Danger of Islam!
- Auteur de la discussion zezt
- Date de début
- Statut
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
I was looking for pages on the "danger of Christianity" and found the following:
I then found one of Peter's blogs on Islam:
More relevant blog entries here: http://peterreaper.blogspot.com/search/label/Islam
Like...
But then it doesn't seem modern Christians care much about these statements, even the pope.
I then found one of Peter's blogs on Islam:
[/quote:1hmvflno]
More relevant blog entries here: http://peterreaper.blogspot.com/search/label/Islam
Like...
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
Chill out man.
that's because we are chilled out and you keep blaming others. You are like a little kid, I had several arguments to this threat and you ignored them and now that I mention you, you are pissed. What was your answer when people took the opposite side?
CM didn't support you !!!! He supported the point of view that you have as well. Another exposé of Mr. zezt.
How mature ! How insightful ! As soon as someone isn't according to you you get hot. That's maybe why you are so xenophobic.zezt a dit:
CM didn't support you !!!! He supported the point of view that you have as well. Another exposé of Mr. zezt.
Shamanita
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 5 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 634
You have a point somewhere, zezt, that's true. But that point is a actually really small dot, from which you make a huge circle.
That Theo v Gogh was killed, is indeed very sad... And that Wilders wasn't allowed to enter great brittain, is sad too...
But on the other hand, the fitna-movie, he was supposed to project in the british parliament, is pure nazi-propaganda. Like i already said: he takes 4 passages of whole the quoran, and then makes a 20 minutes long movie about that, completed with a thrilling musictune. He didn't do much research for that movie neither. Cause that picture of the "9/11 pilot" in the fitna-movie, is actually one from a dutch rapper, who has the same name :)
It's indeed sad that so much people believe really hard in a so-called god. Either if it's jahwe, allah, jah, or any other, .. Sad, in the way that, they live their life to "gods laws" ... Thanks to the christian god, there's so many aids in africa... but i won't judge those people, neither their culture, cause our western civilization is "barbarian" too... There are cultures in southern-America, shamanic cultures, who sacrifice little kids to their gods. Thats barbarian too, you might say. And that is, if you look at it from a western point of view. But for those people, it's completely normal, it's their culture. It's as normal for them as destroying nature by driving cars, chopping rainforrests down, etc, is to our culture...
ps: srry for the bad english :)
That Theo v Gogh was killed, is indeed very sad... And that Wilders wasn't allowed to enter great brittain, is sad too...
But on the other hand, the fitna-movie, he was supposed to project in the british parliament, is pure nazi-propaganda. Like i already said: he takes 4 passages of whole the quoran, and then makes a 20 minutes long movie about that, completed with a thrilling musictune. He didn't do much research for that movie neither. Cause that picture of the "9/11 pilot" in the fitna-movie, is actually one from a dutch rapper, who has the same name :)
It's indeed sad that so much people believe really hard in a so-called god. Either if it's jahwe, allah, jah, or any other, .. Sad, in the way that, they live their life to "gods laws" ... Thanks to the christian god, there's so many aids in africa... but i won't judge those people, neither their culture, cause our western civilization is "barbarian" too... There are cultures in southern-America, shamanic cultures, who sacrifice little kids to their gods. Thats barbarian too, you might say. And that is, if you look at it from a western point of view. But for those people, it's completely normal, it's their culture. It's as normal for them as destroying nature by driving cars, chopping rainforrests down, etc, is to our culture...
ps: srry for the bad english :)
I won't go into it again. I had enough of it, I stated my point in lengthy posts - you let CM answer - it is OK. I don't have anything personal against you. I said what I said I stated my points, I lay down my cards and the game is over.
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
But I did have a meaningful exchange with restin. Did you read it? It's one or two pages before this one.
[/quote:3bw6h89f]Caduceus Mercurius a dit:
More relevant blog entries here: http://peterreaper.blogspot.com/search/label/Islam
Like...
[/quote:3bw6h89f]
ALL very interesting CM. Yes, those passages in the Bible could be construed to provoke same kinds of wanton violence against unbelievers, even in the family! And we have had the Inquisition and genocide against indigenous peoples by the Church and its secret societies!!!
