No Wonder the Israeli's attack the Palestinians!

Bonam · June 24, 2009

i'm repeating what israel's policies are.
the policies are racist because they give special treatments to a group with a specific religious background.

if their policies do not give special treatment to jews, then i would be wrong.

You are wrong and inconsistent on multiple points.

1. Discrimination based on "religion" is not racism. Racism has a specific meaning, learn it if you're gonna use the word.

2. Being a Jew is not viewed as a religious affiliation but as an ethnic one by the vast majority of the world.

3. An immigration policy cannot be racist because it is not anyone's right to immigrate to a country, a country is free to choose who immigrates to it.

4. A policy which allowed unrestricted immigration of Muslims and other groups into Israel would very quickly erase the entire purpose of Israel, which is to be a state where Jews can live without being a minority group, something that is also available to almost every other ethnic group.

dub · June 25, 2009

You are wrong and inconsistent on multiple points.

lets find out who is wrong:

1. Discrimination based on "religion" is not racism. Racism has a specific meaning, learn it if you're gonna use the word.

“racial discrimination” applies to “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms….”

this is the definition by the UN which is accepted by all countries who are a signatory to the UN, including israel.

israel also has a definition: in 1977 racism was defined as "persecution, humiliation, demeaning, displaying animosity, hostility, violence or strife towards a population group or parts of such a group, all on the basis of skin color or membership in a racial or ethnic-national grouping."

can we agree now what the definition of racism is or do you only accept your own special definition?

2. Being a Jew is not viewed as a religious affiliation but as an ethnic one by the vast majority of the world.

sure. fine. even discrimination based on ethnicity is considered racism. look at the meaning above. unless you reject israel and UN's definitions.

3. An immigration policy cannot be racist because it is not anyone's right to immigrate to a country, a country is free to choose who immigrates to it.

eh? it's not racist because it is not anyone's right to immigrate? what kind of a strange logic is that? a country is free to choose its racist laws. kind of like israel and saudi arabia.

4. A policy which allowed unrestricted immigration of Muslims and other groups into Israel would very quickly erase the entire purpose of Israel, which is to be a state where Jews can live without being a minority group, something that is also available to almost every other ethnic group.

besides a few racist arab states, i don't know of any countries that have a "this ethnicity only" policy. certainly none of the western countries. not sure where you come up with these things.

israel's racist laws are not targeted only to foreigners, they also apply to some of its own citizens. in 2003, the israeli government tabled a bill to amend the Israeli Citizenship Law in a manner that would deny arabs who are israeli citizens and have married palestinian residents of the occupied territories the right to live in israel with their spouses and children. if that is not discrimination and racism against a specific group, (who happen to be israeli citizens), i don't know what is.

Bonam · June 25, 2009

eh? it's not racist because it is not anyone's right to immigrate?

Exactly, read your own definition:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedom

Immigrating to Israel is neither a human right nor a fundamental freedom. Hence, denying immigration to Israel does not violate one's human rights or fundamental freedoms. Hence it is not racial discrimination. The logic is very simple. Hopefully you can follow it.

israel's racist laws are not targeted only to foreigners, they also apply to some of its own citizens. in 2003, the israeli government tabled a bill to amend the Israeli Citizenship Law in a manner that would deny arabs who are israeli citizens and have married palestinian residents of the occupied territories the right to live in israel with their spouses and children

Or, phrased another way, Israel denied immigration to Arabs from the Palestinian territories to Israel. How does that not make sense? Arabs in the territories pose a potential security threat and as such their immigration to Israel is highly restricted, even if they happen to be married to an Israeli citizen. Marriage is not a free pass to immigration.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bonam

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

(dub @ Jun 24 2009, 05:15 PM) *
israel's racist laws are not targeted only to foreigners, they also apply to some of its own citizens. in 2003, the israeli government tabled a bill to amend the Israeli Citizenship Law in a manner that would deny arabs who are israeli citizens and have married palestinian residents of the occupied territories the right to live in israel with their spouses and children

This law applies equally to Jews who have married somebody from the OC. Hence, it is not racist.

dub · June 25, 2009

This law applies equally to Jews who have married somebody from the OC. Hence, it is not racist.

don't be ridiculous. you still haven't been able to explain the law of return which allows only jews to immigrate and receive automatic israeli citizenship.

now onto the other ridiculous...

dub · June 25, 2009

Exactly, read your own definition:
any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedom

uhm..

what does this mean to you? any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition

apparently it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

i really don't want to continue debating with someone who has a hard time accepting something so simple.

