Comments on: A Response To “A Cool Hour on the Israel-Palestine Conflict 6” http://blog.z-word.com/2008/10/a-response-to-%e2%80%9ca-cool-hour-on-the-israel-palestine-conflict-6%e2%80%9d/ Commentary about Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism and the conflict in the Middle East Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:56:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5-RC1.1 By: Joshua http://blog.z-word.com/2008/10/a-response-to-%e2%80%9ca-cool-hour-on-the-israel-palestine-conflict-6%e2%80%9d/#comment-1687 Joshua Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:05:29 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=412#comment-1687 The principle of the Law of Return is irrefutable: it is intrinsically racist or discrimminatory (since it does not differentiate upon the colour of skin or ethnicity). Also true that it does bear in comparison with many other laws from other nations that does favour one over another; but I do think there is distinct differences that does not make it so benign as other examples of an Argentinian gaining Irish citizenship. Point being: said Argentinian can gain Irish status solely on the basis of lineage. That's the same with most other nations. There is a difference though with Israeli citizenship: one needs to be Jewish and not a descendent of an Israeli. One can convert to Judiaism and gain citizenship. An Argentinian cannot "convert" to Irish to gain Irish status. This makes it remarkably different: anyone so long you are a follower of a faith can gain Israeli citizenship. This cannot be the case of the Argentinian-Irish person as they have to be a direct descendent (or through marriage). Particularly heinous for this analogy is that the Argentinian can practise any faith or no faith at all to get such Irish status: the Palestinian cannot do so because they are of the wrong faith. Wrong lineage and wrong faith are two completely different categories. Secondly, the direct comparison is not one based on nationalist citizenship but on faith-based one: the Law of Return when applied to other nations would require Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia to favour all Muslim citizenship (which indeed they must do at some level) or the US favour Christianity or the Spanish for Catholics and etc. I somehow believe that when used on this much larger scale that there would be more of a call to review such a policy. It is true that there is nothing inherently "evil" or unique when you champion one over the minority, the erection and the basis of Zionism was intent on a Jewish majority. Simply put: it's structure is to favour one over the other on archaic reasons. Another important distinction is the fact that the Palestinians are not just some minority: in fact they number in the millions and are almost equal in number to the Israelis in the region. The principle of the Law of Return is irrefutable: it is intrinsically racist or discrimminatory (since it does not differentiate upon the colour of skin or ethnicity). Also true that it does bear in comparison with many other laws from other nations that does favour one over another; but I do think there is distinct differences that does not make it so benign as other examples of an Argentinian gaining Irish citizenship.

Point being: said Argentinian can gain Irish status solely on the basis of lineage. That’s the same with most other nations. There is a difference though with Israeli citizenship: one needs to be Jewish and not a descendent of an Israeli. One can convert to Judiaism and gain citizenship. An Argentinian cannot “convert” to Irish to gain Irish status. This makes it remarkably different: anyone so long you are a follower of a faith can gain Israeli citizenship. This cannot be the case of the Argentinian-Irish person as they have to be a direct descendent (or through marriage). Particularly heinous for this analogy is that the Argentinian can practise any faith or no faith at all to get such Irish status: the Palestinian cannot do so because they are of the wrong faith. Wrong lineage and wrong faith are two completely different categories.

Secondly, the direct comparison is not one based on nationalist citizenship but on faith-based one: the Law of Return when applied to other nations would require Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia to favour all Muslim citizenship (which indeed they must do at some level) or the US favour Christianity or the Spanish for Catholics and etc. I somehow believe that when used on this much larger scale that there would be more of a call to review such a policy.

It is true that there is nothing inherently “evil” or unique when you champion one over the minority, the erection and the basis of Zionism was intent on a Jewish majority. Simply put: it’s structure is to favour one over the other on archaic reasons.

Another important distinction is the fact that the Palestinians are not just some minority: in fact they number in the millions and are almost equal in number to the Israelis in the region.

]]> By: ndm http://blog.z-word.com/2008/10/a-response-to-%e2%80%9ca-cool-hour-on-the-israel-palestine-conflict-6%e2%80%9d/#comment-1613 ndm Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:13:07 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=412#comment-1613 The Welsh community in Argentina was reintroduced to the British public during the Falkland's War. The public by then having forgotten <i>how green was my valley then, and the valley of them that have gone.</i> The Welsh community in Argentina was reintroduced to the British public during the Falkland’s War. The public by then having forgotten how green was my valley then, and the valley of them that have gone.

]]> By: Fabian from Israel http://blog.z-word.com/2008/10/a-response-to-%e2%80%9ca-cool-hour-on-the-israel-palestine-conflict-6%e2%80%9d/#comment-1600 Fabian from Israel Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:07:52 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=412#comment-1600 Excellent last paragraph. A comparison with other many countries would show parallels in what is regarded - by ignorance - as issues specific of the I/P conflict, like the Law of Return, for example. One problem is ignorance. Besides you and me and some other guy in the UK interesed in Argentinian history, who knows that there is an identifiable Irish, Welsh and English community there, with Argentinian citizenship, but with cultural links to their mother country that makes them elegible for citizenship in the EU? The other is that focusing only on Israel is an easy method of applying double standards. Chag Sameach! Excellent last paragraph.
A comparison with other many countries would show parallels in what is regarded - by ignorance - as issues specific of the I/P conflict, like the Law of Return, for example.
One problem is ignorance. Besides you and me and some other guy in the UK interesed in Argentinian history, who knows that there is an identifiable Irish, Welsh and English community there, with Argentinian citizenship, but with cultural links to their mother country that makes them elegible for citizenship in the EU?

The other is that focusing only on Israel is an easy method of applying double standards.

Chag Sameach!

]]>