who spend their time arguing on websites are generally maladjusted, and exhibit delusional, racist, and ethnocentric tendencies.
A rather harsh statement, yes. Some would even accuse me of stooping to the level of those commentors who saw fit to make ad hominem attacks upon my character instead of addressing the issues I presented themselves. But I’m inclined to side with the latter of the two conclusions I’ve presented, whereas I see the first reflecting negatively upon Judaism, and I believe that Judaism is opposed to the positions which these people have taken.
It is written in Midrash Rabbah 24:6-7,
ÃŒBen ‘Azzai said: This is the book of the descendants of Adam is a great principle of the Torah. R. Akiba said: But thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Lev. XIX, 18) is even a greater principle. Hence you must not say, Since I have been put to shame, let my neighbour be put to shame. R. Tanhuma said: If you do so, know whom you put to shame, [for] In the likeness of God made He him.
Ben Azzai is saying that all of humanity are the children of Adam, and that the Torah’s greatest purpose is the acknowledgement of that fact. Rebbe Akiva then says, loving one’s neighbor is the greatest purpose of Torah. Then Reb Tanhuma extends upon that point saying, yes, loving one’s neighbor is important but only because we are all created in the image of God, and to harm another human being is to harm God.
For another perspective, we look to The Bach, commenting on the Tur Choshen Mishpat (Siman 266), on the halakhic discussion of returning a lost object to its owner:
If it is known that a member of Israel found [the lost object of a non-Jew], what a chilul Hashem (descration of God’s name) if he does not return it! Because the non-Jews will say, ‘Look: There is no credibility among the members of Israel. They are liars and thieves.’
If we are truly Hashem’s partners in creation, we should not profane our partner’s name. By acting negatively towards non-Jews, Jews contribute to a negative impression of God and fail in their obligation to serve as an ohr l’goyim — a light unto the nations. (Of course, the question of particularism, racism and ethnocentrism, let alone conceit, can be raised with regards this theological position as well, but let’s leave that aside for now.)
Technically speaking, however, Torah does not necessarily obligate taking a universalist position. One could easily find a means by which to justify Jewish particularism and even racism within Torah scripture. But The Ramban (Nachmanides) would argue that Torah sets the bar for the very base level of human interaction: It is the minimum of what is required of us, and that we should strive beyond the letter of the law to achieve the highest ideal. And that ideal is consistently expressed as universalism. Commenting upon Devarim 6:18, he writes,
“This refers to compromise and lifnim mishurat hadin (transcending the law).” The intent of this is that, initially, He had said that you should observe the laws and statutes which He had commanded you. Now He says that, with respect to what He has not commanded, you should likewise take heed to do the good and the right in His eyes, for He loves the good and the right. And this is a great matter. For it is impossible to mention in the Torah all of a person’s actions towards his neighbors and acquaintances, all of his commercial activity, and all social and political institutions.
Thus I refuse to hold Judaism or all of Jewry accountable for the actions of individual Jews. Rather, I hold each of the individuals responsible for the statements above accountable for their own actions, in particular their insistance that those who take a position such as my own are self-hating Jews. Judaism demands the pursuit of justice, and once again, pushes us to strive towards a higher ideal, beyond the minimum expectations of Torah law. That we should be demonized as we seek to fulfill our obligations as Jewish people as we understand them, is too a chilul Hashem.
Returning now to the topic of apartheid, Ronen writes,
I hate the appropriation of loaded terms like “apartheid.” It just makes no linguistic sense to use a term with such specific connotations and claim that, since there are some generalities in common, that it is an acceptable term for a completely different situation. Call out Israel until you’re blue in the face, just stay away from comparing tragedies– it gets us nowhere.
Those sentiments are echoed by Richard Silverstein:
I think the problem is in using provocative labels like ‘apartheid.’ Usually such terms are used by folks who have a preconceived negative attitude when it comes to talking about Israel. While I can sometimes be ideological and provocative in my own blog when talking about this subject, I try to avoid labels that provoke immediate hackle raising (that doesn’t mean that people’s hackles don’t get raised anyway).
There is MUCH to criticize in Israel’s record of treating its Arab citizens & the Palestinians. And yes, there are many parallels between the S. African apartheid regime’s treatment of its black citizens & Israel’s treatment of Israeli Arabs. But why draw all that baggage into the discussion. Then all we talk about is: is Israel apartheid? Is Israel as bad as S. Africa was during apartheid? Is Israel a Nazi state? That argument doesn’t go far & pretty much everyone shuts down.
If we are willing to agree that the situation in Israel vs. that of South Africa is not entirely incomparable, but that the term ‘apartheid’ is too loaded to permit for reasonable discussion, for me, the question then stands, what term would be preferable to describe state-sanctioned discrimination in Israel & the occupied territories? Ronen & Richard’s complaint is, essentially, that terms like “apartheid” are contentious and thereby inflame discourse, stifling ‘conversational productivity’. But does the softening of language not do a disservice by diminishing the import of the question at hand? Take, for example, the term ‘collateral damage’: Orwellian newspeak proferred by the Pentagon to describe the senseless killing of civillians and the destruction of civil infrastructure. Would a phrase akin to ‘collateral damage’ be preferable to describe Israel’s apartheid-like, discriminatory policies, or would an entirely new term (perhaps one in Hebrew) which carried the same weight as ‘apartheid’ be acceptable?
As per the remarks of Ben David, who took umbrage with my post, I find the problem with ‘separate’ schools and hospitals is not necessarily the lack of integration, and I should’ve been clearer in my initial writing. To this effect, Yisrael raises an interesting point, from which I’ll extend my position:
Israel is catering to diverse interests, and so its laws must treat people differently so long as it is socialist. Would it be better to force Arab and Charedi kids into more mainstream schools? Not if you want to allow them to preserve their sectarian values.
Yisrael is entirely correct. Thus the predominant issue is less so integration, but rather inequity in the quality of services provided to those different groups, in education, hospitalization, and so on. Arabs constitute 20% of Israel’s population but do not receive services which are consistent with their numbers and economic contributions.
Yisrael then presents an interesting Libertarian solution to this problem, and one worth exploring in further discussion:
The way to solve this is not through “desegregation,” but reather through economic liberalization. If schools and other services were private, and if Charedi and other groups did not receive tremendous subsidies, this segregation would disappear. People still might organize around similar poulations, but it would lack the color of state coercion. Thus, the problem is socialism, not “segregation.” Israel is not one of the freest countries, and that will be true so long as it embraces socialism. Today, the threat to freedom is “segregation.” If that ends, the threat will be “forced assimilation.” Those are the only alternatives with socialism.