BUT as we have explored--it surely is owing to the Enlightenemnt when use of reason challenged these scriptural laws is when we went into a different phase. But OUR phase has gone into a Scientisitc type of dogma now. Ie., in rejecting 'God' and 'prophets' we replace with 'Science' and HIS 'prophets', the scientists. And these will usually deny soul. So there is still oppression for sure. But not disallowing human rights--if you will. Ie., we have SOME rights, but it can be VERY well argued that our most ESSENTIAL human right which is having free access to Sacred Medicine (psychedelics) is denied us. And that denial is shared both by Islamic culture and western
I have no idea at this date what would be the punishment for being found in 'possession' of psychedelics in Islamic countries, both that are fairly so-called moderate like Turkey and Morocco, and those that have the shariah law like Iran, Afghanistan, etc
HERE we can get fairly long prison sentences can't we?
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
Only those trading the goods. As a consumer you don't run much of a risk, fortunately.zezt a dit:
Shamanita
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 5 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 634
zezt a dit:
zionists are very radical...
It's like when you are radical against another radical ideology, for instance nazism.
like i already said; action-reaction. If you act radical, others act radical to you. So when you take away peoples country, because the Torah says it's your country, then they can be sure that palestinians act radical against them.
Shamanita a dit:
Its more complex. They were given a little slice of land after the persecutions against the Jews. It is a tiny tiny little piece of land. Why cannot Jewish people be allowed to live there in peace? Why is that 'radical'?
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
I was reading something this evening...
Zionism = Racism
Zionism is a racist ideology, like all nationalisms. The specific racist characteristics are summarised here: labelling them racist should be uncontroversial in itself. However Israel and its supporters are allergic for the label, and that hinders rational assessment of nationalist ideology.
Nationalism and racism
Nation states are components of a nationalist world order, and nationalism is the ideology or movement that promotes that world order. The present world order is composed of permanent states. With one exception, the Vatican, they are formed by trans-generational communities - nations. Together these states hold all inhabitable territory, as contiguous national territories: a planet of nations. All nationalists hold certain core beliefs about this world order, about the nation itself and about the nation state. Some of these core beliefs are clearly racist. Others - such as the belief that nation states should be transgenerational - are not racist in themselves, but lead almost inevitably to racist policies by the states. All modern nation states are founded on certain racist principles, which derive directly from nationalist ideology. The multi-ethnic empires, the traditional target of European nationalist resentment, did not always apply such principles.
All nation states are founded on the nationalist belief that each nation has a specific claim to a specific territory. Nationalists can and do recognise other nations claims to other territories, but almost all make an exclusive claim to at least some territory. This claim is, by definition, an expression of group superiority. The members of the nation, according the nationalist movement in question, possess an inherently superior claim to the territory, purely by membership of the group. They do not have to do anything for it. The claim covers not only their claimed right to live there, but their claimed right to exclude others.
There is one exception to this pattern: the diaspora nationalism of the Roma. The Roma do not know exactly where their ancestral homeland is located. Therefore, in sharp contrast to other nationalist movements, Roma nationalism does not claim territory. And until they know where it is, Roma nationalists can not attempt to expel the existing inhabitants of that territory.
All existing nation states do make a claim of superior right to national territory. In all cases, this claim is made on behalf of a single ethnic group, or a cluster of ethnic groups (titular nation plus national minorities). That the groups are ethnic is the source of most of the racism in ideology and policy. If states were exclusively founded on gender, their ideology might be sexist, but not racist.
Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that specific right to the territory in question.
...
It is often said, that the nation states have widely differing conceptions of citizenship. In fact they all operate in conformity with these two principles of superior claim, and legitimate exclusion. All existing nation states share two other characteristics. No nation state has an absolute open-border policy (totally free immigration), and all nation states allow the acquisition of citizenship by descent.
These four characteristics allow Zionism to be considered racist - in the company of other nationalisms, including the quasi-official ideologies of each nation state.
The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to certain other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to their members. The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these claims are translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of citizenship by descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense, but it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the term 'racism'.
...
