Israel: “we’re racists, yeah, yeah, yeah”
Blair blah Brown blah blah Blueblair bloodymargaretbeckett. Schoolsnhospitals britishnationalists and reshuffles. More of that here later. Meanwhile, over there, the new Prime Minister:
…a division of the land, with the goal of ensuring a Jewish majority, is Zionism’s lifeline… We must maintain a stable and strong Jewish majority in our state, and therefore we must focus on the area where there is a secure and protected Jewish majority.
The goal is to ensure a majority. One way to do this is to build a wall. Or you can annex a radio station and hack people to pieces with machetes. You can exterminate a race or nation, or encourage them to kill each other. You can eliminate a culture or dilute it until the identity becomes meaningless. You can humiliate and oppress and exclude. You can employ technology and philosophy and the toolkit of public policy, or you can shave your head and arm yourself with decrepit ideology and baseball bats. Or you could just build that wall.
Whatever your method, if what alone drives you is who They are, who They were born, if your aim is the domination in power or numbers of a predefined, predestined group, without admitting a possibility for change or difference, then your motive is racism tout court. You are the representative of a racist state, and whatever your laws or the professions of your speeches, your commitment to “complete equality of civil rights” can never be believed. You are a racist, and you admit it.
I owe this final point to Jamie (in a thread elsewhere): what to do when it’s the Jansenists and the Jacobins that are running the place? Worse: what do do when the extremists have hijacked the system to the extent that they are the moderates? What to do when they can get away with it?
Well there’s no beating about the bush here! And I’m sorry to say that I entirely agree with you. Though I would say that Olmert is just making explicit a sentiment that is felt in countries all over the world: that the racial/religious/cultural character of the country should be protected. This is undoubtedly racist, but it is also very probably an evolved human instinct – the fear of the foreign invader.
In situations such as Isarael/Palestine where violence and fear puts people’s backs up against the wall, one shouldn’t be surprised if such feelings come strongly to the fore, and the instinct is for the racial group to look after itself first and foremost, rather than risk welcoming in enemies with open arms. Arguably Jews have historically more reason than most to adopt such a defensive strategy.
None of this makes it ok, of course, just unsurprising.
But don’t all countries build a walls to an extent? Most have immigration policies that prevent
‘Them’ from coming in, thus ensuring that those born in the country and their descendednts will
be the majority. Could you therefore say that the whole idea of immigration controls is racist?
(And yes, this is my first blog comment anywhere in ages.)
First, to terms: as Larry touches on, this isn’t simply a matter of race, but of religion and culture. The idea that Jews are a discrete ethnic group – if such a thing exists at all, which is doubtful without a high degree of in-breeding – is somewhat laughable, but the idea that they are a discrete cultural group certainly isn’t. We should be extremely careful of equating race and culture – although they correlate, because of inheritance, they aren’t the same.
Second, to the point in general: Steve’s right that all countries build walls, be they physical or procedural. Certainly, it’s unusual for a country to willingly allow a massive inward migration of foreign people in a short space of time, to a scale that would in effect overwhelm the existing religious and cultural landscape. In fact, I can’t think of it ever happening. In late-modern liberal societies like ours, we might hide behind a rhetoric of space, infrastructure, and the effect on unskilled peoples’ wages, but the truth is, we don’t want free immigration because we don’t want Them to change our country to that extent.
Like Larry, I don’t find this surprising; probably unlike him, I don’t find it lamentable. I don’t see anything especially wrong with a people wanting to protect the basic character and structure of their society in this way.
Third, to Israel: Israel’s an odd place because, like the US, it’s an emphatically modern creation – but at the same time, it rests on explicitly premodern, religious foundations (the US perhaps does the same, but only implicitly). The whole basis of Israel, the reason for its existence, is that it is the Jewish state, a nation created as a homeland for the Jewish people.
To question the goal of maintaining a majority-Jewish society seems to me to say that Israel shouldn’t be Israel – that its defining status as the Jewish state is a historical accident, that has no bearing on future policy. That isn’t to give carte blanche – but withdrawing to a narrower set of borders and building a big ‘ole wall to keep people out can hardly be compared to genocide.
Furthermore, as Larry alludes, the situation also has to be seen in context – this isn’t like (say) Vlaams Blok getting elected in Belgium and building a wall halfway through Wallonia to keep any more French out. Israel is surrounded by countries and territories with a basic hostility towards it, many of which would welcome a major influx of Jewish people with nothing so civilised as building a wall. With these neighbours, I can’t imagine that Israel would prosper were it to “see the light” and turn itself into a secular, liberal state with open immigration.
You are the representative of a racist state
I would be inclined to agree with a lot of what Blimpish says above. By your definition, the ‘racist state’ is simply the ‘nation state’. But it’s not entirely clear to me why so many people draw this conclusion only in the case of Israel. As Blimpish says, you seem to be saying – as is so fashionable these days – that Israel has no right to exist, on the grounds that it represents ethnic nationalism. So do you extend this principle to all the other ethnic nationalism in the world? If so, your position would be unusual in its constitency: most ‘anti-Zionists’ manage to combine this with a vertible celebration of other ethnic nationalisms – provided they’re anti-Western, of course.
