tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post8874911927989950826..comments2023-10-26T06:29:39.824-07:00Comments on The Magnes Zionist: FAQ on Zionism and RacismJerry Haberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-3905867811419455672012-07-31T13:40:34.814-07:002012-07-31T13:40:34.814-07:00I may be a bit late for this conversation, but if ...I may be a bit late for this conversation, but if ethnic nationalism isn't racism then what is? I think you are confusing the content of some racist ideologies with the term racism itself. Racism is the preference for/discrimination against a group of people based on their ethnic origin or background. That goes irrespective of the underlying motifs.<br />Affirmative action isn't racist because it is directed at compensating an existing inequality.jules1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450917254726478688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-61573295415111358102012-07-31T13:31:50.983-07:002012-07-31T13:31:50.983-07:00I am a bit late for this conversation, but if ethn...I am a bit late for this conversation, but if ethnic nationalism isn't racism then what is?jules1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450917254726478688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-42585302215771416962010-11-30T09:36:39.437-08:002010-11-30T09:36:39.437-08:00Please, everyone, come to Chicago! Within a mile o...Please, everyone, come to Chicago! Within a mile or two are vibrant Jewish, East Indian and Pakistani communities. You would not be able to say you were in America for the density of signs in Hebrew, Hindi or Urdu.<br /><br />But nobody is fighting, nobody is scowling at the other! As a matter of fact there is a stretch of Devon Avenue where Pakistani and Indian restaurants are side by side.<br /><br />Neighborhoods change. New people move in and if they come to predominate the neighborhood reflects it but the important thing is everyone realizes there is no way to keep the other out while at the same time anyone is free to move where they wish.<br /><br />This is the promise of America come true, leaving aside for a moment the horrible mess America has made in other countries, the system works here. Nobody would consider trying to "privilege" on group over another because they recognize it works both ways. Live and let live.<br /><br />Israel is a disastrous project given a clean face by immense wealth, a Great Protector and the widespread use of propaganda in a foreign country with many Jews and few Arabs. So America supports injustice and oppression at the same time it would never stand for it on its own soil. Hypocrisy, thy name is USA!<br /><br />Jerry, is there anything more plain then that elevating one group over another in law cannot stand? Israel is living on borrowed time no matter how strong it appears militarily. The world stands back from it and America will eventually be repulsed by some outrageous act by the Knesset that smells so bad even AIPAC won't be able to cover the odor.<br /><br />Israel exists only because of the free pass it was given by the Holocaust. That is fading as the old generation that sees nothing but Jewish righteousness and victimhood leaves the scene.<br /><br />All the kings horses and Rupert Murdoch's money cannot keep Humpty Dumpty sitting intact on the Wall. Only isolation and rejection faces Israel in the future, regardless of the weaponry America gives it.<br /><br />Think of what a high price everyone but the Israelis have paid for Israel being forced upon the Middle East. Only from the view of Zionism can Israel be called a benefit to the area. There isn't a single Israeli who could be thriving in the United States and living in complete security with non-Jews.<br /><br />My neighborhood is stable, multilingual and multicultural though it is. Nobody looks forward to the future with fear, but the whole world looks with fear to what Israel might do next.Clif Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17561437041148734569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-87750940020941261142010-11-30T02:22:20.722-08:002010-11-30T02:22:20.722-08:00A note on racialism vs. racism.
I am not sure wha...A note on racialism vs. racism.<br /><br />I am not sure what the distinction is.<br /><br />British English tends to use racialism where American English uses racism just as British English uses pressurize where American English uses pressure.<br /><br />I have the impression that American English tends to prefer shorter forms that drop morphemes, whose clear sense has been lost.Joachim Martillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-39095654162561094752010-11-30T02:13:45.074-08:002010-11-30T02:13:45.074-08:00In any case, issues of Hebrew culture or Jewish hi...In any case, issues of Hebrew culture or Jewish history are irrelevant to the question of Zionism today.<br /><br />The record of the Neocon destruction during the Bush administration shows that the State of Israel is the lynchpin of a vast Jewish Zionist power nexus that successively managed or threatened to incinerate Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Iran and that killed or displaced 20 million people from the horn of Africa through South Asia. <br /><br />In addition Jewish Zionist political manipulations threaten the US constitutional system and created finance industry armageddon. <br /><br />[I am happy to discuss the role of Marty Feldstein in the creation of the modern CDO as a means to get around the refusal of George HW Bush to provide loan guarantees for the settlement of Russian Jews in the Occupied Territories.]<br /><br />Overall, the State of Israel and Jewish Zionist political manipulations have probably fraudulently cost the USA at least $6-8 trillion (~3/4 of the US National Debt).<br /><br />Even if the State of Israel is not an irredeemably racist/evil entity, its continued existence is simply too costly to Americans and too dangerous to the world.Joachim Martillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-8327034894953127592010-11-30T02:12:14.627-08:002010-11-30T02:12:14.627-08:00"Today there are close to six million Jews in..."Today there are close to six million Jews in historical Palestine, seven and a half million Hebrew speaking Israelis, and the number is growing, mostly through population expansion. Barring their mass exodus, *any* political framework that emerges in the future -- even with a return of all those Palestinian refugees who wish to return -- will have to take into account a vibrant Hebraic culture -- a culture that arose only through Zionism, I may add, though it was vibrant before the establishment of the state."