Dresdener,

Israel is specifically marked as a Jewish state; it is expressed as such in the Declaration of Independence. An Irish equivalent would be "The Roman Catholic State of Ireland" or perhaps more appropriately "A Protestant State for a Protestant People", to use the slogan advocated by the Orange faction in Northern Ireland. The laws and regulations of the Israeli state engage in a peculiar ethno-religious discrimination with over 130 different "nationalities" with differing rights in formal law and practise. Anyone who doubts that Israel is a religous state should reconsider their position with an understanding of Israel citizenship, property, land expropriation, taxation and military service laws e.g.,

Apartheid Laws in Israel - The Art of The Obfuscatory Formulation
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2000w42/msg00028.htm

One may also cite the operations of the Israel Land Administration, which controls 93% of the useful land of Israel and the Jewish National Fund which holds 14% of the total land, but where 70-80% of the population lives. The JNF nominates 10 of the 22 directors of the ILA. I wonder how people would react to the "Catholic National Fund" owning the land of 75% of the population of Ireland. Would they suggest that this is non-secular?

Whilst Israel has the institutional appearance of a liberal democracy and certainly a relatively free press, one must be aware that it does engage in large-scale ethno-religious discrimination and exclusion both in a formal sense and "on the ground". Until these laws and practises are ended, comparisons with Israel and apartheid hold a great deal of legitimacy.

I thought the point was how the Arab-Israeli conflict is constantly shoved in our faces whilst other events of world-shattering importance have occurred, not the least of which occur today in Africa.

These are ancient places inhabited by so many peoples. We know the the Ottoman Empire breakup post-WWI created new nation-states and that Israel is not one jot less legitimate a country than Iraq, Syria or Kuwait, all created in 1920.

Egypt too was Christian before the Muslims took over, everyone accepts Eqypt today don’t they? And how could Syria’s army occupy its foreign neighbour Lebanon for 20 long years and not be the actual occupation that was on our TV every night?

I grew up here like anyone listening to the news and the latest bombings or hijackings by the PLO/Arafat and people wondered, could they ever live together and be peaceful? If not, why not? If England and Germany could lay down arms forever, why not the smaller much less powerful Arab states with one tiny state of Israel? What makes them so different and so important?

We hear media bang on and on all the time about the so-called ‘Muslim world' or 'Islamic nation’ so why not a ‘Jewish world’ or 1 single, paltry ‘Jewish state’? What about a ‘Christian country’? or the ‘Christian world’? Where are they? If Israel is a Jewish state then that surely that’s logical since Jews have been present in the area for 3700 years.

I thought Israel had a fully functioning democratic system too, not run by religious leaders but led by politicians elected through voting. Doesn't Israel have Arab muslim citizens and even Arab parliamentarians?

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander shouldn't it? (and it is apparently good for 55 or so “Islamic” states to exist today eg. The OIC) . Will the Islamic world ever share the earth (or the headlines) with the rest of us or not? It doesn’t seem like it historically as the Arab-Israeli nationalist causes are repeatedly used to manipulate our global perspective and thus distort our judgement.

Lev

How can you criticize Israel for being a apartheid state, yet ignore the theocracy in Iran, or the many, many other Islamic states where they actively discriminate and suppress Christians and Jews.

The fact is there is ONE country on Earth where the state religion is Judaism. There are many Arab countries which are defined by their religion. If you are going to criticise all of them then you are standing on some reasonably firm ground. Otherwise you are discriminating yourself.

Israel’s politicians are elected, like in every other liberal democracy, by the people themselves. The separation between church and state is manifest. Religious leaders have no powers to enact laws etc. The separation between Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary is as marked as in any other liberal democracy.

Secular Zionism has long been the dominant force in Israeli politics. To compare Israel with Iran is laughable. There is just no real comparison at all. Israel is far better described as a state of Jews, than a Jewish state. The emphasis is more on the Jews as a people, than as a religious grouping.

Israel is far and away the front runner in the Middle East, in terms of implementing liberal democracy. So if you want to pretend Israel is an apartheid state, maybe you could try fixing all of the Islamic states first, as they are far worse. To suggest that Israel is the only country trying to protect its national character is a total loss of perspective Lev.

Ros

Ive just realised you have already posted what I wanted to get across, no doubt more persuasively and succintly.

FASCINATING STUFF...

