-Caveat Lector-

 -----Original Message-----
 From: KM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999
 Subj: * Laws of Return * -- George Szamuely --


 Laws of Return
 by George Szamuely
 New York Press
 12/14/99

 Liberal outrage invariably follows a familiar, dishonest
 trajectory.  And nothing is more familiar and dishonest than
 the stodgy old New York Times.  Last week the Times ran a
 profile of Jorg Haider, leader of Austria's right-wing Freedom
 Party, now -- following October's elections -- the country's
 second largest party.  The reporter made the obligatory
 horrified shiver as he pompously proclaimed that Haider's
 "appeal against `overforeignization'... carries connotations of
 Goebbels."  But what can one expect?  Haider is an Austrian.
 And Austrians, as we are often enough told, are a morally
 retarded, not to say sinister, people.  "The lingering
 suspicion of foreigners is tangible."  Austrians "take out
 their frustration on the hundreds of thousands of foreigners
 living among them."  Austrians tend "to feel more at ease...
 among themselves."  We get the message.

 The Austrians do not like foreigners.

 Quite by chance, the very same day the Times ran a story about
 another people who tend to feel "more at ease among
 themselves."  The tone, however, was very different.  Under the
 anodyne headline -- "Debate in Israel: Jewish State Or Now a
 Multicultural State?" -- the Times insouciantly described the
 growing pressure within Israel to restrict immigration.
 Apparently a lot of non-Jews are coming into the country,
 particularly from Russia, and the ethnic basis of the state is
 under threat.  The Times reporter, Deborah Sontag, correctly
 observes that Israel is "the Jewish homeland, established on a
 policy of ethnic preference."  Israel's Law of Return had
 enabled anyone who either had a Jewish mother or who had
 converted to Judaism to acquire immediate Israeli citizenship.
 However, in 1970 the Law was amended to enable anyone who only
 had a Jewish father, a Jewish grandparent or simply a Jewish
 spouse also to claim Israeli citizenship.

 To many in Israel this change meant a dilution of the Jewish
 character of the state.  To the Orthodox rabbinate, moreover,
 anyone who had converted while a Conservative or Reform rabbi
 was officiating was not really a Jew at all and was, therefore,
 not entitled to Israeli citizenship.  The current target of
 hatred in Israel are the Russians.  One Orthodox member of
 Parliament described the Russian non-Jews as a "fifth column."
 A rabbi denounced the Russians for "defiling" Israel "with
 their pornography, prostitution, disease and alcoholism."  Now
 imagine how the Times would respond if an Austrian, say, or a
 German or a Frenchman had used this kind of language to
 describe immigrants!  Yet the Times reporter is remarkably
 short on outrage.  If anything, she sympathized with their
 complaints:  "[A] relatively prosperous and even peaceful
 society, Israel is actually a magnet, even to those who do not
 feel a Zionist bond."  Immigration restriction is necessary --
 otherwise Israel could soon "be flooded not just with non-Jews
 but also with those infected by the anti-Semitism in their
 homeland."

 Leave aside for the moment these fanciful and self-serving
 justifications.  (Why on Earth would anti-Semites want to come
 to live in Israel?)  What is clear is that, as far as the Times
 is concerned, the Israelis and only the Israelis are permitted
 to address themselves to the issue of the ethnic character of
 their state.  Anyone else broaching the subject -- a Jorg
 Haider, for instance -- will immediately be denounced as
 "racist," "xenophobic," "nativist," "anti-Semitic" and drummed
 out of respectable society.  Yet Zionism is a nationalist
 doctrine like any other.  Its objective is to forge a state
 that embodies the political aspirations of its constituting
 nation.

