Content deleted Content added
to Sirubenstein |
Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) response to Jacobgreenbaum |
||
Line 305:
:If anything, then, what you state demolishes the argument in this article which equates anti-zionism with anti-semitism. [[User:Jacobgreenbaum|Jacob]]
::I do not think I am using "nationality" in a unique sense, although I do admit I am using it in a non-legal sense. France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia are nation-states. They are not just states, in which there are people who may be identified as "citizens" or "subjects." They are states whose legitimacy is in part based on the identification of a political boundary (the state) with a cultural boundary (the nation). This is an historical fact. It also raises the problem of how to deal with subjects or citizens who do not "belong" to the nation. In some cases such non-nationals (not in the legal sense where "national" simply = citizen, but in the cultural sense) are given "equal rights before the law, in some cases they are not. Some theorists like Jurgen Habermas and Brian Barry believe that this is possible, desirable, and sufficient. Like you, they would say that a particular state may have a majority of people who beling to a particular ethnic group of nation, but for them this is politically inconsequential (or rather, the state should involve legal apparatuses such that it would be inconsequential). But many others have pointed out that even when all citizens (regardless of nationality) are equal before the law, informal social institutions, and the implicit relationship between legal/political practices and culture, result in a situation where ethnicity and nationality really do matter, in a way that liberal constitutions cannot accommodate. All of this is preface to two points I want to make (and tried to make earlier): first, Israel is a nation-state, not because it defines itself as such in its Declaration of Independence, but because it was founded precisely to mimic European nation-states like Germany, France, and England. Second, even if the Suadi Arabian constitution did not declare it to be an "Arab state," it is still a nation-state in the same way Israel is.
::In any event, I do not think any "nation-state" is racist merely by virtue of being a nation-state. I am not accusing Israel of racism, nor am I accusing Saudi Arabia of racism.
::you continue to conflate two notions of nation, with the effect of muddying the water. To say that there exists a nation and that nation deserves a state (a rationale for France and for Israel) ''does not mean that that state should exclude non-nationals, should deny them citizenship, or deny them equal rights as citizens.'' Zionists are claiming two things, in response to those who equate Zionism with racism: first, that anti-Zionists wish to deny the nation of Israel what the International community has allowed Czechs, Slovaks (you know, they now each have their own country -- a bi-national state was replaced by two nation-states), Lithuanians, etc. Second, that anti-Zionists hold Israel to a higher standard (of political rights) than its Arab neighbors.
::By the way, this does not mean I think that any country should deprive its citizens of equal rights under the law -- my sense is that both Israel and Saudi Arabia have a lot of work yet to do to ensure this.
::Thus, I would agree that perhaps a significant number of citizens (or subjects) of Israel and Saudi Arabia ''may'' be racists. And that will affect public poicy, often in bad ways. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
| |||