Returning now to Ben David’s remarks, Ben David also characterized Oslo as a Trojan horse. For me, this is unacceptable. It is well known that the process of normalization which transpired during Oslo increased the amount of repression in the territories. Oslo put the checkpoint system in place and started work permit restrictions, which were present before the Intifada — these measures were not, as it’s often claimed, a response to terrorism. Further, during the Oslo years, under Rabin, settlement expansion was at an all-time high. It is widely acknowledged by Israelis and Palestinians alike that Israel’s discriminatory policies towards Palestinians which grew out of the Oslo process served as an incitement towards violence that is in no small way responsible for the current Intifada. To say otherwise is to turn the situation afoukh.
Finally, Ben David writes,
To come after all this history and try to beat up on Israel for not giving West Bank residents citizenship – while simultaneously uphold Palestinian nationhood – is a non sequitir and totally unfair. Israel did not impose apartheid – its policy since 1967 amounted to AGREEMENT that the Palestinians should not live under Israeli domination. To turn this into a stick to hit Israel is dishonest.
But Israel has created an intractable situation with the expansion of settlement blocks into Palestinian territory which ensures the unviablity of Palestinian statehood. The claim that Israel has kept Palestinians in limbo since ’67 as a favor to them is disingenuous, especially when they’ve been slicing up the future state all the while. I’m at a loss to justify Israel’s building on seized/annexed land and subsidizing its citizens’ relocation into those territories. One can hardly claim the interest of security—the settlements are currently Israel’s greatest liability. So what could it be? Personally, I find the situation akin to that of Tibet where the Chinese moved citizens into Lhasa en masse in order to make the situation intractable: The Chinese are now there to stay. If the Israelis in the West Bank are there to stay (and I don’t see how Ma’ale Adumim or Givat Ze’ev are going anywhere, anytime soon), how can a contiguous Palestinian state ever be viable? And if a Palestinian state isn’t viable, denying Palestinians Israeli citizenship and giving them psuedo-self-determination in “Palestinian administered territory” is no different from South Africa’s bantustan system.
There are many other marks to which I’d like to take the time to respond, but Shabbat is on the horizon. So I wish you all a Shabbat shalom and hope I’ll find the time motzei shabbos to continue my response.
Call me a self-hating, nigger-loving Jew, but G-d bless Mobius.
frank … ease up on the language or say bye bye
great and informative because i was to lazy to read any thing else
Shabbot Shalom
Sleecha.
People who spend their time arguing on websites are generally maladjusted, and exhibit delusional, racist, and ethnocentric tendencies.
I think this is a fair and accurate statement to a certain extent. This site has its share of cranks and it has its share of intelligent posters. But the real question to me is why any of these people spend what appears to be a sizeable chunk of time arguing anonymously with people they don’t know and never will. With only 24 hours a day isn’t there something better for humanity that can be done with that time? Why would anyone get emotionally involved in a pseudo-conversation with words on their computer screen? Who knows, but Shabbat Shalom.
Mobius has noted my views very well, I have little more to say, except that even my position may not solve final status issues with a Palestinian state (which I see as basically a foreign policy issue), it simply resolves the domestic policy issues.
The final status issue will probably not be resolvable with libertarian solutions, a mix of Jewish settler relocation and annexation will probably be required, as well as the transfer payments necessary to compensate those affected. However, once we have two states in place, the advantage will be that Israel will be free from persecution for the condition of the Palestinian state. Citizens of the Palestinian state will be worse of than Israeli Jews, but it would not remotely qualify as “apartheid.”
typo, “worse off”, not “worse of”
I’m glad so many of you were able to find consensus on the following points Wow — a whole row of straw men.
Is there anyone who agrees with any single one of the silly bullet points at the top of this long rant … much less “many of you”?
Sheesh.
Wow. I’m in shock. Mobius is so smart. So enlightened. I’m taken aback by this brilliant post. How can you be so young, yet so knowledgeable?
Prodly, quit kissing ass.
I appreciate the textual support– it seems like many ultra right wingers on this site stand for our ethnicity above our values, and I take issue with that.
On the other hand, Dan, look how much you were able to accomplish while barely mentioning the word apartheid. The post was much more interesting, much less inflammatory and much more likely to provoke thoughtful discussion. That was my only point– it’s not about euphamizing, it’s about avoiding misappropriation of other tragedies.
Maybe some people are spending too much time on this site, but these are important conversations and this is one of the few forums where Jews of diverse backgrounds actually maintain a discourse with each other. For those of us with flexible schedules, it’s not too hard to participate some.
Damn — italics. Okay, I try again. With a bit of editing, even. Please delete my previous post, Mobius; I know you’re a hands-on editor.
If we are willing to agree that the situation in Israel vs. that of South Africa is not entirely incomparable, but that the term ‘apartheid’ is too loaded to permit for reasonable discussion, for me, the question then stands, what term would be preferable to describe state-sanctioned discrimination in Israel & the occupied territories?
Um, as to the former, the same thing we call it France and Brazil: policies that need to be changed. As to the latter, the same thing we call it in Tibet: military occupation. In what way is this complicated?
Would a phrase akin to ‘collateral damage’ be preferable to describe Israel’s apartheid-like, discriminatory policies.
Apartheid is almost exactly akin to “collateral damage”: it involves yanking words out of one context and applying them to another, not because they enlighten, but because they obfuscate. The meaning that the word carries is entirely vested in its shock value, and that shock value derives not from that which it is suddenly being used to describe, but from its history in a very different context. Your description, above, of Israel’s policies as “apartheid-like” is on the one hand almost totally incorrect, but on the other hand shocking. Hence the appeal.
Would an entirely new term (perhaps one in Hebrew) which carried the same weight as ‘apartheid’ be acceptable?
No, it would not; the English language provides us with terms like “discrimination” and “military occupation”, which make perfectly good sense. This invention of new terms that you advocate is exactly what Orwellian propaganda is all about.
If you think that Israel requires unique vocabulary or branding because it is radically different than that which takes place elsewhere, then the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate that you have a unique situation which words just cannot describe.
Not only have you not demonstrated that, the opposite is demonstrably true. So it’s hard to see your long missives as being particularly honest on this point. If someone repeatedly insists on inventing new “vocabulary” for a very familiar situation that exists everywhere nation-states do and everywhere military occupations do — and further insists on conflating these two situations, contrary to logic, in order to try and invent a radically “new” situation out of whole cloth — it so absurd or contentious to make the claim that they are applying a racist double standard?
Personally, I find the situation akin to that of Tibet where the Chinese moved citizens into Lhasa en masse in order to make the situation intractable: The Chinese are now there to stay. If the Israelis in the West Bank are there to stay (and I don’t see how Ma’ale Adumim or Givat Ze’ev are going anywhere, anytime soon), how can a contiguous Palestinian state ever be viable?
If they’re there to stay, then obviously it is viable as a Palestinian state with an ethnic Jewish minority.