This is gonna be quick – I’ll respond properly when I get a chance.
First, I’m not questioning Israel’s right to exist or to defend itself. The post expressly didn’t mention the neighbours. It’s about Israel.
Second, there’s a big difference between being a nation-state, all of whom (Steve, Shuggy, etc.) put up borders of some kind, and being a nation-state with an expressly ethno-cultural mission, if part of that mission consists of keeping others (already defined, unchangeable, *inherently* inferior) out, and/or numerically subjugated. The ‘mission’ of Britain isn’t to keep French people, or Muslim people, or brown people out, neither would it be acceptable if it was. Again, I’m not saying Israel ought not to exist, just that claims that it’s a ‘democracy’ or (even more laughable) a ‘liberal-democracy’, are wrong. In the words of their new PM, it’s a racist state that can have no real claim to equality of rights or recognition, and any discussion of it ought to start from there (and would include some of the mitigating factors mentioned above).
Third, IMO it’s irrelevant whether Jewish people are a race or not. If the Othering is cultural, ethnic, or whatever, racism will do as a label. ‘Race’ is just a shorthand anyway for a whole bunch of other very complicated, interrelated stuff.
Last:
do you extend this principle to all the other ethnic nationalism
Yes. Ethnic nationalism is just one necessary (though obviously not sufficient) condition for fascism.
“Again, I’m not saying Israel ought not to exist”
Really? I’ll take your word for this but surely you must be aware that this isn’t exactly a popular view on the ‘left’ these days? You might have considered the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies who are committed to its destruction as a ‘mitigating factor’.
I’d be interested to hear about the ‘change’ Israel should embrace in order to prove to liberal commentators they aren’t racist. Do you foresee a future where Israel has open borders and everyone holds hands and celebrates the gorgeous mosaic of their diversity?
I would like to point out that I am a supporter of neither the wall, nor the Occupation but it’s probably pointless – even the mere suggestion that Israel may not be the most evil state on the face of the planet is enough to have oneself condemned as a baby-killing apologist.
“Again, I’m not saying Israel ought not to existâ€Â
Really? I’ll take your word for this but surely you must be aware that this isn’t exactly a popular view on the ‘left’ these days? …
I would like to point out that I am a supporter of neither the wall, nor the Occupation but it’s probably pointless
One of the things I like most about the Sharpener is the level of civility we usually manage to maintain. It’s not just a matter of avoiding swearwords or personal insults; it’s about arguing in good faith, assuming that the other person isn’t a racist, a fascist, a Stalinist, a cretin (etc) even if their views seem repugnant or idiotic.
So, Shuggs (may I call you Shuggster?), I think you can relax on the second point: nobody around here is going to condemn you as an apologist for pure evil unless you start writing apologetics for pure evil, and even then I’d hope we’d give you a chance to explain yourself. On the first point, though, I call coat-trailing: Donald isn’t speaking on behalf of “the ‘left'”, and I don’t see that he’s given you any reason to doubt his word.
Okay, Shuggy, if we agree that state A’s national mission includes (in the PM’s words) ensuring numerical subjugation of an indigenous minority, I’d be interested to hear in what sense that state isn’t racist. Without referring to the neighbours: I wouldn’t offer Uncle Sam’s presence as an apology for Castro locking journalists up. Nor could I agree that Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” was in any sense equal.
Now if you want to argue that Israel is a racist state but that 1. under historical and geographical circumstances that’s understandable, and/or 2. as racist states go, it isn’t an especially eeevil one, then we’re closer to agreement. Not in agreement, but closer.
I’d be interested to hear about the ‘change’ Israel should embrace
Equality before the law, which is impossible if policy has ethnic-cultural-biological subjugation at its heart. Not an original thought, I know, but it’s rare you hear the leader of a supposed democracy be quite so specific in his racism as Olmert was last week.
Steve’s point about immigration policy deserves addressing. Firstly, although we have a common-sensical idea of what an immigration policy is, this is a very complex area and one which varies over time and from one nation to another: there’s no single answer to the question of who is allowed to enter a country and under what conditions, or of how (if at all) they can then become full citizens. (Interestingly, Labour has made both sets of conditions more restrictive, at least for non-EU citizens.) German immigration policy (I believe) prioritises German-speaking ‘exiles': anyone with a claim to be German will get in a lot easier and gain citizenship a lot sooner than the average incomer. Israel’s law of Return has some similarities with this; the difference is numerical (the relative size of the populations of Germany and Israel, and the relative sizes of the two diaspora communities).
Secondly, I really don’t believe that any Western nation has an immigration policy that’s explicitly engineered to ensure that ‘natives’ aren’t outnumbered by ‘immigrants’. I think most governments take the view that it’ll all come out in the wash – the grandchildren of today’s natives aren’t ever going to be ‘swamped’ by the grandchildren of today’s immigrants, because the latter will be just as native as the former. The difference where Israel is concerned is that the line between Jew and non-Jew is much firmer – and is actively policed by the government. (As far as the Israeli government is concerned, there’s no such nationality as ‘Israeli': the nationality is ‘Jew’.)
