Court asked to define ‘Israeli’

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent



HAIFA // A group of Jews and Arabs are fighting in the Israeli courts to be recognised as “Israelis”, a nationality currently denied them, in a case that officials fear may threaten the country’s self-declared status as a Jewish state.

Israel refused to recognise an Israeli nationality at the country’s establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between “citizenship” and “nationality”. Although all Israelis qualify as “citizens of Israel”, the state is defined as belonging to the “Jewish nation”, meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.

Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been used to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation, access to land and employment.

The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens, most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with “Jewish” and “Arab” being the main categories.

The group’s legal case is being heard by the supreme court after a district judge rejected their petition two years ago, backing the state’s position that there is no Israeli nation.

The head of the campaign for Israeli nationality, Uzi Ornan, a retired linguistics professor, said: “It is absurd that Israel, which recognises dozens of different nationalities, refuses to recognise the one nationality it is supposed to represent.”

read on...
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100406/FOREIGN/704059795/1135

[aquart]

1. Are they also fighting in the Jordanian courts?

Hasn't Jordan just stripped citizenship from Palestinian Arabs BORN IN JORDAN?

[Ken Burch]

102. Jordan is NOT Palestine. Give it a rest.

There isn't even anybody in ISRAEL who still claims it is.

[Shaktimaan]

103. point being?

Jordan did still strip over a million of its Palestinian citizens of their citizenship in 1988, leaving them stateless. Whether some of them were born in Jordan or not is kind of immaterial to me, as once someone is a citizen they should have the same rights as any other citizen IMO, regardless of the circumstances.

So while Palestine may not be Jordan, many Palestinians certainly were Jordanians until recently.

Not to mention that Jordan insisted the West Bank belonged to it for a long time too... a determination that the Palestinians actually agreed to for quite awhile. So Jordan is not Palestine you say? Big deal. It could be. It would certainly be preferable to a single state Israel/Palestine solution that so many people here seem to espouse.

edit: I actually don't think this is the worst solution in the world, barring the eventual success of the two state plan. It's certainly better than having the status quo go on indefinately.

[Larkspur]

2. Gandhi warned that democracy and a "Jewish state", which also houses non-Jews,

would be in conflict. No other democracy in the world defines itself by a religious-ethic state.

[Christa]

3. I wish I could rec this. nt

[cali]

38. huh? of course there are others.

[Shaktimaan]

48. Well, the difference between the terms is nominal, don't you think?

Most democracies are based around an ethnic nationality. Judaism happens to be a religion as well, but Israel uses it primarily in terms of "ethnicity" or a "nation."

Think about Japan or Greece or Italy for instance. Their states are all based on a specific ethnicity/culture/language.

[Tripmann]

4. From the OP

"Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation, access to land and employment."

Descrimination tinged with apartheid, written in law.

What other first world nation could get away with this crap in the 21st century?

[shira]

5. so what's your solution to this problem?

[Tripmann]

7. Really shira? You're asking a member....

...of 'DEMOCRATIC underground' the solution to descrimination and apartheid being written in law?

Why don't you ask me the solution to those 'uppity negro' civil rights protestors

or

ask me the solution to those women who are too busy wanting the vote to know their place


While you're at it, have a think about whether supporting institutional descrimination is compatible with membership of any democratically principalled organisation.

[shira]

8. Yes, really. A real democracy there should allow for Jews within Israel to become a minority?

And with enough popular support in a more 'proper' democracy, Hamas could be elected to power?

Jews lived as a minority under other regimes, governments, and democracies the past 2500 years and things didn't work out too well for them. What makes you think reverting back to that situation is in the best interests of Jews worldwide now? What other non-Jewish nation on this planet wouldn't hesitate to immediately bring in Jews (in any number) who need to live somewhere that's safe for Jews?

[breakaleg]

9. Well then, maybe they should stop calling it a democracy.

[Tripmann]

10. Unfortunately, for you, true democracy

includes equal voting power and equal rights and protections under the law.

Oh, by the way, we're talking about Israel, not 'the jews'.

But cheers for going 1 post before mentioning hamas. Lets see if you can get to 10 without mentioning goldstone.

[azurnoir]

12. delete wrong place n/t

[shira]

14. To the extent possible w/o compromising a Jewish majority there should be equal rights for all

Anything that puts Jews in the same situation as before 1948 is unacceptable, don't you agree?

[Tripmann]

15. So, a pariah state it is then.....

cheers for being refreshingly honest and admitting to what we already know shira.

[shira]

17. Rather a pariah state then enjoy being 'PC' in the grave

You glossed over my remark that to the greatest extent possible, there should be equal rights for all Israeli citizens. If that makes for Pariah status, so be it.

And you didn't answer my question: Is it acceptable or not for Jews to be in the same situation they were in pre-1948? Is that the 'PC' solution?

[Tripmann]

18. So..

..'to the greatest extent possible' as in only to the extent that you still get the results you want in elections and still control land and citizenship. One group of people dominant over another.

I'm sure there were similar conversations about giving blacks and women the vote.

You do know the name of this board, right?

[shira]

20. You're playing the online game too....viciously attacking others for their views while hiding yours

...in order to avoid criticism.

I'll ask one last time.

Is a situation for Jews pre-1948 acceptable or not?

[Tripmann]

22. And what 'situation' are you alluding to shira?

By the way, how am I 'viciously' attacking anyone?

[shira]

23. I'm referring to the situation for worldwide Jewry some 2000 years prior to 1948

You're not aware of the situation for Jews worldwide that led to the Zionist movement in the late 19th century?

[Tripmann]

24. I'm very aware of it

Do you actually have a point or are you just trying to derail a thread again?

[shira]

25. Again, is that situation pre-1948 acceptable to you?

And when you answer that, remember which board you're on - okay? ;)

[Tripmann]

26. And I asked you to define the 'situation'

[shira]

27. Relying on a host nation or other nations to protect Jews who require it

[Tripmann]

31. Do you HONESTLY think that the current population of Israel

will be forced to roam the desert for 2000 years if arabs are given equal voting rights?

Classic.

From the same school of thought that brought us Obamas death panels.

[shira]

32. Again, you're not answering the question

It doesn't matter whether Arabs or any other people are the majority with Jews as the minority. My question is whether you feel it's acceptable that Jews should put all their safety and security concerns (and that of all other Jews worldwide) into the hands of non-Jews again.

For example, hundreds of thousands of Jews need to get out of countries X, Y, and Z now - not later - and all of them need to get out quickly. Where do they all go, without any pause or hesitation, with no Jewish controlled Israel in existence?

They're shit outta luck, right? Just like pre-1948.

And this is acceptable to you?

[Tripmann]

33. As usual you get your little

knickers in a twist and start attempting to put words in other peoples mouths.

Miraculously, a discussion about israel acting like a true democracy has been magically transformed by you into a mass exodus, cats and dogs getting married, fire and brimstone biblical shit.

This is why you're not taken seriously. Every discussion has to be railroaded down the 'poor jews' route. Not once do you consider the rights of israels arab population.

Seperate but unequal, democracy shira style.

[shira]

34. As usual, you're evasive, dismissive, and won't articulate your actual views...

....for fear of them being criticized.

Jews are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Here's an easier question for you: Suppose 300,000 Jews need to get out of countries X, Y, and Z right now. Where will they ALL be accepted without hesitation if Israel is like any other 'proper' western democracy? We're talking about 2% of the world's Jewish population now.

[Tripmann]

35. No shira

as usual you attempt to do your little control freak thing where nobody of a differing view is allowed voice an opinion usless accompanied by their views written in blood on every aspect of anything you want.

Sorry, tripmann don't play that. So you stamp your feet and hold your breath till you turn blue. I'll be debating the actual topic with the adults.

[shira]

36. So now let's pretend Israel does what you believe to be right and proper....

And now it's no longer a Jewish state. It's a democracy like the USA or UK.

My question from the last post: Suppose 300,000 Jews need to get out of countries X, Y, and Z right now. Where will 2% of the world's entire Jewish population ALL be accepted without hesitation if Israel is like any other 'proper' western democracy where Jews are no longer the majority? Where do they all go?

I realize real-life situations are a problem for those with such a black-white worldview, but...

