Zionism is a racist ideology, like all nationalisms. The specific racist
characteristics are summarised here: labelling them racist should be
uncontroversial in itself. The uncompromising rejection of the equivalence
"zionism= racism", by Israel and its supporters, hinders rational
assessment of nationalist ideology.


_______Nationalism and racism

Nation states are components of a nationalist world order, and nationalism
is the ideology or movement that promotes that world order. The specific
characteristics of that world order are set out in Structures of Nationalism:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nation.structure.html

The present world order is composed of permanent states: with one exception
(the Vatican) they are formed by trans-generational communities (nations).
Together these states hold all inhabitable territory, as contiguous
national territories: a planet of nations. All nationalists hold certain
core beliefs about this world order, about the nation itself and about the
nation state. Some of these core beliefs are clearly racist. Others - such
as the belief that nation states should be transgenerational - are not
racist in themselves, but lead almost inevitably to racist policies by the states.

All modern nation states are founded on certain racist principles, which
derive directly from nationalist ideology. The multi-ethnic empires, the
traditional target of European nationalist resentment, did not always apply
such principles.

All nation states are founded on the nationalist belief that each nation
has a specific claim to a specific territory. Nationalists can and do
recognise other nations claims to other territories, but almost all make an
exclusive claim to at least some territory. This claim is, by definition,
an expression of group superiority. The members of the nation, according
tot the nationalist movement in question,  possess an inherently superior
claim to the territory, purely by membership of the group. They do not have
to do anything for it. The claim covers not only their claimed right to
live there, but their claimed right to exclude others.

There is one exception to this pattern: the diaspora nationalism of the
Roma. The Roma do not know exactly where their ancestral homeland is
located. Therefore, in sharp contrast to other nationalist movements, Roma
nationalism does not claim territory. And until they know where it is, Roma
nationalists can not attempt to expel the existing inhabitants of that territory.

All existing nation states do make a claim of superior right to national
territory. In all cases, this claim is made on behalf of a single ethnic
group, or a cluster of ethnic groups (titular nation plus national
minorities). That the groups are ethnic is the source of most of the racism
in ideology and policy. If states were exclusively founded on gender, their
ideology might be sexist, but not racist.

Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that
right to the territory in question. Irish nationalists believe that the
'Irish people' have a superior right to the island of Ireland, and that the
Paraguayan people do not possess this right. They believe that individual
Irishmen and Irish women are the bearers of this collective right, and that
these individuals can not be denied the right to reside in Ireland. They
they do not believe this about randomly selected individual Paraguayans.
Ireland has no indigenous ethnic minorities so the definition of the nation
is relatively simple. However these beliefs can be held on behalf of more
than one national group, but never on behalf of all nations of the world -
at least not in any existing nation state. The formal expression of these
underlying beliefs is the citizenship and immigration policy of the nation
states. Note that nothing stops Irish and Paraguayan nationalists from
respecting each others claims, especially since they have no common
disputed territory. However, that does not make their claims any less racist.

It is often said that the nation states have widely differing conceptions
of citizenship. In fact they all operate in conformity with these two
principles of superior claim, and legitimate exclusion. All existing nation
states share two other characteristics. No nation state has an absolute
open-border policy (totally free immigration), and all nation states allow
the acquisition of citizenship by descent.

These four characteristics allow Zionism to be considered racist - in the
company of other nationalisms, including the quasi-official ideologies of
each nation state.

The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior
quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to
certain other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to its
members. The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these
claims are translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of
citizenship by descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in
the general sense, but it is also closest to the biological ideologies
first described by the term 'racism'.

French and German attitudes are said to represent the extremes of
citizenship policy, but in fact both states share a biological concept of
citizenship. Both illustrate this core policy, despite their differences in
emphasis. Germany has a generally restrictive immigration policy, which it
relaxed in the 1960's and 1970's to allow labour migration for (West)
German industry. The children of the many Turkish immigrants grew up in
Germany as foreign citizens, with a Turkish passport and a German residence
permit. Even the third generation, often born in Germany of German-born
parents, usually speaking only German, were still Turkish citizens. If they
committed a crime they were liable to be deported to Turkey, even if they
did not speak a word of Turkish and had never been there before. Only in
the last few years has naturalisation become almost automatic for the third
generation. In contrast, descendants of Germans who settled in eastern
Europe, sometimes two or three centuries ago, can arrive in Germany and
claim full citizenship. It is not necessary that their parents are German
citizens, and they are not required to speak a word of German. The German
state will pay for their full integration in German society, because they
are considered part of the German 'Volk'.