Thirdly, and most importantly, Olmert’s not talking about immigration at all, but about excluding a native non-citizen minority.
“there’s a big difference between being a nation-state, all of whom (Steve, Shuggy, etc.) put up borders of some kind, and being a nation-state with an expressly ethno-cultural mission, if part of that mission consists of keeping others (already defined, unchangeable, *inherently* inferior) out, and/or numerically subjugated.”
Hmm. I’d guess a lot of this difference of attitude isn’t a difference of circumstance – in terms of raw numbers. A quick look at Wikipedia says Israel’s a country of 6.9m, of whom only 77% are Jewish – so about 5m. In the West Bank, there are 2.8m people, of whom only 0.4m are Jewish, so if you add it all up, so all of a sudden the ratio falls below 60%. Add in any differential birthrates, and Jews are looking like becoming a minority in what they consider their own land. Then add in the fact that the most numerous minority, Palestinian Arabs, are not exactly well disposed towards them and are not fully bought into the idea of Israeli citizenship… and have equally hostile friends in the much-more-populous neighbouring countries. If our demographic and security situation was anything like the same, my guess is our politics would be a lot more like Israel’s.
“If the Othering is cultural, ethnic, or whatever, racism will do as a label. ‘Race’ is just a shorthand anyway for a whole bunch of other very complicated, interrelated stuff.”
This seems like dangerous ground to me. I can despise an aspect of somebody’s culture but accept that they have intrinsic value – in fact, I might despise this aspect of their culture because it stifles their potential. But someone’s ethnicity is part of them without any chance of redemption – if you despise their ethnicity, you despise them. Furthermore, I think all of us with a political involvement tend to take issue with cultural differences – the shaping of a culture is one of the critical political tasks, after all.
For example, you would be aghast at the prospect of Evangelical Christian parents being allowed to withdraw their children from a science class to avoid the little darlings’ ears being soiled by the evils of Darwinian biology. That’s because you don’t accept that this aspect of their culture is valuable; you think they need to change the way they live their lives. That’s because culture isn’t destiny and isn’t fixed; it can evolve and be influenced – unlike race.
I can’t help feeling that Olmert’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t here. In the linked Haaretz article, he’s talking about withdrawing from most of the West Bank, finally giving in to a longstanding demand against Israel. You might prefer that the Israeli people agree to this because they now accept they’ve been horrid all along; but the reason they are more likely to accept is that it’s in their interests as a nation to do so.
Just on the specific subject of whether or not “Jewishness” constitutes an ethnicity, I don’t believe it’s a cut-and-dried issue (I was going to say “black and white” but that would have complicated matters). I hate to sound like a philosophy undergraduate, but it really is a case of semantics. Check out the following definition of race from the American Heritage Dictionary…
1: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
Clearly by the second definition, there is a Jewish Race. Though by the first there is not.
Indeed, if this second definition were not widely accepted then Jews could not be protected by the UKs Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation (which they are). It is also not unusual to hear anti-semitism (in the generally understood sense of anti-jewishness) described as ‘racism’. Recently on a radio interview I heard a jewish caller describe an instance of alleged discrimination against jews as “clearly racist” and didn’t think twice about the description. I don’t think most other people would have either.
Therefore if an act or policy which discriminates against jews can be considered racist (not least legally), then one which deliberately discriminates against non-jews must also be considered racist.
Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of the State of Israel justify such racist policies is another debate; and even though it’s possible to argue (from the first definition provided above) that they aren’t racist, we can at least agree that the policies would be condemned as racist under the laws of most countries.
I’d guess the tradition of thinking of anti-Jewishness as racism comes from it being in the context of a sort-of ethnic group who are Jewish (i.e., the Ashkenazi – who have an ethnic identity because they have tended to be a closed community), whereas globally and in Israel there are different ethnicities associated with Judaism.
I guess my problem with the second definition is that it’s not typically how we use it. If someone started to talking about “the English race,” we’d pretty much assume they specifically mean white people, and not all people classified together by their being in England.
I must add though, I’m having difficulty seeing the great evil of Israel saying it wants to keep non-citizens out in order to preserve the character of its society. If we were talking about citizens here, I’d agree – but as far as I’m aware, non-Jewish citizens aren’t subject to wide-scale discrimination within Israel (non-Orthodox Jews get a bit of a rough ride apparently). As long as it is fair in making people citizens, I don’t accept that a state can’t then discriminate in their favour – that’s surely why a state exists.
I’d be interested to hear about the ‘change’ Israel should embrace in order to prove to liberal commentators they aren’t racist.
A good approach would be to start with Israel’s relationship to its own non-Jewish citizens. By this I mean: Not the Palestinians in the West Bank/Gaza, but the Arab citizens of Israel itself.
For example, the Bedouin in southern Israel are systematically denied basic services, despite paying taxes, and having no intifada or militant movement that would mitigate this discrimination. As one campaigner told me: “[Israel] cannot consider itself a ‘democratic state’ in the middle east, while 72,000 of its citizens are without drinking water.”