CJ says:
To foist the collective guilt of the West over its anti-Semitism upon the Palestinian people by giving their territory away to “foreign” Jews

GYM FISH says:
The murdering swine
legitimate occupiers of Palestine
those of us who value life above religious dogma and abhore mindless sectarian violence and brutality.

LEV says:

Ultimately people must not betray their common humanity to sectional interests -

HAMAS says (Part 3 article 11 Hamas Charter)

Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.

Notice the words:

-CONQUEST 'by Islam” (Gym fish.. any comment here ?)
-BY FORCE
-for MUSLIMS

Well golly gosh.. I tawt I saw a racist/religious fundamentalist Islamic/Arab puddy tat !

But no.. tats not possible, because 'Muslims are always the 'oppressed' and “Islam” is the 'religion of peace'.

And the 10s of 1000s of Jews who fled from the Arab nations in fear for their lives to Israel were just 'imaginary'.

Come on you mob.. a bit of balance eh.

I guess as long as you 'forcibly conquered' a land a few hundred years ago.. makes it different from conquering, raping..pillaging it yesterday ?.. Thanx Gym Fish for that lesson in life.

Paul,

It is crazy, almost insane, to suggest that criticism of Israel means that one "ignore[s] the theocracy in Iran, or the many, many other Islamic states". One certainly does *not* imply the other. If we were take this path almost every nation in the world (bar one, of course) would be immune to criticism on the grounds that there is a nation with worse record. If you care to read previous posts in this forum on the matter you will find that I *do* condemn any form of religious imposition; Judiac, Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

As I had already mentioned, Israel does have the formal institutions of a liberal democracy, and a very good press. They do have a separation of powers. But to suggest, as you do, that there is a strict separation of Church and State displays significant ignorance of the Israeli legal system and its practise. There have also been attempts to *require* that candidates support the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and that Israel must be a Jewish State - orthodox Jews can be banned from nominating for the Knesset! (c.f., Israeli Central Elections Committee, Knesset Elections Law (e.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2618889.stm)). The suggest, under these circumstances, that "secular Zionism" is the dominant form in the Israeli state is to be in a parallel reality.

With regards to changes, one's energy is best spent in arguing for changes where they can have an influence. There is rather little we can do (short of war), for example, about the politics of the highly isolationist state of North Korea, despite its appalling record. However, there is a great deal we can do about influencing Israeli policy. We are close to the United States - and the U.S. spends a third of its foreign aid budget on Israel despite the fact it hardly is a "developing country" (http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm). Perhaps if some of this money was redirected to improving the living conditions and life of the Palestinians there would be less violence.

Anyway... I get to hear Dr. Karmi's presentation tonight. Thanks for the discussion.

I envy you Lev, Dr Karmi isn't coming to Brisbane, and I can't m ake it south.

Paul

Israel isn't a Liberal Democracy. It simply doesn't display the characteristics inherent in Liberal Democracies. It isn't tolerant and doesn't seek to implement or expand freedom. It doesn't outlaw or act against racisl discrimination within it's borders.

Can you tell us why in Israeli newspapers many AD's for employment carry words demanding any applicant have military service? Can you tell us why Palestinians in Israel are not allowed to have their spouse live with them in Israel if the spouse is a Palestinian from the occupied territories? Are there similar restrictions on other races?

Forty year occupation merely for the sake of 'security' is not a trait of Western Liberal Democracies. In cases where the modern Western Democracies have got together and invaded, to rid of evil, they invariably attempt to instil into the occupied nations the tolerance and freedoms associatesd with their Liberal Democratic natures. They attempt to improve not only the conditions of the inhabitants but aspire to implement governing systems that will ensure a flourishing of democracy, freedom and trade and affluence.

One point you raise is why isn't there an equivalent criticism of the Muslim countries. In southeast Asia Muslim countries are probably more akin to Western Liberal Democracies, than Israel, and in the Middle East they don't try to be nor claim to be Liberal Democracies. They are what they are, Muslim theocracies or dictatorships. In the West they are often criticised for how they ignore or abuse human rights.

But you see Israel claims to be a Liberal Democracy and hence the criticism of Israel is apparently stonger because it is not only an abuser of human rights but also obviously so hypocritical. So it's all relative if both types of states are abusers of Human Rights which is going to cop more abuse? The one that pretends it isn't and snubs it's nose at condemnation and carries on regardless or the one that merely snubs it's nose at condemnation and carries on regardless.

Simple logic.