pro-israel fliers at school

[daryn]

i go to umass in amherst, and recently some group has been putting up pro-israel fliers all over campus. the problem is they are the most ridiculous forms of propaganda ever.

one of them shows a bunch of different religious amulets, and then says that israel is the only democracy in the middle east and gives equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of religion.

while this may be a true statement, think about it... they don't allow arabs to be citizens do they? so what does it matter if they give equal rights to all citizens, but then they can pick and choose who is a citizen or not.

sound stupid?

[HDPM]

Actually, I think Arabs and Muslims can be Israeli citizens. I am not absolutely sure of all their rules tho.

OTOH, Saudi Arabia just made it very clear that Jews are not welcome in the country even for a visit. Check out the news sites.

[daryn]

right, i'm not sure about the facts, and said so in my post. i'm just hoping someone can come and clear things up for me. can palestinians be israeli citizens?

[andyfox]

Arabs are citizens of Israel and have the right to vote and to be elected to the Knesset. When Israel became a country, the government retained many of the "emergency" provisions instituted by Britain to reign in the Jews and used them against the resident Arabs. There are some fine studies of the treatment of Israeli Arabs; the best, IMO, is by Ian Lustick, "Arabs in the Jewish State. Also see Jiryis, "The Arabs in Israel." Both books are somewhat dated (and me be out of print) but are good studies of how Arabs were treated in Israel up to the time of their being published.

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, and thus its democracy is a problem in that non-Jews can never accepted in the same way as Jews. And with the second intifada, many more Jewish Israelis view the Arab citizenry as a potential fifth column. As well, the demographic situation indicates that the Arabs may well become a majority in Israel midway through the 21st century.

[Gamblor]

they don't allow arabs to be citizens do they?

Of course they do.

There are about a million Arab citizens of Israel today - basically, any Arab from a tribe that signed an agreement with the original Zionists is an accepted Israeli citizen.

They mostly Druze and Bedouin, but many people who now call themselves "Palestinians" as well.

In fact, Arabs currently serve in the Knesset (Parliament), despite some statements that in other countries would be considered outright treason. Imagine a Democrat in the 80s starting an organization demanding that the United States adopt Communist ideology and surrender to the Soviets.

The only thing close to what you refer to, is that since Israel was intended to be a haven for persecuted Jews, anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent is automatically granted entry.

But anyone (including Christians, Muslims, etc) can apply for citizenship under criteria essentially the same as the United States'.

[Gamblor]

[Gamblor]

Many Palestinians, after 1967 especially, began to apply and were granted Israeli citizenship, usually under US-style immigration criteria i.e. families, wealth, education.

Until September 2000, approx. 800,000 Palestinians were employed by Israeli companies in cities like Tel Aviv and especially in Jerusalem. The current unemployment problem in many Arab-majority (and Arab-exclusive) towns is a result of the intifada, during which the IDF shut off many transportation routes throughout the region in an effort to shut in terrorists. Unfortunately, the civilians are inconvenienced as well.

IMO, better they be inconvenienced than another 50 people are blown limb from limb in a bus.

[andyfox]

The areas of the West Bank and Gaza administered by the Palestinian Authority have a per capita income less than one-tenth that of Israel. Since 1967, an ever-increasing percentage of the Palestinian labor force was drawn into work within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. By 1983, more than a third of the labor force of the West Bank and Gaza was working in Israel.

Strangely, the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories were largely built by Palestinian Arabs. And the security barrier constructed by Israel during the second intifada was erected in part by Arab labor.

The second intifada has wrought termendous economic damage to the Palestinians. Per capita income of Palestinians declined by 12% in 2001 and by another 19% in 2001. By mid 2002, unemployment was about 45%.

While Israel's economy has also suffered because of the absence of Arab labor, Israel has imported over 250,000 foreign workers to make up for the shortage. Interestingly, in recent years, a majority of immigrants to Israel under the Law of Return, intended to provide a refuge to persecuted Jews and to fortify the Jewish nature of Israel, have been non-Jews. Non-Jewish residents of Israel are the most rapidly growing social group in Israel today. Some Israeli commentators now see the presence of this rather large third group of people (neither Jewish nor Palestinian) as the beginning of the end of the homogenoeous and separate Jewish Israeli soceity and the beginnings of a more pluralistic one.

[Chris Alger]

Arabs can be citizens of Israel, but unlike all other countries Israel is a state of and for a particular ethnic group -- a Jewish state -- rather than a state of its citizens. Thus, while citizens have equal rights under the law, they don't have equal "national rights," which effectively means second-class status for non-Jews, especially Arabs, and especially Islamic Arabs. You can, for example, convert to Judaism, never set foot in Israel and immediately have greater political rights in Israel than indigenous Arab inhabitants.