French policies are based on different assumptions, about the effectiveness
of French society in transferring its own core values. Living in France for
a long period, or growing up in France, is considered to effectively
assimilate the migrant or the child. (There is an underlying belief in the
self-evident superiority of French values). Naturalisation is therefore
easier, and in principle birth in France confers citizenship - but the
parents must get there first, for the child to be born there.

However in both cases a basic rule applies, which undermines the French
pretensions to have a 'non-racist' citizenship and nationality policy. The
child born of citizens is a citizen. All existing nation states apply this
principle, usually without regard to place of birth. The child born to a
French-citizen mother and a French-citizen  father, in Zambia, is a French
citizen. The child born to a German-citizen mother and a German-citizen
father, in Zambia, is a German citizen. No special procedure is required of
either the parents or the baby, and no supplementary qualifications.

The child of Zambian parents, who have no German or French ancestors and no
connection with Germany or France (such as the fathers military service),
can make no claim on the citizenship of these countries. Both doors are
equally closed. That essential inequality is by definition racist. As an
adult, the Zambian child can later try to enter either country, and acquire
citizenship. That means going through a special procedure, and meeting
certain norms, for instance on educational level. Ultimately, acquiring
citizenship might be easier in France, but there is no guarantee there either.

This is the reality of nation states: most people got their citizenship
from their parents, and they did nothing for it. They certainly did not
have to cross the Strait of Gibraltar in a small boat, and spend 10 years
picking tomatoes or cleaning toilets - which is what a Zambian might do to
acquire legal residence in an EU country. In other words the average
citizen, certainly in the richer countries, is complicit in a grand racist
scheme. They benefit greatly from their privilege at birth, while others
lose horribly. That is presumably why they don't like to talk about the
issue, but in terms of human suffering this is the worst aspect of the
inherent racism of the nation states.


_______Zionism and the State of Israel

The racist characteristics of nationalism can be found in the Zionist
ideology and in the State of Israel, a nation state. The word Zionism is
used today for the foundational ideology of the Israeli nation state - the
claims by which it justifies its existence. However Zionism as a
nationalist movement is older than that state: past and present Zionism do
not always coincide.

Zionism is a diaspora nationalism of the Jewish people. In a  diaspora
nationalism, most members of the national group are not resident on the
claimed national territory, and the nation state can only be achieved by
'return' migration. Zionism is an unusual nationalism: it is largely the
creation of a single individual, Theodor Herzl. It is also unusual because,
in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland. Some
of the early plans for Jewish resettlement were not even formally
nationalist: they made no claim to a state.

Nevertheless, by the time of the Balfour Declaration, Zionism was a
standard nationalist movement. Zionists claimed to speak on behalf of a
people, the Jewish people. They claimed a nation state for that people in
Palestine, on the grounds that it was the historic homeland of the Jewish
people. The 'Jewish people' for almost all Zionists was (and is) an
ethno-national group - and not a religious community. A minority of
religious Jews still opposes Zionism for religious reasons.

When the State of Israel came into existence, it included a mainly Arab
minority, now about one million people. Historically Zionism has never
recognised any 'national minority' within the nation, the status of (for
instance) the Frisians within the modern Dutch nation. For Zionists, the
Jewish people is the Jewish nation: it is a mono-ethnic nationalism
comparable to Irish nationalism. The present State of Israel generally has
the constitutional structure of a secular nation state. It has conceded
citizenship to the 'Israeli Arabs', although many will identify themselves
as 'Palestinians'. However there is no tradition in Zionism which sees this
group ('Arabs' or 'Palestinians') as a constituent minority of the Jewish people.

There is also no nationalist movement to establish a bi-national state on
the former mandate territory of Palestine. Zionism is not such a movement,
and the State of Israel does not claim to be a bi-national state. Zionism
is comparable to Czech nationalism in this respect - not to Czechoslovak
nationalism. No Zionists call themselves Palestino-Jews or
Judaeo-Palestinians. The State is called Israel, not Filastino-Israel or Israelo-Filastina

Within this framework, which includes contradictory ideas about Israeli
citizenship, the four racist characteristics listed above can be identified.

Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on
behalf of 'the Jewish people', an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed
that individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did
not apply to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the
early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the
establishment of the Sate of Israel in 1948 - but none of them believed
that non-Jews had a right to the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute
a superior quality to Jews, namely the exclusive right to the Jewish
national territory. The State of Israel, by definition, claims Israeli
territory for Israeli's. It attributes a superior quality to Israeli's,
although paradoxically that includes the Arab minority with Israeli
citizenship. However, the State of Israel is not 'Israelist' - in the sense
of consistently presenting these claims for both its Jewish and Arab
citizens. In official pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the
Durban anti-racism conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy
as the national homeland for the 'Jewish people'. It is therefore not
correct to say, that in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been
succeeded by Israeli nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is
still largely Zionism, and not 'Israelism'.

Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish
ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in
the Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State
of Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born
outside Israel, unless they have no specific links to Israel, to the Jewish
people, or to Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The
only exception to the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the
State of Israel extends citizenship on the historically resident Arab
minority, although some Israeli political groups dispute their right to residence.

The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists,
is the status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor
Herzl never imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and
therefore the de facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In
addition, about three million people belong to the clearly identifiable
'Palestinian-refugee' minorities, in other Arab countries, although most
were born in their present country of residence. The State of Israel
clearly attributes an inferior status to this population: namely that they
do not possess the right to Israeli citizenship. This population is
generally equivalent to the 'Palestinian people' in the occupied
territories, although it includes small non-Jewish, non-Arab minorities.
The members of this population, (primarily Palestinian), can not vote, for
instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli elections, it would mean the
end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that all nation states operate
this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship to everyone, certainly
not to hostile populations. That does not make such policies any less
racist, since the exclusions are by definition on ethnic or national grounds.

That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all
immigrants: but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic
of Zionism. Israel has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but
immigration policy has always been restrictive. Although Israel grants
citizenship to the resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab
immigration, even by former residents of its territory. Only those who
stayed in their villages in 1948 got Israeli citizenship: those who crossed
the front line to the Arab side can not get back - not as a citizen, and
probably not as a visitor. Other Arabs, who have no connection with
Palestine, can not simply migrate to Israel, nor can most of the world's
population. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this is
the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism. In this case, the
State of Israel has a formal and explicit policy of Jewish immigration,
which is clearly Zionist. It is the logical consequence of the original
Zionist demand for a Jewish state formed by migration, meaning migration of Jews.

In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration
policies: citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A
person who converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law
of Return, if the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities
in Israel. The convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally
refused), and can claim Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this
is quoted by Israel's supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory,
all the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to
Judaism tomorrow, and on acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. -
where they will all presumably live as good and prosperous Israeli
citizens. In practice this is absurdly unlikely. And the question is: why
should they have to convert to Judaism, when native-born atheist or
Buddhist Israelis can still be part of the Jewish people?

This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state
policies of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for
the early Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its
future citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predicable even at the time
Herzl wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation
states (and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an
Israeli citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli
citizen. (I am not sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs,
born in the occupied territories). The child has to do nothing for this
privilege: no application under the Law of Return, no conversion to
Judaism, no other qualification for citizenship. The child simply acquires
the rights (and duties) of an Israeli citizen through unconscious
biological process. The child without this biological advantage (birth, or
parentage, or genetic material) does not automatically acquire citizenship.
Although living in Israel is not always pleasant, and many western Jews
hesitate to emigrate there, within the Israel-Palestine context, the
Israeli born child has the advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in
central Hebron will statistically live longer, be better educated,  and
have a higher standard of living, then the Palestinian child born in an
adjoining house. This advantage is part of the general advantage of being
born in a rich country, which about one-fifth of the world's population share.

In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not
inevitably, but because nation states are structured that way. There is no
inherent moral reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or
citizenship, simply on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of
any moral justification for it. It is clearly racist in the general sense
of the word, and its derivation from the ideology of nationalism shows the
racist basis of that ideology. The nationalism underlying the nation state
Israel, which is accurately called Zionism, is no different in this
respect. Here too, Zionism is racist.


--
Paul Treanor