This is not a particularly unusual situation or intractable problem. On the contrary, just about every former Soviet republic has faced it as they have become independent countries, with large Russian minorities in places like the Ukraine, Belorussia and, most especially, the Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.
It is only when one imagines a homogeneous Palestinian state — those wont to borrow shock-value expressions and apply them to contexts in which they don’t apply would want to call this a “Judenrein” Palestinian state — that this becomes an intractable problem. Luckily, that’s not reasonable. In other news, Israel is viable with Arab villages.
(Heck, Arabs are more integrated into the fabric of Israeli life than are ethnic minorities in dozens of other countries to which the propaganda term “apartheid” is never applied. But, well, we all knew that already. This is clearly not about being honest, but about wanting to fit in. Which is why I’m so fed up with it, and so amazed to see such inanities repeated over and over again. But that’s a separate issue.)
The right thing to do is to bring the settlers to Israel, the country that put them there. If they want to live in Palestine they can apply for immigration, and if Palestine doesn’t let them immigrate they can try and put their own kind of international pressure on Palestine to have it change its policies.
But if for some reason they can’t be made to leave, then you’ve got a situation that is wholly familiar. Difficult, yeah. Intractable, hardly. From where does this idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalsm spring, over and over again, when there is clearly no such thing?
“If they’re there to stay, then obviously it is viable as a Palestinian state with an ethnic Jewish minority.”
Tell that to the Christians in Hebron. If Palestinians (many of whom claim to include the Christian minority) can visit tyrrany upon the Christian in their midst, imagine what they can do to similarly situated Jews. The reason why Jews are being forcibly relocated is that they will be exterminated or expelled otherwise. Settlement Jews are also like to take up arms rather than be exterminated or expelled. That is why this comment is naive. It suggests a path to war, not to peace.
Why would you insult your commenters about spending too much time arguing with strangers when you are among the guiltiest?
Mobius, according to your sister, your “daddy hates niggers.” Is that true?
1. A fair number of Jewish people are deluded, racist, and ethnocentric, and will justify even the most reprehensible actions of their own people, going so far as to brand those Jews who disagree with them traitors.
2. People who spend their time arguing on websites are generally maladjusted, and exhibit delusional, racist, and ethnocentric tendencies.
the first reflecting negatively upon Judaismand I believe that Judaism is opposed to the positions which these people have taken.
You realize don’t you that your justifications for critique #1 and #2 both fall into the same categories as critique #1 and #2.
This whole post is one of the more hilarious examples of self-rightous hypocracy I’ve come across in some time. And it seem like you spent a good deal of time writing it. Ergo, by your own logic, you are a racist.
my father was the reasearch editor for marc schneier’s book, shared dreams: martin luther king & the jewish community. two years ago he also spent two weeks exploring the jewish communities of ethiopia. as far as i know, he’s one of the most knowledgeable and articulate thinkers on the relationship between blacks and jews in the world. i’d argue his position is none-to-dissimilar from john stewart’s.
take my sister with a grain of salt. she’s in it for the shock value.
8opus — kol hakavod. best response i’ve encountered thus far.
btw—miss black jew, please truncate your alias already. i don’t appreciate having the word n*gger repeated incessantly throughout the site.
Well one sibling called me a nigger at least 200 times and called for my lynching about as many; and the other, who hosts this site, rather than apologize, obliquely insults me as “racist” and asks me to “take [her] with a grain of a salt.”
It doesn’t surprise me that a Jew who is “one of the most knowledgeable and articulate thinkers on the relationship between blacks and jews in the world” would produce two race-obsessed, deranged and snotty children.
Have you ever noticed that the sons and daughters of psychiatrists are always completely nuts?
“i don’t appreciate having the word n*gger repeated incessantly throughout the site.”
Huh, your website can’t even take it with a grain of salt? And I’m fucking black asshole!
Are you serious?
#1. my sister has been banned. i cannot account for her actions. and i assure you, she did not learn this at home. my parents taught us to take a stand against racism and injustice. in that, i sued my school system for the institution of a much-needed tolerance education program in the face of a spate of antisemitic incidents. you’re barking up the wrong tree.
as per her racism, blame neve and its resident kahane supporters. she wasn’t like this until she became ba’al teshuva.
#2. we have a policy about making ad hominem attacks against people on this site. this discussion isn’t about me or my family, so either stick to topic or say goodbye.
#3. i didn’t obliquely insult you as a racist, and i’m not going to apologize for my sister like she’s some retarded child incapable of taking responsibility for herself. i simply asked that you stop using the word n*gger in your alias. i fully understand why you’ve chosen that alias, but i would prefer that, now that your point has more than well been made, that you cease from using it.
this is my final word on this subject.
8opus, I went back and re-read your entire post, and apart from the one exception above, I have to agree with mobius that overall, your analysis is good.
Well i guess you’re just going to have to learn to take my name “with a grain of salt.” If you want to ban me because I, as a black woman, choose to empower myself by using the word nigger in my alias, well I’ll leave it up to you. As for “ad hominem” attacks, if you continue to make broad, sweeping generalizations regarding the psychological dispositions of your posters based on their political points of view, I’d, warn you to expect the same back, every now and then, regardless of how many people you ban. It’s just human nature. This is my last word on this subject.
as a visitor to this site you are a guest in my house. either respect the rules of the house, or don’t come over to play.
if you continue to make broad, sweeping generalizations regarding the psychological dispositions of your posters based on their political points of view…
oh. puh. leeze.
“if you’re going to point out the logical fallacies proferred by your visitors and call them out on their racist shit, then expect me to psychoanalyze your entire family and unfoundedly accuse you of being racist.”
ms. black, your comments are generally valuable. HT is gone and your point on the n***** issue was well made. Please remove the n****** reference from your name, so that we can enjoy your comments. At this point, the reference just distracts from your commentary.