Two examples: at the time of Israel's founding, Jews owned around 10% of Israel's land. Israel confiscated most of the rest through a labarynith of statutes, transferred it the the Jewish National Fund, and this fund holds the land in trust for the benefit of world Jewry. On paper, the land is leased without discrimination. In reality, Jews and exclusivist Jewish communities disproportionately benefit. This is the pattern with respect to a host of government and quasi-government subsidies and support. With employment, Israeli legislation prohibits discrimination against Arabs, a fairly recent development (Arabs in Israel lived under martial law for years after independence). In practice, many employers require prior military service, regardless of its relevance, which tends to exclude non-Druse Arabs.

Israel's Or Commission, after a three-year study sparked by the killing of 13 Arab citizens of Israel at the start of the al Aqsa intifada, has acknowledged the problem of second-class citizenhood: "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon."

The next time someone tries to convince you that Israel is an equal rights polyglot, try convincing them that Israel should devote 18% of its flag to Arab colors and watch the reaction.

[Gamblor]

unlike all other countries Israel is a state of and for a particular ethnic group -- a Jewish state -- rather than a state of its citizens

Unlike all other countries? Are you mad? So you're singling out Israel (falsely) outside of "all other countries"? That's anti-semitism, buddy boy. You don't mind when an Arab does it or a Japanese government does it or a Malay government does it, but you can't handle a Jewish government doing it? Isn't that the (colloquial) definition of anti-semitism? Anti-Jewish?

The rest of it is true, sort of. However, it does follow the public mandate of the state. Perhaps if history hadn't been so unkind to the Jews, there wouldn't be a need for a state of Israel, as we've rehashed numerous times here.

Israeli Arabs are best comparable to American Spanish. They fill similar roles in society and politically. They live better off than their counterparts in their foreign homeland. Here's the kicker: How many immigrant Mexicans publicly demand the destruction of the United States?

On the other hand, what of Jews who live in Arab lands? For a hint, google Marrakesh, Morroco, in the late 19th century.

The next time someone tries to convince you that Israel is an equal rights polyglot, try convincing them that Israel should devote 18% of its flag to Arab colors and watch the reaction.

Okay, the American flag must also include some symbol of every single nationality included in the 2004 immigration roster.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike all other countries? Are you mad? So you're singling out Israel (falsely) outside of "all other countries"? That's anti-semitism, buddy boy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Under Israel's Basic Laws, a candidate for Knesset can be disqualified for any "negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." Not a state of Israelis or Israel's residents or citizens, but "the Jewish people." The rights under the Law of Return apply exclusively to Jews and "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion." This is without regard to any other connection with Israel. Non-Jews whose roots in the holy land date back centuries or millenia centuries have no such right. The oft-spoken notion that Israel is merely a state of the Jews like England or France are states of the English and French is therefore misleading. I'm not aware the Japan and Malaysia confer special rights on non-citizen grandchildren of ethnic Japanese or Malays. Maybe you could provide a source.

The ethnocentric character of Israel was addressed by Knesset member Azmi Bishara in 2002: "We are not against the Jewish character of the state: it has a Jewish character because it has a Jewish majority, and we believe in the right of this Jewish majority for self-determination . . . but the state in its definition, and in its function should be the state of all its citizens, not the state of the Jews in the whole world, and without being the state of its citizens who are non-Jews."

[ QUOTE ]
How many immigrant Mexicans publicly demand the destruction of the United States?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean if the U.S. were to repeal the 14th Amendment and declare itself a "Non-Mexican State," prohibit elected office of people who disagree with this purpose, and had laws that gave rights only to "a child and a grandchild of a non-Mexican, the spouse of a non-Mexican, the spouse of a child of a Non-Mexican and the spouse of a grandchild of a non-Mexican?"

Virtually all of them. After all, who wants to be defined as a second-class citizen of his own country?

[MMMMMM]

The irritating thing is this: that Alger berates and condemns Israel for some of the very things that Arab states are guilty of to a much greater degree (e.g. some do not allow Jews to be citizens, or even to visit). Too bad we don't hear diatribes about how repressive and backwards Saudi Arabia, Jordan and others Arab states are--and how racist they are--since they certainly exemplify those characteristics in much greater abundance than does Israel. It's more of the same double-standard: hold ourselves and our allies up to far greater standards than others, and give others a pass for behavior that would call down immense condemnation on us should we even countenance implementing such practices.

