Posted on 01/26/2007 5:19:50 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
On May 14, 1948, Palestinian Jews declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." Since that time, the concept of anti-Semitism has become confused with anti-Israelism, which is further confused with anti-Zionism.
Zionism
Zionism is an ideology and a political movement. As an ideology, it, "... holds that the Jews are a people or nation like any other, and should gather together in a single homeland. ... The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology, but it was used retroactively to describe earlier efforts and ideas to return the Jews to their homeland for whatever reasons, and it is applied to Evangelical Christians who want people of the Jewish religion to return to Israel in order to hasten the second coming. "Christian Zionism" is also used to describe any Christian support for Israel."
The history of Zionism, as well as the widely different forms it has taken, (from Christian Zionism to Socialist Zionism), is extremely complex and well beyond the scope of these articles. However, it's significance is important, because anti-Zionism is confused with anti-Semitism, and they are not the same thing. Those who have opposed the Zionists, both ideologically and politically, are often labeled anti-Semitic, which some anti-Zionists certainly are (such as the Muslims), but opposing Zionism is not itself anti-Semitic. It is an interesting historical fact, that some of the most radical anti-Zionists were Orthodox Jews, especially those who were inhabitants of Palestine in 1948 when a secular Zionist state was literally forced on them by the United Nations. One can hardly call those anti-Zionist Jews, anti-Semitic.
Zionism and Israel
The existence of Israel today, as an independent state is certainly the result of the political influence of Zionism, with the support of Western Governments largely spurred on by recognition of the horrors of Jewish persecution preceding and during the Second World war. In the West, the creation of a Jewish state was perceived as the only solution to the Jewish war refugee problem. Israel was to be a haven for persecuted Jews.
Some question how much of a haven Israel is for the Jews today in the face of the constant terrorist attacks and hateful threats being hurled at Israel by the Islamic countries surrounding it. One might also question the wisdom that led to the formation of Israel in the first place, or the wisdom of the political decisions subsequently made by Israel itself, as well as all other nations in relationship to it. The fact is, Israel exists, and the people living there do not deserve the persecution they face daily whatever stupid decisions politicians have made.
While not all anti-Israelism, is anti-Semitism, there is in that form of anti-Israelism propagated in Western media and academia the very same kind of anti-Semitism that is evidenced by the growing violence and persecution against Jews in all of Europe. There is an apparent reason for the growth of anti-Israelism that must be looked at, if the real cause of the irrational hatred of the Jews is to be understood.
Israel has a built-in problem. Israel is a racist state.
Israel, a Racist State
Technically, Zionism is a form of racism; it is autoracism as defined in the first article in this series. Furthermore, Israel itself, the product of Zionism, is a racist state. Please note, this is not a statement about Jews, or Judaism, but Zionism and the "State" of Israel. Also note I am clearly emphasizing the racism of Israel is autoracism, not exoracism--nevertheless, it is racism, and, as such, a mistake.
In discussing the racism of Nazi Germany and Russia, Ayn Rand wrote: "The racism of Nazi Germany—where men had to fill questionnaires about their ancestry for generations back, in order to prove their Aryan descent——has its counterpart in Soviet Russia, where men had to fill similar questionnaires to show that their ancestors had owned no property and thus to prove their proletarian descent."
To whatever extent the purpose was realized, "Israel was to be a haven for persecuted Jews," a "Jewish homeland." The kind of "proof" one required in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is required of those who wish to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen. There is no suggestion here that there is any similarity in the intentions of Israel toward those without proof as existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia--it is the necessity of proof that one "belongs to a particular nationality" that is racism.
"Israeli rules for aliyah creates Israelis but not Jews. One area where the traditional definition of Jew is not followed by the Israeli government is in deciding who qualifies to make aliyah ("immigrate [to Israel]") and acquire citizenship under the Law of Return.
"The requirements here differ significantly from the definition of a Jew under halakha, in permitting anyone with only one Jewish grandparent, or as non-Jewish spouses of Jews, to move to Israel. A person with only one Jewish grandparent is presently allowed to make aliyah but that does not confer the status of Jew upon that person according to Jewish law neither in Israel nor anywhere else.
...
"Current Israeli definitions however, specifically excludes Jews who have openly and knowingly converted to a faith other than Judaism. [My emphasis.] This definition is not the same as that in traditional Jewish law; in some respects it is a deliberately wider, so as to include those non-Jewish relatives of Jews who may have been perceived to be Jewish, and thus faced anti-Semitism, but in other respects it is narrower, as the traditional definition includes apostate Jews."
Mostly implied, but never far from the surface, it is the racist nature of Israel that is used to "justify" the growing anti-Israel sentiment in the west. But this presents a great irony.
Why Israel
It is a fact that Israel is a racist state, clearly an "ethno-religious" state, which "specifically excludes Jews who have openly and knowingly converted to a faith other than Judaism." The fact is, practically every middle eastern country is a racist state. Most are actually theocracies, though the "God" of those states is Allah, not Jehovah.
While Israel is technically a secular state, one cannot immigrate there and become a citizen if they have chosen any religion that does not worship the Jehovah of the Torah. Can the reason for the hatred of Israel be that it's God is named Jehovah, and the name of the God of all it's enemies who have vowed to destroy it and who are embraced by Western media and academia is Allah? The reason for the almost universal hatred of Israel and the almost universal embracing of all Islamic countries is not the difference in the name of the God associated with them. In fact, it is a much more obvious difference, so obvious it drives those who hate Israel to distraction.