<br /><br />The argument about Christian or Islamic states vs Jewish state is an apples and oranges debate.<br /><br />Partisans of Christian or of Islamic states want at least religiously informed states, but the Jewish state is fundamentally a relexified Yiddish ethnic state whose social-political culture is little more than a hybrid of the German, Polish, and Yiddish culture of the 20s and 30s. <br /><br />[Someday I will have to write an article on the influence of Sienkiewicz on modern Hebrew literature -- he was according to the statistics the most read author in Tel Aviv in the 20s.]<br /><br />Is the Jewish state something of which Jews (really ethnic Ashkenazim) should be proud or ashamed?<br /><br />Can the modest cultural achievements of the State of Israel really justify Zionist theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide? <br /><br />David Shasha would probably also correctly blame Israel/Zionism for the eradication of Arab Jewish religious culture. (Arab Islamic Judaism probably differs more from Polish Catholic Judaism that Sicilian Catholicism differs from Polish Catholicism.)<br /><br />In the discussion above when Zionism is not justified on a cultural basis, the sufferings and pogroms inflicted on Jews in the Pale of Settlement serve as an alternative justification.<br /><br />Specialists in Russian and Russian Jewish history have tried to understand the state of Russian Jewry in the Czarist Empire. <br /><br />Jabotinsky was not even aware of the Kishinev Pogrom when it took place even though he was in Odessa at the time.<br /><br />On the basis of current state of research, it is fairly safe to say that Jews babbling about the pogroms are regurgitating a mostly false propaganda history created by partisan Jewish anti-Czarist journalists in the US and the UK. (A similar reality disconnect characterizes Lucy Dawidowicz' claim of more than 100,000 Jewish deaths during the Chmielnicki Rebellion.)<br /><br />You can talk with Michael Stanislawski at Columbia if you doubt me.<br /><br />Phil Weiss obliquely references the divide between Jewish memory and historical reality in <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2009/07/last-night-i-posted-david-zellniks-take-on-theodor-herzl-my-response-lets-start-with-our-absolute-agreement-theodor-herzl.html" rel="nofollow">http://mondoweiss.net/2009/07/last-night-i-posted-david-zellniks-take-on-theodor-herzl-my-response-lets-start-with-our-absolute-agreement-theodor-herzl.html</a>.<br /><br />[Lindemann's <i>Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews</i> provides a more thorough discussion.]Joachim Martillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-14835220844826512942010-11-28T16:55:16.424-08:002010-11-28T16:55:16.424-08:00Jerry,
Very interesting discussion we're havi...Jerry,<br /><br />Very interesting discussion we're having here.<br /><br />While the US has always been a polyglot and multi-cultural nation it is true that English is the predominate tongue. But this did not come about through privileging or fostering, both of which I view as verbs entailing active choice between alternatives. This was the tongue of the predominate culture. No one had to foster or privilege it. We don't have an official state -sanctioned language, although there have been misguided attempts to foster one. One such attempt was introduced in Congress in the mid-19th century, but the language was German not English.<br /><br />Culture is never static, and certainly American culture never has been. Not only is it different from state to state and region to region, but within those enclaves it changes over time with the influx of new cultures that as the generations assimilate (or don't as the case may be) leave their mark on what remains. <br /><br />That vibrant Hebraic Israeli culture you speak of is composed of influences of different Jewish cultures, as well as different Arab cultures. This admixture is beyond the control of any one group or government, no matter how much prejudice or discrimination may be occurring. To "foster," to "privilege," is to actively choose. Which is in essence an attempt to create an artificial culture, a Disneyland of the soul, but an attempt that will always fail. Look at African-American culture - despite centuries of the very opposite of "fostering," of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and violent repression, and the active denigration of that culture by the guardians of "Americanism" and morality it emerged triumphant as one of the predominate influences on American life, and this was true even during the worst of Jim Crow. <br /><br />So I believe we do agree that that vibrant Israeli Hebraic culture is well worth preserving, but I would argue one cannot accomplish that by "fostering or privileging", as if it needs a petri dish, but by allowing it to evolve freely on its own, to find itself as each generation and each cultural and religious and ethnic group leaves its mark on it. That is the only way it will remain vibrant and the only way forward for Israel. Over time, say a century or so, the culture might well change in ways that you would not now recognize, but it would still be the vibrant Hebraic culture of that future Israel.GRFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12890835832976871875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-83660516015830937722010-11-28T01:12:41.808-08:002010-11-28T01:12:41.808-08:00GRF,