I'm getting sick of the double-standard. Women not allowed to drive, Jews who can't be citizens or even visit, it being illegal to proselytize for any religion except Islam, leaving Islam for another religion (apostasy) being a crime punishable by death, "honor killings", forced female genital mutilation: these Bronze Agers need to be yanked into the 21st century HARD and FAST. The whole world should tell the Arab countries to shape up and cut the double-standard bullshit. In fact the whole world should YELL it at them. Unbelievable that entire countries get away with that kind of crap in this day and age, and that many weak-willed liberals defend their right to "a different lifestyle." A different bigoted, racist, oppressing lifestyle, they should say. Disgusting if you ask me. And the apologetics for it in the West are even more disgusting IMO.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad we don't hear diatribes about how repressive and backwards Saudi Arabia, Jordan and others Arab states are--and how racist they are--since they certainly exemplify those characteristics in much greater abundance than does Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

And on and on. This is certainly true. But perhaps a better approach would be to ask how many democracies do this and/or have this in their constitutions? Comparing a democracy to a kingdom, or some other form of totalitarian government will rarely make a democracy look bad.

Too bad we just couldn't have changed the name of Arizona to Israel and let the Jews live there in peace. Things would have been so much easier. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Chris Alger]

That ordinary people of, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, have some obligation to condemn, to the extent they are aware of them, "the very things that Arab states are guilty of" (as you put it)?

[Gamblor]

There is a huge difference between defining non-Jews as those with no national rights to the state and defining non-Palestinians as above all Palestinians.

Same as defining non-Mexicans as above Mexicans as opposed to Americans as above all non-Americans.

There is no law explicitly stating all non-Arabs are above all Arabs, as your "non-Mexican" analogy implies.

More importantly, would you care to post a comparison of persecution faced by Muslims and to a greater extent Arabs in non-Arab lands vs. persecution faced by Jews in non-Jewish lands (namely, the entire Earth before Israel, and the entire earth minus 65000 km^2 after Israel)?

As far as Japanese immigration laws - try
Japanese immigration "policies" and "law" (http://www.tabunka.org/newsletter/immigration_p2.html) and
Japanese immigration laws come under fire (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2004/01/26/2003092564).

You'll notice several similar themes - most especially "Who is a Japanese" and explicit equality under the law even if in practice it might be slightly different.

[Gamblor]

Who exactly are "ordinary" people?

[MMMMMM]

The reason I'm comparing, is not so much to make anyone look bad, but because I feel an empathy for the oppressed peoples (and for the oppressed WOMEN), and because I feel an indignation at the intellectually bankrupt, antiquated ideologies which they use to support these systematic oppressions. It really sickens me, and I wish the world would yell at them until they wake up, and realize that their system is garbage, and harms many, and hopefully change it.

The more people tell you you are doing something wrong, the more chance that you (or I, for that matter) might listen and maybe say, "Hey wait a minute, maybe those criticizing me really do have a point. Maybe I (or we) need to change."

[MMMMMM]

Chris, I believe in condemning racism and bigotry wherever it is found. If it is found more in certain countries or regions then those should become focal points of criticism--in the hopes of eventually making the situation there better.

Just because an ideology or custom is entrenched in certain regions, or cultures even, does not justify it, nor does that mean it should be immune from deservable criticism. Bigotry, racism and oppression are condemnable, and it is no excuse to say "that's just their (or our) way." Nor do such excuses do anything to help those who are oppressed.

Also, since you ask, I do believe that people in general have a moral obligation to condemn such bigotry and oppression, and in proportion with the egregiousness of the offenses. Therefore the countries with the worst and most bigoted laws and customs should really get an earful.

[Chris Alger]

The first two sentences are gibberish as I never suggested anything of the sort.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no law explicitly stating all non-Arabs are above all Arabs, as your "non-Mexican" analogy implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are Israeli laws stating explicitly that Israel is a "Jewish state" and conferring upon Jews special rights within. The laws would have the same meaning if they denied "non-Jews" the same national rights they give to Jews.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, would you care to post a comparison of persecution faced by Muslims and to a greater extent Arabs in non-Arab lands vs. persecution faced by Jews in non-Jewish lands (namely, the entire Earth before Israel, and the entire earth minus 65000 km^2 after Israel)?