And for the record *you* (above) named some large group of your readership “racist”. How can you possibly be so self-rightous on this issue? It honestly baffles me.
seriously, lose the chip on your shoulder. you don’t know me a from a whole in the wall, and as far as i can tell, you’re new to this forum, so you haven’t even been exposed to my ideas long enough to have a sense of who you’re talking to. to claim i, or any other member of my family, has an obsession with race demonstrates your presumptuousness and your own aptness at making generalizations. just because my father researched a book and spent time in ethiopia doesn’t make him race obsessed either. that’s a pretty daft assumption.
if you don’t find the remarks that have been made in the last week apallingly racist in their judaeocentricity, i can’t help but wonder what you define racism to be. i see racism as an ideology which places one group of people hierarchically above another, suggesting that one is in some way “better” or “more entitled” than another, or somehow physically or metaphysically superior. while i think that our place as jewish people is unique in this world (just as are the places of all other peoples inhabiting this earth), i don’t see jews as “better”, “more entitled”, or somehow phyiscally or metaphysically superior. i find jewish people to be incredibly advantaged, privileged, and otherwise blessed and cursed in many ways. we have been imbued with a fortune of wisdom and heritage which continues to guide us towards loving and inspired lifestyles, but which also tends to fuck our heads up rather nicely if we don’t learn how to juggle such flaming batons. other people have that too, and each of our individual communities offer us the same wisdom and insight, the same exasperation and torment, in cultural packages crafted especially for us. and what’s wrong with celebrating diversity? and what’s wrong with taking pride in your own people, if you’re not doing so at the expense of another’s?
as per being self-righteous in the matter, i am committed to fighting racism, especially any latent remnants of my own, and especially amongst my separate-but-equal own. if you think that i’m being somehow hypocritical (which implies that i am somehow a racist), i ask that you kindly articulate where and how so that i can reflect upon your criticisms and learn and grow from them.
take this light unto the nations business for example. anyone privy to an enlightened understanding of halakha (literally: the way) has an obligation to live up to it. not because they have a pact with god, or because they’re better than everyone else, but because once you become aware of your human potential — knowledge which is so staggeringly profound and inspiring — you should feel compelled with all of your being to pursue that path. i would expect it of any person who came to such awarness, whether their path was through jewish, christian, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, or any other belief. is that judaeocentric conceit?
Lots of thoughtful comments on this post. Some quick thoughts:
1) I too agree that Dan’s “summing up” of the days’ events are similar to pompous rabbis talking about “their congregation” or “the Jewish community feels”. However…
2) The fact that Dan tries to balance Torah with left of center politics is impressive. And the struggle is obvious. It is obvious in his bi-polar posts and, at times, on-line apologies.
3) I believe an apology, though not necessairy, would be the right thing to do.
4) With respect to fritting away the hours on blogs…..I agree. Sigh.
Agutten Shabbos
Again, you have misread and misquote me. I said your father was an “expert on race relations” as per your own description of him. I suggested that two of his children are obsessed with race. His daughter because of her obvious racism. His son because of his persitent reduction of Middle East/Israel problems to primarily racial questions of a inflammatory nature.
I made several points regarding your hypocracy above which you fail to address. The most glaring being your insistence that psychological generalizations are ad hominems per se, while your own original post is almost entirely grounded on such generalizations that you made yourself. You call a large group of your readership “racist” among other things (e.g. maladjusted, deluded, ethnocentric). I really don’t see the difference. But there are more if you reread the posts. I’ve been posting on this site for about a year but was recently renamed by your sister. I hold my new name as a badge of honor. Obviously her appearence caused quite a disturbance here, especially to, I think based on the responses I’ve read, your only black reader. But I suppose I should get this “chip off my shoulder” and “take [your sister’s repeated calls for nigger-lynching] with a grain of salt”?
A philosemite is an antisemite who loves Jews.
And your sister wasn’t just some racist asshole who happened to find this place. You invited her here.
Then after the nigger-lynching shit, I have to listen to the brother that Israel is best understood as an “apartheid state”.
Then he accuses people who post on blogs as maladjusted and crazy.
What sane black Jewish person wouldn’t go crazy reading this shit?!!?
You know, 8opus answered you well in his long post. However, his first response where he simply commented on the straw men was much more to the point.
If you can’t differentiate between discrimination and apartheid, then you need to look at yourself and your beliefs much more carefully, Mobius. If you can’t distinguish between an occupation that results from an ongoing [existential] conflict/war and apartheid, then you need to evaluate your integrity and objectivity in this matter. If you take a peace offer that grants the Palestinians a state for the first time ever, and then list the offer as a form of apartheid by talking about bantustans, you are presenting an ideological bias and blindness toward Israel so deep that I don’t see how you can comment about anything the country does with any veracity.
There most certainly is discrimination against the Arab population in Israel, but it is light years removed from apartheid. It happens to be based, to a significant degree, on the very same factors which have caused us to dominate the Palestinians in the territories, and that would be a real state of conflict not only with the Palestinians, but with large segments of the Arab world. Israel is only 55 years old and is trying to forge a society and an economy in a state of constant conflict, and yet you don’t criticize it in positive terms, you use nuclear blasts that undermine its very credibility as a state.
Have you considered that some unjust situations need to be rectified and should be criticized, but using extreme terminology (apartheid) that undermines what is, in its foundation, a fair, just and legal society (where a Muslim or Christian Arab male or female, who may marry a Jewish spouse, can sit in the parliament and state that the country’s law is racist without any fear or concern, and head over to the Supreme Court when a law is breached with respect to any matter including equality) is to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Finally, for someone who hosts a popular website, it surprises me that the best you can do when a majority of people attempts to disabuse you of your offensive accusations regarding apartheid, is to insult your guests. Then again, if you can call Israel an apartheid state despite all the evidence to the contrary, why should I be surprised that you’re flat out wrong about assessing your readers as mal-adjusted racists? Look within, not without.
Signed,
The well adjusted, humanity loving, peace loving, non-racist, TM.
If you can’t differentiate between discrimination and apartheid, then you need to look at yourself and your beliefs much more carefully, Mobius. If you can’t distinguish between an occupation that results from an ongoing [existential] conflict/war and apartheid, then you need to evaluate your integrity and objectivity in this matter. If you take a peace offer that grants the Palestinians a state for the first time ever, and then list the offer as a form of apartheid by talking about bantustans, you are presenting an ideological bias and blindness toward Israel so deep that I don’t see how you can comment about anything the country does with any veracity.
This is my problem with the language and where I disagree with 8opus. Discrimination is what happens when you can’t get a taxi because you’re black. Or you don’t get the job because you’re a woman. Or you lose the poetry slam because you’re white. Discrimination on a state-level that breaches into every dimension of civil affairs is another animal altogether. Which is why I reject reducing the state of affairs to a “simple case of discrimination.” Apartheid, as a phrase, is the closest thing in nature to this scale of activity and the relationship of government to it.
Israel is only 55 years old and is trying to forge a society and an economy in a state of constant conflict, and yet you don’t criticize it in positive terms, you use nuclear blasts that undermine its very credibility as a state.
As much as I regret to say it, Israel’s own actions in the last 55 years undermine its credibility as a state.
Have you considered that some unjust situations need to be rectified and should be criticized, but using extreme terminology (apartheid) that undermines what is, in its foundation, a fair, just and legal society, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
The bathwater will stagnate and encrust the sides of the tub if no one calls attention to it. The baby will have pruney fingers and toes. Softened language is a whisper which goes unheard.