This is the reality of nation states: most people got their citizenship from their parents, and they did nothing for it. They certainly did not have to cross the Strait of Gibraltar in a small boat, and spend 10 years picking tomatoes or cleaning toilets - which is what a Zambian might do to acquire legal residence in an EU country. In other words the average citizen, certainly in the richer countries, is complicit in a grand racist scheme. They benefit greatly from their privilege at birth, while others lose horribly. That is presumably why they don't like to talk about the issue, but in terms of human suffering this is the worst aspect of the inherent racism of the nation states. If adults in a western city were arrested, and condemned on the basis of their ethnicity to the typical conditions of life in rural Africa, it would be considered a crime against humanity.
read the complete introduction here
Origins and definition of Zionism
The racist characteristics of nationalism can be found in the Zionist ideology and in the State of Israel, a nation state. The word Zionism is used today for the foundational ideology of the Israeli nation state - the claims by which it justifies its existence. However Zionism as a nationalist movement is older than that state: past and present Zionism do not always coincide.
Zionism is a diaspora nationalism of the Jewish people. In a diaspora nationalism, most members of the national group are not resident on the claimed national territory, and the nation state can only be achieved by 'return' migration. Zionism is an unusual nationalism: it is largely the creation of a single individual, Theodor Herzl. He was the first to make a public claim to a Jewish State, and promoted that idea in Europe. His work reflected the general climate of nationalist revival movements in eastern Europe at the time, especially in the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was almost inevitable, that a Jewish movement would identify Jews as 'a people' when all around them Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Hungarians were doing the same. The other historically possible options - a purely religious revival movement, and an emancipation movement - were side-tracked.
Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland. There was a clear territorial concentration of Jews in Europe, in what is now Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine and southern Russia. However, except for local concentrations, they were in a minority even in this territory. The idea of a Jewish nation state in eastern Europe was never influential in Zionism. Some of the early plans for Jewish resettlement were not even formally nationalist: they made no claim to a state. Resettlement in a British colony, such as Uganda, was for a time the most serious option. The negotiations came to nothing - but the idea influenced British policy, when Palestine became a British mandate territory, after the First World War.
By the time of the Balfour Declaration, Zionism was a standard nationalist movement. Zionists claimed to speak on behalf of a people, the Jewish people. They claimed a nation state for that people in Palestine, on the grounds that it was the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The 'Jewish people' for almost all Zionists was (and is) an ethno-national group - and not a religious community. A minority of religious Jews still opposes Zionism for religious reasons.
Zionism in the State of Israel
When the State of Israel came into existence, it included a mainly Arab minority, now about one million people. Historically Zionism has never recognised any 'national minority' within the nation, the status of (for instance) the Frisians within the modern Dutch nation. For Zionists, the Jewish people is the Jewish nation: Zionism is a mono-ethnic nationalism comparable to Irish nationalism. The present State of Israel generally has the constitutional structure of a secular nation state. It has conceded citizenship to the 'Israeli Arabs', although many will identify themselves as 'Palestinians'. However there is no tradition in Zionism which sees this group ('Arabs' or 'Palestinians') as a constituent minority of the Jewish people. Although many Zionists claimed the territory where Yasir Arafat lived, no Zionist ever saw him as a Jew.
There is also no nationalist movement to establish a bi-national state on the former mandate territory of Palestine. Zionism is not such a movement, and the State of Israel does not claim to be a bi-national state. In this respect, Zionism is comparable to Czech nationalism or Slovak nationalism - not to Czechoslovak nationalism.. No Zionists call themselves Palestino-Jews or Judaeo-Palestinians. The State is called Israel, not Filastino-Israel or Israelo-Filastina
Within this framework, which includes contradictory ideas about Israeli citizenship, the four racist characteristics can be identified.
Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on behalf of 'the Jewish people', an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed that individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did not apply to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 - but none of them believed that non-Jews had a right to the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute a superior quality to Jews, namely the exclusive right to the Jewish national territory. The State of Israel, by definition, claims Israeli territory for Israeli's. It attributes a superior quality to Israeli's, although paradoxically that includes the Arab minority with Israeli citizenship. However, the State of Israel is not 'Israelist' - in the sense of consistently presenting these claims for both its Jewish and Arab citizens. In official pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the Durban anti-racism conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy as the national homeland for the 'Jewish people'. It is therefore not correct to say, that in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been succeeded by Israeli nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is still largely Zionism, and not 'Israelism'.
Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in the Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State of Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born outside Israel, unless they have specific links to Israel, to the Jewish people, or to Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The only exception to the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the State of Israel extends citizenship to the historically resident Arab minority. However, some groups in Israel dispute even their right to residence, and propose their expulsion as part of a 'peace settlement' - together with the expulsion of Palestinians from all or part of the occupied territories. According to a 2003 opinion poll in Israel (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies), 31% now support the expulsion of the Arab minority, and 46% support clearance of the territories.