[Tripmann]

37. So you admit Israel is not a true democracy?

Thats fine. I've no problem with israel being a pariah state once it doesn't parade itself on the world stage as a blossoming flower of democracy growing in the sands of evil arab dictatorships. Especially when it lays siege to its neighbour for democratically electing the wrong people.

[shira]

44. No, it's a democracy

"A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews."

BTW, the Gaza siege is not the result of Hamas being democratically elected. It's what Hamas did after they got elected (Kassams) that led to the siege. Israel negotiated the "Crossings" Agreement" with the PA (you should google it) and that was the exact opposite of blockading Gaza. The Crossings Agreement was to go in effect shortly after Israel's withdrawal. The PA failed to stop Hamas, Hamas then threw Fatah off rooftops, and the rest is history.

[Tripmann]

52. A dershowitz quote? Really? Thats your contribution??

Can you rustle up any non-jewish or non-palestinian quotes supporting descrimination and apartheid?

[shira]

54. Shameful response

Focus on the quote, not the author, and allow that to sink in for at least a few moments. Imagine the outright nerve you need to muster in order to be dismissive of the message.

Zionism is not racist or colonialist at its core - nor is it an excuse to support discrimination or apartheid. It's affirmative action (national liberation) for Jews, a nationality like any other in the world. To deny the nation of Jews self-determination like any other nationality is antisemitic.

[Tripmann]

56. I've no problem focusing on the quote

And I'm not being dismissive of the message itself. But you have a habit of quoting like-minded people who have themselves buried up to their armpits in the Israeli side of the I/P question. Inclusion of quotes from such people add nothing to the debate. Its just laughable to see the biggest apologist for israeli policy on the entire board do the whole "Heres a quote from a jewish zionist that agrees with me, so HA" thing as if it settles the debate.

Like I said, preferential treatment based on religion/culture is a descriminatory pariah policy. If israel chooses to do it, so be it, I can understand the argument of why they are choosing such policies. Just don't parade israel as the blossoming flower of civility and democracy in the region.

I also love how you use a quote with the words 'giving preference to jews' but glance over the blinding fact that this means descrimination against non-jews. But thats all right shira, isn't it, once its your side doing the descriminating.

This is classic.....

"It's affirmative action (national liberation) for Jews"

Says it all really :applause:

[shira]

57. well then, do you find affirmative action to be a bad idea that leads to discrimination of others?

You are aware that there are many laws or rules/regulations in Israel that affirmativly act on behalf of Israel's Arabs in preference over Jews?

Is affirmative action discriminatory/racist by definition, leading to apartheid...?

[Tripmann]

58. Affirmative action redresses discrimination

There are no jews in israel who require redress for descrimination by the nation of Israel. Wrong definition. Jewish Israelis aren't the victims here.

Flipping the argument to make out the favoured are the victims might work on fox news, it won't work on me and I doubt it will stick around here.

[shira]

59. Do you believe Zionism (Jewish self-determination) to be affirmative action?

[Tripmann]

61. Nope, and by the way you're fooling no-one

All of a sudden, shira turns descrimination against non-jews into affirmative action for jews. Lets discuss the poor jews instead of the descrimination.

Predictable.

Anyone else like to back shira up on her assertion??

[shira]

62. Do you believe from the very beginning, 19th century Zionism was an evil colonialist, racist...

enterprise to disposess and discriminate against the indigenous Arabs of the region? There was no legitimate, humane reason Jews felt they needed Israel? Zionism was racist from the start and any sympathetic Jewish narrative to the contrary is nothing but a convenient lie?

If you don't hold that position - is it somewhat close to that? Please make yourself clear.

Take your time.

[Tripmann]

67. Nope, I don't believe zionism to be racist

[shira]

70. So what is it?

If Zionism isn't racist and it's not affirmative action, then what is it?

[Tripmann]

73. Here ya go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Wikipedia is your friend.

:-)

By the way, I've better things to do than answer questions from you all day. If you have a point, make it, because your usual and always futile attempts to lead me down some little garden path won't work.

My point was in relation to descrimination. The best you could do was excuse it, not refute it. Thats fine.

[shira]

74. It's like pulling teeth sometimes

In your view - is zionism, at its essense, discriminatory against non-Jews? It's not affirmative action for Jews, so...

[Tripmann]

75. What a ridiculous question

Get back to me when you have a real one. And try not to answer that question on my behalf.

[shira]

81. Look at Shakti's #72 and #79. Do you disagree?

[Tripmann]

82. Classic

It finally dawns on you that your ridiculous questions won't be getting answered so you ask me for an opinion on someone elses comments. Whens the last time you actually discussed anything using YOUR opinions?

Couple of things....

1. If I felt the urge to comment on Shakti's posts I would have when I first read them, just like I have the ability to do for everyone elses contributions. "What do you think about what <enter username who agrees with me here> thinks??" is bollocks and won't be entertained by me.

2. When you actually have something to say instead of asking me questions and opinions on other users posts, post something that adds to the discussion. This is a discussion forum after all. You may think flying off on tangents and failing miserably to verbally paint people into corners that only exist in your head is clever, but it really says more about you than the people you try that shit on with.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

94. The point was to demonstrate that the basis for Israel's most discriminatory laws isn't racism/hate

[breakaleg]

78. Feeling the need for somthing does not allow you to take it from someone else who has it.

[Dick Dastardly]

64. Why do you only have a problem with Israel?

Similar laws in other countries
In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries. Examples include Germany<20>, Ireland, Serbia, Greece, Japan, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Chile, and Finland. (See Right of return and Repatriation laws.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return



Repatriation laws have been created in many countries to enable diasporas to immigrate ("return") to their "kin-state". This is sometimes known as the exercise of the right of return. Repatriation laws give members of the diaspora the right to immigrate to their kinstate. Repatriation laws serve to maintain close ties between the state and its diaspora and gives preferential treatment to diaspora immigrants.


States with Repatriation laws
The number of countries with repatriation laws has mushroomed since the end of Soviet communism and most independent nations that were once part of the communist domain in Europe have since legislated repatriation laws. Armenia, China, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, the Philippines, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey also have longstanding repatriation legislation.

Common law repatriation
Many other countries such as Jordan and Sweden have (or have had) generous immigration policies with regard to the nation's Diaspora without having formally enacted repatriation laws. Such states can be described as practicing common law repatriation.

Criticism
Repatriation laws are generally not controversial. The exception to this is the law of Return in Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_laws




Right of return
The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return and re-enter his country of origin. This principle is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population.

continue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

[Tripmann]

69. How do you know, dick, I 'only have a problem with Israel'

in relation to law of return?

By the way, for the european countries you listed, applications for citizenship are usually based on ancestral citizenship/marriage and are not descriminatory in nature. They are not 'similar laws' by any stretch of the imagination to the law of return. I cannot, for instance, convert to the Church of England faith and be eligible for UK citizenship. Conversely, if my parents were british I could not be denied UK citizenship on the basis that I'm a roman catholic. Such a move would be descriminatory, which has been my only argument here.

[Dick Dastardly]

85. Because you only seem to have a problem with Israels even though the laws are all similar

Obviously you didnt read any of the links because it shows the laws of other countries are certainly similar.



Here a list again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

[azurnoir]

93. Perhaps you need to read your own link

because none of countries allows immigration based on supposed ancestral residence/ethnic relationship that dates back 2,000 years India allows four generations back which would allow for those exiled during British colonialism most if not all of the other countries allow less, the one lone exception may be the Peoples Republic of China so if you wish to use that as a comparison be my guest it is the closest to Israel's law of return

[Dick Dastardly]

95. As I said the law of return or repatriation laws for each countries diaspora are similar not

the same. None of the countries laws are exactly the same as any of the others. They all reflect the differences in each countries individual circumstances, current status and histories that are unique to each. So while they are all different to one extent or another from each other they also share some major similarities such as giving preferential treatment to its diaspora.

because none of countries allows immigration based on supposed ancestral residence/ethnic relationship that dates back 2,000 years

Israel does not go back 2000 years, you have to be Jewish by birth or conversion, or have a Jewish parent or grandparent for preferential treatment. Just because an ancestor was Jewish 2000 years ago does not give you preferential treatment.