Finally, for someone who hosts a popular website, it surprises me that the best you can do when a majority of people attempts to disabuse you of your offensive accusations regarding apartheid, is to insult your guests. Then again, if you can call Israel an apartheid state despite all the evidence to the contrary, why should I be surprised that you’re flat out wrong about assessing your readers as mal-adjusted racists? Look within, not without.
No one disabused me of anything. They called me a race traitor and terror supporter. And the people who actually raised valid points, I responded to. What I find ridiculous is that you’re claiming that I’m creating strawmen, when all I’ve done was pull the strawmen out of others’ posts and put them on display.
apartheidity: I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I think that if Israel had simply occupied the territories militarily and had not established settlements the word “apartheid” might not come to mind so quickly. Certainly, I don’t know enough to say one way or the other if racism in Israel, either personal or institutional, amounts to being apartheid. But exercising authority over the territories in this way that so directly impacts the non-Isareli residents without extending those residents full democratic representation indicates an apartheid not of Jew vs non-Jew but of Israeli vs non-Israeli. Israel treats the land not as occupied but as conquered.
intractability: I’m a sucker for conspiracy theories. I’ve fallen prey to the propoganda that successive Israeli governments have actively persued settlement programs designed to secure access to the most valuable resourses and real estate in the territories with an eye to the “collateral” undermining of the creation of a viable Palestinian state. I don’t see any point in suggesting that any Israeli government might cut loose the settlements to fend for themselves within a Palestinian state.
To the people who object to the term Apartheid – Would you prefer that the policies be referred to as Jim Crow policies
the thing is, jim crow is the one thing israel’s not guilty of. jim crow would make it like, open, on the surface. it’s much more veiled than that. and that’s how people can excuse it.
“As much as I regret to say it, Israel’s own actions in the last 55 years undermine its credibility as a state.”
Bwaahahahahahahhahah….he regrets it. Yeah, I see the Kleenex piling up on your turntables right now.
Well at least your honest.
Anwyay, I remember reading an editorial in Jerusalem Report where it stated (and I’m paraphrasing):
There are Jews who believe that Israel is under a constant threat of attack. And there are Jews who do not. The former support the actions of the IDF, the latter rarely do.
I’m of the former. I’ve stated this before…based on everything I’ve read (both Left and Right), my many visits to Israel and attending lectures (Left and Right). I am absolutely convinced that Israel’s neighbors, including Egypt and Jordan, would do what they couldnt’ do in the past. I have no doubt about this. Blame it on colonialism…loss of Arab pride…anti-Jewish sentiments…Messianism…whatever. As such, I view most of the actions taken by the IDF to be restrained and calculated.
After spending some time on this site, I feel certain Jews could be more honest by stating unequivcoallry that they believe the existence of Israel is a mistake…a mistake supported by the UN and Britain due to anti-Semitic sentiments (read One Palestine Complete – Segev) and Holocaust Guilt (Finkelstein). Alas, I guess it is easier to sling mud and then cry crocodile tears.
Hey TM…ditto.
I disagree with monius’ whole thesis.
There are times when the sensible sounding person is completely wrong. This is one of them.
I keep the holy Shabbat and this will be my only post today.
Israel is not like America or South Africa.
America was made with the purpose of being a democracy and allowing those in Europe who wanted to get away from tyranny to be free. That was its goal.
South Africa was colonized by outsiders who enslaved the natives.
Israel’s purpose IS NOT to be a democracy and a free for all. It is the land of the Jewish People. If there is a threat to that and people want to change that whether through force or through voting we have every right and obligation to stop it.
The question is what is right and what is wrong and what is the purpose of Israel-not what the majority or the world says.
Unfortunately we have a very vocal and violent minority who wants to take Israel from its rightful owners. They demand the “right of return” for their “people.” They are not stupid-they understand how the average westerner thinks. They understand that “voting” is an acceptable way to take something from the owners and they therefore want to swamp israel with their votes.
So we have this hostile minority who don’t even hide their aim. There is therefore naturally going to be friction so long as they are there. Here in America you’ve only seen since 9-11 a little bit of the coming dicrimination. Now this minority here is a tiny fraction of the population. Just wait until they are 10% and you will see what friction and discrimination really means.
The best thing is that they move to another country and not get be discriminated at all.
Jewish people do not want harm to come to others. At the same Israel belongs to the Jewish People and that is an absolute.
How are you going to classify Jews-only roads or Jews-only towns (endorsed by Ariel Sharon) as anything different from Jim Crow policies
Sure there are no segregated water fountains, but is that really as important compared to equality in housing?
Brown, you never answered my question. Please explain your vision of Israel, taking into consideratin the geopolitical nature of the area. No quotes or cut/paste jobs would be appreciated. Your own words…your thoughts.
As a side note, and assuming you don’t believe that Bush and his Zio-nazis flew planes into the towers – I can only wonder how the US will continue to deal with terrorism on thier soil. I’ve seen how Canada responds to a mail box blowing up…to a few natives with M 16’s, it ain’t pretty. Of course, I truly hope North America never has to endure what Israelis endure, but I’m wondering how’d us/we would handle it differently.
How many people find it sad, perhaps amusing, that Brown/Mobius could end up in a word slinging match debating Crow vs. Apartheid. Oy vey, we are our own worst enemies.
i don’t believe the existence of israel is a mistake, i believe it is a temporary solution to a greater problem. until humanity solves the problem of discrimination in general, we will never be free from antisemitism, and as long as there is antisemitism, it necessitates a jewish-majority state. we do not contribute to solving that problem by adding more discrimination to the mix. we do so by eliminating our own discriminatory practices and demonstrating that success in doing so is possible.
“As much as I regret to say it, Israel’s own actions in the last 55 years undermine its credibility as a state.”
Those are your words. Yes? So Dan, how would you (try to be an arm-chair general for one sec) have dealt with ’48, ’67, ’72 and of course, how would you deal with the modern terrorism?
Not so OT:
I heard a lady call a talk radio show and claim that the Iraq war is all about oil, etc.,etc. When the host said: “Yes, and your point is what? America would come to a stand still without oil”> And she went on about how she bikes all over California and how we should all can do the same…get rid of cars, ambulances, planes. Man, it was enough to make you wish the 60’s never happened.
This could come off sounding horribly condescending, but what the whoo, Mobius called many of us “deluded and racistâ€. I’m not sure what the average age is on this here blog, and I’m not sure what level of observance most folk grew up with. But my background is typical: 3 day a year visit to shul, kosher in home but not out, etc. My first visit to Israel occurred when I was 20. At the time, I was a guitar player in a punk band (still play guitar, but much more into Ableton Live and creating lush landscapes a la My Bloody Valentine), reading Crowley, and generally anti anything my parent’s or community represented. If my Zaddie told me the Wall would move me, I decided it would not. If my tour guide told me we were walking on holy ground, I’d chuckle. In retrospect, I believe some of this was coming from a good place. At times, the Jewish community does not allow teens/young adults to form their own opinions about God, prayer and/or social justice. But most of my “fighting the good fight†was plain ‘ol rebellion mixed in with a shitty Jewish education. It took one cool rabbi, some awesome Shabbos dinners and plain ol’ growing up to figure out that much of what my Zaddie claimed is correct. Read the biographies of Chomsky…Finkelstein…rarely, if ever, will you find one who comes from a warm, Kosher home.
