Is it right for states to be racialized?

[Sirotnikov]

israel's goal is to be the only state in the world which has jewish (national) (and therefore also relgious) symbolics.

you wouldn't expect america not to celebrate christmass. you wouldn't expect turkey not to celebrate the age of 13

[GePap]

A great part of Israel's problems comes from the fact that most Palestinains want a state that would simply cater to them as well, a state in which Jews as Jews (and hence, defined as never being Arabs and Palestinians) would be unwelcomed... Why oh Why did not the Federation alternative pass?

[Al B. Sure!]

Siro:

I'm glad to hear that there's a party in Israel like that. It just always disturbed me that Israel was so religiously and ethnically based. As an American, I take some pride in the fact that the US is now a country where people of all groups are generally accepted. we're ethnically neutral so any country that is ethnically specific bothers me. It just dont make sense to me why Israel got to be the jewish homeland... why can't it just be a country on the Levant that is ethnically neutral? It can be the the shining star of democratic ideals in the middle east that is prone to dictatorships...

[Al B. Sure!]

Siro:

here in the US, schools get out for Jewish holidays... they're not federal holidays though.

[Sirotnikov]

A great part of Israel's problems comes from the fact that most Palestinains want a state that would simply cater to them as well, a state in which Jews as Jews (and hence, defined as never being Arabs and Palestinians) would be unwelcomed... Why oh Why did not the Federation alternative pass?

Haj amin al-husseini?

i don't really know.

i guess he must have had something to do with it as he's an all out evil person. seriously. i dislike him.

[Jaguar]

It's ok, if for example, Spain's government funds lots of Christian organizations, cause it's >99.5% Christian of some type. It's not ok if Christians can vote and Muslims can't.

[Hueij]

Hu - since when did you become a pro-israeli? or i my memory playing tricks?

I don't know what you mean exactly.

If you are asking if I'm against the existence of the state of Israel, the answer is no, I'm not against it.

What I am against is the way Israel handles the Palestinian problem...

[Az]

Actually, while Israel is a nationstate, and represents the will of a nation, it is not based on racial bias, since a jewish ethnicity doesn't exist, just like a Russian one, or a french one of an enlish one, for that matter. While the first jews, the hebrew refugees were typical eastern-mediterrenean people, there are definetly extremely strong signs of other ethnicities, but suprisignly enough, much less than expected. This has to do with the isolation of the jewish communities, and the fact that many of the ethnicities that also took part in the creation of the jewish nation were somewhat close to the hebrews themselves.
For example, perhaps the strongest influx of "foreign blood", was the Khazar Empire, an empire that was created by a Turkish group of tribes, that was strongly influence by far-eastern europeans, and by slavic groups. The turkish and the far eastern europeans have originally came into the lands before they occupied before the great migrations, from persia, ( very early times ), just like the cannanites, of which the hebrews are part, came to the levant from the north, from persia, displacing some African tribes.

There are also smaller cases of judaism being a state religion, most notably pre-islam yemen, and communities of a relatively small amount of hebrew population converting a fraction of the local population of countries: Ethiopia, India. This occurs in the pre-Islam ages.

conclusion: "race" and nationhood don't always go together. Actually there are almost no states in which the nation is based on a single ethnicity.

[curtsibling]

From my view,
It is defunct to refer to a whole nation as being 'of one race'
Centuries of interbreeding have put paid to those ideas.

Cultural integration and multi-racial nations are one of our few hopes for the rescue of humankind.

[Q Classic]

i'm mixed on the subject.

if the region was originally a racially homogenous group, a la japan, korea, or denmark, it naturally makes sense to have a "racial" state.

in many of the modern cases, it's harder to call. i have to say, i believe more in primordialism, meaning that i don't hold out for too much hope between racially mixed countries where war is common, as in the case with africa. to be fair, many of the countries in africa have extremely artifical borders, created by colonial masters who selected their territories as a matter of convenience, rather than what would be best; in many of those cases, i wouldn't have much trouble with allowing the formation of racial states.

that said, there are instances where forcing the creation of a racial state might not be a great idea--israel comes to mind, as that particular region of the world had been cursed with the creation of three major religions, all causing more divisiveness. although the need for a jewish state, i believe, was quite clear, i'm uncertain as to whether placing it there was a bright idea or not~

racial states are a touchy thing, and i don't think you can have a general solution. it's a case-by-case scenario.

give the basques and the kurds a country. why not?

in the end, it won't matter. all these countries will mean squat when the world ends.