It is also untrue that no countries go back that far as these two examples show

Greece

Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
http://athens.usembassy.gov/uploads/7z/Z4/7zZ4A6EyE4dMjph5dNxFew/citizenship_code.pdf



Italy

Possibly alone in this respect, bestows citizenship jure sanguinis. There is no limit of generations for the citizenship via blood

lots of info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis



Plenty of countries go back further than Israel to give preferential treatment to its ethnic diaspora many generations removed. Only Israel is held out as being somehow illegitimate compared to the others. Only Israel is held to constant ridicule.

[Shaktimaan]

53. Give me a break...

Israel didn't lay siege to Gaza because they elected the wrong people. They elected people who then attacked Israel, which led to Israeli retaliation.

But there isn't anything wrong with holding people accountable for their elected government's policies, is there? In fact, that is one of the benefits of democracies. Israel certainly isn't obligated to treat EVERY democratic government equally just because they were all elected, is it?

One of the main things most people look at when deciding who to vote for is whether their policies will be beneficial or detrimental to the people. Just because Hamas was elected doesn't mean that Israel must (or should) treat them the same as Fatah.

Now had Hamas not been elected but still opted to attack Israel then it would have been a whole different story. In that case they would just have been a terrorist group and not the representative government of Gaza.

[cali]

39. Citizens of Israel who are of Arab descent do have equal voting rights

The question is should citizens of the West Bank and Gaza have voting rights within Israel.

[Tripmann]

40. The question WAS is the following compatible with democracy.....

"Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation, access to land and employment."

Unfortunately the question was predictably derailed.

[cali]

41. as to the original question

I don't think democracy means what you think it means. A state can be a democracy and do those things, but then it's a democracy without equal civil rights for all its citizens.

[Tripmann]

42. Would you consider such a state to

be discriminatory, borderline apartheid even?

[cali]

43. yes. the occupaton has created a discriminatory system

[Shaktimaan]

49. By definition it would be discriminatory, wouldn't it?

If the laws serve to discriminate... right?

But apartheid? That would depend on what the laws were. Mere discrimination doesn't automatically imply apartheid. Was America before the civil rights laws of the 60's an apartheid state? No, of course not.

[LeftishBrit]

92. Not quite that simple IMO

'Was America before the civil rights laws of the 60's an apartheid state?'

America as a whole - definitely not.

Those states where the Jim Crow laws were applied most rigidly - arguably, yes.

Israel as a whole - no.

The Occupied Territories - arguably yes.

'Apartheid' to me involves any situation where different groups are largely kept apart and dealt with differently, *and* where this involves clear discrimination against one group. This would certainly apply to many countries. E.g. at least until very recently China practiced what could have been described as apartheid between urban and rural citizens; and Saudi Arabia practices apartheid against women.

[DRex]

106. Really? I'd rather die with honor.

Give me liberty or give me death.

[shaayecanaan]

45. Does that extend to sterilising Arabs if they have too many babies? -nt-

[shira]

46. nah, just using blood for Matza - don't be ridiculous.

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

47. Its going to be a bit hard to guarantee a Jewish majority then, surely? -nt-

[Shaktimaan]

50. Shira, don't you see any problems with that idea?

Convictions are only really as strong as their basest compromise.

If Israel can only guarantee equal rights up until it begins affecting the obviously preferred group then those rights were never very equal to begin with. It's sort of like having civil rights in america, provided no black person becomes president.

There is no question that Arabs are discriminated against in Israel, or that Israel is in a very difficult position regarding some of the tenets of democracy running up against the very real problems it faces. The solution won't be quick nor will it be pretty. Democracies never are, after all.

[shira]

55. Of course, but the alternative is worse. It's a no-win situation.

The alternative is to make Israel a secular democratic NON-Jewish state which would no longer serve as an automatic place of asylum for worldwide Jewry and would ultimately lead to Jews making up a minority of the population. Whether the majority is Arab, French, or Korean doesn't matter. Whether a future president of Israel is Arab, French, or Korean shouldn't matter. That said, if Israel is to sustain its Jewish majority and has to discriminate in order to do it, then at the very least it should discriminate equally among all non-Jews and not single out Arabs.

[Shaktimaan]

66. Yeah, to be honest I don't know what the answer is.

I am uncomfortable taking stances on issues like these prior to the issue actually existing. Like everything else it is impossible to even think about unless we know all the details. But it isn't a real problem anyway, it's just a kind of mental sparring game we play here where each person tries to prove that the other holds some kind of unsavory beliefs, (and then that person "wins" by being ethically superior, I guess.) And yes, I realize that I play this game too.

But ultimately everyone here wants basically the same things, (with some notable exceptions.) No one wants to destroy the Jews or the Palestinians or anything like that. We always argue over the tiny details of fact and political compromise because to solve almost all of the big issues in this conflict it will require compromise away from what we'd all really prefer. If it were up to me, everyone would get a lush state with plenty of land and some friendly farm animals to boot. But since there's not enough of anything to go around we end up arguing, and judging each other based on our ideas of ethics, justice, realism, fairness and so on.

So bearing that in mind, unless we can actually discuss the nitty gritty details of this hypothetical situation then we don't know if there is a better solution that doesn't require us to answer the question... "What's more important... equality for the Palestinians or security for the Jews?" Reality isn't usually quite so stark, simplistic or satisfying as that, you know?


*OK, I'll get off the soapbox/high horse now.

[azurnoir]

11. Answer to your question as to what country would bring in

Jews? America would these days as to Jews being a minority Jews are a minority on a global scale if Israel wants to be the Jewish State then it should stop trying to keep up the pretense of any type of equality for non-Jews

[shira]

16. America? Pre-1948 that wasn't the situation, now was it?

Are you sure America would do this now?

And why would America take in Jewish refugees from anywhere, at any time, in any number and not do the same WRT any other people on the planet? Wouldn't this preferential treatment be unfair to other persecuted people worldwide?

[azurnoir]

19. But it not pre 1948 anymore is it?

and do to the shame America suffered as a result of it's actions has benefited Israel has it not? as to your assertion about America taking in refugees from other countries what other group has as much representation in the American government, is it fair no, is it reality yes

[shira]

21. I brought up 1948 to show that at the time, no other country would take Jews in

Israel was the only choice.

Just as it is now for ANY Jew anywhere in the world who seeks immediate safety or asylum.

You probably don't realize it, but your comment...

"as to your assertion about America taking in refugees from other countries what other group has as much representation in the American government, is it fair no, is it reality yes"

...would only add fuel to the fire that Jews own America and it would lead to even more resentment and hatred.

[azurnoir]

29. Oh no I realized it or at least how it would be played

just as I knew you would bring up the pre WW2 America's rejection of Jewish immigration

now as to fueling assertions that Jews own America who would do that? You see the reality here is that the parties that would bring such a thing up are a small minority and would be shouted down in short order, especially when one takes into consideration the fact that most likely place for Jewish refugees to be coming from these days is Iran

[shira]

28. almost missed this one...

You wrote:

"and do to the shame America suffered as a result of it's actions has benefited Israel has it not? "

What exactly do you mean by that? Can you be clear please?

[azurnoir]

30. Ah yes it's quite easy

America not to mention most of the rest of the Western world has had a well deserved guilty conscious about the Holocaust and it's collective failure to act Israel came into being in part do to that and the support afforded Israel since by western nations the US being only one and not even the main player until recently has stemmed from that guilt

[breakaleg]

6. Isn't that interesting.

[Shaktimaan]

51. Here's the thing...

as with most other issues, this one isn't exactly black and white either.

It's obvious that the defacto and official segregation between ethnicities in Israel are huge obstacles to unifying the country as a single nation. I mean it's ridiculous in this day and age to have separate schools for Arab and Jewish kids, different laws governing their marriage and divorces. The fact that they are unable to marry outside of their specific group is totally disgusting and runs counter to the ideals of any liberal democracy worth its salt.

While it is possible to get an ID card without a nationality labeled, they don't make it easy. Nor is any Arab kid who wants to go to an Israeli school exactly welcomed, even though it is technically possible. I actually know an Israeli Arab who served in the IDF and got an ID without his ethnicity being labeled. He was an orphan who was raised in a kibbutz by secular (but Jewish) Israelis, and he identified with being Israeli over Palestinian. But that isn't to say he didn't have any identity issues while growing up.