The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists, is the status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor Herzl never imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and therefore the de facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In addition, about three million people belong to the clearly identifiable 'Palestinian-refugee' minorities, in other Arab countries, although most were born in their present country of residence. The State of Israel clearly attributes an inferior status to this population: namely that they do not possess the right to Israeli citizenship. This population is generally equivalent to the 'Palestinian people' in the occupied territories, although it includes small non-Jewish, non-Arab minorities. The members of this population, (primarily Palestinian), can not vote, for instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli elections, it would mean the end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that all nation states operate this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship to everyone, certainly not to hostile populations. That does not make such policies any less racist, since the exclusions are by definition on ethnic or national grounds.
That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all immigrants: but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic of Zionism. Israel has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but immigration policy has always been restrictive. Although Israel grants citizenship to the resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former residents of its territory. Only those who stayed in their villages in 1948 got Israeli citizenship: those who crossed the front line to the Arab side can not get back - not as a citizen, and probably not as a visitor. Other Arabs, who have no connection with Palestine, can not simply migrate to Israel, nor can most of the world's population. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this is the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism. In this case, the State of Israel has a formal and explicit policy of Jewish immigration, which is clearly Zionist. It is the logical consequence of the original Zionist demand for a Jewish state formed by migration, meaning migration of Jews.
In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration policies: citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A person who converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law of Return, if the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities in Israel. The convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally refused), and can claim Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this is quoted by Israel's supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory, all the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to Judaism tomorrow, and on acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. - where they will all presumably live as good and prosperous Israeli citizens. In practice this is absurdly unlikely. And the question is: why should they have to convert to Judaism, when native-born atheist or Buddhist Israelis can still be part of the Jewish people?
This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state policies of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for the early Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its future citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predictable even at the time Herzl wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation states (and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an Israeli citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli citizen. (I am not sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs, born in the occupied territories). The child acquires this privilege without effort: no application under the Law of Return, no conversion to Judaism, no other qualification for citizenship. The child simply acquires the rights (and duties) of an Israeli citizen through unconscious biological process. The child without this biological advantage (birth, or parentage, or genetic material) does not automatically acquire citizenship. Life in Israel is not always pleasant, and many western Jews hesitate to emigrate there, but within the region an Israeli-born child has the advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in central Hebron will statistically live longer, be better educated, and have a higher standard of living, then the Palestinian child born in an adjoining house. This advantage is part of the general advantage of being born in a rich country, which about one-fifth of the world's population share.
In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not inevitably, but because nation states are structured that way. There is no inherent moral reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or citizenship, simply on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of any moral justification for it. It is clearly racist in the general sense of the word, and its derivation from the ideology of nationalism indicates the racist origins of that ideology. The nationalism underlying the nation state Israel, which is accurately called Zionism, is no different in this respect. Here too, Zionism is racist.
Zionism = Racism
Zionism is a racist ideology, like all nationalisms. The specific racist characteristics are summarised here: labelling them racist should be uncontroversial in itself. However Israel and its supporters are allergic for the label, and that hinders rational assessment of nationalist ideology.
Nationalism and racism
Nation states are components of a nationalist world order, and nationalism is the ideology or movement that promotes that world order. The present world order is composed of permanent states. With one exception, the Vatican, they are formed by trans-generational communities - nations. Together these states hold all inhabitable territory, as contiguous national territories: a planet of nations. All nationalists hold certain core beliefs about this world order, about the nation itself and about the nation state. Some of these core beliefs are clearly racist. Others - such as the belief that nation states should be transgenerational - are not racist in themselves, but lead almost inevitably to racist policies by the states. All modern nation states are founded on certain racist principles, which derive directly from nationalist ideology. The multi-ethnic empires, the traditional target of European nationalist resentment, did not always apply such principles.
All nation states are founded on the nationalist belief that each nation has a specific claim to a specific territory. Nationalists can and do recognise other nations claims to other territories, but almost all make an exclusive claim to at least some territory. This claim is, by definition, an expression of group superiority. The members of the nation, according the nationalist movement in question, possess an inherently superior claim to the territory, purely by membership of the group. They do not have to do anything for it. The claim covers not only their claimed right to live there, but their claimed right to exclude others.
