Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion.jewish,net.nlang.africa,net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Apartheid on the West Bank (defining racism) Message-ID: <366@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 16:08:54 EST Article-I.D.: ubvax.366 Posted: Fri Nov 22 16:08:54 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 07:56:19 EST References: <4188@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <360@ubvax.UUCP> <614@unc.unc.UUCP> Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 65 Xref: watmath net.politics:12148 net.religion.jewish:2740 net.nlang.africa:149 net.politics.theory:1467 In article <614@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <360@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) maintains >that Zioinism is racist in that the government takes special interest >in ensuring that Jews remain a voting majority. My question is this: > > Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what > does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_? > >Frank Silbermann Nothing. Frank misunderstood me. I don't think Zionism is racist at all. But I also don't restrict racism to color differences. To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally be checked. Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal ones. People are racist if they belong to a more powerful group and regularly engage in racist relationships. A state is racist if it makes racist laws a major basis of its legitimacy. Anyone's invited to try to improve on this if they want to. Given this definition (which I support), to call Zionism racist is wrong because it was an escape for the Jews from the racism of Europe. Jews were never in a more powerful position, as far as states were concerned, so they could never institute a racist relationship in the first place. They were victims, not leaders, in politics. Anti-semites might point to Rothschilds as an exception, but they haven't read their history, I'd submit. In Israel, Jews are leaders, not victims. There they have to face claims and charges that they could be racist towards Arabs, with the understanding that their leadership positions make it possible for them to become racists. I don't think immigration policies constitute sufficient evidence, or even a major indication, of racism. Expulsion policies do. Racist laws do. Laws that define Jews on the West Bank as citizens and Arabs on the West Bank as Jordanians, while Israel rules the West Bank, are racist laws. But these are just some laws and some practices. I still don't think that racist laws are the major basis for the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Its legitimacy is still based on an anti-racist Zionist movement dispersed throughout the world, on the Jewish diaspora. What worries me is that as Israel gets its own identity and moves on its own political track, as it's starting to do today, that track will be based on the Likud right-wing resentment-based scapegoating racist dynamic. If that movement takes over, Israel will be Zionist no more. And it will be racist. And what it might become is being foreshadowed by what is happening on the West Bank today. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw