tailz wrote:So belonging to a religious order is supposed to grant a person some mystical right to live somewhere? So where is my Atheist homeland?
When I say that Jews don't have a homeland via our Judaism in order to reinforce WA's point about Jewish/Zionist ideology NOT being comparable to colonialism, I thought it was understood that this goes beyond religion. This ties into other subjects we've discussed here in these forums, namely defining the Jewish nation. I think it's simplistic to say that simply being of a certain faith (Judaism in this case, with respect to Jewish permissions to citizenship in Israel) is the green light to Israel. We've discussed that Judaism is much more than simply religion, it's evolved over time to shape cultures, values, political/social perspectives, various languages, a sense of shared history, etc. There's much more to being Jewish than simply religious faith, and you've acknowledged that. That being said, Jewish claim to nationhood is rooted in the entirety of our nationhood, which isn't limited to just our faith, as stated in my previous sentence. It's also silly to refer to Jewish access to Israel as a "mystical right" rooted in religion. Zionism isn't particularly religiously-oriented, as far as political ideologies go. You seem to be undermining the Jewish claim to nationhood, and by extension the Jewish claim to statehood (which goes hand in hand with Jewish permissions to become citizens). You do this in two ways, 1) Oversimplifying the reasons for Jewish access to Aliyah by describing is as a "mystical right to live somewhere" based on belonging to a "religious order", when in reality, Aliyah is there to enforce statehood for the nation of Jews, which connects to Jewish nationhood (discussed thoroughly, already) and therefore Jewish claims to statehood (also thoroughly discussed, I think). 2) Turning a positive into a negative by describing Israel law of return (formal Israeli law guaranteeing citizenship to any Jew from abroad, with some exceptions) as discriminatory. What other country gives automatic access to Jews for citizenship? Nobody. This is a beautiful thing. Many refugees have been given much greater opportunities at a better life through this law when other countries wouldn't have even considered them. This law is a part of Israel maintaining itself as a home for Jews, which is pretty much its reason for existence. Israel was established on the premise of being a homeland for Jews. I support the arguments advanced for the NEED for Israel to be what it is. And the law of return is a part of that. Other nations and groups can and have formed their own nationalist movements throughout history.
If you want an atheist homeland, feel free to start a grassroots project, take a few notes out of the Zionist playbook (the ultimate grassroots success story), and good luck!
You’re crossing the wires of various issues here Kraychik, and trying to draw one conclusion.
...Immigration...
I have no problem with Jews making Aliyah; if fact I totally support any Jew who wishes to move to Israel/Palestine, if that is where you want to live, then go and join that community. Where I don’t support Aliyah is the political ideological connotations that have become associated with doing so as a part of the Zionist aim of judenising Israel/Palestine. The giving of Israeli citizenship freely to any Jewish foreigner from around the world creates the first step in formalising a double standard between Jewish citizens of Israel, and Non-Jewish Citizens of Israel – the precedence is set, that Jews are more welcome, and worth more to the state than any other members of the state, for the sole reason that they are Jewish.
What's wrong with Jews wanting to make Aliyah to Israel to live within a society that they feel more comfortable in? If Jews move to Israel with Zionist motivations to reinforce a country that's done so much for worldwide Jewry, how is that a bad thing? It's the ultimate charitable donation, to give your life (so to speak) to move to Israel and make it your home, and to bring your skills/education/desire to the country to improve it. How can you make this out to be some dark agenda? Remember, Jews who come from rich countries are typically reducing their standards of living when coming to Israel (not significantly, but Israel is definitely a step or two down with respect to comfort and luxury when compared to the USA, Canada, and Australia, for example), and are making this sacrifice for a cause bigger than themselves. I can't see how this can be denigrated. I also don't see what's wrong with reinforcing the Jewish community within Israel. It's a Jewish country in a very simple way (of course there are non-Jews living there, though), but that doesn't immunize Israel's Jewish character from threats over time. Jews are a super-duper-mini minority in this world. I think we compose the smallest fraction of a percent of the world's population. Israel and its Zionist/Jewish ideologies is a huge part of the resurgence of Judaism in the worldwide Jewish community. Not only is Israel's mission to be a safe home for Jews, but also to maintain Jewish culture over time. This objective is assisted via the law of return. It's not about infringing on the rights of non-Jews or forming a double-standard, although some people may perceive it that way. I don't think Muslims or Christians face the same long-term threats to their culture over time that Jews do (I think that's an obvious point). It isn't about Jews being more welcome, it's about enacting laws that do not unreasonably discriminate against non-Jews while working towards Israel's Jewish/Zionist ideals. Israel's Jewish/Zionist ideals do not operate without limits, it's not as if Israel if destroying all non-Jewish elements of its culture or deporting non-Jews. It's a balance that I believe (and most Jews believe) Israel is accomplishing well, for the most part. I want to pay more attention to the greater reasons behind Israel's Jewish/Zionist-inspired laws, and not the face-value results (minor inequalities between Jews and non-Jews, for example the law of return only applying to Jews). In summary, Israel has taken reasonable measures to ensure that it remains the Jewish homeland while still being a good place to live for all its citizens. Of course there are some inequalities (i.e. the law of return), but these are minor as reasonable. I'm much less concerned with the "message" you claim that this message (Jews are more welcome than non-Jews) sends and much more concerned with the goals that these laws work towards and play a role in accomplishing.
