Israeli Citizenship Based on Allegiance, not blood (RE: Becoming stateless

[Nasreen Karim]

It is unfortunate that left-liberals like Nathan Newman refuse to
acknowledge the fact that the very premise of the state of Israel is
antithetical to the enlightenment-democratic concept of secular citizenship.
This recognition does not deny the specificity of the historical suffering
of the Jewish people, nor does it fail to grasp the set of historical
circumstances that led to the establishment of the state of Israel. While it
is possible, even justifiable to be sympathetic to the left-Zionist
tendencies of another time, it is also quite obvious that the state of
Israel was established, in a "Johnny come lately" sort of way, as an
addition to the larger process of European colonization of the non-European
territories.  If folks like Nathan have the guts to face up to the logical
ramification of their otherwise left-liberal politics, they have to be open
to the possibility (no matter how utopian it may seem at this point in time)
of a secular-democratic Palestine that will include Muslims, Jews, and
Christians irrespective of their religious beliefs.

And Nathan, I hope, and I really hope you are not trying to say that an
European Jew and an Ethiopian Jew are equally accepted into the Israeli
political-economic- culture.  Even an unapologetic defender of Israel should
have that much empirical honesty, no?

Manjur Karim

----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Newman <nathan.newman at yale.edu>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: Israeli Citizenship Based on Allegiance, not blood (RE: Becoming
stateless


>
> >On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> >Hence the early urge toward Zionism.
> >
> > ...which ended up creating a state in which eligibility for
> > citizenship was a matter of blood, not place of birth or allegiance...
>
> Not a very accurate description for a country that has accepted folks
> ranging from Ethiopia to Russia - unless your idea of blood is so
> wide-ranging.  Eligibility for citizenship is based on religion and anyone
> who converts to Judaism can become a citizen.  The controversial part of
> Judaism is that once someone converts, all a woman's matrilinear
descendants
> remain Jews, although this makes it little different from religions such
as
> Hinduism.  And it is simpler to convert to Judaism than to become a
Brahmin.
>
> Now theocratic rules for immigration may be unattractive for a range of
> reasons, but it seems no more objectionable than most rules for
immigration
> in other countries, from German's long-time real blood rules to Canada
> auctioning off citizenship to the highest bidder.
>
> Israel can rightly be condemned for treatment of the Palestinians, but
> accusations of racist immigration rules seems highly selective in a world
of
> real race-based immigration rules.  Israel is far more multi-racial than
> most countries, and that is largely due to its expansive immigration
rules,
> which in their allowance for theocratic conversion are clearly based on
> allegiance.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
>
>