Can "a Jewish state" be a democracy?

[Remiel]

From this point of view, all Israel needs to do is wait another 40 years or so, and the issue will no longer be "cogent" there either. Also, many of these 260,000 individuals left by choice. Why should they be owed immigration benefits now?

There is a lot of controversy over how many of these people really left "voluntarily". But, let as presuppose perhaps that 50% of these people do not deserve compensation, how is that an argument that the 50% that do should get completely screwed? If this were Canada, if you thoughht that 50% of the claims for renumeration due to the residential schools were bogus, would you use this to justify cutting off all aid to people who had been in residential schools?

How about someone that speaks English? Someone that's currently living in the US but is unable to apply for immigrant status? Someone that has a spouse who is a legal permanent resident of the US but is prevented from immigrating to the US by multi-year visa processing backlogs?

Unless it is the case that Jews are allowed to immigrate to Israel because they speak Hebrew and Arabs are not allowed because tey do no speak Hebrew, I think the language issue is irrelevant.

[Bonam]

There is a lot of controversy over how many of these people really left "voluntarily". But, let as presuppose perhaps that 50% of these people do not deserve compensation, how is that an argument that the 50% that do should get completely screwed? If this were Canada, if you thoughht that 50% of the claims for renumeration due to the residential schools were bogus, would you use this to justify cutting off all aid to people who had been in residential schools?

As long as we are going by hypothetical scenarios, what if the number was 99.9%?

If you want my opinion, I think a fair solution here is that the Arabs that fled from Israel can give up their claims to ever returning there in exchange for all the Jews that fled from the surrounding Arab countries giving up their claims to return there. Israel has already made room for all the Jews that fled the Arab world, and, in exchange, the Arab nations can embrace and grant citizenship to the Arabs that fled Israel, rather than confining them to camps and refusing to grant them citizenship even after multiple generations, as in Lebanon. 3rd and 4th generation descendants of Arabs who once lived in the British Mandate of Palestine but whose parents and grandparents were born in Lebanon should be more concerned about getting their Lebanese citizenships, not the ones to a mandate-state that no longer exists.

Unfortunately, this goes against the only use the other Arab nations have for these refugees: to keep them impoverished and disenfranchised and use them as in a propaganda war against Israel. When such uses expire, Arab governments exterminate the Palestinians to a greater extent than anyone could ever accuse Israel of doing, as in the events in Jordan.

Unless it is the case that Jews are allowed to immigrate to Israel because they speak Hebrew and Arabs are not allowed because tey do no speak Hebrew, I think the language issue is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that a nation gets to sets its own standards as to who gets to immigrate to it. If they want to base this on language, they can. If they want to base it on ancestry and ethnoreligious identity, they can. And if they want to base it on a bureaucratic maze of how many forms you filled out and in what order, they can do that too.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

America is losing interest in Israel. They might believe that with this "Arab spring thing...that it might be time to cross the floor and dump the Jews...usery works in misterious ways - so does that idiot Obama...as for a democracy in a fully racist state....impossible...but the Jews do not need democracy - they have each other and a tribe that is orgainized and tried by time. Democracy really does not even exist - for instance in America and Canada - the rich and privledged get their way no matter what - and put the common person through useless and meaningless elections -

[bud]

America is losing interest in Israel. They might believe that with this "Arab spring thing...that it might be time to cross the floor and dump the Jews...usery works in misterious ways - so does that idiot Obama...as for a democracy in a fully racist state....impossible...but the Jews do not need democracy - they have each other and a tribe that is orgainized and tried by time. Democracy really does not even exist - for instance in America and Canada - the rich and privledged get their way no matter what - and put the common person through useless and meaningless elections -

well said.

[eCitizen]

From this point of view, all Israel needs to do is wait another 40 years or so, and the issue will no longer be "cogent" there either. Also, many of these 260,000 individuals left by choice. Why should they be owed immigration benefits now?

Under the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed and by which it is therefor bound, it makes no difference why people leave an area of conflict, they are still owed a "right of return". This provision was enacted to prevent the kind of civilian disasters that occurred during the second world war where civilians would refuse to leave an area of conflict for fear of losing their property and ended up getting massacred. A more modern example occurred in the former Yugoslavia where Moslems fled an area of conflict only to have their land and houses taken over by Serbs.

After the Arabs left, Israel closed its borders and refused to allow them to return. It then passed, in 1950, the laws of abandonment which said that any Arab land left vacant could be confiscated by the state.

In any case, modern historians have shown that most of the Palestinians did not leave voluntarily, but were driven out by Zionist militias. I posted a link to a Haaretz article earlier in this thread which provides historical evidence supporting this.

Remember that the Arabs and Jews both had been disarmed by the British in 1939. The Jews re-armed by smuggling arms in from Czechoslovakia, whose arms makers had lost their best customer once the Nazis were defeated. The Arabs, after centuries of poverty under the Turks, had no resources with which to re-arm. In 1947, when the Zionist purges started, the Arabs were unarmed and vulnerable.