The difference between Israel and all other Middle Eastern countries is apparent to anyone who will open their eyes—Israel is the only Middle Eastern country with the kind of culture and prosperity associated with Western Civilization. In spite of the enormous wealth that petroleum provides the other Middle Eastern countries who confiscated it from the Western businesses that discovered and made it available, their entire populations remain impoverished, ignorant, culturally primitive, socially backward, and oppressed. Yet, it is none of these backward "theocracies" that are hated—it is the only economically and socially successful country in the region that is hated, Israel.
Anti-Zionism and Anti-Israelism, in themselves, are not always anti-Semitism, but the irrational hatred of Israel today is the clue to what is behind all anti-Semitism. It is not the Jew's religion or culture, it is not their desire to have a country of their own (with all its problems), it is not any of the absurd accusations of political or cultural influence they are accused of (even when some of those accusations are substantive)—the Jews are hated for one reason only—they are successful capitalists, industrious, independent creators and producers of wealth, and fierce defenders of principles, that is, their values.
Who would hate such people? That should be obvious by now and we'll examine it in the next article.
Racism and Anti-Semitism—Part IV
Racism and Anti-Semitism—Part III
Racism and Anti-Semitism—Part II
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
These days it seems to be mostly the adherents to the 'teachings' of a 6th century syphilitic pedophile who fancied himself a prophet.
L
"These days it seems to be mostly the adherents to the 'teachings' of a 6th century syphilitic pedophile who fancied himself a prophet."
That has always been true. What is worrisome is the growing number, especially in Europe but also in the US, of leftist leaning scum in Universities and Media, and large numbers in the general populace they influence that are today displaying hatred of the Jews.
Hank
Thanks for the ping!
"Why is Firehammer taking this circuitous route to state the obvious?"
No doubt for the sake of those for whom it is not obvious, and to disarm those who would simply dismiss a plain statement.
Hank
No doubt for the sake of those for whom it is not obvious, and to disarm those who would simply dismiss a plain statement.
I doubt many, 'for whom it is not obvious', read much of Firehammer.
And those who simply dismiss plain, well reasoned arguments simply don't count. .
It might be obvious to you. And while the growth of Anti semitism is obvious to me, there is a huge amount in this work I didn't know, such as the difference between Zionism and semitism.
And if it's that obvious, why are so many western people adopting it? Why is so little being spoken out against it?
Almost always, once something is clearly argued and demonstrated for the first time, almost everyone thinks they could have "thought of that for myself". Except they didn't.
I'm very much enjoying these articles - thanks for posting them Hank.
"Why is Firehammer taking this circuitous route to state the obvious."
Perhaps because he is an Objectivist, as indicated by his frequent citation of Ayn Rand, and that is how they argue.
Just as a Thomast would begin by carefully restating, and then refuting, the arguments of his opponents before presenting his own.
There's only one problem with this line of reasoning...
The author completely ignores the fact that there are many non-Jewish Israeli citizens. There are Israeli arabs, and other "races" as well, with diverse religions.
Calling Israel a racist state is a misnomer at best, if not a slanderous lie. Even if you consider Judaism to be a "race," how can it be that people who convert to Judaism are extended the same "right of aliah" no matter what their "race." For example, a Karate teacher I had while I was in grade school, converted to Judaism. He was a big Black man, and he and his wife converted. They've since "made aliah" and now live in Israel, along with their children. It would be hard to say they're of a Jewish "race," since nobody in their families were Jews.
Were the Ethiopians the Israelis rescued part of this Jewish "race" as well?
Mark
Hi Mark,
If one wishes to get at the truth, sometimes the risk of being understood just has to be taken. There is a little bit of the PC in your complaint. If you had read the whole series you would understand racism, as a concept is very broad.
Suppose someone should propose a law for the United States that prohibited anyone from coming here who could not prove he fit certain racial/religious criteria. What would everybody call it. Racist, right? Because it would be. But that is exactly what Israel does, but it's un-PC to point it out. Why?
As for the rest, if you had read the series you would know the author already said this: "Race is really incorrect, because "Jews" include almost all races." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1772123/posts
Of course the author did not ignore the non-Jewish citizens of Israel. It's common knowledge for goodness sakes. One like about those living in Palestine in 1948 had this, for example, "Through the many years that Jews resided in the Holy Land for this purpose, they enjoyed tranquil and cordial relations with the non-Jewish population there."
Hank
Not at all. I object to the icorrect use of a term. Although the word "racist" is used like a bludgeon, most people who use it, use the word incorrectly. "Racism" is the belief that one race is inherantly superior to another. It has nothing to do with preferences. Good example of racist thought would be the philosophies of the NAZIs, the KKK, and "The Nation of Islam." In all 3 of these examples, you have the belief that one race is superior to others.
Suppose someone should propose a law for the United States that prohibited anyone from coming here who could not prove he fit certain racial/religious criteria. What would everybody call it. Racist, right? Because it would be. But that is exactly what Israel does, but it's un-PC to point it out. Why?
If it were by race, then yes, it could be considered racist. However, if it were by religion, it wouldn't be. For one simple reason: You can choose your religion, while you can't choose your race. As a Jew, I can say that the ban on my entrance into Mecca is prejudiced, but not racist. On the other hand, a "whites only" restroom would be racist. By definition of the word "racist," Israel simply isn't a racist state. In addition to that, are you saying that a country shouldn't be allowed to be "picky" when accepting immigrants? For instance, should the US allow criminals to become citizens? Is that "racist" (using the sloppy, popular meaning)? I have no doubt that someone will claim it is.
Something people keep forgetting is that words mean things. And people are getting sloppier every day in their words and thought.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.