There is one exception to this pattern: the diaspora nationalism of the Roma. The Roma do not know exactly where their ancestral homeland is located. Therefore, in sharp contrast to other nationalist movements, Roma nationalism does not claim territory. And until they know where it is, Roma nationalists can not attempt to expel the existing inhabitants of that territory.
All existing nation states do make a claim of superior right to national territory. In all cases, this claim is made on behalf of a single ethnic group, or a cluster of ethnic groups (titular nation plus national minorities). That the groups are ethnic is the source of most of the racism in ideology and policy. If states were exclusively founded on gender, their ideology might be sexist, but not racist.
Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that specific right to the territory in question.
...
It is often said, that the nation states have widely differing conceptions of citizenship. In fact they all operate in conformity with these two principles of superior claim, and legitimate exclusion. All existing nation states share two other characteristics. No nation state has an absolute open-border policy (totally free immigration), and all nation states allow the acquisition of citizenship by descent.
These four characteristics allow Zionism to be considered racist - in the company of other nationalisms, including the quasi-official ideologies of each nation state.
The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to certain other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to their members. The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these claims are translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of citizenship by descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense, but it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the term 'racism'.
...
This is the reality of nation states: most people got their citizenship from their parents, and they did nothing for it. They certainly did not have to cross the Strait of Gibraltar in a small boat, and spend 10 years picking tomatoes or cleaning toilets - which is what a Zambian might do to acquire legal residence in an EU country. In other words the average citizen, certainly in the richer countries, is complicit in a grand racist scheme. They benefit greatly from their privilege at birth, while others lose horribly. That is presumably why they don't like to talk about the issue, but in terms of human suffering this is the worst aspect of the inherent racism of the nation states. If adults in a western city were arrested, and condemned on the basis of their ethnicity to the typical conditions of life in rural Africa, it would be considered a crime against humanity.
read the complete introduction here
Origins and definition of Zionism
The racist characteristics of nationalism can be found in the Zionist ideology and in the State of Israel, a nation state. The word Zionism is used today for the foundational ideology of the Israeli nation state - the claims by which it justifies its existence. However Zionism as a nationalist movement is older than that state: past and present Zionism do not always coincide.
Zionism is a diaspora nationalism of the Jewish people. In a diaspora nationalism, most members of the national group are not resident on the claimed national territory, and the nation state can only be achieved by 'return' migration. Zionism is an unusual nationalism: it is largely the creation of a single individual, Theodor Herzl. He was the first to make a public claim to a Jewish State, and promoted that idea in Europe. His work reflected the general climate of nationalist revival movements in eastern Europe at the time, especially in the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was almost inevitable, that a Jewish movement would identify Jews as 'a people' when all around them Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Hungarians were doing the same. The other historically possible options - a purely religious revival movement, and an emancipation movement - were side-tracked.
Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland. There was a clear territorial concentration of Jews in Europe, in what is now Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine and southern Russia. However, except for local concentrations, they were in a minority even in this territory. The idea of a Jewish nation state in eastern Europe was never influential in Zionism. Some of the early plans for Jewish resettlement were not even formally nationalist: they made no claim to a state. Resettlement in a British colony, such as Uganda, was for a time the most serious option. The negotiations came to nothing - but the idea influenced British policy, when Palestine became a British mandate territory, after the First World War.
By the time of the Balfour Declaration, Zionism was a standard nationalist movement. Zionists claimed to speak on behalf of a people, the Jewish people. They claimed a nation state for that people in Palestine, on the grounds that it was the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The 'Jewish people' for almost all Zionists was (and is) an ethno-national group - and not a religious community. A minority of religious Jews still opposes Zionism for religious reasons.
Zionism in the State of Israel
When the State of Israel came into existence, it included a mainly Arab minority, now about one million people. Historically Zionism has never recognised any 'national minority' within the nation, the status of (for instance) the Frisians within the modern Dutch nation. For Zionists, the Jewish people is the Jewish nation: Zionism is a mono-ethnic nationalism comparable to Irish nationalism. The present State of Israel generally has the constitutional structure of a secular nation state. It has conceded citizenship to the 'Israeli Arabs', although many will identify themselves as 'Palestinians'. However there is no tradition in Zionism which sees this group ('Arabs' or 'Palestinians') as a constituent minority of the Jewish people. Although many Zionists claimed the territory where Yasir Arafat lived, no Zionist ever saw him as a Jew.
