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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.