-----Original Message----- From: Max Sawicky To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Sent: 7/18/01 5:13 PM Subject: RE: "Zionism"
Huh? I'm part of the race my parents were part of. But what race were my parents a part of? What race are "the Jewish people world-wide"? I'm sure few or no Jews speak of "the jewish race."
A race is often something in your head, as I said before. But that doesn't mean "a people" are a race. What is shared is obviously not language, national origin, physical characteristic, or even culture, as far as origins go.
Now you could say there is shared language, culture, and religion within Israel, but these are not the constituents of a race, but of a nation. Call Israel nationalist, theocratic, chauvinist, and racist in regard to certain non-jewish groups. But I don't think it is accurate to call it a racial state, or to characterize its consciousness as racial. There just aren't enough jews to have a race.
mbs
A racial group is a group defined by descent: you belong to it if your parents did. Israel is a uniquely racist state, because every other state, whether democratic or dictatorial, is said to be the state of its inhabitants: Israel however proclaims itself "the state of the Jewish people world-wide" -- a racial group. --CGE
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
> I wasn't aware of the marriage situation in Israel. Not that this is
> any excuse for it, but the Catholic priest we approached refused to
> marry me to my Catholic bride to be. Sure, state sanction or lack
> thereof is a different thing.
>
> Given the Falasha point, and the fact of many differences in Ashkenzai
> and Sephardim, it doesn't seem right to characterize Israeli
> chauvinism as 'racial.' It's certainly nasty enough. It is quite true
> that race can be socially constructed, but in Israel to construct a
> race out of Jews would seem to be a daunting task. Of course, you can
> be racist re: some other group without being a race unto yourself.
>
> This sub-thread started in reference to the democratic secular state
> (DSS) idea, which is the way the Palestinians used to front
> themselves. But to have such a state one must have an absence of sharp
> inter-group animosity, and as Brad pointed out there is a manifest
> lack of evidence of this on Palestinian side, not to mention the
> Jewish side.
>
> The unrealism of the DSS position, notwithstanding its utter
> reasonableness in the abstract, rules it out as a short- or
> medium-term practical solution.
>
> I still think the Palestinians were never stronger politically than
> when they were mobilized on a non- or quasi-non-violent basis. It
> looks more and more like they are now the ones who are going to be
> driven into the sea.
>
> mbs
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:44 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: "Zionism"
>
>
>
> That's handled by having essentially no civil marriage in Israel.
(I'm
> told that Cyprus is the preferred spot for marriages Israel doesn't
> permit.) There are a lot of round-about systems for maintaining the
> racialist nature of the state -- e.g., privileges made available to
> veterans, who include almost all Israelis and very few others. --CGE
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> > Civil marriage between Jew and non-Jew is "not allowed" in Israel?
> >
> > Can a Falasha Ethiopian refugee marry an Askenazi? And if so, is
this
> > not racial inter-marriage?
> >
> > mbs
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course there are preferences for religious groups (e.g., yeshiva
> > students) but much more important are the privileges for one racial
> > group, the majority of whom are not religious. As the late Israel
> > Shahak was wont to point out, Israel within the Green Line is a
racist
> > state, with laws similar to those of apartheid South Africa: e.g.,
> > racial identity cards must be carried, no intermarriage is allowed
> > with the dominant racial group, and none but members of that group
can
> > own land in more than 93% of the national territory. --CGE
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > > The first step would be to make it a secular state with no
preferences
> for
> > > religious groups.
>
>