 Interestingly enough, there is one other country that operates
 a Law of Return -- Germany.  The German constitution granted
 automatic citizenship to ethnic Germans who may never have
 lived in Germany but were the descendants of German farmers and
 craftsmen who had settled in Russia and Eastern Europe in the
 18th century.  Liberals foam at the mouth at the mere mention
 of Germany's Law of Return.  Turks, who may have lived in
 Germany for decades, are denied citizenship, they cry in
 horror, while ethnic Germans collect their passports on arrival
 to the country.  Outrageous then, that anyone should consider
 ethnic origin as the basis for nationhood, rather than mere
 physical residence.  There is only one explanation for it --
 German "racism."  Yet Germany's Law of Return is actually more
 reasonable than Israel's.  Ethnic Germans, though they may have
 lived for centuries in Kyrgyzstan, say, will still speak
 German.  I do not speak a word of Hebrew and have never been
 inside a synagogue in my life.  Yet I am entitled to Israeli
 citizenship since my mother was Jewish.

 Like the Israelis, the Germans had a rather restrictive
 nationality policy.  Up to this year, German nationality was
 determined by the nationality of one's parents, not by the
 place of birth.  Foreign-born immigrants and their German-born
 children could apply for German citizenship provided they had
 legally resided in the country for 15 years and were prepared
 to renounce their original citizenship.  For years liberals
 denounced this German system.  It was based on "blood," they
 mumbled darkly.  Under enormous foreign pressure, Chancellor
 Schroder's government changed the law earlier this year.
 Foreigners now have the right to apply for German citizenship
 after eight years of legal residence.  Children born in Germany
 to foreign parents will acquire German citizenship at birth,
 provided at least one parent has lived legally in Germany for a
 minimum of eight years.  Children acquiring German citizenship
 at birth will have to decide before their 23rd birthday whether
 they want to retain their German citizenship or their parents'
 citizenship except in special circumstances.  There is still to
 be no dual citizenship.

 Compare then "racist," "xenophobic," intolerant Germany or
 Austria with Israel.  What triggered the Times article was
 recently published figures showing that during the first three
 months of 1999 non-Jews outnumbered Jews -- 55 percent to 45
 percent -- among immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
 Panic seized the Israeli body politic.  Non-Jews were acquiring
 too much political clout.  "The loopholes in the law must be
 closed," thundered Rahamim Malul, a lawmaker from the religious
 Shas party recently, "so that the state will not turn into a
 country where a large percentage of its citizens are gentiles."

 And the loopholes are being closed.  Immigration policy is
 increasingly restrictive.  Many immigrants are unable to marry,
 since Orthodox rabbis (who alone are authorized to perform
 weddings in Israel) refuse to officiate at what they view as
 mixed-marriage ceremonies.  An Israeli who wishes to marry a
 non-Jew must leave the country to marry.  And even then the
 Interior Ministry may not accept the validity of such a
 marriage.  Recently, it declared that non-Jewish spouses could
 not enter Israel under the Law of Return, but had to apply
 under regular immigration rules.

 Every nation has the right to run its affairs the way it wishes
 to.  We may not wish to live in Israel.  But Israel is Israel;
 and the United States is the United States.  The point is that
 every nation should also have the right to discuss its destiny
 in any manner it wishes to.  It is intolerable that liberals
 have imposed this order whereby Israelis can happily debate the
 ethnic makeup of their nation while Americans who address
 themselves to such issues face moral opprobrium,
 marginalization and -- who knows? -- one-day imprisonment.



 Archived Columns by George Szamuely

 Laws of Return    12/14/99

 Embassy Row       12/7/99

 Selling Snake Oil 11/30/99

 Chinese Puzzle    11/23/99

 That Was No Lady, That Was the Times 11/16/99

 The Red Tide Turning?  11/9/99

 Pat & The Pod     11/2/99

 United Fundamentalist States 10/26/99

 Let Them All Have Nukes!  10/19/99

 Liar, Liar        10/5/99

 Gangster Nations  9/21/99

 Puerto Rico Libre -- and Good Riddance 9/14/99

 Leave China Alone 9/2/99

 A World Safe for Kleptocracy 7/7/99

 Proud To Be Un-American 6/23/99


 All articles reprinted with permission
 from the New York Press


 Antiwar.com






DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to