Or, phrased another way, Israel denied immigration to Arabs from the Palestinian territories to Israel. How does that not make sense? Arabs in the territories pose a potential security threat and as such their immigration to Israel is highly restricted, even if they happen to be married to an Israeli citizen. Marriage is not a free pass to immigration.

marriage is a free pass if you are jewish.

actually, being jewish is a free pass.

israel's immigration and citizenship laws are racist.

benny · June 25, 2009

israel's immigration and citizenship laws are racist.

The term "law" signifies the principles upon which society is based, designating a mode of collective conduct based upon a set of prohibitions. However, the rule of the law conceals an inherent unruliness which is precisely the violence by which it established itself as law in the first place. "At the beginning" of the law, there is a certain "outlaw", a violence which coincides with the act itself of the establishment of the reign of the law... The illegitimate violence by which law sustains itself must be concealed at any price, because this concealment is the positive condition of the functioning of the law.

The authority of the law stems not from some concept of justice, but because it is the law. Which is to say that the origin of the law can be found in the tautology: "the law is the law". If the law is to function properly, however, we must experience it as just. It is only when the law breaks down, when it becomes a law unto itself, and it reaches the limits of itself, do we glimpse those limits and acknowledge its contingency by reference to the phrase "the law is the law". In other words: The Law (makers) cannot and should not question itself.

http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

Dub

don't be ridiculous.

From your link Dub

Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law The law places age restrictions for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits to spouses of Israeli citizens, such that spouses who are inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are ineligible.

Does not 'spouses of Israeli citizens' mean anybody that is a spouse of a Jew or Muslim?

Dub

you still haven't been able to explain the law of return which allows only jews to immigrate and receive automatic israeli citizenship.

Holy. You went on about it yet never read your own link?

I didn't bother as you were still stuck on your errant bullshit about how Saudi Arabia just loves Jews to become citizens there. Now I shall .......

Your link once again.

The Law of Return (Hebrew: is Israeli legislation, enacted in 1950, that gives Jews, those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship.

It denies the right to nobody, just the law to those of Jewish descent to gain citizenship under this law. Under your reasoning, every Greek, Afro or ethnic organization which gives membership to fellow nationals is a racist organization. You certainly have your work cut out for you in order to call Israel racist when the entire world, by it's very nature of having people gravitate towards ethnic and religious organizations gives preference to those same people.

Dub

marriage is a free pass if you are jewish.

And Muslim unless of course, the Jew or Muslim is married to somebody in the occupied territories.

Dub

israel's immigration and citizenship laws are racist.

As are the other countries mentioned in your Wiki article. The same as Canada's policy which gives preference to refugees.

Dub

now onto the other ridiculous...

Oh, are you going to try to say that Israel immediately refused Resolution 181 again even though they did and, accepted it with Ben Gurion even saying yes - until the Arabs, who didn't accept it from minute one attacked en masse? Or single out Muslims rather the Jews for the law you yourself brought forward which states that it is discriminatory to Muslims when in actuality, it is equal to both? Or, will you now explain why you are the racist who, on every post on these forums is always pushing against Jews, Israel, Zionists and all ad nausea, even distorting facts as I showed above?

benny · June 25, 2009

Oh, are you going to try to say that Israel immediately refused Resolution 181 again even though they did and, accepted it with Ben Gurion even saying yes

Resolution 181 was only a none-binding recommendation.

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

Resolution 181 was only a none-binding recommendation.

Which the Jews accepted, lived within those borders until attacked and, the Arabs refused from the very inception.

benny · June 25, 2009

Which the Jews accepted, lived within those borders until attacked and, the Arabs refused from the very inception.

This recommendation should have stayed only a recommendation (with no immediate implementation).

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

This recommendation should have stayed only a recommendation (with no immediate implementation).

I think the Jews liked the recommendation and the Arabs didn't. Oh well, back to the hate Israel thread starring you know who.

benny · June 25, 2009

I think the Jews liked the recommendation and the Arabs didn't.

There was of course not enough consensus but most importantly no urgency to implement any recommendation.

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

There was of course not enough consensus but most importantly no urgency to implement any recommendation.