Thanks for you comment, and thanks for pushi...GRF,<br /><br />Thanks for you comment, and thanks for pushing me.<br /><br />What I think may separate us is the degree of official recognition and support the state gives to its national groups -- or even whether the state should give any recognition or support to groups per se, but rather let individuals and communities flourish on a level playing field. That is an argument worth having.<br /><br />Language, calendar, history taught in schools, etc. -- all these privilege groups over another. In most of the US, English is privileged over Spanish, even where Spanish speakers may up a significant part of the population. There will be an ongoing debate over how much, etc., but I believe that states can remain liberal and still foster ethnic/national cultures, and I imagine you agree with me. And "fostering" can very well imply "privileging."<br /><br />Today there are close to six million Jews in historical Palestine, seven and a half million Hebrew speaking Israelis, and the number is growing, mostly through population expansion. Barring their mass exodus, *any* political framework that emerges in the future -- even with a return of all those Palestinian refugees who wish to return -- will have to take into account a vibrant Hebraic culture -- a culture that arose only through Zionism, I may add, though it was vibrant before the establishment of the state. <br /><br />If you convince me that the best way that this culture can survive is within the confines of a state that does not foster or privilege it more than say, Druze or Russian culture, then I am willing to hear your argument. But that Israeli Hebraic Jewish culture has its roots in this region, and while, like all national cultures, has its share of problems, I find it worth preserving.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-9661617412496014042010-11-28T01:12:28.005-08:002010-11-28T01:12:28.005-08:00GRF,
Thanks for you comment, and thanks for pushi...GRF,<br /><br />Thanks for you comment, and thanks for pushing me.<br /><br />"Whether it is one group privileged over another or two groups privileged over several others this is a recipe for civil strife. Certainly history teaches us that. Not just the resentment that naturally arises when arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) assignments of privilege are made but the inevitable evolution of what those privileges come to signify to both parties over time. What I hear you saying is that in this binational Zionist state all Israelis will be equal, but in some spheres some Israelis will be more equal than others." <br /><br />What I think may separate us is the degree of official recognition and support the state gives to its national groups -- or even whether the state should give any recognition or support to groups per se, but rather let individuals and communities flourish on a level playing field. That is an argument worth having.<br /><br />Language, calendar, history taught in schools, etc. -- all these privilege groups over another. In most of the US, English is privileged over Spanish, even where Spanish speakers may up a significant part of the population. There will be an ongoing debate over how much, etc., but I believe that states can remain liberal and still foster ethnic/national cultures, and I imagine you agree with me. And "fostering" can very well imply "privileging."<br /><br />Today there are close to six million Jews in historical Palestine, seven and a half million Hebrew speaking Israelis, and the number is growing, mostly through population expansion. Barring their mass exodus, *any* political framework that emerges in the future -- even with a return of all those Palestinian refugees who wish to return -- will have to take into account a vibrant Hebraic culture -- a culture that arose only through Zionism, I may add, though it was vibrant before the establishment of the state. <br /><br />If you convince me that the best way that this culture can survive is within the confines of a state that does not foster or privilege it more than say, Druze or Russian culture, then I am willing to hear your argument. But that Israeli Hebraic Jewish culture has its roots in this region, and while, like all national cultures, has its share of problems, I find it worth preserving.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-70354800866443274402010-11-28T01:12:18.250-08:002010-11-28T01:12:18.250-08:00GRF,
Thanks for you comment, and thanks for pushi...GRF,<br /><br />Thanks for you comment, and thanks for pushing me.<br /><br />"Whether it is one group privileged over another or two groups privileged over several others this is a recipe for civil strife. Certainly history teaches us that. Not just the resentment that naturally arises when arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) assignments of privilege are made but the inevitable evolution of what those privileges come to signify to both parties over time. What I hear you saying is that in this binational Zionist state all Israelis will be equal, but in some spheres some Israelis will be more equal than others." <br /><br />What I think may separate us is the degree of official recognition and support the state gives to its national groups -- or even whether the state should give any recognition or support to groups per se, but rather let individuals and communities flourish on a level playing field. That is an argument worth having.<br /><br />Language, calendar, history taught in schools, etc. -- all these privilege groups over another. In most of the US, English is privileged over Spanish, even where Spanish speakers may up a significant part of the population. There will be an ongoing debate over how much, etc., but I believe that states can remain liberal and still foster ethnic/national cultures, and I imagine you agree with me. And "fostering" can very well imply "privileging."<br /><br />Today there are close to six million Jews in historical Palestine, seven and a half million Hebrew speaking Israelis, and the number is growing, mostly through population expansion. Barring their mass exodus, *any* political framework that emerges in the future -- even with a return of all those Palestinian refugees who wish to return -- will have to take into account a vibrant Hebraic culture -- a culture that arose only through Zionism, I may add, though it was vibrant before the establishment of the state. <br /><br />If you convince me that the best way that this culture can survive is within the confines of a state that does not foster or privilege it more than say, Druze or Russian culture, then I am willing to hear your argument. But that Israeli Hebraic Jewish culture has its roots in this region, and while, like all national cultures, has its share of problems, I find it worth preserving.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-32073058290756398432010-11-28T00:24:57.084-08:002010-11-28T00:24:57.084-08:00Jerry,