There is also no nationalist movement to establish a bi-national state on the former mandate territory of Palestine. Zionism is not such a movement, and the State of Israel does not claim to be a bi-national state. In this respect, Zionism is comparable to Czech nationalism or Slovak nationalism - not to Czechoslovak nationalism.. No Zionists call themselves Palestino-Jews or Judaeo-Palestinians. The State is called Israel, not Filastino-Israel or Israelo-Filastina
Within this framework, which includes contradictory ideas about Israeli citizenship, the four racist characteristics can be identified.
Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on behalf of 'the Jewish people', an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed that individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did not apply to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 - but none of them believed that non-Jews had a right to the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute a superior quality to Jews, namely the exclusive right to the Jewish national territory. The State of Israel, by definition, claims Israeli territory for Israeli's. It attributes a superior quality to Israeli's, although paradoxically that includes the Arab minority with Israeli citizenship. However, the State of Israel is not 'Israelist' - in the sense of consistently presenting these claims for both its Jewish and Arab citizens. In official pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the Durban anti-racism conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy as the national homeland for the 'Jewish people'. It is therefore not correct to say, that in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been succeeded by Israeli nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is still largely Zionism, and not 'Israelism'.
Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in the Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State of Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born outside Israel, unless they have specific links to Israel, to the Jewish people, or to Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The only exception to the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the State of Israel extends citizenship to the historically resident Arab minority. However, some groups in Israel dispute even their right to residence, and propose their expulsion as part of a 'peace settlement' - together with the expulsion of Palestinians from all or part of the occupied territories. According to a 2003 opinion poll in Israel (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies), 31% now support the expulsion of the Arab minority, and 46% support clearance of the territories.
The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists, is the status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor Herzl never imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and therefore the de facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In addition, about three million people belong to the clearly identifiable 'Palestinian-refugee' minorities, in other Arab countries, although most were born in their present country of residence. The State of Israel clearly attributes an inferior status to this population: namely that they do not possess the right to Israeli citizenship. This population is generally equivalent to the 'Palestinian people' in the occupied territories, although it includes small non-Jewish, non-Arab minorities. The members of this population, (primarily Palestinian), can not vote, for instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli elections, it would mean the end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that all nation states operate this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship to everyone, certainly not to hostile populations. That does not make such policies any less racist, since the exclusions are by definition on ethnic or national grounds.
That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all immigrants: but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic of Zionism. Israel has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but immigration policy has always been restrictive. Although Israel grants citizenship to the resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former residents of its territory. Only those who stayed in their villages in 1948 got Israeli citizenship: those who crossed the front line to the Arab side can not get back - not as a citizen, and probably not as a visitor. Other Arabs, who have no connection with Palestine, can not simply migrate to Israel, nor can most of the world's population. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this is the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism. In this case, the State of Israel has a formal and explicit policy of Jewish immigration, which is clearly Zionist. It is the logical consequence of the original Zionist demand for a Jewish state formed by migration, meaning migration of Jews.
In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration policies: citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A person who converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law of Return, if the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities in Israel. The convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally refused), and can claim Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this is quoted by Israel's supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory, all the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to Judaism tomorrow, and on acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. - where they will all presumably live as good and prosperous Israeli citizens. In practice this is absurdly unlikely. And the question is: why should they have to convert to Judaism, when native-born atheist or Buddhist Israelis can still be part of the Jewish people?
This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state policies of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for the early Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its future citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predictable even at the time Herzl wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation states (and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an Israeli citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli citizen. (I am not sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs, born in the occupied territories). The child acquires this privilege without effort: no application under the Law of Return, no conversion to Judaism, no other qualification for citizenship. The child simply acquires the rights (and duties) of an Israeli citizen through unconscious biological process. The child without this biological advantage (birth, or parentage, or genetic material) does not automatically acquire citizenship. Life in Israel is not always pleasant, and many western Jews hesitate to emigrate there, but within the region an Israeli-born child has the advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in central Hebron will statistically live longer, be better educated, and have a higher standard of living, then the Palestinian child born in an adjoining house. This advantage is part of the general advantage of being born in a rich country, which about one-fifth of the world's population share.