[The Viceroy]

I think its important to not mix race and culture up here. Britain is extensivly multicultural and multiracial, however, places like India are very much more multicultural, and less so multiracial.

Apart from Zimbabwe, I don't know many nations that are activly bi-racial, although there are many states that are actively bi-cultural.

I think its because the line between culture and race is so blurred, that people mix them up, and see a threat where there is none ..

Me personally, I see the ideal state for me being one that is both multi racial, and multi cultural, and gains it strength from being confident enough of its own culture to enjoy the delights of others without fearing loss of identity.

However, there is one important aspect that should be considered before judging a nation . How was it born ???

How many of us have had to fight for our freedom ? Been persecuted for the colour of our skin ?? seen our entire family gassed and the gold from their fillings sold for profit ?? How many of us have been tortured and had our wives and daughters raped and murdered in front of us ?? These things and more occur in this world, and have occured, and we wonder why some nations feel so strongly about their culture, their race ?? We (that have not suffered) should not judge them for that.

Celebrate your race and your culture, and have a place where you can do it amongst others who share your heritage... and never forget, to treat other races and cultures as you wish to be treated yourself, especially if they are away from home, and you will honour your own heritage by doing so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, while Israel is a nationstate, and represents the will of a nation, it is not based on racial bias, since a jewish ethnicity doesn't exist, just like a Russian one, or a french one of an enlish one, for that matter.

Azazel:

I thought Israel considers you to be a Jew if your mother is a Jew.

This is different from other ethnicities in that they need both the mother and father to propagate. With an English father and a French mother, you would get someone both French and English.

[Ramo]

I strongly disagree with the idea that states should be based around ethnic groups. Ideally, there should be confederations of autonomous communes traversing the globe, etc., etc. But, pragmatically, it's fine to draw borders around ethnicities as long as there are is no oppression of other ethnicities (i.e. ethnic cleansing, selective immigration, etc.). But, as a long term goal, there should be movements towards multi-ethnic societies.

While we're on the subject of Israel, I think this is the primary problem Israel has had; it has never made a decision on whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel. On the one hand, it's been occupied for some 35-odd years, and on the other hand its Arab inhabitants (past and present) are being disenfranchised by Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

While we're on the subject of Israel, I think this is the primary problem Israel has had; it has never made a decision on whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel. On the one hand, it's been occupied for some 35-odd years, and on the other hand its Arab inhabitants (past and present) are being disenfranchised by Israel.

I agree.

Unless of course it's some kind of strategy. But knowing our political system - no strategy can last for longer than 2 years, which makes it almost a tactic

[Az]

Azazel:

I thought Israel considers you to be a Jew if your mother is a Jew.

You can also become jew, if you convert to judaism. but since the instances of that are very rare, we have by far and large kept a separate national identity.

While we're on the subject of Israel, I think this is the primary problem Israel has had; it has never made a decision on whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel. On the one hand, it's been occupied for some 35-odd years, and on the other hand its Arab inhabitants (past and present) are being disenfranchised by Israel.

Actually, the more I think and read about it, it seems that Israel didn't always have this problem. In 67', Israel would agree to withdraw from the all the lands ( most of them, Jerusalem is quite a separate issue ), in exchange to peace with its' neighbours. There is even a government declaration on the subject from the 60s. But there were no buyers on the other side. ( Khartoom declaration was a reply to the Israeli government's offer, you can clearly see it by stressing the fact that the signatories wouldn't agree to peace if all the lands conquered in 67' would be returned). It also couldn't let the palestinians govern themselves, since there would be little chance for co-existance there.