[/ QUOTE ]
A paranoid fantasy. Canada and the U.S. didn't "persecute" Jews or legislate against them, or pass laws decreeing them second class citizens with fewer national rights. Although the U.S. (and maybe Canada, I don't know) limited Jewish immigration, it was nothing on the scale of the abject refusal of Israel to allow Arab refugees to return. I might be wrong, but I doubt that any country since 1948 has treated such a large group so badly for so long as Israel has treated Palestinians. If I am wrong, I am quite sure that the U.S. doesn't supply the guns necessary to do this while heaping praise on the oppressors as a great democracy dedicated to liberty and freedom, etc.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe that people in general have a moral obligation to condemn such bigotry and oppression, and in proportion with the egregiousness of the offenses. Therefore the countries with the worst and most bigoted laws and customs should really get an earful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of the "people in general" who bear this moral obligation, how does the obligation of those who have greater responsibility for creating or contributing to such evils or greater ability to fix them compare to the obligation of people with less responsibility and power? <ul type="square"> a. They have the same obligation to condemn.
b. Those with greater responsibility and power have a greater obligation to condemn.
c. Those with greater responsibility and power have a lesser obligation to condemn. [/list]

[Chris Alger]

Typical, average, "as a whole" or considered without regard to their unique or particular qualities or circumstances.

[MMMMMM]

Those with greater power to remedy such problems have a greater responsibility to try to fix those problems, but the same responsibility (as others) to condemn or call attention to such problems.

Those with little power or no to remedy such problems, still have a responsibility to call attention to such problems.

[Chris Alger]

1. Why isn't drawing attention to or condemning a problem part of or a prerequisite to fixing the problem, at least in cases where the existence of the problem isn't well-known or well-understood?

2. Why do people with "greater responsibility to try to fix those problems" have no more responsibility than those without such power "to condemn or call attention to such problems?"

3. Does your idea of an identical responsibility to condemn apply in cases where the problem can't be fixed unless those with the power to do so acknowledge its existence, or do those with power have more of an obligation to identify and condemn the problems they can fix?

[MMMMMM]

Lots of complexities developing here, and I am going to sleep then probably away early for a few days, so I'll try to summarize.

The worst offenders deserve the loudest condemnation from all quarters. Some of the other stuff you mention may be scaled, but the worst offenders should be shouted at from the rooftops, and from everywhere. So you should condemn the DISCRIMINATORY, RACIST, BIGOTED, ANTI-WOMEN laws and customs of the Arab countries.

[Chris Alger]

So if a legislator from country X learns that his country is guilty of enforcing "DISCRIMINATORY, RACIST, BIGOTED, ANTI-WOMEN laws" but that these law are on a smaller scale, or apply to fewer people, than those of "the Arab countries." Assuming he has no ability to influence the enforcement of those laws in Arab countries, but has some ability to influence those in his own country.

Doesn't it follow from your argument that

1. If he spends more time and energy attacking discrimination in his own country instead of "the Arab countries" that he is guilty of applying a "double standard?"

2. If, OTOH, he supports the discrimination in his own country while vigorously condemning that in Arab countries, that he is being ethically consistent because the discrimination problem in Arab countries is worse than the discrimination he supports?

[Gamblor]

I assume the moral issue with "racism" is that each human being is an individual, and ought not to be held responsible for the actions of those of the same ethnicity/race.

There is no inferior race, nor are all people of the same race the same. The point is that all people must be treated on an individual basis with respect to their opinions/behaviours/etc.

Naturally I wholeheartedly agree with this.

That being said, how can you claim the "ordinary" person exists?

[Gamblor]

The first two sentences (re: non-Jew vs. non-Palestinian) are in response to your post:

a child and a grandchild of a non-Mexican, the spouse of a non-Mexican, the spouse of a child of a Non-Mexican and the spouse of a grandchild of a non-Mexican?"

My point was that providing special "benefits" to all non-Mexicans is indeed discrimination against Mexicans and is intolerable. But providing benefits that are not available to non-Jews is neither discriminatory against a specific group nor any different than limiting immigration among all non-Americans. After all, if they were Americans, they would have no need to immigrate.

Virtually all of them. After all, who wants to be defined as a second-class citizen of his own country?

The Palestinian Arabs (and all Arab nations with the exception of Jordan and Egypt) have steadfastly refused to recognize Israel as a nation (despite their assurances to the contrary, the PLO receives funding from nations who refuse to recognize Israel, such as Saudi Arabia, and as such cannot be understood to have accepted Israel).

Although the U.S. (and maybe Canada, I don't know) limited Jewish immigration, it was nothing on the scale of the abject refusal of Israel to allow Arab refugees to return.

Read "None is Too Many" by Irving Abella and Harold Troper for a history of Jewish immigration to Canada.

The US and Canada are the model by which all nations ought to run (foreign policy aside). But in the rest of the world, things are very different. One day, there will be no need for an ethnocentric state such as Israel, because all people will tolerate and accept others as equals. But today is not that day, especially in the Middle East.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, of course some consideration should be given to where the efforts may do the most good. But even so, the very worst offenders should be made well aware that the rest of the world does not accept or condone their actions.