In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not inevitably, but because nation states are structured that way. There is no inherent moral reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or citizenship, simply on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of any moral justification for it. It is clearly racist in the general sense of the word, and its derivation from the ideology of nationalism indicates the racist origins of that ideology. The nationalism underlying the nation state Israel, which is accurately called Zionism, is no different in this respect. Here too, Zionism is racist.
I watched a video about two weeks ago. I thought I had saved it but cannot find it, and have tried to find it but up to now, no. So I will have to use memory. The guy talking on the vidoe claimed he was a Palestinian who had chosen to live in Israel. He made two videos--where he is wearing a wooly Tibetan-looking hat--sayhow freer he is in Israel than he was in Palstine, and that just for wearing what he is wearing he could be killed in Palestine, and for speaking good about Jews, and generally speaking freely.
he said Arabs in Israel are treated fairly and can enroll in the colleges etc.
So CM, believe me, I really know what your article means about nationalism. I was very influenced by J.Krishnamurti for a few years some years ago, and he was very against nationalism. Something i clicked with very much, as psychedelic experience shows you this very very clearly!!
When I had a shroom Trip and watched a documentary about the Israeli Palastine troubles it all seemed DIRECTLY absurd-----ie., there was no need for intellectual discourse etc etc--i could SEE and FEEL that all this seemingly age long division between people calling themselves labels like 'Jew' 'Palestinian' 'Arab' etc etc was the Folly of Man, and as long as this continues, and groups hang on to rigid world views than all the trouble, escalating into wars and wars to end wars ad infinitum will continue
What is NEEDED to see this is Sacred Medicine, which are psychedelics. I am going to try and use that term instead of 'psychedelics' from now on, becauwse that is what many indigenous peoples call it. And IS what it is. For in pre-industrial tradition, the healing of body and soul was not considered separate as it is in mechansitic western medical model.
Now, true, it can be argued that even indigenous cultures who had access to sacred medicine would also have conflict with other tribes that went on and on. Lets not get all romantic. BUT I am exploring that where we are NOW is POST tribal (well I know there are still tribes and they aint of course). Ie., that we are on this journey, and where we are is seeing the past and learning from the past or should be. I encourage it for myself and others i communicate with
But what we HAVE got right now with comparison between an Islamic culture that imposes harsh shariah law where you really CAN be murdered......? And a culture whjere you cant be. I will go for the latter everytime and work on from there, because at least there is free speech to explore even more maturity, and empathy, and hopefully free access to sacred medicine.
he said Arabs in Israel are treated fairly and can enroll in the colleges etc.
So CM, believe me, I really know what your article means about nationalism. I was very influenced by J.Krishnamurti for a few years some years ago, and he was very against nationalism. Something i clicked with very much, as psychedelic experience shows you this very very clearly!!
When I had a shroom Trip and watched a documentary about the Israeli Palastine troubles it all seemed DIRECTLY absurd-----ie., there was no need for intellectual discourse etc etc--i could SEE and FEEL that all this seemingly age long division between people calling themselves labels like 'Jew' 'Palestinian' 'Arab' etc etc was the Folly of Man, and as long as this continues, and groups hang on to rigid world views than all the trouble, escalating into wars and wars to end wars ad infinitum will continue
What is NEEDED to see this is Sacred Medicine, which are psychedelics. I am going to try and use that term instead of 'psychedelics' from now on, becauwse that is what many indigenous peoples call it. And IS what it is. For in pre-industrial tradition, the healing of body and soul was not considered separate as it is in mechansitic western medical model.
Now, true, it can be argued that even indigenous cultures who had access to sacred medicine would also have conflict with other tribes that went on and on. Lets not get all romantic. BUT I am exploring that where we are NOW is POST tribal (well I know there are still tribes and they aint of course). Ie., that we are on this journey, and where we are is seeing the past and learning from the past or should be. I encourage it for myself and others i communicate with
But what we HAVE got right now with comparison between an Islamic culture that imposes harsh shariah law where you really CAN be murdered......? And a culture whjere you cant be. I will go for the latter everytime and work on from there, because at least there is free speech to explore even more maturity, and empathy, and hopefully free access to sacred medicine.
- Statut