portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights

It Is Absurd To Say Israel Is Not A Racist State

Israel certainly is a racist state. Its own human-rights advocates call it that. The claim that Israel doesn't discriminate against non-Jews is absurd on its face.
It Is Absurd To Say Israel
Is Not A Racist State
By Charley Reese
King Features Syndicate
2-14-5


It was no surprise that the United States and Israel walked out of a United Nations conference on racism as soon as Israel came in for criticism. It is, however, a disgrace.

Israel certainly is a racist state. Its own human-rights advocates call it that. The claim that Israel doesn't discriminate against non-Jews is absurd on its face.

Suppose, for example, the U.S. Congress passed a law that said the United States is a Christian, Anglo-Saxon nation and that any Christian, Anglo-Saxon person anywhere in the world is automatically eligible to become a citizen. Do you seriously think the Anti-Defamation League would not have a conniption fit and scream racism? Well, Israel has such a law for Jews.

Thus a Russian Jew, for example, can become a citizen, but a Palestinian driven out of his own country in 1948 cannot return.

Suppose, for another example, a group of wealthy people established the Christian National Fund. This fund would be used to purchase property. Once purchased, the property could never be sold to, rented to or leased to a non-Christian. Would that not be called discrimination? Well, there is such a fund called the Jewish National Fund, which has all of those restrictions on the property it owns. It played a great part in establishing Israel.

And, of course, if American officials routinely issued building permits to Christian Anglo-Saxons while denying them to Jews or other groups, that would be considered racist. And neighborhoods that denied non-Christians an opportunity to buy or rent would likewise be considered racist. All of these forms of discrimination are practiced in Israel against Palestinians.

The language that caused the United States to leave the conference was in a resolution passed by 3,000 nongovernmental organizations in 44 regional and interest-based caucuses, according to the Indian Express. Some American news reports have made it seem like it was an Arab-only move. I'd say the United States is definitely in a minority, as it usually is when it defends Israel " not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of the power of the Zionist lobby in the United States.

Fortunately, a growing number of American Jews are beginning to defy the slanders of the Zionist lobby and speak out against the human-rights abuses Israel inflicts on the Palestinians.

That indeed is the duty of all people of conscience. Acts that would be unacceptable in the United States cannot be condoned simply because they are done by Israelis to Palestinians. That in itself is a racist attitude.

In the meantime, much of the American press is allowing the Israeli government to dictate its language for propaganda purposes. If the Israelis wish to refer to assassinations as "targeted killing," that's their business, but American journalism should call them what they are " assassinations.

Assassination of political opponents, collective punishments inflicted on innocent people, confiscation of property, restriction of movements and employing military engines of destruction against an unarmed population are all considered crimes against humanity. Employing tanks against unarmed demonstrators in the West Bank and Gaza is no different than employing tanks against unarmed demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. You might want to meditate on why the American reaction is different even though the circumstances are similar.

It is also useful to keep George Washington's warning constantly in mind: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence " I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens " the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

Zionism is foreign influence.


 http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20050202/index.php

homepage: homepage: http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20050202/index.php

add a comment on this article

The problem is with the word "racist" 15.Feb.2005 06:03

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

That term implies that RACE has something to do with it. It also implies that the speaker associates other sorts of methods by which huamns have historically identified themsleves with "race" or "blood".

Would you use the word "race" to explain the difference between Hopi and Dene and Lakota and Crow? No of course not, you say these are people of different tribes. Do you consider a Hopi (or a Dene) who is a Christian not to be a Hopi or a Dene because they don't happen top practice the traditional tribal religion? No you don't because it is not how THESE tribes define triabl identity. Do you decide somebody is half Hopi or one quarter, etc. becuase that's how the government recons based on Eurpopean concepts of "blood" or do you follow the way Hopi recon (if your mother is Hopi, you are and a member of her clan).

The Jews are a "tribe". A rather large tribe, one that is in fact multiracial (and has been for thousands of years). Even multiethnic since that term usually we define ethnicity in terms of language and other social customs and THAT goes way back too. The Jews happen to have a tribal religion not easily separated from the tribe because unlike most, you cannot join the religion without being adopted into the tribe (it's part of the conversion process) and the descendents of those who have joined some other religion eventually are no longer considered members of the tribe regardless of "bloodlines". But note carefully that "join some other religion" because simply not practicing the Jewish tribal religion does NOT lead to descendents being excluded.

NOW --- it may well be that we could use a term for exclusivity based upon THIS sort of concept. But it's obviously not exclusivity based upon "race". If you think the Jews are a "race", then you betray something about your thinking of "blood" identity.

Hey, Mike? 15.Feb.2005 07:20

Roland

Following your definition of Jews as a "tribe," isn't it more accurate to say that in a historical sense Jews are actually a collection of 12 tribes?

What hidden agenda on your part are you betraying in identifying Jews as a tribe?

Lose the "race" 15.Feb.2005 07:39

Buckman Res

The real problem is with the use of the term "race" used to identify
ethnic groups, religious groups, groups of people who share a particular
skin tone, in other words any "group". The only "race" is human. Any
other use of the word is done primarily to divide people and pit them
against each other.

We see this all the time in our own country where
people are asked to list their race and mark a box on forms strictly so
politicians can use that information to dole out political favors which
helps keep them in power and us fighting against ourselves.

My personal way of subverting this is to write in "Human" on any form
that asks me for my race, and I encourage others fighting against the
status quo to do the same.

The Eugenic Foundations of Der Judenstaat 17.Feb.2005 01:30

Count Folke Bernadotte

Good question asked of Mike. I'd to see it answered.

quote from article:
======================
Thus a Russian Jew, for example, can become a citizen,
but a Palestinian driven out of his own country in 1948 cannot return.
====================

Is this policy kosher with you, Mike?

add a comment on this article