That said, in Israel there isn't any easy solution to these problems. The fact that there has been a very long running conflict there split down ethnic lines isn't exactly something you can ignore while discussing these issues. This isn't an problem of simple racism and can't be solved as easily as it might seem. I'll give you an example: The Israeli Army. Right now all Jews and Druze have to give a few years of their lives to the IDF and then be reservists for decades after. People who serve get certain benefits... the author is probably referring to some of these as some of the discriminatory laws which favor Jews. While Israeli Arabs can certainly serve if they want to, they aren't forced to. Nor are they encouraged to.

Now, any war that Israel fights would probably involve fighting Arabs. Serving in the territories would be seen by the Palestinian Arabs as a total betrayal. But equal rights also means equal responsibilities, right? And even before the civil rights era, black soldiers certainly fought and died for America, even though we treated them as second class citizens. Is it fair, (or realistic) to expect the same level of commitment from Arab citizens of Israel?

And this gets closer to the heart of the issues. If the Arabs collectively did decide to serve then it would demonstrate a commitment to the nation of Israel that would do a lot to change their perceptions among Israeli Jews. But could you imagine Israel trying to force Israeli Arabs to serve or face jail, as secular Jews do? Can you imagine Israeli Arabs deciding en masse to sign up for the IDF?

Of course not every issue is this problematic. I was just giving an example of an issue that lacks a clear ethical solution.

[kayecy]

60. You point out some obvious difficulties but miss the main one........

Israel claims to be the Jewish State.......That, in a nutshell is the main problem.....This definition immediately makes any Israeli citizen who is not Jewish, a 2nd-class citizen.....This could be overcome if the state encouraged its 2nd-class citizens to become Jewish, but it doesn't does it?.....How can you reasonably expect any 2nd-class citizen to be a whole hearted supporter, IDF soldier etc if the state puts an almost insurmountable barrier up to him ever becoming a 1st-Class citizen?.

Restricting privileges by tying them to IDF service is a convenient cover......The state could, if it wanted, recognize that the Jewish State by definition forces Israeli Arabs to be 2nd-class citizens and therefore the last thing it should be doing is to use some arbitrary qualification (IDF service) as a means of reducing their privileges still further.

[Shaktimaan]

65. See, I disagree with you here.

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. But nothing about that fact automatically makes non-Jews second class citizens.

Most countries in the world, (including most democracies) are based around a central ethnicity/culture/language/etc. "Melting pot" nations like America are the exception. And there's nothing wrong with this. The UN and international law has time and again recognized the right of states to align themselves with a specific nation (or ethnicity, etc.) that they share a common heritage with. In fact it is the original basis for our planet's current system of nation-states.

In this way Israel isn't any different than states like Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. All of these states have minority groups who don't share the same heritage as the state's majority ethnicity. ("Ethnicity" isn't a perfect word to use here but for the sake of simplicity I'm just going to use it as a catch all.) The fact that a specific state exists which invests itself in the welfare of a given ethnicity is not generally considered racist or a kind of cover to oppress minorities. It is the state of the world and is considered normal, and in most cases, beneficial. It certainly wouldn't be hard to argue for the need of a Palestinian state. Nor is it clear to me how having such a state would automatically designate any non-Palestinians living there to be second class citizens.

How can you reasonably expect any 2nd-class citizen to be a whole hearted supporter, IDF soldier etc if the state puts an almost insurmountable barrier up to him ever becoming a 1st-Class citizen?

Well, that's just the thing. Do you think that Israeli Arabs today face a substantially higher barrier to equal treatment than black Americans in the early 40's did? I actually don't have any desire to start measuring the legitimate suffering of either group against each other, I'm just making a point. Regardless of the discrimination that existed in America everyone still considered themselves American. Black Americans still fought in every war despite the fact that they had no opportunity for equality.

Now, I am not suggesting that I think Israeli Arabs should all join the IDF. Nor am I downplaying the very real discrimination that exists against Arabs in Israel today. What I am saying is that viewing anti-Arab discrimination in Israel strictly through the lens of the American civil rights experience will result in a distorted understanding of the problems and potential solutions.

Arab Israelis are not abstaining from joining the IDF because they are treated like second class citizens. The conflict is split down ethnic lines and the IDF and the Arabs are on opposite sides. Of course Israel can't expect them to join. They might face family members as opponents. But then, of course Israeli Jews and Druze will occasionally question which side the Israeli Arabs are truly on. And of course not participating in the army leaves the Israeli Arabs disadvantaged in some ways. But then, would it be fair to offer equal benefits to those who did not serve? (After all, while everyone receives the benefits of having a strong army, not everyone has to pay the costs of actually serving.)

My point is that paying lip service to equality is an easy and expected thing to do. However the reality of what equality actually means is complex and difficult. That doesn't mean we should just abandon the goal. Far from it. It does mean that making sweeping criticism is usually unhelpful. It is usually pretty easy to point out what is wrong in any given situation. It is much harder to find a solution that doesn't cause even more problems. (Generally speaking of course. Sometimes you really are dealing with xenophobic racists and then the solution is usually much more obvious.)

[kayecy]

68. We really must expose this commonly-held belief for the nonsense it is..........

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. But nothing about that fact automatically makes non-Jews second class citizens.

We really must expose this commonly-held belief for the nonsense it is.

Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000:
The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation.

Perhaps you can explain how 'discrimination' is different from '2nd-class'


Extract from the official 60 year celebrations "In the Footsteps of the 1948 Combatants":
The "In the footsteps of the 1948 combatants" march is designed to connect the youth with their roots and to strengthen their identification with Israel's heroes who fought for the creation of the State and for the liberation of Jerusalem.

You say that in this way Israel isn't any different than states like Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia.....I can think of no other democratic state which makes it so clear that the state's heroes are all of the majority ethnic group.....Wouldn't you feel 2nd class if the US made it clear that only non-Jews contributed to the state's independence, and even worse, that independence was achieved by Anglo-Saxon heroes overcoming invading Jews?


Citizenship and Entry Law
On July 31, 2003 Israel enacted the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), 5763-2003, a one year amendment to Israel's Citizenship Law denying citizenship and Israeli residence to Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza Strip and who marry Israelis.

I am sure the number of Israeli-Jews affected by this law is negligible.....Is there a similar law in any other Western democracy?


Education
The Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education notes that the Israeli government spends an average of $192 per year on each Arab student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student....... The same group also notes that there is a 5,000-classroom shortage in the Arab sector.

What is the justification for this discrepancy in education spending?


Employment
Of the 40 towns in Israel with the highest unemployment rates, 36 are Arab towns.<61> According to the Central Bank of Israel statistics for 2003, salary averages for Arab workers are 29% lower than for Jewish workers.

Difficulties in procuring employment have been attributed to a comparatively low level of education vis-a-vis their Jewish counterparts, insufficient employment opportunities in the vicinity of their towns, discrimination by Jewish employers.....

If you were rejected for a job in the US because you were Jewish, would that not make you feel inferior?
.
.

[Shaktimaan]

72. Hmm, you are missing the point here.

Discrimination and "second class" are not especially different. Either term works for the purpose of our discussion. But I was never arguing that anti-Arab discrimination doesn't exist in Israel. Quite the opposite... I even bolded it so it would stand out.

I WAS saying that Israel being a Jewish state does not automatically relegate non-Jews to a second class status, as you were arguing. If that were the case then wouldn't every other country with an ethnic national identity have the same problem?

I can think of no other democratic state which makes it so clear that the state's heroes are all of the majority ethnic group

What are you talking about? There are plenty of famous, accomplished Israeli Arabs. Nazar Mahmud is a famous figure skater. Walid Badir is a soccer star. Ashraf Barhom is a well-known actor. Salim Joubran was the first Arab Supreme Court justice. Sayed Kashua is the star of a sit-com about the issues Israeli Arabs face; it has a majority Arab cast. Reda Mansour is the former ambassador to Ecuador. Yusef Mishlab is a former IDF general. Angelina Fares won the Ms. Israel contest.

And Majalli Wahbee is a former PRESIDENT (not Prime Minister) of Israel.