...Refugees...
In the past Jews have been mistreated, discriminated against, and had major crimes against humanity committed against them for no other reasons other than they are Jewish. Such treatment is unacceptable. I don’t care who is it, but anyone fleeing persecution should be given safe sanctuary by anyone and everyone who can. Thus why I again, have no problem with Jews who are fleeing persecution, immigrating to Israel/Palestine in order to seek a life free of persecution. Where I do encounter a problem is when those fleeing persecution are channelled (ether through the act of restricting of the avenues down which they can flee, eg: the lobbying of the American and British governments during the Second World War by the Zionist Congress. The provision of one way passage, eg: the famous sea voyages from Europe to Israel. Or in modern times coerced to make Aliyah by perpetuating fears of a second Holocaust) into Zionist projects to fulfil Zionist political objectives such as settling land with a Jewish population. That, I see as taking advantage of the misfortune of those fleeing persecution (in modern days this is the spectre of persecution) for the political gains of a movement – which leads into...
I'm not certain that any significant number of Jews fleeing persecution went to Israel via coercion. When my parents emigrated from Russia in 1979, they spent about nine months in Italy (Spain was the other layover point for emigrating Russian Jews) as a sort of half-way point before coming to Canada. Israel had sent out "invitations" to Jews living in Europe so they could leave (the USSR would only allow a Jewish person to leave if he/she had an invitation from Israel, as part of a PR effort to reunite Jews with their families in Israel, and due to pressure from the USA to allow Jews to leave). My parents told me some funny stories about a sort of "boiler room" moment when Jews leaving the USSR were pressured by Zionist representatives to make Israel their choice for a new home. My parents had already decided on Canada. I'm sure this was similar to a hard-sell that you might encounter with a used car salesperson or a timeshare salesperson. It may be slightly uncomfortable, but a normal person isn't going to make a choice regarding where they're going to live due to some pressure from a nobody. My point is, I've never heard of Zionist pressures motivating Jews to move to Israel out of fear. And I know a lot of Jews and have heard countless anecdotes! All of my family friends are Russian Jews who did the same: left the USSR in the 70s/80s and moved to Canada or the USA. Jews who chose to move to Israel did it for the right reasons: pioneer attitude, affinity with the Jewish culture, solidarity with the Zionist ideology, etc... not out of fear or pressure or negative things like that. Bottom line, I haven't seen any real evidence that efforts undertaken by Zionist agents to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel that took place in a coercive/negative manner were effective. Furthermore, the vast majority of Zionist outreach to Jews living outside of Israel, historically and contemporarily, appealed to positive virtues: solidarity with Jews and Zionism, the chance to be a part of something new and exciting, climate, financial/social incentives, etc.
...Colonialism...
Colonialism is not just about reaping the financial rewards by exploiting land, although that certainly was an aspect of colonialism as seen in the historic precedence’s of the British exploitation of India. Colonialism also encompasses a state expanding itself by annexing lands upon which its citizens have settled, which is exactly what is the intention of Israeli settlement construction. The interplay between the issues of Refugees and Immigration is when those new arrivals are directed towards settlements for the purpose of establishing a Jewish population for the annexing of the settlement into the Israeli metropolis.
So where does this leave us, it leaves us with a number of different answers depending upon the motivation and acts carried out by each new arrival. So engage me on specific issues, and I’ll give you a lot more of a clear answer than when you try and muddy a single issue by covering it in the litter of a number of other issues.
Hang on a moment, it's not my fault that the issues we discuss here touch on many things, like you've listed. I'm not trying to muddy any waters. Although colonialism may also encompass expansionism, which Israel clearly seems to be engaging in via settlements in the West Bank, there's still so much more to colonialism. Just because Israel's expansionism appears at face value to resemble a component of colonialism, it's still only a part of colonialism. Obviously you'd agree that colonialism is an emotional word with a negative connotation. I'm also certain you'd agree that colonialism is much more associated with things that do NOT reflect Israel's Zionist/Jewish policies. As WA and I have already elaborated on, worldwide Jewry moving to Israel don't have a home to call their own. We're not part of a greater collective with out own home, such as British or French colonizers of the past. This is a HUGE difference. Jews moving to Israel didn't go there bringing armies and subjugating the population. Jews didn't slaughter the local population. Jews didn't go there to extract wealth and ship it back to some main base country. I could go on and on, but if you're honest you'll concede that describing Israel is simply ridiculous and only serves to score emotional shock points to "strengthen" the anti-Israel position in a cheap way. So, going forward, I would not dispute some of Israel's policies as being expansionist, but they're not colonial. You seem to be the type of person who likes to be accurate, wouldn't you agree that 'expansionist' is a better term than 'colonial'? I mean, come on... this is pretty obvious.
- By FiveofSwords
- By noemon
- By Pants-of-dog
- By Potemkin