Here is the link again The 1948 Arab Evacuation of Haifa

Edited June 8, 2011 by eCitizen

[eCitizen]

America is losing interest in Israel. They might believe that with this "Arab spring thing...that it might be time to cross the floor and dump the Jews...usery works in misterious ways - so does that idiot Obama...as for a democracy in a fully racist state....impossible...but the Jews do not need democracy - they have each other and a tribe that is orgainized and tried by time. Democracy really does not even exist - for instance in America and Canada - the rich and privledged get their way no matter what - and put the common person through useless and meaningless elections -

Where is that tinfoil hat?

[eCitizen]

The JNF is a largely a private organization that can set its own parameters for who it wants to sell or lease land to. It does not support your false assertion of "discriminatory land polices". The JNF owns little-to-no land in urban areas. There is no shortage of land available in Israel owned by private individuals/organizations of the ILA from whom anyone can buy or sell. Moreover, why do you make no mention of Arab prejudice that prevents sale or renting to Jews? This is true in many Arab villages in Israel. Although less relevant, the sale of land to a Jew is punishable by death in Palestinian-administered lands in the West Bank. It's unimportant in the sense that Jews are not trying to move there, but is quite telling of prevalent anti-Semitism among Arabs that you ove to ignore.

Your intractability doesn't surprise me given your self-description. Judeosupremacism? How is that different from white supremacism? Settler Fundamentalist? I mean really. Who do you think your fooling?

The JNF Act enshrines the JNF policy of refusing to lease land to Arab citizens and is a perfect example of state approved institutional racism. Whether the JNF is a private organisation or not is irrelevant. If the Canadian government passed a Bank Act that said it is OK for the banks to refuse to lend to a particular ethnic or religious group, we would become an instant international pariah and rightly so.

You've lost the point. Move on. I'm certainly not going to waste any more time on this.

Edited June 8, 2011 by eCitizen

[Oleg Bach]

Where is that tinfoil hat?

When you use the term "tinfoil hat" with such ease and lazyness - it means you have not a lot to say. I am not big on conspiracy - seeing everybody conspires - It's a waste of time and effort to bring all the tin foilers under stern scrutiny...If you have seen what I have seen - conspiracy does not equate with some sort of mental illness - Judical systems conpire - big buisness conspires - your friends and enemys conspire with and against you...It's no big deal...now getting back to the idea of democracy. It has been said that the majority is always wrong. I firmly believe that.

[Saipan]

if you thoughht that 50% of the claims for renumeration due to the residential schools were bogus, would you use this to justify cutting off all aid to people who had been in residential schools?

They are all bogus.

Unless it is the case that Jews are allowed to immigrate to Israel because they speak Hebrew and Arabs are not allowed because tey do no speak Hebrew, I think the language issue is irrelevant.

Israeli immigration policy is Israeli immigration, not Canadian.

We should stick our nose to Chinese policy in Tibet, not to country so small one can shoot a rifle across.

[Saipan]

It has been said that the majority is always wrong.

Who said that?

Minority?

[DogOnPorch]

So...any minute now, I can expect a floatila of eCitizens to make a run into Saig...er...Ho Chi Minh City to liberate S. Viet-Nam from the evils of Communism?

Nahhhhhhhh...

:lol:

[jbg]

Under the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed and by which it is therefor bound, it makes no difference why people leave an area of conflict, they are still owed a "right of return". This provision was enacted to prevent the kind of civilian disasters that occurred during the second world war where civilians would refuse to leave an area of conflict for fear of losing their property and ended up getting massacred.

Then why weren't the surviving Jews cheerfully restored to their property post-VE Day in Europe. As nice as it may be it is impractical to freeze time as of some pre-invasion Eden. Human movements and war change things.

After the Arabs left, Israel closed its borders and refused to allow them to return. It then passed, in 1950, the laws of abandonment which said that any Arab land left vacant could be confiscated by the state.

Are any Arab countries welcoming back the Jews they expelled between 1948 and 1950?

In any case, modern historians have shown that most of the Palestinians did not leave voluntarily, but were driven out by Zionist militias. I posted a link to a Haaretz article earlier in this thread which provides historical evidence supporting this.Here is the link again The 1948 Arab Evacuation of Haifa

I responded to that link. That link correctly documented that the Arabs were planning on war and some of the civilians fled to avoid the hostilities and/or to avoid being branded traitors by returning Arabs.

Remember that the Arabs and Jews both had been disarmed by the British in 1939. The Jews re-armed by smuggling arms in from Czechoslovakia, whose arms makers had lost their best customer once the Nazis were defeated. The Arabs, after centuries of poverty under the Turks, had no resources with which to re-arm. In 1947, when the Zionist purges started, the Arabs were unarmed and vulnerable.