Read the post. Haven’t read the comments yet. Just wanted to say thanks to Mobius: I remember now why I come to this site. Shabbat Shalom.
You come to this site to see bullshit anti-Israel propaganda establishing moral approbation of Israel that has nothing to do with reality?
Here are the results of this kind of bullshit – watch how Mobius et al fall right into the camp of the deranged Israel haters.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/536355.html
wtf t_m? i think you’re being overly rash and judgemental.
When I want to wear an orange star to make a comparision between the holocaust and Sharon’s retreat plan, I’m told that I’m insensitive to survivors and everyone else with a monopoly on that word and period.
BUT,
if someone in Bosnia/Serbia called what happened there a ‘holocaust’, on the logic that Israeli policy is apartheid (and that there is not monopoly on that South african word), then there was a holocaust in Bosnia, as well as Rwanda, and Darfur too. Right?
Mobius is saying that aparthied shouldn’t only be monopolized by the blacks of South Africa. So, I agree with Mobius, their is apartheid in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc… and Israel too.
Woo-pee! apartheid, apartheid, apartheid, apartheid, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel. We are like the goyim! We are a real country now.
I gotta ditto joe schmo, the land of Israel belongs to Jews (and puh-leeze don’t say this is racist because I don’t have an hour to sit and type out a whole dissertation) and,
I gotta just remind everyone that johnbrown has a problem with consistancy. Mobius might be right to claim that many people shirk off discussion on many things by saying that Arab countries do whatever ‘best’, but Sir Brown, don’t whine about Jewish only roads in Israel (they don’t exist!) and what makes you think that Arab-only cities and villages are okay, but Jewish only yishuvim not? If you are going to be a true human rights warrior, then make the rights equal for everyone. In the meantime, Arabs can move virtually anywhere they want in Israel, but Jews are prohibited from moving into all Arab populated areas and called provocateurs if they choose to, even if they paid fair money for land or real estate. Frankly, the knesset doesn’t have a law enforcing it, but it’s so taken for granted.
Mob,
Okay, let’s not talk about other countries, let’s also talk about Jews wanting to live in Ramle (but get stoned and harrased), or Jews who want to live in Shechem or Beit Lehem, but are prohibited – something about Area ‘A’ where Jews are banned from entering.
Don’t claim to be the champion of human rights, if you’re only fighting for one side.
and shavuah tov to everyone.
Mobius, I may be offending you, and I am definitely being judgemental.
But rash?
I read that whole long post of yours in its entirety, as I did the one from a few days ago. I think the apartheid analogy is not just wrong, but immoral to make. It is precisely what the wackos at ANSWER are saying, and frankly, it is what I see from broad sections of the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bashers. Read that article in Haaretz, how are you or John Brown any different from those people? You make the same analogies, you attack the same things, and, based upon your posts here, feel that it’s NECESSARY to make these kinds of attacks in order to cause changes. Where you see potential changes, I see the undermining of a country that may have problems and issues that need to be addressed, but these issues are far smaller in scope or immorality than to deserve either the attention you and the rest the Israel haters give them OR the type of attention you give. Apartheid, my ass.
T_M it seems to me that you said a bunch of stuff that didn’t directly address anything Mobius wrote
Mobius: The sky is blue
T_M: bullshit bullshit bulshit israel haters bullshit
Mobius: T_M aren’t you being a bit rash?
T_M: (avoiding addressing whether or not the sky is blue) ANSWER thinks the sky is blue and they’re wackos – how are you any different from them
John, perhaps you should reread the comments?
Mobius,
I haven’t even seen one response to what I posted before shabbat.
My argument is simple and to the point.
How do you respond?
If you have no valid response change your position.
Mobius – I am utterly unconvinced by your argument. More articulate bloggers than me have answered you sufficiently.
A different point entirely: what exactly would a contiguous Palestinian state look like? Gaza … West Bank … very far away from each other.
This is not an argument against the creation of a Palestinian state. It is just that the blanket-rejection of all solutions as “bantustans” has me worried.
Habibi wrote: “A different point entirely: what exactly would a contiguous Palestinian state look like? Gaza … West Bank … very far away from each other. ”
Look at the UN partition plan. They’re really not far from each other – when not occupied, they touch.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/unplan19.gif
I love it. Check out that map. What a true òùø this John Brown is. Why do you even bother with the 1947 plan? Just be honest and make it all Palestine.
Um, the Arabs rejected the ’47 Plan. Remember?
so much for the_middle … sounds more like the_right_of_center.
Joe Schmoe: Basic Guidelines Of The Government of Israel
“To reinforce democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.”
“To promote equality among the various sectors and ethnic groups of Israeli society.”
T_M comes off like a more coherent Avi Green.
Mobius,
You just touched upon the basic problem in Israel. Their confusion and innate contradiction in thier basic guidelines. On the one hand “To promote equality….” and on the other hand the absolute that Israel is a Jewish state to be run by Jews as seen in the law of return that only applies to Jews and the national anthem “the hope of 2000 years…the soul of the Jew yearning…”
A contradiction like this is EXACTLY what leads to this state of confusion. They on the one hand want to grant them equality and don’t want to remove them but on the other hand they recognize their enmity and ultimate goal of removing Jewish severeignty.
There is a real identity crisis in Israel – this is important to understand if you want to really understand what is going on there.
Once you understand that then the question is which is more important political equality or a Jewish state? On which side do you stand – that is the question. Ultimately both cannot be.
Mobius, which one do you choose?
I choose a Jewish state.
Now now, Necknose, you should probably try to come up with some evidence before you make comments of that nature. I’ll wait patiently.
Mobius, I have people accusing me of being on the Left on Jewlicious and people accusing me of being on the Right here on Jewschool. In fact, if Neo-con and Josh from Jewlicious are reading this, they would probaly consider Necknose to be a very confused individual. Very simply, on some matters my views are left of Center and on some they are right of Center. However, using the term apartheid when defining Israel is very far from the Center, so this particular topic is not one I would go by in order to judge where I stand in general.