Thanks for the response. As I read "Z...Jerry,<br /><br />Thanks for the response. As I read "Zionism Without..." and your response I take it you are looking for a Jewish Nationalism in which the state is that of all its citizens, Jew and Gentile alike, but also one in which the Jewish cultural component is favored by the government over all others, or perhaps the Jewish and Palestinian cultural components are both favored over other minority groups (it's a little unclear taking both posts). Either way, I'm with you 100% on the first part: A state of all its citizens, abolish the law of return, equal rights, etc., <br /><br />But then you lose me. You seem to be saying, and do say, that there is an Israeli National culture that is Jewish and Hebraic, but also Palestinian, that you feel close to as an Israeli. Great. I'm there. But then you plead guilty to wanting the state to "favor the cultural institutions of one group over another" and then you say "In a binational state, the cultural institutions ... of both nations will have greater access to government resources than, say, minority cultures. Ditto for religions." <br /><br />Now I'm out the door. Whether it is one group privileged over another or two groups privileged over several others this is a recipe for civil strife. Certainly history teaches us that. Not just the resentment that naturally arises when arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) assignments of privilege are made but the inevitable evolution of what those privileges come to signify to both parties over time. What I hear you saying is that in this binational Zionist state all Israelis will be equal, but in some spheres some Israelis will be more equal than others. <br /><br />If at the heart of this is a desire for the continuation and nurturing of Jewish culture - a goal I am all in favor of - then I would say we hardly talking of a hot-house flower. Jewish culture has survived and dare I say thrived, despite noted set-backs, for thousands of years without the help of any sort of Zionism or privilege. I would argue once again that if Jews are seeking Zion it resides in the USA, not Israel, a nation where Jews receive no more privileges than anyone else (Although, ironically, the USA privileges Israeli Jews above everyone else due to political expediency and to the detriment of all).<br /><br />Which leads to the last. I certainly do have a definite vision of what a Christian state entails and we are not it. We do not fit any sense of theocracy or of a state that promotes/privileges/claims the Christian faith. We do not have a Christian culture, we have a secular culture. Even the holidays I take it you refer to: Christmas, Easter, Halloween (?), Thanksgiving(?) are almost entirely bereft of religious content and instead are given over to secular commercial content, which, historically, was their actual point of origin. Christmas was not a wide-spread celebration until the post-civil war era; Thanksgiving did not even exist until Lincoln. They were not even national holidays, honored by days off from work, until the rise of Organized Labor in the 1930s. Until then most industrial workers could only count on the 4th of July off. <br /><br />One can easily survive the entirety of both Christmas and Easter without once hearing the name of Jesus (He just can't sell a damn thing). And the predominate symbols of these holidays are not Christian but entirely pagan put to business purposes (the true religion and culture of the USA). Believe me, Jerry, if any one or all of these holidays ceased to be commercially viable they would disappear overnight. <br /><br />And while it is true that religion runs through our history, the debunking of it and ridicule of it runs just as strong, with equal periods of religious revival and times of anti-religious fervor.GRFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12890835832976871875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-38663830155569510042010-11-27T22:34:00.088-08:002010-11-27T22:34:00.088-08:00GRF,
Rather than repeat the points I made in my p...GRF,<br /><br />Rather than repeat the points I made in my post "Zionism Without a Jewish Ethnic State," may I suggest that you read and react to that.I think you will have a better understanding of what I am looking for. I agree with you that the US model may not be the most appropriate one to emulate, but I have difficulties with the Swiss model as well. To me there is a fundamental problem with conceiving Jewish nationalism like other ethnic nationalisms, and that is because of the religious element in becoming a member of the Jewish people. As far as I know, Jews are the only ethnos where religious conversion provides membership. That has to be taken into account.<br /><br />"The rub in all this to which I believe you turn a Nelson's eye is that over the long run you cannot maintain a predominate Jewish culture to maintain your Jewish "self-determination" without sooner or later discriminating against non-Jews in order to keep the predominate culture Jewish."<br /><br />I discuss this point in my post. If by discriminate you mean that a state favors the cultural institutions of one group over the other, then I plead guilty. In a binational state, the cultural institutions (I am using the term in a broad sense) of both nations will have greater access to government resources than, say, minority cultures. Ditto for religions, especially in the Middle East, where the trend has been towards greater religious influence in the public and governmental spheres than fifty years ago.<br /><br />"We may be a country where the preponderance of the population identifies themselves as Christian but we are not in any sense a Christian State nor were we founded as a Christian state nor do we see this nation as one for Christians nor do we preference Christians over anyone else nor is there a preference in citizenship for Christians. And nor do we call ourselves a Christian state."<br /><br />Spoken like a true liberal. But you seem to have a preformed vision of what it is to be a "Christian state" and then claim that the US, despite the overwhelming preponderance of Christian culture, symbols, and holidays in the history and public places, does not fit your definition.<br /><br />But I do grant you that my vision of a state that diaspora Jews can be proud of, identify with, view as a homeland, and see as a center of Hebrew/Jewish culture will not be sufficiently "thick" for many people who want a Jewish state. But that, I submit, is because they are used to the state that was hastily founded in 1948.<br /><br />But I won't quibble about terms. My vision of Zionism -- the vision of Ahad ha-Am and Magnes and Buber -- does not require a Jewish ethnic state. Period.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-78794268733827008522010-11-27T22:32:38.056-08:002010-11-27T22:32:38.056-08:00GRF,