There are plenty of Israeli Arab "heroes." If you are looking for examples of Arabs who specifically helped Israel gain independence in 1948 you obviously aren't going to find any. There WAS a war between the two groups, after all. And for the first several years Arabs truly were treated as security threats... they were very much second class citizens. (But still not as bad as the US treated its Japanese citizens at roughly the same time of course.) But I hardly think this fact then means that Israeli Arabs were forever doomed to live like that.

Wouldn't you feel 2nd class if the US made it clear that only non-Jews contributed to the state's independence

No. To my knowledge there were not any Jews who played a significant role in America's war for independence. Is this really an argument you want to explore?

On July 31, 2003 Israel enacted the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), 5763-2003, a one year amendment to Israel's Citizenship Law denying citizenship and Israeli residence to Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza Strip and who marry Israelis.

Now THIS is truly an example of discrimination against Israeli Arabs that is both obvious and truly disgusting. But as I was saying, discrimination against Arabs exists... without a doubt, (usually not in so blatant a fashion though.) I am not in favor of this law but I will say a few things in defense of it as it applies specifically to your argument. This law was enacted during the second intifada when a security threat did (and still does) in fact exist. The provisions of the law itself demonstrate that it is really about security, (although it is undeniably discriminatory.) For instance it only applies to men under 35, or women under 25.

But the best evidence that this is not a great example of a two tiered system is its very existence. This law was argued right up to the supreme court where it was very narrowly passed. It is temporary by nature and has to be renewed every year. And (most importantly) is the fact that this is the worst thing by far that I was able to find. If there was really the kind of system you're insisting on, then where are the laws discriminating against Druze? hey aren't Jewish but also don't pose a security threat.

Again, no one doubts that this is discrimination. But your argument was that the very NATURE of a state that identifies itself as Jewish means that all non-Jews are second class citizens. But aside from this single (albeit extremely relevant) example all you've demonstrated is garden variety discrimination. Hey, even switzerland has banned the building of minarets recently, while France has banned the hijab at public schools. Discrimination certainly exists. Especially in Israel.

But you have yet to demonstrate that it is due to Israel's identification as a Jewish state and not the fact that there has been a conflict between Arabs and Jews for the better part of a century.

[kayecy]

76. You have answered the first point yourself.......

I WAS saying that Israel being a Jewish state does not automatically relegate non-Jews to a second class status, as you were arguing. If that were the case then wouldn't every other country with an ethnic national identity have the same problem?

Yes it would - if such countries so described themselves.....Which democratic counties are you referring to?...Russia does not claim to be a Slav-Russian state, Germany a European-German state or Italy a Mediterranean-Italian State....Japan is to some extent a Japanese-Japanese state and non-Japanese citizens, particularly Japanese-Koreans are relegated to a second-class status.....Any more examples you care to offer?

There are plenty of Israeli Arab "heroes." If you are looking for examples of Arabs who specifically helped Israel gain independence in 1948 you obviously aren't going to find any.

Don't muddy the question with talk of figure-skaters and actors......I quoted the official 60 year celebrations "In the Footsteps of the 1948 Combatants" and asked how you (or an Indian if you can't use your imagination) would feel if the US celebrated its Caucasian-heroes for the heroic deeds in killing Jews (or Indians).....Pretty 2nd class I imagine.

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. But nothing about that fact automatically makes non-Jews second class citizens...

Since you havn't supplied another example of a western democratic ethnic-State, the word 'automatically' is meaningless....What you seem unable to grasp is that Israel, by defining itself in terms of ethnicity is sending a message to its Jewish extremists as well as its non-Jewish population that non-Jews are 2nd-class......You, and most progressive Israeli-Jews may not see it that way but the Jewish far-right and Arab-Israelis certainly do.

The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel have stated "The absence of constitutional equality for the Arab minority and the fundamental definition of the State as Jewish have permitted a system of structural and institutional discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel. At least twenty Israeli laws discriminate against the Arab minority, either by excluding the Arab minority while providing specific rights to the Jewish population, according different rights to different sectors of the population, or by abridging the rights of the Arab minority."
.
.

[Shaktimaan]

79. Let me stop you right away...

Your initial premise is flawed.

Yes it would - if such countries so described themselves.....Which democratic counties are you referring to?...Russia does not claim to be a Slav-Russian state, Germany a European-German state or Italy a Mediterranean-Italian State

And Israel doesn't refer to itself as anything like that either. None of those things are the equivalent of "the Jewish state." Italy is the Italian state. Greece is the Greek state. Israel is the Jewish state. That's how it works. You see, all of those are examples of states that are based on a specific nationality. Israel is exactly the same. "Jewish" as it relates to the state of Israel does not really refer to the religion but the nationality. In fact, that is the whole point of the OP. There is a distinction between the state of Israel and the Jews as a nation. And just as someone can be a citizen of Italy without being Italian someone can be Israeli without being Jewish. Nothing about either implies a second rate status within the states of either Israel or Italy.

Judaism as a nationality shares the same characteristics as Italian as a nationality or Greek as a nationality or so on. Certainly no one ever implied that Israel was just an Ashkenazi-Jewish state, which is what your examples suggest.

If you still see a huge difference between Israel and these other states, then consider that all of them have their own repatriation laws as well, giving preferential emigration status to members of their respective diasporas.

Don't muddy the question with talk of figure-skaters and actors......I quoted the official 60 year celebrations "In the Footsteps of the 1948 Combatants" and asked how you (or an Indian if you can't use your imagination) would feel if the US celebrated its Caucasian-heroes for the heroic deeds in killing Jews (or Indians).....Pretty 2nd class I imagine.

I obviously don't understand what your question is then. I think it is obvious that there is a schism within Israel that goes back to the fact that the historic victory for Israel was a loss for the Palestinians. The same is obviously true of the American Indians... in fact that is a great example. The last time I looked at a 20 dollar bill we DO celebrate the very people who massacred thousands of Indians. Nothing about that implies that Indians are somehow afforded second class status now though.

Obviously the history of Israel's creation makes reconciliation difficult, (to say the least.) I am sure that many Israeli Arabs wrestle with these issues. It is precisely this history that informs the complexity of tackling discrimination problems. And YES... as minority nationalities in Israel the Palestinians probably have conflicting feelings. As I am sure many minority nationalities living in states affiliated with a majority nationality do, but obviously even moreso in this case because of the history.

Since you haven't supplied another example of a western democratic ethnic-State, the word 'automatically' is meaningless....What you seem unable to grasp is that Israel, by defining itself in terms of ethnicity is sending a message to its Jewish extremists as well as its non-Jewish population that non-Jews are 2nd-class......You, and most progressive Israeli-Jews may not see it that way but the Jewish far-right and Arab-Israelis certainly do.

Well, I did give you plenty of examples. There is no difference between the act of self-determination as practiced by the Italians or Germans or Jews. All are examples of nations of people taking responsibility for their fates. The main difference is that it has long been known that there are different rules for Israel than there are for the rest of the planet. Singling Israel out for criticism when they do things that are considered innocuous everywhere else on the planet is nothing new. Perhaps white supremacists see coded meaning in the fact that we chose andrew jackson to grace out $20 bills as well. The fact is there is nothing new or wrong with basing a state on a specific nationality and the practice of doing so provides a critical need for many people. Can you really argue that the Palestinians are not in dire need of their own state? A state that all of the Palestinian refugees can then emigrate to? I hope not. I wonder if The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel is against forming a state specifically based on the Palestinian nationality?

The fact of the matter is that identifying with a specific nationality is not a pre-requisite for discrimination. America seemed to have no problem choosing a dominant ethnicity while oppressing many minorities. Again I'd refer you to the Japanese internment during WWII. In contrast to that famous submission to xenophobia I'd like to leave you with a quote from Ben Gurion's Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel in 1948.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

[kayecy]

80. Why flawed?....Only Israel claims to be an ethnic state..........

Italy is the Italian state. Greece is the Greek state. Israel is the Jewish state. That's how it works. You see, all of those are examples of states that are based on a specific nationality. Israel is exactly the same.

You are wrong....Israel is not exactly the same....Israel defines itself as an ethnic state.....If it defined itself as other states do, it would say it was an 'Israeli-state' but this would of course would mean it was a state for all its citizens......

If you still see a huge difference between Israel and these other states, then consider that all of them have their own repatriation laws as well, giving preferential emigration status to members of their respective diasporas..