I don’t think it matters where I stand anyway. I comment occasionally here and have little impact on this site. Jewschool is your bully pulpit, and is sufficiently popular that when you post CRAP like this about Israel being an apartheid state, you get a lot of eyeballs who may read your lengthy and incorrect post – and many will walk away swayed by your argument, particularly if they aren’t knowledgeable enough about Israel to begin with. That is probably what is saddest about this: wittingly or unwittingly you are nothing but another weapon among many that are used in this war against Israel. Your comments and ideas are precisely the types of ideas that prevent many Palestinian supporters, and especially Palestinians, from seeking out a compromise solution to this conflict. This bombastic attack that suggests Israel is rotten to the core and is as immoral as a state can be is precisely the justification used by those who send suicide bombers, by those who refuse to give up the dream of destroying Israel, by those seeking to undermine the Jewish people’s natural right to self-determination, and by those who stand in numerous points of influence around the world attempting to speak out or take proactive steps against Israel.
These people love you, Mobius. They see you as a “good Jew” because you promote their vision against Israel. Maybe you think you can make these claims and have a good discussion, or maybe you are cynical and trying to drive traffic here, or maybe you actually believe this lunacy. I don’t know. I know that if enough people say it, and if enough people repeat it, and if enough people take the time to compose lengthy false diatribes against Israel and its supposed “apartheid,” then it will somehow become the “truth” out there. You may think that this will lead to a correction of the problems you perceive, but it actually is already leading to far worse, and may create more and more significant problems over time.
I’m being polite, but in reality I am disgusted.
I’m late to the party!
Regarding the comments about whether or not to use terms like “apartheid” to discuss the situation in Israel… I’ve often got frustrated when catastrophes and atrocities get compared to previous ones. At the same time, you don’t want to sanitize language too much.
Well, there is precedent for this. There was only one Holocaust, and it refers to something very specific. However, there are (sadly) many genocides. There was a lot of wrangling to make that the accepted term (which you can read about it A Problem From Hell: American in the Age of Genocide).
“Apartheid” means specifically the policies of South Africa for decades, and “Jim Crow” refers to American racial segregation. There must be another way to describe and discuss what’s happening in Israel.
There’s a fine line between learning lessons from the past and slapping labels on, though… and I have no idea what the answer is.
“Once you understand that then the question is which is more important political equality or a Jewish state? ….I choose a Jewish state.” So you choose a Jewish state that includes other minorities who don’t enjoy equal protection under the law? So, in addition to treating Palestinians like charah, you propose treating Israeli Arabs, Bedouins, etc with the same contempt- a situation even worse than the status quo? I can think of at least one group of millions who would object to your fantasy, but I have a solution that would make everbody happy:
We should split Israel in two. Let old Israel (the one in the middle east) remain for those who value civil liberties for all humans, and let New Israel (Queens, NY) become a homeland for all the racist Jews. Problem solved…
I choose a Jewish State too.
Once we accept that, we can tackle giving fair rights to all minorities which also involves having minorities perform minimal civic and national responsibilities.
It’s not in the headlines, but a report tabled today in Israel (by the ‘Ivri commitee’) suggests a framework that ultra-orthodox and Arabs can do ‘national service’ as well (since they are virtually exempt from doing the army and no mass male national civil service exists for males). If you had any doubt, the Arabs are fighting this recommendation, demanding that Israel first treat them equally.
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/90/666387
Just a reminder that Israel used to give ‘discharged soldiers’ certain benefits and Adallah (the Arab ‘human rights’ group funded by the Ford Foundation) challenged this unequality. But instead of fighting to find a way for their children to ‘serve’ and be eligible, the fought to revoke the law entirely.
Correct me if I’m wrong, American Blacks had every right to demand equality since they served the country that discriminated against them. IMO, The Israeli Arabs instead, fight to lower the common denominator instead of rising to opportunity.
The apologists keep talking about Israeli Arabs. Hooray that they get treated so much better in Israel than they would in any of the surrounding Jihadist countries. We are so benevolent. But what about the millions of Palestinians san basic civil liberties who currently fall under Israel’s jurisdiction? Does Israel’s human rights-centric constitution protect them?
Hunh. I obviously missed out on this debate for a long while. I wish to make the following points:
1) “Apartheid” is an Afrikaans word and described a specific South African situation. Yet in reality, it didn’t quite describe it, since it only meant “separation,” and if you heard just that you wouldn’t have any clue about the full scope of what was going on there. When applied to Israel, it simply recalls the South African situation, which might be a good shorthand for getting someone to think “bad situation,” but won’t be good for calling up anything specific to the Israeli/Palestinian situation.
2) Jeff Halper dealt with this and I can’t link to his essay (I think he or someone else emailed it to me), but I can quote at length:
While attending a preparatory meeting in Geneva to hammer out an agenda for the UN World Conference Against Racism, I had an occasion, together with a few other Israeli and Palestinian delegates, to enter into discussion with representatives of South African NGOs. During our conversation the subject was raised of the relationship between Apartheid as it had existed in South Africa and what some of us saw as a another Apartheid-like system emerging (some would say having already emerged) between Israel and the Palestinians. Though willing to discuss the comparison, they did not like us appropriating their term. “Get your own word,†the South Africans told us in friendly but no uncertain terms. The fight against Apartheid had framed their own struggle, and they were concerned that the term, used indiscriminately by other groups in vastly different situations, would water it down, finally reducing it to a mere synonym of “oppression.†They appreciated the fact that “Apartheid†had become such a powerful and relevant concept, but they did not want to “lose†it. In fact, on various occasions Palestinians, too, had voiced their discomfort at having their struggle framed in the terms of others.
There’s another reason, then. South Africans might not want “their word” appropriated, just as I don’t like slavery referred to as the black Holocaust. And Palestinians prefer to have their situation described specifically. Finally, “apartheid” implies a racial rather than a national or religious reason for separation.
Halper recommends the word “Nishul,” or displacement. It describes not only a system, but a process that has been occurring steadily since the beginning of Zionism and which continues in Israel’s land seizure and house demolition policies today.
Its pretty interesting that the discussion by most people here is just restating what what they believe without addressing the serious points raised.
I also note that Mobius’ is not responding to my points.
Frank and Josh are the only two who even quoted me so I will quickly address them.
Frank,
There is not much to respond because you simply ignored all the points I brought up.
Josh,
You write: “I choose a Jewish State too.
Once we accept that, we can tackle giving fair rights to all minorities ” – My point is that there is NO WAY to tackle and find a solution to this problem because of the innate contradiction explained above. Notice how you and all those like you always leave it as “we can tackle” with no specifics. Israel like you has been like this for the last 50 years! They also continuously talk about ways to tackle it. They are doomed to failure as are you in your quest for your solution. Josh, please read over my points above and understand the issue.
Mobius,
You are the one who started this whole discussion in a very eloquent way.
Answer the points or change your position!