Rather than repeat the points I made in my p...GRF,<br /><br />Rather than repeat the points I made in my post "Zionism Without a Jewish Ethnic State," may I suggest that you read and react to that.I think you will have a better understanding of what I am looking for. I agree with you that the US model may not be the most appropriate one to emulate, but I have difficulties with the Swiss model as well. To me there is a fundamental problem with conceiving Jewish nationalism like other ethnic nationalisms, and that is because of the religious element in becoming a member of the Jewish people. As far as I know, Jews are the only ethnos where religious conversion provides membership. That has to be taken into account.<br /><br />"The rub in all this to which I believe you turn a Nelson's eye is that over the long run you cannot maintain a predominate Jewish culture to maintain your Jewish "self-determination" without sooner or later discriminating against non-Jews in order to keep the predominate culture Jewish."<br /><br />I discuss this point in my post. If by discriminate you mean that a state favors the cultural institutions of one group over the other, then I plead guilty. In a binational state, the cultural institutions (I am using the term in a broad sense) of both nations will have greater access to government resources than, say, minority cultures. Ditto for religions, especially in the Middle East, where the trend has been towards greater religious influence in the public and governmental spheres than fifty years ago.<br /><br />"We may be a country where the preponderance of the population identifies themselves as Christian but we are not in any sense a Christian State nor were we founded as a Christian state nor do we see this nation as one for Christians nor do we preference Christians over anyone else nor is there a preference in citizenship for Christians. And nor do we call ourselves a Christian state."<br /><br />Spoken like a true liberal. But you seem to have a preformed vision of what it is to be a "Christian state" and then claim that the US, despite the overwhelming preponderance of Christian culture, symbols, and holidays in the history and public places, does not fit your definition.<br /><br />But I do grant you that my vision of a state that diaspora Jews can be proud of, identify with, view as a homeland, and see as a center of Hebrew/Jewish culture will not be sufficiently "thick" for many people who want a Jewish state. But that, I submit, is because they are used to the state that was hastily founded in 1948.<br /><br />But I won't quibble about terms. My vision of Zionism -- the vision of Ahad ha-Am and Magnes and Buber -- does not require a Jewish ethnic state. Period.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-71272193958233800152010-11-27T22:32:33.470-08:002010-11-27T22:32:33.470-08:00GRF,
Rather than repeat the points I made in my p...GRF,<br /><br />Rather than repeat the points I made in my post "Zionism Without a Jewish Ethnic State," may I suggest that you read and react to that.I think you will have a better understanding of what I am looking for. I agree with you that the US model may not be the most appropriate one to emulate, but I have difficulties with the Swiss model as well. To me there is a fundamental problem with conceiving Jewish nationalism like other ethnic nationalisms, and that is because of the religious element in becoming a member of the Jewish people. As far as I know, Jews are the only ethnos where religious conversion provides membership. That has to be taken into account.<br /><br />"The rub in all this to which I believe you turn a Nelson's eye is that over the long run you cannot maintain a predominate Jewish culture to maintain your Jewish "self-determination" without sooner or later discriminating against non-Jews in order to keep the predominate culture Jewish."<br /><br />I discuss this point in my post. If by discriminate you mean that a state favors the cultural institutions of one group over the other, then I plead guilty. In a binational state, the cultural institutions (I am using the term in a broad sense) of both nations will have greater access to government resources than, say, minority cultures. Ditto for religions, especially in the Middle East, where the trend has been towards greater religious influence in the public and governmental spheres than fifty years ago.<br /><br />"We may be a country where the preponderance of the population identifies themselves as Christian but we are not in any sense a Christian State nor were we founded as a Christian state nor do we see this nation as one for Christians nor do we preference Christians over anyone else nor is there a preference in citizenship for Christians. And nor do we call ourselves a Christian state."<br /><br />Spoken like a true liberal. But you seem to have a preformed vision of what it is to be a "Christian state" and then claim that the US, despite the overwhelming preponderance of Christian culture, symbols, and holidays in the history and public places, does not fit your definition.<br /><br />But I do grant you that my vision of a state that diaspora Jews can be proud of, identify with, view as a homeland, and see as a center of Hebrew/Jewish culture will not be sufficiently "thick" for many people who want a Jewish state. But that, I submit, is because they are used to the state that was hastily founded in 1948.<br /><br />But I won't quibble about terms. My vision of Zionism -- the vision of Ahad ha-Am and Magnes and Buber -- does not require a Jewish ethnic state. Period.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-46716184185768223022010-11-27T15:17:29.246-08:002010-11-27T15:17:29.246-08:00I am sorry, Jerry, but your last comment to benjam...I am sorry, Jerry, but your last comment to benjamin just sent me through the ceiling.<br /><br />Throughout this discussion you have been making very fine distinctions in meaning and intent (far too fine in many cases and far too static in my opinion) but then you're all over the map on this one.<br /><br />There may indeed be those that argue that the US is a Christian state. They would, however, also be entirely incorrect and ignorant. <br /><br />We may be a country where the preponderance of the population identifies themselves as Christian but we are not in any sense a Christian State nor were we founded as a Christian state nor do we see this nation as one for Christians nor do we preference Christians over anyone else nor is there a preference in citizenship for Christians. And nor do we call ourselves a Christian state.