Big Lies Part 1-- A "Jewish State" Provides Unique Ethnic Preference and Therefore Is Illegitimate

Here at BlueTruth, as many other blogs and organizations do, we advocate on behalf of the simple proposition that the Jews (like any other people who share a common heritage, history and ties to a particular piece of land) are entitled to a country of their own. Those who do so often confront various lies being propagated about Israel. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, you will hear more of them. This will be the first in a series of posts that will analyze and refute them. Much of the basic ground is covered in several excellent resources which are essential reading for those who want to know the facts around the birth of modern Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel: Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Israel and two pamphlets by Mitchell Bard that are available online: Myths and Facts and On One Foot.





The arguments made 40, 30, or even 20 years ago said that Israel should allow the Palestinians to have a state in the territories conquered in that June 1967 war. Now, of course, with the international community (including Israel) having agreed with that concept (though not on borders, as well as other minor details such as security for 7 million Israelis in the face of such a state controlled by radical Islamist jihadis), the anti-Israel groups have revealed what was undoubtedly their true goal all along-- the dismantlement of Israel as a Jewish state. One of the claims made to justify this is that Israel is a racist/apartheid state and that the primacy given to Jews and to Judaism is prima facie unacceptable and must be eliminated. Reading those arguments, one would think that no other country in the world provides any type of differential treatment to members of its own ethnicity.



Of course, we would not condone not granting to members of minority groups such basics as voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Israel, of course, does grant these. The Freedom House annual report on political and civil liberties around the world ranks Israel as "free", with a ranking of 1 (highest) for political rights and 2 for civil liberties. (The PA , "partially free", manages a 4 for political rights; civil liberties are at 6 [lowest is 7]. That of course doesn't factor in the recent threat to one's political rights or civil liberties of being shot dead for belonging to the wrong militia or being kidnapped for being a journalist. They probably already took into account other risky behaviors in the PA such as being a Christian or being a young woman who "dishonors" her family by being seen with an unrelated male in public).



But I digress. The main right being challenged is Israel's Law of Return, which gives the right of immigration to anyone with one Jewish grandparent or who has converted to Judaism. From reading anti-Israel screeds, one would never know that immigration preferences are quite common in the world today. The legal term for this right is lex sanguinis. Countries that provide such preferences include Armenia (another country with a widespread diaspora), China, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Romania, Russia and Spain. That covers a pretty fair-sized chunk of the world's population right there. Especially given that none of these countries (except Armenia) can document any history of genocidal persecution in its diaspora similar to what the Jewish people have experienced, why is only Israel singled out as if this is unique? One possible answer can be found in this landmark article by Natan Sharansky.

We also hear that the flag and the national anthem must also be changed to not show any preference to Jews and Judaism. As far as flags, how about this salient fact:
The flag of Turkey, which was the flag of the Ottoman Empire, has been an inspiration for the flag designs of many other Muslim nations. During the time of the Ottomans the crescent began to be associated with Islam and this is reflected on the flags of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Tunisia, and of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags)
Also, the following countries feature a different religious symbol, the Christian cross, in their flags:
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece, Tonga.

Once again, only Israel is pilloried for using the symbol of the Jewish people on its flag.

And for national anthems, here are slections from the national anthems of a few other countries that somehow are not vilified as “racist”–

Saudi Arabia:Hasten to glory and supremacy!Glorify the Creator of the heavensAnd raise the green, fluttering flag,Carrying the emblem of Light!Repeat - God is greatest!O my country,My country, may you always live,The glory of all Muslims!Long live the King,For the flag and the country!

Thailand (I'm not criticizing Thailand here, but I do suspect that not 100% of the citizens of Thailand are ethnic Thais…):
Thailand unites its people with flesh and blood.
land of Thailand belongs to the Thais.....

The Czech anthem includes the lines "Where is my home? Where is my home?
If, in a heavenly land, you have met
Tender souls in agile frames,
Of clear mind, vigorous and prospering,
And with a strength that frustrates all defiance,
That is the glorious race of Czechs,
Among Czechs (is) my home!"

The mention of the Jewish soul's hope to become a nation in its own land isn't so different, is it? Not really-- unless you've got an underlying agenda.