Typical response. I even offered you a solution. Keep ignoring the real problem and see how quickly it comes to a resolution. But if you decide not to cop out, you can e-mail your answers to [email protected] 🙂
welp, joe, i guess it all depends on how you define what makes a state jewish. is it having a jewish ethnic majority whose political dominance comes at the expense of another group, or is having a state which lives up to the values espoused by the jewish faith? if it is the former, than i am reluctant to lend my support. if it is the latter, then i again refer to rav kook’s “song of songs” in order to understand what judaism professes, which i can find no grievance with.
I see, let me rephrase what you said:
America #2 on Israel’s land run by Non-Jews is OK with as long as it has values espoused by the Jewish faith.
Tell me, if Non-Jews run it democratically what right do you then have to demand that they run it according to precepts of the Jewish faith? How is it that you can contradict yourself in one statement? On the one hand you say that even Non-Jews can be in control on the other hand you say that they must run Israel according to Jewish precepts!
Don’t you realize what you sound like?!
Please help me understand.
israel can retain its jewish character while granting equality to all of its citizens, just as every other nation on earth retains its national and ethnic character while providing for the equality of its citizens. these things are not contradictory.
One problem with having Israel be a state in which the majority ethnic group gets preferential treatment over minority groups, is that it in effect validates the treatment Jews received at the hands of Europeans that caused the Zionist movement to form in the first place – undercutting the legitiate grievances they had at the treatment they received.
“The claim of Jewish ‘homelessness’ is founded on a cluster of assumptions that both negates the liberal idea of citizenship and duplicates the anti-Semitic one that the state belongs to the majority ethnic nation. In a word, the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews.”
In other words, reverse dhimmitude
Mobius doesnt seems to comprehend that in Israel the minority that wants to overturn the character of the state is already at twenty percent and growing. The problem is thar Israel doesnt have tenths of millions of Jews. Jewish character of Israel is under an actual threat,not an imaginary one.
by the way Mobius what is the name of this Jewish religion that is all about equaity,coexistance and peace and love? I know that Orthodox Judaism clearly states that Goyim have no Neshama.
alex, antisemitism is spawned by this type of provocative prejudice and slurs against jews orthodox or otherwise, it does not clearly state any such thing please refer to where you read this then? chapter and verse? i doubt you could. are you capable of studying the original texts and kabbalah in the original language i sincerely doubt it.
Eduardo, see Tanya, Chapter 1, starting with “However, the explanation of the matter…” through “…only for their self-glorification.”
But, in that, take note of footnote #28. Also consider that this may be Chabad philosophy, but that not every Jew — particularly not every Orthodox Jews — holds by this position, and I’m sure we can find makhloket on the subject. In fact, I’ll pitch this to one of my Ravs and see what he comes up with.
“just as every other nation on earth retains its national and ethnic character while providing for the equality of its citizens.”
Its very frusterating when people make general statements without any backup.
Please provide an example. It doesn’t exist.
Can I just say I think its ironic that us on Jewschool, myself included, that are so polemicly pro-Israel, since we are prodomently Liberal in our socio-political views would probebly be extreamly critical of Israel, and sympothize with the Palistinians if not for the fact that we are Jews and lovers of Zion?
Something to think about… We decry the fact that the world (UN, EU, et al) holds Israel to a different standard, yet it seems we change (dare I say lower) our standards in judging Israel, giving Israel a pass when we would readily critize any other nation.
Giving Israel a pass? Who is giving Israel a pass? You mean because the term apartheid is rejected as a lie? That’s a pass? Why aren’t you asking, Rami, how people with liberal socio-political views are blind to the extremely high standard to which they hold Israel while giving a pass to nations with egregious human rights and political records that are in much easier existential circumstances? Isn’t it ironic that people with liberal socio-political views support the lies told by people who have never exhibited much of a penchant for anything resembling liberal socio-political views? Isn’t it ironic that you can claim with a straight face that people on Jewschool are polemically pro-Israel when all I see here are attacks that resemble those I expect at Electronic Intifadah and Stormfront.
I find this entire site ironic.
Mobius,
I’m still waiting for just one example of just one nation on earth with a significant minority with equal political rights that retained its national and ethnic character.
joe schmo,
i think you need to think about the bigger picture. all the terms you’re using come from a western discourse about citizenship that is less than three centuries old. it is meant to describe political processes that have been happening in the west from that time on. you are asking mobius to use a modern discourse to describe an event that, if it took place, would reflect a turn to another form or method of organization.
almost any instance of failure would help prove mobius’ point. take france right now, for example. the origin and epitome of national identity and modern state organization — and it has no clue how to integrate a growing immigrant population which wants to maintain its identity rather than totally assimilate. now, if we go back to pre-modernism, the ottoman empire managed to grant significant minorities relative autonomy, but couldn’t go all the way to “equal political rights.” it looked like it was heading that way after the tanzimat in the late nineteenth century, but world war i ended that possibility. so, you’ve discovered part of the reason people are interested in israel even when they aren’t jewish or arab: the solution to the conflict holds the possibility of inaugurating a new form of citizenship which the world might usefully imitate.
anyway, there are always federal systems like switzerland if you can’t comprehend the idea of different nations/ethnicities living together.
Sam, france is a perfect example of how wrong he is.
They are now about 20% arab-this all happened very recently. They are immigrants of just the last few years.
There is already discrimination there and also demands from the minority population to integrate their customs such as their right to wear veils in schools…
You haven’t seen anything of the coming results of the friction going on there.
Sam- we don’t want to end up like France G-d forbid!
Sam,
I’d like to explain further. I don’t care about modern or ancient forms…
One thing is clear from history – the ones in power decide the culture and the morals.
You write “the solution to the conflict holds the possibility of inaugurating a new form of citizenship which the world might usefully imitate.”
We are not guinea pigs – especially for something that has always failed and will fail again!
Sure the world wants us to be guinea pigs – they don’t particularly like us.
I understand them.
Its the Jews I don’t understand.
Man, I knew I shouldn’t have clicked all the way down here.
Schmo: I’m still waiting for just one example of just one nation on earth with a significant minority with equal political rights that retained its national and ethnic character.
Wait no longer. Instead, come visit! La belle province is a fantastic tourist destination. We welcome you, with open arms!
Sadly, we are not as famous as we should be. Like, Sam wrote the solution to the conflict holds the possibility of inaugurating a new form of citizenship which the world might usefully imitate. And, while I love Israel almost as dearly as Sam, I must sadly point out that we’ve been working on this for a while now.
As have many others.
(Um, I was referring to Canada’s French-Canadian minority. And to the Quebec state which has acted as its imperfect instrument for national self-determination. While respecting the democratic rights of its own minorities. Like Jews. No, really.)
(Wait, no, I got that wrong. I was referring to Quebec. Period. Ethnic majority. French language. All that jazz. Apologies for the confusion. Nations inside nations — so bewildering!)