Agreed. The Jews simply stayed where they were which was within those borders. Unlike the Arabs who attacked with the intent of killing every last man, woman and child. (the last part was not in the Resolution BTW)

benny · June 25, 2009

Agreed. The Jews simply stayed where they were which was within those borders. Unlike the Arabs who attacked with the intent of killing every last man, woman and child. (the last part was not in the Resolution BTW)

Jews were rather in Western countries all liberated from the Nazis.

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

Jews were rather in Western countries all liberated from the Nazis.

Seventy thousand of them within those borders with another eight hundred thousand in the immediate region ready to come 'home.'

benny · June 25, 2009

Seventy thousand of them within those borders with another eight hundred thousand in the immediate region ready to come 'home.'

What is most important in the very famous saying "next year in Jerusalem" is the "next year" not the "in Jerusalem".

http://books.google.com/books?id=8fn8n4RLg...lt&resnum=3

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

What is most important in the very famous saying "next year in Jerusalem" is the "next year" not the "in Jerusalem".
http://books.google.com/books?id=8fn8n4RLg...lt&resnum=3

I would agree. Everybody wants a home where they are safe from those who historicly have persecuted them. Jerusalem is, while holy to them, is more important as a symbol that unites them.

jbg · June 25, 2009

uhm..
what does this mean to you? any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition

apparently it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

i really don't want to continue debating with someone who has a hard time accepting something so simple.

marriage is a free pass if you are jewish.

actually, being jewish is a free pass.

israel's immigration and citizenship laws are racist.

And what of the forced, brutal exile of 500,000 Jews from Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, etc. right after Israel's creation? The Iraqi Jewish community dated back to the days of the destruction of the First Temple. Was Iraq's policy even more "racist"?

benny · June 25, 2009

I would agree. Everybody wants a home where they are safe from those who historicly have persecuted them. Jerusalem is, while holy to them, is more important as a symbol that unites them.

What distinguished Judaism of other religions is that it predisposes its believers to an absolute longing.

Edited June 25, 2009 by benny

KrustyKidd · June 25, 2009

What distinguished Judaism of other religions is that it predisposed its believers to an absolute longing.

Whatever. They have a country now and aim to protect it at all costs. Too tired to do the one liner thing so bid you a quiet evening Benny. Cheers.

benny · June 25, 2009

Whatever. They have a country now and aim to protect it at all costs. Too tired to do the one liner thing so bid you a quiet evening Benny. Cheers.

Precisely because of this imperative of "absolute longing", Jews cannot have a country without destroying it.

Bonam · June 25, 2009

what does this mean to you? any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition
apparently it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Are you blind? Read the whole sentence, don't just quote the part that you like:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedom

Do you notice that OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS part at the end? That's part of the same sentence. You know what sentences are right? That means it's part of the same thought, meant to be taken together as a whole, not chopped up into its little subsections to be misquoted out of context.

I repeat, immigrating to Israel is neither a human right nor a fundamental freedom. Thus, by your very own definition, there is no discrimination going on.

dub · June 25, 2009

It denies the right to nobody, just the law to those of Jewish descent to gain citizenship under this law. Under your reasoning, every Greek, Afro or ethnic organization which gives membership to fellow nationals is a racist organization. You certainly have your work cut out for you in order to call Israel racist when the entire world, by it's very nature of having people gravitate towards ethnic and religious organizations gives preference to those same people.

you're wrong again. there is a big difference which you either don't know or you refuse to acknowledge.

in greece, anyone of greek origin, is granted priority in immigration and naturalization. however, in greece, it is not only greeks that may immigrate into the country or attain citizenship. the Law of Return grants all Jews a universal right to immigrate to israel and it is virtually impossible for anyone who is not a jew or who does not have kinship ties with jews to receive israeli citizenship.

again, israel's immigration and citizenship policies are discriminatory and racist.

dub · June 25, 2009

Are you blind? Read the whole sentence, don't just quote the part that you like:
any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race…or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedom

Do you notice that OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS part at the end? That's part of the same sentence. You know what sentences are right? That means it's part of the same thought, meant to be taken together as a whole, not chopped up into its little subsections to be misquoted out of context.

I repeat, immigrating to Israel is neither a human right nor a fundamental freedom. Thus, by your very own definition, there is no discrimination going on.

i've come to the conclusion that you are mentally slow.