In a message dated 4/4/2002 11:22:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> >The Law of Return merely says that Jews who settle in Israeli have the
> >right to immediate citizenship--as ethnic Germans, for example, have the
> >right to immediate citizenship in Germany, even if their ancestors have
> >all lived in Russia since the 18th century; or as I have the right as
> >an Armenian to Armenian citizenship
>
> This whole concept is total nonsense! What the hell is an "ethnic German"
> anyhow? My missus is descended from German ancestors. Does that make her
> "ethnic German"? Does she have an entitlement to claim German citizenship,
> even though she's never set foot in the country?

This is the entire point with regards to the Israeli law of return. Even Jews
who have "never set foot in the country" (what's the matter? did I misquote
you again?) are entitled to return to Israel. But, Palestinians who were
there 35 and 54 years ago are NOT.


What the hell, I've got Anglo-Saxon ancestors, which is also "ethnic German"
if you want to go back a
> few centuries, so I could claim to be "ethnic German" too. Maybe I'm
> entitled to German citizenship? I somehow doubt it.
>

If it was the same as the Israeli law, you would, absolutely. This is the
thing.

> Either way, this Israeli "Law of Return" seems quite a different kettle of
> fish. Unless the right of "ethnic Germans" to German citizenship is based
> on adherence to the Lutheran church or something. With non-Lutherans who
> had actually been born in Germany being denied any right to citizenship, as
> refugees from Palestine are refused any so-called "right of return" to
> their country of birth.
>

Again, Israel is always the only exception to every general rule. How could
this be?


> As I understand it, what the Israelis are doing is pretty much what the
> Nazis did, especially to German Jews. The ethnic purity policy of Nazi
> Germany is actually the philosophical source of this "Right of return" law.
>

Correct. But what in turn was the philosophical source of Nazism? It was the
economic collapse of the 1920's and the defeat of socialism a few years
before, along with the bankruptcy of the 2nd Communist International. The
source of Nazism was capitalist imperialism. Fascism is simply an
authoritarian form of capitalism-- completely necessary if capitalism was to
stay afloat during this time period. How is it that you claim to be
ostensibly "socialist" when you do not consider the principles of historical
materialism at all?

> The Nazis' denial of citizenship to German Jews was only the first step of
> course. Then they tried to expel them and finished up trying to kill them
> all. It was a logical solution to the same problem the Jewish state has
> with the Palestinians who are inconveniently in the way. And they seem to
> have struck out on the same journey.
>

Why would it be necessary to have a "logical solution" to a philosophical
problem. Existentialism exists as a philosophy-- does someone need to have a
"logical solution" to it?

> Realistically, there's no such thing as an "ethnic Jew", anymore than one
> can be an "ethnic Moslem". Judaism is a religion.
>

This is what I mean when I say you make authoritative statements about things
you know nothing about. You say it without the least bit of uncertainty or
give-and-take, while on the other hand you claim you still have much to learn
on these issues. You are simply embarassing yourself here concerning Judaism
because the statement you've just made is simply untrue. By this statement
you have negated the existence of about two thirds of all Jewish people
(including myself, incidentally), who consider themselves ethnically Jewish
but are not religious, even atheist!

> Frankly, this whole "ethnic" this that or the other seems totally
> irrational.

Now you are saying my mother, who considers herself ethnically Jewish, is
"totally irrational." Who the hell are you to talk about my mother like that?


But in the case of Israel, it is merely a deception, given that the Israeli
government stridently rejects the
> notion of allowing people who were actually born there any "right of
> return". Not to mention the fact that very few of those who actually do
> enjoy the "right of return" could conceivably trace any ancestors to the
> geographic area.
>
> Obviously they aren't returning and it isn't a right related to any roots
> in the area anyhow. No matter how they dress it up, it is a right to
> migrate to Israel that derives from religious affilliation.
>

I am confused. Who are you saying isn't returning? Jews? Palestinians?
Muslims?

> If Germany granted people who were Lutherans, or whose parents were
> Lutherans, a "right of return" to Germany, whether or not their ancestors
> had ever been anywhere near Germany, that would be be analogous. Especially
> if the same right was denied to non-Lutherans who had been fled from
> Germany as refugees.
>

First you reject the parallel to Germany, and now you use it! Interesting!

> Does the German "right of return" exclude German Jews I wonder? How would
> people feel about that I wonder?
>
> The ugly truth is that Israel has an outright discriminatory immigration
> policy. It is no different from the old White Australia Policy, which
> refused citizenship to non-whites.

Just a little while ago, you seemed to be saying that Israel's immigration
policy was based on religion. Now you're saying that it's based on race.
Well, which is it?

 Even aborigines were refused citizenship until 1967. Of course the White
Australia Policy also operated
> on a transparent pretext, I think a subjective language test was the actual
> mechanism. The reason for it was that Australia wanted to keep itself
> purely ethnic European. Such sickening naked discrimination is unacceptable
> in civilised society nowadays of course. No matter how you try to dress it
> up, it is precisely what the Israeli government is doing. Trying to
> manufacture an ethnicly pure nation.
>
> A revolting objective. One that the Nazis would have approved of perhaps,
> but one that civilised people should not attempt to apologise for.

Bourgeois-democratic capitalism has, by conservative estimates, killed 120
million throughout the world in the last decade. The last time I checked,
only 12 million died by Nazi fascism. If this counts as "civility", I wonder
what you'd consider "savage"?!!!!!

-- David