Thus they decided to attack rather than settle? Makes no sense.

[DogOnPorch]

the Arabs were unarmed and vulnerable

So al Husseini not only never worked for Hitler, he was now unarmed and vulnerable in 1948?

[Jack Weber]

So al Husseini not only never worked for Hitler, he was now unarmed and vulnerable in 1948?

You should ask him about those chocolate covered Juden Raus....

[Saipan]

well said.

You're joking, right?

[Saipan]

Remember that the Arabs and Jews both had been disarmed by the British in 1939.

Where did the British stash the arms? They (like French) claimed to be unprepared to fight in 1939.

The Jews re-armed by smuggling arms in from Czechoslovakia, whose arms makers had lost their best customer once the Nazis were defeated.

How much were the NAZI's paying in Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia???? Since when is "best customer" stealing from you everything you have?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Saipan

[DogOnPorch]

You should ask him about those chocolate covered Juden Raus....

Well, yeah...

[Bob]

Israel's reason for existence is to be a Jewish state. If it has to do certain things a bit differently than generic western democracies in order to preserve its character as a Jewish state, than that's what it has to do, and so be it. In fact, some western nations would do well to take a few lessons from Israel before their own demographics become irreversibly Muslim. Israel's immigration laws are not unlike those of several other nations, which give preference to people who have ancestry from or connections with that nation. Arabs in Israel have more rights and freedoms than in most other Arab countries, and furthermore are free to emigrate if they would prefer to live elsewhere.

That's exactly it, in a nutshell. There are obviously potential conflicts between the needs of Israel to be both Jewish and democratic, but Israel does a great job balancing these two values. I have stated in this forum before that when democratic values come into conflict with Israel's Jewish character, particularly if democratic values pose an existential threat to Israel's Jewish character, then the Jewish character must prevail and democratic issues be abrogated towards Israel's perseverance of its Jewish character. Of course the degree of the abrogation should be kept to the minimum necessary level.

[Bob]

There's a lot of crocodile tears shed over Arab refugees (who subsequently became "Palestinians" after the Six Day War), and never a mention of many other refugee problems created by other conflicts, which did not result in establishment of new states and was resolved by integration into other states.

Although not comparable to the Israel-Arab conflict in the sense that Israel never wages a campaign of genocide, one million Armeninans fled Turkey to escape genocide. They were absorbed into other countries. Same thing in the Algerian War of Independence, where two million refugees fled (according to Wikipedia). The most prominent component of this evacuation being the exile of 900K Pieds-Noir. There are so many examples of refugee problems being resolved by absorption into other countries. Lastly, this simple analysis doesn't take into account the responsibility for the conflict in 1948-1949 - it was the Arabs who rejected partition, not the Jews. They were given an opportunity to have sovereignty, and they refused. And they have been refusing it ever since.

As far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned, the Fourth Geneva Conventions are the part that address "right of return", and were written in 1949 for the specific purpose of undermining Israel. They were written in the aftermath of Israel's War of Independence for transparent political purposes (to "repatriate" the Arabs and destroy the Jewish demographics of the nascent state of Israel). It's irrelevant, anyways, as the "Palestinian refugees" will never "return" to Israel. End of story. It's a waste of energy even discussing such a scenario.

[bloodyminded]

Israel's reason for existence is to be a Jewish state. If it has to do certain things a bit differently than generic western democracies in order to preserve its character as a Jewish state, than that's what it has to do, and so be it. In fact, some western nations would do well to take a few lessons from Israel before their own demographics become irreversibly Muslim.

But it's profoundly different, so how would they do that?

Israel's immigration restrictions are not, and never have been, exclusionary of Muslims only. It's not about Muslims.

So who would we allow in? British descendents only? Or no Muslims allowed, but everyone else ok?

[DogOnPorch]

Ummm, yeah. We couldn't run an ad that said no Portuguese, but, ummm...no Portuguese.

---Stewie Griffin

[bloodyminded]

Ummm, yeah. We couldn't run an ad that said no Portuguese, but, ummm...no Portuguese.

---Stewie Griffin

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OId8ByO4jg

That's what all the people say...

[jbg]

So who would we allow in? British descendents only? Or no Muslims allowed, but everyone else ok?

Either:

1. country by country quotas;
   
2. setting annual immigration (including resident non-citizen) numbers low enough that they absorb faster than they enclave;
   
3. or eliminating "accomodations" such as immediate eligibility for "services" such as welfare or EI, and ESL so that they are under extreme pressure to assimilate.
   

I prefer alternative three, in other words having an open-door policy as the U.S. did before the Chinese Exclusion Acts and comprehensive immigration quotas in 1921, and Canada had until 1935. That must be coupled with placing newcomers under extreme pressure to Canadianize themselves.

[Saipan]

So who would we allow in? British descendents only?

If Canada was the size of Lake Erie, we would allow no one.