I must leave this discussion for a few days or so. Carry on;-) and best wishes...

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"providing special "benefits" to all non-Mexicans is indeed discrimination against Mexicans and is intolerable. But providing benefits [to Jews] that are not available to non-Jews is [not] discriminatory"

[/ QUOTE ]
So providing benefits to Jews that are not available to non-Jews isn't discriminatory but providing benefits to non-Mexicans that aren't available to Mexicans is discriminatory, indeed "intolerable."

This is simply stupid. You need to straighten out your own thinking before accusing others of applying "double standards."

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I might be wrong, but I doubt that any country since 1948 has treated such a large group so badly for so long as Israel has treated Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Turkish guest workers in Germany are not treated particularly well. As Gamblor mentioned, Japan isn't the most pluralistic of societies. The Arab countries are terrible. South Africa was terrible for years. A lot of people would criticize Britain's behavior in Northern Ireland. The USSR didn't treat its Jewish or Muslim minorities very well, post-communist Russia is still working out its relationship with its Muslim minorities (Chechnya, etc.) Muslims in Sudan have mistreated the African citizens there since the 1950s.

Let's face it--Israel's treatment of non-Jewish Israeli citizens is not unique. I do not believe, however, that this means that Israel should be immune from criticism. Or that, at a time when the United States is struggling to understand and redefine its relationship with the Muslim world, Americans should not spend more time debating our relationship with Israel than we do debating our relationships with other countries. But we should do so because the Middle East is strategically important, and because Israel is an ally with an educated populace and a more open society than other countries in the region. I think Israel's strenghts are the biggest reason to criticize Israel's policies--the criticism might actually make a difference...

scrub

[Gamblor]

This is simply stupid. You need to straighten out your own thinking before accusing others of applying "double standards."

What kind of rebuttal is this?

Benefits to non-Mexicans is simply saying - Mexicans are unwelcome, everyone else we like. That is specific discrimination against a specific group.

No benefits to non-Jews is simply saying - We would rather have Jews in the Jewish state. It does not single out any specific group for discrimination.

That you are specifically trying to obscure this flaw in your analogy shows how "simply stupid" you know your argument to be.

[Chris Alger]

I agree with all this but its important to distinguish the treatment of Arabs in the occupied territories with Arab citizens of Israel. The latter have it pretty good compared to, say, the Bahai's in Iran or Kurds in Turkey. Yet despite their denials none of these other oppressive states can rely on chauvanist minions to celebrate their countries as exemplars of multicultural tolerance, as the flyers mentioned in the original post suggest.

In the territories, Israel has shot or bombed 10-20 Palestinians per day for the last four years. It's present policy seeks to solve the conflict by building bantustans, propelling Israel backward to the point where South Africa was around 1964. Yet for more than a generation, U.S. rejectionism has thwarted a viable solution to the conflict, a degree of obstreperousness that has become a sort of high comedy: detailed (and largely pro-Israel) peace proposals that enjoy broad support among both populations receive no attention from officials other than knee-jerk abuse. Many world conflicts are so intractable that even an outline of a viable plan would be deemed a gift from heaven. In this conflict the U.S. need only wave its wand, yet instead pours gas on the fire. This perception is nearly ubiquitous outside the U.S., but find little outlet here because of persistnt doses of propaganda that generally boil down to the cynical exploitation of the most outrageous crime in history, the Holocaust. In the here and now, that's unique.

[Chris Alger]

"Some consideration"?

So in the hypothetical above, if the legislature with power to publicize and ameliorate evil within his jurisdiction makes minor and generally unavailing efforts, while devoting the lion's share of his time publicizing greater evils elsewhere and beyond his control, you would accept this as ethically satisfactory?

[spamuell]

I'm not one of those lame people who writes a message like "N/M" in their post when they clearly say N/M in the subject. Oh, wait.

[Gamblor]

Who on earth wants the right to spend 3 years away from your family, only able to visit for two weeks a year, serving rotating 8 hour shifts in the middle of the night, eating possibly the worst food known to man, and the most ungodly collective punishment known to man, basic training.

Never mind serving in the miluim reserves until you're 40 years old.

Despite all that, Bedouin and Druze Arabs indeed are conscripted into the army, as when the State of Israel was formed, the Bedouin and Druze tribes signed peace agreements that allowed them to keep their tribal lands and become citizens of the state, in exchange for regular army service (among other things).

[Gamblor]

What a wonderful description of the Palestinian National Authority.