True, for some states, but non of them, as far as I am aware, give preferential immigration status to a particular ethnic group of its diaspora, be it Caucasian-Italians, Jewish-Italians, Arab-Italians or whatever.....

The fact is there is nothing new or wrong with basing a state on a specific nationality and the practice of doing so provides a critical need for many people...

You are right, but now replace 'specific nationality' with 'specific ethnicity' and you will see that your claim that there is nothing new or wrong no longer holds water.....

[Dick Dastardly]

84. That is false

"True, for some states, but non of them, as far as I am aware, give preferential immigration status to a particular ethnic group of its diaspora, be it Caucasian-Italians, Jewish-Italians, Arab-Italians or whatever....."

"You are right, but now replace 'specific nationality' with 'specific ethnicity' and you will see that your claim that there is nothing new or wrong no longer holds water....."

See post 80


Similar laws in other countries
In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries. Examples include Germany<20>, Ireland, Serbia, Greece, Japan, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Chile, and Finland. (See Right of return and Repatriation laws.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return



You can be a black Jew, caucasian Jew or a Jew of any race. Israel does not give preferential treatment to only a specific ethnic group of Jews

The Law of Return is Israeli legislation, enacted in 1950, that gives Jews the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship. A 1970 amendment stated that the rights "are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew". This resulted in several hundreds of thousands of persons fitting with the above criteria emigrating to Israel (mainly from the former Soviet Union) but not being recognised as Jews by the Israeli religious authorities, which on the basis of the halakha recognise only the child of a Jewish mother as being Jewish. Moreover, some of these immigrants, though having a Jewish grandparent, are known to be practicing Christians.



Here is a list of countries and as you can see their laws are similar to Israels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

[kayecy]

88. I must ask you to explain how German, Irish etc immigration law is similar to Israel's.........

Taking Germany as an example, I looked up your reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return, and saw under 'Germany',the relevant statement:

As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person"....

I then looked up Article 116 of the German Basic Law and found that it was a definition NOT a law and defines what is meant by "German" in the Basic Law:

Article 116
(1) Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.

(2) Former German citizens who between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945 were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial, or religious grounds, and their descendants, shall on application have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after May 8, 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.

I am not a lawyer but I think the intention of this definition was to allow Germans evicted from Germany under Hitler to re-claim citizenship......I think you will agree this is nothing like the intention of Israel's Law of Return.

A more relevant legislation is The German Immigration Act 2005:http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/WillkommeninD/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/Zuwanderungsrecht.html

Or for more readable details see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

"Immigration to Germany as a non-EU-citizen is still limited to skilled workers (individuals with either a university or polytechnic degree or at least 3 years of training together with job experience), students and their immediate family members........
Any person married to a German person may immigrate to Germany".

I have found no reference to "Ethnic Germans" or "Ethnic Irish" in any of the legislation I have looked at....Am I missing something?.......Do you have a more exact reference to German or Irish ethnic immigration laws?

[Shaktimaan]

96. Sorry, been busy.

Honestly I do think there are issues with Israel's right of return. That said, I do still support it and find it to be well within what is considered normal by democratic standards.

Rather than go over your comment point by point I'll refer you to a paper that I think addresses most of them, as well as the broader issues at hand. It's a pdf, but well worth downloading IMO.

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/YakobsonRubinstein2005.pdf

enjoy!

[kayecy]

97. An interesting reference, but look at the flaws I've found!.....

Shaktimaan
Thank you for that reference...With all its notes, it took some reading and Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein have clearly spent some time on researching the subject...As I see it, the flaws in the article are as follows:

The authors are hardly unbiased...I would like to read a similar article from more objective, independent researchers.

The authors cite the often quoted "International Convention on Racial Discrimination", Section 1 (3) to support their arguments, when in fact it does no such thing. (Look carefully at the wording!)

In the chapter headed “The Law of Return and International Norms of Civil Equality”, the authors attempt to show that the German Constitution has similar immigration provisions when in fact, as I showed in my previous message, the German law, unlike Israel's LoR, does not exclude ethnic Arab-Germans, ethnic Jewish-Germans etc.

The remainder of the article gives detailed examples showing that giving rights to diaspora is not that unusual (Ireland, Greece, Denmark, India etc), but look again and the authors are ‘pulling the wool over your eyes'...They make the statement:

‘All of these international agreements are based on the assumption that nation-states may have a legitimate interest in the fate of those it sees as members of its own ethnic-cultural people who live outside its borders’

The above statement is the crux of the matter...Does Israel claim that its 'own ethnic-cultural people' are Jews, and only Jews?...If your answer is yes, then you must believe that a state has the moral right to discount a significant minority of its citizens in defining its ethnic-culture...I can think of no other western state with a 20% ethnic minority that, in effect, limits immigration to the ethnicity of its 80% majority.

Taking a few of the authors attempts to claim that an LoR is not unusual:

Ireland: Irish immigration refers to Irish descent but not ethnicity. Does Israel’s LoR refer to “Israeli descent”?

Greece: Greek law welcomes members of the Greek diaspora, but ethnic Greeks compose 98% of the Greek population. Would you say this example justified Israel’s LoR?

Denmark: “Bonn and Copenhagen agreement between Germany and Denmark that protects the cultural and language rights of Danes who live in northern Germany and of Germans who live southern Denmark”....Interesting, but hardly comparable to the Israeli LoR!

India: (13.5% Moslem minority) The authors claim this is an example of a state giving preference to foreigners of Indian descent. Their claim is true, but what the authors don’t say is that the Indian Foreigners Act makes no reference to Hindu Foreigners and does not exclude Moslems Foreigners

Can you imagine, say the Canadians having an immigration law that welcomed white Anglo Saxons but refused applicants who were descendants of Canadian ‘First Nation’ ethnicity (3.5% of the population)?

Do you still claim that Israel's LoR "is considered normal by democratic standards"?



Sorry you are so busy...Take as much time as you like to respond...If you can think of any example of a western state with a significant ethnic minority that has an LoR like Israel's, I would very much like to check its immigration laws.
.
.

[Shaktimaan]

98. wait...

so you're saying that the main issue with Israel now is that their minority is big enough that it is unfair? Why does the size of the minority population matter? Especially bearing in mind that the rest of the middle east is almost entirely dedicated to that specific ethnic group.

The above statement is the crux of the matter...Does Israel claim that its 'own ethnic-cultural people' are Jews, and only Jews?... If your answer is yes, then you must believe that a state has the moral right to discount a significant minority of its citizens in defining its ethnic-culture...I can think of no other western state with a 20% ethnic minority that, in effect, limits immigration to the ethnicity of its 80% majority.

Actually, I can't think of a single one, including Israel. Israel does not limit it's immigration to a single ethnicity. In fact, as it has been pointed out, you do not even need to be Jewish to qualify under the right of return laws. You CERTAINLY don't to immigrate under normal rules.

unlike Israel's LoR, does not exclude ethnic Arab-Germans, ethnic Jewish-Germans etc.

Israel's law of return does absolutely nothing of the sort. Nearly half of Israel's Jewish population is of Arab descent. What group do you think the Israeli ROR is excluding?

I think you are missing the point of the article. It is not that every situation is identical but that democratic standards permit states a wide berth in setting standards for themselves. The concept of states having an ethnic kin living outside its borders that they confer certain benefits to is not problematic.

As a matter of history Israel's situation would of course be different from most European states. I don't have a problem with this. I actually have more of a problem with the idea that you seem to think it's OK to discriminate against a minority (if this sort of preferential treatment does in fact constitute discrimination) if that population is small enough relative to the majority. I disagree. Either it is discrimination, or it is not. If it is not discriminatory for 7% then why does it suddenly become so when we are talking about 20%?

[kayecy]

101. Not at all......What I am saying is...........

Israel's law of return does absolutely nothing of the sort. Nearly half of Israel's Jewish population is of Arab descent. What group do you think the Israeli ROR is excluding?

Please, let’s not argue about semantics...I’ll use whatever word you like to mean “religeous and cultural Jews who qualify under the LoR”...The vast majority of immigrants entering Israel under the LoR are of Jewish extraction...I use the word Jewish ‘ethnic group’ but tell me a better word and I will use it...Arabs are usually considered to be a panethnic group and naturally some of them are ethnic Jews.