<br /><br />In fact, the entire arc of American history can be measured by the progressive struggle - often violent - that entirely rejects such narrow notions, whether they be based on class and wealth or religion or race or ethnicity.<br /><br />And no, Jews in New York and Los Angeles do not have any measure of self-determination (by any rational use of the word) than that enjoyed by the American people as a whole under the same laws and civil procedures and governance. <br /><br />"Where a dominant culture of the state is Jewish, Jews have self-determination."<br /><br />Hello? If you mean by self-determination the dictionary meaning of "the process by which a person controls their own life," which is the only one I can assume you mean (unless you believe LA Jews are setting their own foreign policy) than LA and New York Jews have no more "self-determination" than any other American citizen, which obviates your first determinate which is that the culture be predominately Jewish. And are implying by this statement that somehow San Francisco Jews get chopped liver? <br /><br />The rub in all this to which I believe you turn a Nelson's eye is that over the long run you cannot maintain a predominate Jewish culture to maintain your Jewish "self-determination" without sooner or later discriminating against non-Jews in order to keep the predominate culture Jewish. <br /><br />One hundred years from now, if not sooner, there will be far more Palestinians between the river and the sea than there will be Jews. Under a democratic pluralist state, "a state of all it's citizens," (such as the USA and Italy and France where nationality is determined by citizenship) the predominate culture may very well NOT be Jewish. <br /><br />So unless you plan to cordon off or gerrymander the non-Jews or discriminate against them in some way so as to artificially maintain Jewish culture (by which do you mean European Jewish culture, or what?) then you just ain't going to have a Jewish State. <br /><br />I would think that you would be arguing for a model based not on Italy and the United States, or even making reference to them as neither bear any resemblance to what you seem to be wishing for, but instead something based on the Swiss model with two linguistic and cultural regions with full common rights for all governed by a Federal body with both equally represented. <br /><br />Of course, there you would not have a "Jewish State" but merely a Jewish cultural and linguistic region of a confederation, but at least you wouldn't be pounding a square peg into a round hole.GRFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12890835832976871875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-21008247755528810992010-11-27T15:13:26.707-08:002010-11-27T15:13:26.707-08:00I am sorry, Jerry, but your last comment to benjam...I am sorry, Jerry, but your last comment to benjamin just sent me through the ceiling.<br /><br />Throughout this discussion you have been making very fine distinctions in meaning and intent (far too fine in many cases and far too static in my opinion) but then you're all over the map on this one.<br /><br />There may indeed be those that argue that the US is a Christian state. They would, however, also be entirely incorrect and ignorant. <br /><br />We may be a country where the preponderance of the population identifies themselves as Christian but we are not in any sense a Christian State nor were we founded as a Christian state nor do we see this nation as one for Christians nor do we preference Christians over anyone else nor is there a preference in citizenship for Christians. And nor do we call ourselves a Christian state.<br /><br />In fact, the entire arc of American history can be measured by the progressive struggle - often violent - that entirely rejects such narrow notions, whether they be based on class and wealth or religion or race or ethnicity.<br /><br />And no, Jews in New York and Los Angeles do not have any measure of self-determination (by any rational use of the word) than that enjoyed by the American people as a whole under the same laws and civil procedures and governance. <br /><br />"Where a dominant culture of the state is Jewish, Jews have self-determination."<br /><br />Hello? If you mean by self-determination the dictionary meaning of "the process by which a person controls their own life," which is the only one I can assume you mean (unless you believe LA Jews are setting their own foreign policy) than LA and New York Jews have no more "self-determination" than any other American citizen, which obviates your first determinate which is that the culture be predominately Jewish. And are implying by this statement that somehow San Francisco Jews get chopped liver? <br /><br />The rub in all this to which I believe you turn a Nelson's eye is that over the long run you cannot maintain a predominate Jewish culture to maintain your Jewish "self-determination" without sooner or later discriminating against non-Jews in order to keep the predominate culture Jewish. <br /><br />One hundred years from now, if not sooner, there will be far more Palestinians between the river and the sea than there will be Jews. Under a democratic pluralist state, "a state of all it's citizens," (such as the USA and Italy and France where nationality is determined by citizenship) the predominate culture may very well NOT be Jewish. <br /><br />So unless you plan to cordon off or gerrymander the non-Jews or discriminate against them in some way so as to artificially maintain Jewish culture (by which do you mean European Jewish culture, or what?) then you just ain't going to have a Jewish State. <br /><br />I would think that you would be arguing for a model based not on Italy and the United States, or even making reference to them as neither bear any resemblance to what you seem to be wishing for, but instead something based on the Swiss model with two linguistic and cultural regions with full common rights for all governed by a Federal body with both equally represented. <br /><br />Of course, there you would not have a "Jewish State" but merely a Jewish cultural and linguistic region of a confederation, but at least you wouldn't be pounding a square peg into a round hole.GRFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12890835832976871875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-56001632097256393842010-11-27T15:09:54.230-08:002010-11-27T15:09:54.230-08:00I am sorry, Jerry, but your last comment to benjam...I am sorry, Jerry, but your last comment to benjamin just sent me through the ceiling.<br /><br />Throughout this discussion you have been making very fine distinctions in meaning and intent (far too fine in many cases and far too static in my opinion) but then you're all over the map on this one.<br /><br />There may indeed be those that argue that the US is a Christian state. They would, however, also be entirely incorrect and ignorant. <br /><br />We may be a country where the preponderance of the population identifies themselves as Christian but we are not in any sense a Christian State nor were we founded as a Christian state nor do we see this nation as one for Christians nor do we preference Christians over anyone else nor is there a preference in citizenship for Christians. And nor do we call ourselves a Christian state.<br /><br />In fact, the entire arc of American history can be measured by the progressive struggle - often violent - that entirely rejects such narrow notions, whether they be based on class and wealth or religion or race or ethnicity.<br /><br />And no, Jews in New York and Los Angeles do not have any measure of self-determination (by any rational use of the word) than that enjoyed by the American people as a whole under the same laws and civil procedures and governance. <br /><br />"Where a dominant culture of the state is Jewish, Jews have self-determination."<br /><br />Hello? If you mean by self-determination the dictionary meaning of "the process by which a person controls their own life," which is the only one I can assume you mean (unless you believe LA Jews are setting their own foreign policy) than LA and New York Jews have no more "self-determination" than any other American citizen, which obviates your first determinate which is that the culture be predominately Jewish. And are implying by this statement that somehow San Francisco Jews get chopped liver? <br /><br />The rub in all this to which I believe you turn a Nelson's eye is that over the long run you cannot maintain a predominate Jewish culture to maintain your Jewish "self-determination" without sooner or later discriminating against non-Jews in order to keep the predominate culture Jewish. <br /><br />One hundred years from now, if not sooner, there will be far more Palestinians between the river and the sea than there will be Jews. Under a democratic pluralist state, "a state of all it's citizens," (such as the USA and Italy and France where nationality is determined by citizenship) the predominate culture may very well NOT be Jewish. <br /><br />So unless you plan to cordon off or gerrymander the non-Jews or discriminate against them in some way so as to artificially maintain Jewish culture (by which do you mean European Jewish culture, or what?) then you just ain't going to have a Jewish State. <br /><br />I would think that you would be arguing for a model based not on Italy and the United States, or even making reference to them as neither bear any resemblance to what you seem to be wishing for, but instead something based on the Swiss model with two linguistic and cultural regions with full common rights for all governed by a Federal body with both equally represented. <br /><br />Of course, there you would not have a "Jewish State" but merely a Jewish cultural and linguistic region of a confederation, but at least you wouldn't be pounding a square peg into a round hole.GRFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12890835832976871875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-66254332095154385992010-11-27T13:45:32.526-08:002010-11-27T13:45:32.526-08:00mris,
The Zionists you mention were racialists an...mris,<br /><br />The Zionists you mention were racialists and not racists; in various measures they bought into last 19th century race theory as did many (but not all) European intellectuals. <br /><br />The idea that the Jews formed a race was a commonplace in the nineteenth century, and the appeal to "race science" was ubiquitous. But there was also the German romantic notion of "volk" or even "nation", something above and beyond an aggregated of people. <br /><br />The romantic notion of nationalism fit very well into race science (well, not always very well, since the borders were not always the same). But as I said, Zionism doesn't become racist simply because some, not all, Zionists appealed to romantic notions of nation, or even race science. Polemicists use arguments where they can find it; what motivates 19th century Zionism is a) anti-Semitism and b) nationalismJerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-38621916964055283792010-11-27T13:38:52.054-08:002010-11-27T13:38:52.054-08:00Danaa,
Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly that I...Danaa,<br /><br />Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Israel is a very racist society, and that a lot of people are racists. What I was suggesting that the institutional discrimination doesn't come from feelings of racial superiority as much as the tribalistic desire to further Jewish interestsJerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-51779272562353586352010-11-27T13:34:24.395-08:002010-11-27T13:34:24.395-08:00benjamin
"The very idea of a "Jewish st...benjamin<br /><br />"The very idea of a "Jewish state" (or "Jewish self-determination") means that the state must be ruled by Jews, i.e. that Jews must be dominant, and that non-Jews therefore can't have equal rights."<br /><br />Why? Some would argue that the U.S. is a Christian state because it's dominant religious culture is Christian; Christmas and Easter are national holidays, and although there is separation of church and state, Christian cultural heritage still predominates. This is even more true of Europe. Why can't Israel be Jewish in the sense that Italy is Christian?<br /><br />And what of self-determination? Where a dominant culture of the state is Jewish, Jews have self-determination. All that is perfectly compatible with a non-Jewish prime minister, or a non-Jewish party in power.<br /><br />Some argue that there are areas of New York and Los Angeles where Jews have a measure of self-determination. In a binational state, for example, Jews certainly could have a homeland and self-determination.<br /><br />Are you familiar with cultural Zionism?Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-11913325310963723392010-11-26T14:19:30.573-08:002010-11-26T14:19:30.573-08:00I see that there is an attempt here to make a dist...I see that there is an attempt here to make a distinction between "racism" and "ethnic discrimination". I see this as untenable, because "ethnicity" is simply a euphemism for "race". Witness the standard UK ethnicity forms in which respondents are asked to define their "ethnicity" as "white" or "black".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-10596714448229370012010-11-26T14:10:27.329-08:002010-11-26T14:10:27.329-08:00There's a simple, fundamental logical contradi...There's a simple, fundamental logical contradiction here. The very idea of a "Jewish state" (or "Jewish self-determination") means that the state must be ruled by Jews, i.e. that Jews must be dominant, and that non-Jews therefore can't have equal rights. Allowing non-Jews to be a "sizeable" minority is not the same thing as granting them equal rights. If everyone in a state has equal rights, it can't possibly be a "Jewish state". In any case, in a state where everyone has equal rights, nothing can stop any group from becoming a majority.<br /><br />An ideology that grants different rights to Jews and non-Jews is indeed a racist ideology. So even according to your apologetic definition of Zionism here, Zionism is indeed inherently racist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-797479524792123042010-11-26T07:36:00.005-08:002010-11-26T07:36:00.005-08:00Dear Joshua, Skin-color-based racism is more typic...Dear Joshua, Skin-color-based racism is more typical of the New World than the old where racism whether European, Asian or Africa is much more ethnicity-oriented.Joachim Martillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-16301580135544351992010-11-26T05:43:26.511-08:002010-11-26T05:43:26.511-08:00While Yiddishism/Yiddish nationalism in the region...While Yiddishism/Yiddish nationalism in the regions of historic Poland is hard to criticize as inherently racist, Zionism is really another beast entirely. <br /><br />Not only does essentialist primordialism lie at the core of this latter ideology, but the goals of Zionism and Yiddishism are really very different.<br /><br />As formulated in late 19th century Central and Eastern Europe, Zionism was meant to mobilize Jewish wealth, to normalize Jewish power, to combat Jewish radicalism, and to redefine the Ashkenazi ethnic group as the pan-Judaic ethnonationality with unchallengeable claim to the whole of historic Palestine.<br /><br />Zionist groups often had radically different views of economics, of social organization, and of Jewish religion. These groups were able to collaborate because they were bound by ethnic fundamentalism or probably more correctly ethnic monism.<br /><br />To understand what is meant by ethnic fundamentalism, I recommend The Nazi Conscience by Koonz.<br /><br />I prefer the term ethnic monism to characterize Zionism because Zionism is in many regards a good deal ideologically more extreme German Nazism.<br /><br />It may be instructive to look at the relations between ethnic Ashkenazim and the other Jewish community in historic Poland. That community consisted of Jewish Tatars, who practiced Karaite Judaism.<br /><br />In the 18th century we find cordial relations and lots of shared communal endeavors especially in the territory that is now Lithuania.<br /><br />In the 19th century as ethnic Ashkenazim developed increasing hostility to the Polish peasantry and to the Polish gentry, Jewish Tatars began distancing themselves from Ashkenazim. Towards the end of the 19th century Jewish Tatar intellectuals rejected the ethnic formulation of the Jewish community entirely and were as annoyed with ethnic Ashkenazim as some ethnic Poles and ethnic Russians that are sloppily consider anti-Semites. Those Jewish Tatars that were interested in cultural identity and autonomy tended to reach out to Armenian and Muslim Tatars.<br /><br />Not only is the identity politics associated with Zionism inherently problematic as many Jews of historic Poland realized very early, but racist may be too mild a characterization for the Zionist ideologies of Central and Eastern Europe.Joachim Martillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-12386338447061394382010-11-24T18:31:10.303-08:002010-11-24T18:31:10.303-08:00When stripped of all its nuances and frozen in a c...When stripped of all its nuances and frozen in a certain timeframe when it originated, you can mimic this exercise and paint a pretty picture of every form of nationalism there is and justify it based on the grounds that it was only focused on a singular cause for a singular peoples. Distinctions can make definitive differences that can make or break an argument; certainly, but it could also dilute or hide what truly was the intention behind a movement.<br /><br />For instance, white nationalists and the Tea Party alike always stress that there is nothing racist within their ideologues and that their's is sincerely only about the empowerment of their nation. They seek to revive the tradition of white power and educate the young to show pride with their heritage of whiteness. You could substitute whiteness for Jewishness here and it can be strikingly similar, even so when the white power nationalists do feel aggrieved and that they are being run over by other colours. In the abstract, the same line of thinking can be appealed by any believer in such a cause.<br /><br />I in no way do agree that Zionism is racism, as my definition of racism is leans more to the intonation of skin, shaped by my own upbringing and the works of the black nationalists I studied so much about. But it is also important to note that "whiteness" and other colours do transcend the tone of skin and it also becomes a form of class validity, ie one can achieve "whiteness" when one is perceived as accepted in being "one of us", just like in Africa when ethnic groups were really determined by land owners, nomads and landlessness. But it is not hard to fathom how it can be reconstructed into being labelled as such, ie a Jewish National Fund explicably refused non-Jewish purchases, Jewish Labour Unions, etc.<br /><br />You are correct that there this is not a "one-size-fits-all" example, but since when is there one in this world of ours?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08255578255004845359noreply@blogger.com