What point are you trying to make?

so you're saying that the main issue with Israel now is that their minority is big enough that it is unfair? Why does the size of the minority population matter?

An LoR like Israel’s would be wrong no matter how small the minority...The larger the ethnic minority that it discriminates against, the greater the wrong...The Greek ethnic LoR is wrong and undemocratic but the ethnic minorities it discriminates against comprise less than 0.5% of the state’s citizens...For Israel, with a 20% ethnic minority, to enact a LoR specifically in favour of ethnic Jews who also comprise its 80% majority is far worse.

Israel does not limit it's immigration to a single ethnicity. In fact, as it has been pointed out, you do not even need to be Jewish to qualify under the right of return laws. You CERTAINLY don't to immigrate under normal rules.

Lets talk about realities shall we?...The 1970 amendment to the LoR states “The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952 law........are vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew”

This, in practice, makes it almost impossible for non-Jewish Arabs to apply for immigration...You are correct that any person of any ethnic group can apply for normal immigration to Israel, but again, in practice, the percentage of Arab would-be immigrants accepted under this provision is minuscule.

The LoR was specifically designed to encourage immigration by one ethnicity/culture, partially to give threatened US(!!), European and Middle Eastern Jews a sanctuary in case of future persecution under Nuremberg-type laws and partly to ensure that Israel remained a Jewish-majority state...To give New York Jews an automatic right to become Israeli citizens, simply because they are of the same ethnicity as Israel’s majority and yet in, effect, ban Palestinians who are the same ethnicity as 20% of Israelis and have ancestral claims to the land, is to give Arab extremists yet one more reason not to make peace with Israel.

The concept of states having an ethnic kin living outside its borders that they confer certain benefits to is not problematic.

I don't like it but it is quite common......What I want you to tell me is exactly what you consider are the 'ethnic-kins' of Israelis?.....Jews and Palestinian Arabs or Jews alone?......I asked you that before and I’m still waiting for your answer!
.
.

[Shaktimaan]

104. back again.

Please, let’s not argue about semantics...I’ll use whatever word you like to mean “religeous and cultural Jews who qualify under the LoR”...The vast majority of immigrants entering Israel under the LoR are of Jewish extraction...I use the word Jewish ‘ethnic group’ but tell me a better word and I will use it...Arabs are usually considered to be a panethnic group and naturally some of them are ethnic Jews.

What point are you trying to make?

My point is that Judaism in regards to Israel doesn't fit the standard definitions of either an ethnicity, race or religion. For our purposes it is a nationality, the same as Irish, German, etc. Your point that Germany's LOR doesn't exclude Arab-Germans or Jewish-Germans isn't an appropriate parallel, as Israel does not exclude Arab-Jews, Black-Jews, etc either. The qualification for any group to be considered a nationality is self-determination, thus the fact that Israel considers itself the Jewish state specifies Judaism as its nationality. The main difference here is one of semantics. Were Israel instead named Judah the similarities would be clearer.

And just as in Germany this nationality is based upon an ethnic connection. While it might not specifically exclude Arab-Germans, in practice this distinction is meaningless as the Germans the LOR are meant to aid are of the majority Germanic ethnicity. (With the exception of Jews forced to leave during the Holocaust.) As a practical matter, there are probably no Arab-Germans or Black-Germans that would qualify.

One can be a German citizen without being ethnically German, just as Arab-Israelis are citizens without being "nationally" Jewish. (Ultimately all of these words are extremely subjective with blurry boundaries between them anyway. My main point here is that "German" can refer to more than one category.)

Incidentally, most of the people now entering Israel via the LOR are not actually Jewish. They may have a spouse or a grandparent who was/is technically Jewish, but they do not meet the standard set by the Halacha laws themselves.

An LoR like Israel’s would be wrong no matter how small the minority...The larger the ethnic minority that it discriminates against, the greater the wrong...The Greek ethnic LoR is wrong and undemocratic but the ethnic minorities it discriminates against comprise less than 0.5% of the state’s citizens...For Israel, with a 20% ethnic minority, to enact a LoR specifically in favour of ethnic Jews who also comprise its 80% majority is far worse.

Here's where our opinions differ greatly. I fail to see how a LOR based on ethnicity is in any way discriminatory against the minority population. Discrimination occurs within a state's borders against minorities who are citizens. While immigration laws concern themselves entirely with people who are not yet citizens. It does not negatively impact the minority citizens who are already Israeli, they are protected under equal rights laws. Basing immigration laws partly on ethnicity impacts the people seeking citizenship, but discrimination against non-citizens does not affect a nation's democratic standing. A nation being democratic refers solely to it's internal political system, not how it deals with non-citizens.

To reiterate the point, a LOR doesn't discriminate against Israel's Arab citizens in any way.

To give New York Jews an automatic right to become Israeli citizens, simply because they are of the same ethnicity as Israel’s majority and yet in, effect, ban Palestinians who are the same ethnicity as 20% of Israelis and have ancestral claims to the land, is to give Arab extremists yet one more reason not to make peace with Israel.

I doubt that the Arab states care very much one way or the other. But what Arab extremists think of Israel doesn't have much to do with whether or not Israel is democratic anyway. The rationale behind Israel's LOR, and Zionism in general, to provide a safe haven for Jews is honorable and just. To establish a state with the goal of providing a nationality with self-determination is equally problem-free in my view.

If you disagree though, it raises an interesting question. Is the Palestinian goal of establishing an ethnically based nation-state also discriminatory and undemocratic? Presumably such a state would offer preferred immigration status for members of the Palestinian diaspora, similar to Israel's system. Hebron is one of the oldest sites of near-continuous Jewish habitation... should Palestine then be obligated to offer preferred status to Jews who wish to return there as well? Or is it OK not to, as it conflicts with the goals (and the very point) of establishing a Palestinian state in the first place?

I don't like it but it is quite common......What I want you to tell me is exactly what you consider are the 'ethnic-kins' of Israelis?.....Jews and Palestinian Arabs or Jews alone?......I asked you that before and I’m still waiting for your answer!

Well, Israel answers this with it's self-identification. It is the Jewish state. So then, just Jews. While I understand why you don't like this too much, (I'll agree that it's problematic in application), our main argument was over whether the practice was undemocratic, and whether Israel was unique among democracies in this regard. My point was that it's not all that uncommon, and that Israel should not be singled out as a pariah for something that's considered fairly commonplace among other western democracies.

I find it ironic when people argue against this practice on the grounds that it's discriminatory. Israel was established specifically to protect a vulnerable minority from discrimination in a world where they were scattered and reliant on their memberships in other nations or tribes for support. When the world chose to discriminate against them, singling them out based solely on their Jewishness, rejecting them as Germans, Italians or whatever it made sense to use that Jewishness as the benchmark for self-determination. To then say that this decision is an example of racism itself turns the meaning of the word on its head. It's sort of like when people call affirmative action racist because it has a racial component to it. Or if someone considered the United Negro College Fund racist because it doesn't aid American Indians. Singling a specific group out for extra aid is not the same thing as oppressing a different group via discrimination. See my point?

[kayecy]

105. Do you still claim that the Israel immigration policy is non-discriminatory?.......

First let me thank for persevering with our little debate….Most of my previous interlocutors (with the honorable exception of Pelsar) have given up on me after the first couple of interchanges...Secondly, I have always assumed that the average Zionist is at least as logical and intelligent as myself...It is for that reason that I am trying to find out why we disagree so much on concepts of democracy, fairness and justice when applied to Israel.

My point is that Judaism in regards to Israel doesn't fit the standard definitions of either an ethnicity, race or religion. For our purposes it is a nationality, the same as Irish, German, etc.

It is true that Germans and Irish are predominantly of one ethnicity-racial-religious group but they don’t have LORs in spite of what Zionist web sites would have you believe, nor are they undemocratic enough to try and maintain rule by their dominant group… Let’s keep it simple….Israel appears to have designated the world’s population, and its own citizens into one of two groups….the ‘LORs’ and the ‘Non-LORs’...I don’t want to argue whether the LOR group contain non-Jews or whatever, simply that the Israeli Government sees them as different…The LOR group of citizens of Israel have policies which are at odds with the policies of the Non-LORs and therefore the GOI, consisting mainly of LORs, wishes to ensure the Non-LORs never have an electoral majority...The LORs therefore support an immigration law which increases the number of LORs without any attempt to make a compensatory increase in the number of Non-LORs.

Now, do you still claim that the Israel immigration policy does not discriminate against its Non-LOR group?.... Any government which deliberately sets out to engineer the demographic make-up of its state for election purposes cannot claim to be democratic…

The rationale behind Israel's LOR, and Zionism in general, to provide a safe haven for Jews is honorable and just. To establish a state with the goal of providing a nationality with self-determination is equally problem-free in my view.

Honorable and just…….. if the Zionists had negotiated for a chunk of Australia, or the Argentine to provide their safe haven but that was impossible so they opted for the only offer around…That of Britain’s to give them a homeland that was already populated by another people….Taking advantage of another peoples’ impotence is not my idea of justice or likely to be problem-free.

If you disagree though, it raises an interesting question. Is the Palestinian goal of establishing an ethnically based nation-state also discriminatory and undemocratic? Presumably such a state would offer preferred immigration status for members of the Palestinian diaspora, similar to Israel's system

Isn’t the answer obvious?....Of course an ethnically-based Palestinian state would be wrong……But not as wrong as Israel’s LOR…..The Palestinian Diaspora can mostly trace their ancestors back to Israel/Palestine …Almost none of the Jewish Diaspora can do that.

What I want you to tell me is exactly what you consider are the 'ethnic-kins' of Israelis?.....Jews and Palestinian Arabs or Jews alone?
Your answer was: ……It is the Jewish state. So then, just Jews. While I understand why you don't like this too much, (I'll agree that it's problematic in application), our main argument was over whether the practice was undemocratic,

So, if 'just Jews' can be ‘ethnic-kins’ of Israelis, it follows that Israeli-Arabs either don’t have ethnic-kin or Israeli-Arabs are not Israeli....How can you possibly claim that Israel is democratic state when, according to you, 20% of its citizens are non-Israelis?

…..and whether Israel was unique among democracies in this regard. My point was that it's not all that uncommon, and that Israel should not be singled out as a pariah for something that's considered fairly commonplace among other western democracies………………… Singling a specific group out for extra aid is not the same thing as oppressing a different group via discrimination. See my point?

No, I’m afraid I don’t see your point…Singling out a specific group of foreigners for the right to immigrate is not commonplace…..Israel’s LOR is unique in two ways:……
a) It is there to prevent a group of its own citizens from ever being able to control the GOI…..
b) As I have shown earlier, none of the western democracies you have cited (Germany, Ireland, etc) have any law which corresponds to Israel’s LOR when you examine the actual law concerned….
.
.

[shira]

99. Demonizing certain aspects of the Jewish State without having a problem w/these aspects

....in other states (like Palestine) is a well known, very old trope.

For example, here's the Palestinian Declaration of Independence...

The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be. The state is for them to enjoy in it their collective national and cultural identity, theirs to pursue in it a complete equality of rights. In it will be safeguarded their political and religious convictions and their human dignity by means of a parliamentary democratic system of governance, itself based on freedom of _expression and the freedom to form parties. The rights of minorities will duly be respected by the majority, as minorities must abide by decisions of the majority. Governance will be based on principles of social justice, equality and non-discrimination in public rights of men or women, on grounds of race, religion, color or sex, and the aegis of a constitution, which ensures the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Thus shall these principles allow no departure from Palestine's age-old spiritual and civilizational heritage of tolerance and religious coexistence.

The State of Palestine is an Arab state, an integral and indivisible part of the Arab nation, at one with that nation in heritage and civilization, with it also in its aspiration for liberation, progress, democracy and unity.

http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=11&id=27

1. Those interested in a secular state should note that the document begins with an invocation to God and ends with a verse from the Koran.
2. The provisions bolded clearly refers to Palestinian RoR and "discrimination" against anyone not Palestinian.

Articles 5 and 7 of the Palestinian Constitution state...

1. Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion
2. Sharia law is a major source of Palestinian legislation

And then there are the Palestinian laws, like Jordanian, forbidding land sold to Jews, etc.

[Dick Dastardly]

63. Some unamed critics making a vague claim about 30 laws but dont provide the specific laws is far

from proof of what you claim.

Many European countries like Ireland and countries around the world give preferences in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation and other areas to those who are of their ethnic backround but generations removed.

Its only a problem for you and others when Israel does it.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Countries like Ireland do NOT have different ID depending on a person's ethnicity...

And if they do, it's just as wrong as Israel doing it...

From the article:

'The government has countered that the nationality section on ID cards was phased out from 2000.

However, Mr Ornan said any official could instantly tell if he was looking at the card of a Jew or Arab because the date of birth on the IDs of Jews was given according to the Hebrew calendar. In addition, the ID of an Arab, unlike a Jew, included the grandfather’s name.

“Flash your ID card and whatever government clerk is sitting across from you immediately knows which ‘clan’ you belong to, and can refer you to those best suited to ‘handle your kind’,” Mr Ornan said.

The distinction between Jewish and Arab nationalities is also shown on interior ministry records used to make important decisions about personal status issues such as marriage, divorce and death, which are dealt with on entirely sectarian terms.'

And as far as I know there's no European country where the nationality is Jew or Arab rather than the nationality being that of the state itself. I'm sorry, but this sort of thing is totally unacceptable no matter which state does it...

[Tripmann]

77. You're talking through your hat, dick

By the way, I'm Irish.

[Dick Dastardly]

86. No you are talking nonsense and ignore the facts provided.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. That Wiki list where you claimed the laws were similar?

But they weren't similar at all. Take Ireland for example. The 'return' is one available to people based on ancestral citizenship, not based on ethnicity/religion/culure as is the law in Israel...

on edit: That Wiki list is really dubious anyway, as the term 'Right of return' is one used for refugees, not for someone like an Australian who is entitled to residency in the UK because one of their grandparents was a British citizenship. Indeed I'd go so far as to suspect that Wiki page was created by someone with the intent to try and confuse the issue when it comes to the Palestinian refugee issue as well as the citizenship laws for other countries which are most definately not similar to that of Israel...

[kayecy]

89. Hi Violet.....Are you refering to the Wiki list http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Right_of_return?...

Hi Violet.....Are you refering to the Wiki list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return?

I am in a dicussion with Shaktimaan over whether Germany & Ireland have anything similar to Israel's Law-of-Return.....Digging into the actual laws, as far as I can see, there is no current legislation in either of these countries that is ethnic based never mind giving a preference to immigrants of one ethnicity....Of course, Shaktimaan might just come up with something......

That wiki entry is highly suspect and at best selective and misleading.......I wish someone would find out why it was accepted for publication.
.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. That's the one!

I thought it was a bit suspicious looking at first glance and went to the talk page for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_of_return and found out it's right for me to have been suspicious of it.

fwiw, Wikipedia doesn't have an approval process and I think anyone can come along and change anything they feel like, which means taht when someone's using Wikipedia they have to be careful about taking what they read as being credible...

[Tripmann]

91. Dick,

you're talking to an Irishman living in Ireland who helped his american foster brother apply for dual citizenship in Ireland.

The facts ARE the facts and they are not being ignored.

You can, of course, correct me by linking to irish citizenship info pages proving me wrong.

Prove this nonsence of which you speak....

[azurnoir]

13. Thank you I had questons about Israeli ID cards

that were answered in the article

[cqo_000]

100. what makes Israel different from all other states (bar South Africa)

<snip>

Israel is unique in being a State that is a state, not of its own citizens but of its Jewish nationals. Indeed citizenship is becoming ever more meaningless as legislative attacks on Arab citizens of Israel become more frequent (e.g. not being allowed to live with a married partner from the Occupied Territories or being able to revoke the citizenship of Arabs). Israel is a Jewish State, a state of its Jewish nationals as opposed to all of its citizens. That is why it is not a democratic state but one which is ever fearful that the non-Jews (Arabs) are going to breed and multiply and outnumber Jews. That is the ‘demographic problem’ as it is quaintly termed.

http://www.jewdas.org/2010/04/nationality-–-the-key-to-israeli-apartheid/